YouTube Video: The 2025 Rivian R1T Tri-motor Max Pack Does Its Best With All Terrain Tires! 70-MPH Range Test

[Tejkalra]

So you don’t have a Trimax? I do, and I had a gen 1 quad. Both live in sport mode and I can tell you definitively the tri is a whole different beast. It has more power in the whole range and the difference between sport and AP is substantial.

No wonder why you were saying that it’s BS when i said its slower. You are talking about sports mode. Hell yeah, i never said that sports mode is slower. I never claimed it. I am talking about AP mode, that’s the mode most of the owners have and also few of them have it on conserve mode. Well anyway, my comparison was between AP mode not in sports mode. Launch in AP mode is very soft. I also found that conserve for Tri max is better then AP (not speed wise). It cuts the rear motor and engages it when needed (like going uphill or when you are stop and start driving). I have been using conserve for last 300-350 miles, results are better. Want to see how bad it will wear my tires. Well we will find out after 7500 miles during tire rotation. Gen1 was horrible for tires in conserve mode. SC told me that conserve mode for Gen2 Tri motor is different and better.

Sponsored

 

[DayTripping]

So you don’t have a Trimax? I do, and I had a gen 1 quad. Both live in sport mode and I can tell you definitively the tri is a whole different beast. It has more power in the whole range and the difference between sport and AP is substantial.

Still don't have one, and will never buy one. Once I see more testing done on it, I'll have enough data to compare it with the runs I"ve done with my quad. Once I see some dragy runs of 50-90 times, I'll have an idea of how much faster, if it is, than the quad.

Doing the math of the info I've seen on the G2 quad, and comparing it to the G1 quad, I know the Tri will be somewhere in between. The G2 quad is slower in things like 45-65 times than the current CT Cyberbeast, so honestly, I am not going to get that excited about the Tri. I put a premium on acceleration like you apparently do on the new Ascend interior.

I am fine with the current G1 quad's 0-60 time but I'd like substantially quicker 50-90 times. I likely won't be happy with the Tri in that respect either. The G2 quad is finally getting closer to what I'd want. If I'd had a G1 quad, there is likely no way in hades I'd have parted with it and bought a Tri knowing what I know now. Just not enough of an "upgrade" for what matters to me. Others have a different opinion, which I can respect, even if I don't agree with it.

So if there is anyone in the DFW area with a Tri, reach out and let's throw my Dragy in your truck and see what it does.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

No wonder why you were saying that it’s BS when i said its slower. You are talking about sports mode. Hell yeah, i never said that sports mode is slower. I never claimed it. I am talking about AP mode, that’s the mode most of the owners have and also few of them have it on conserve mode. Well anyway, my comparison was between AP mode not in sports mode. Launch in AP mode is very soft. I also found that conserve for Tri max is better then AP (not speed wise). It cuts the rear motor and engages it when needed (like going uphill or when you are stop and start driving). I have been using conserve for last 300-350 miles, results are better. Want to see how bad it will wear my tires. Well we will find out after 7500 miles during tire rotation. Gen1 was horrible for tires in conserve mode. SC told me that conserve mode for Gen2 Tri motor is different and better.

If you want fast use the fast mode. Not exactly a leap in logic.

 

[DayTripping]

If you want fast use the fast mode. Not exactly a leap in logic.

It may not be that simple if you read my post. I've probably made a 100 runs in my G1 quad. The main difference between sport and AP mode in it, is basically at the launch. I would be curious to see what programming changes, if any, they made for the Tri AP and sport mode, aside from adding a launch mode.

They could have just remapped the throttle to make it more aggressive so it feels quicker. They might have just kept the torque output high at launch and dialed it back later. Who knows what they did? Get a few Dragy runs and we can piece together a pretty good picture.

I have mine set up to pull all kinds of info, 0-30, 0-60, 5-60, 20-30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and basically ever 10 mph interval up to 90, as well as throwing in 45-65 since Motor Trend likes to quote that a lot. For reference, the G2 quad did that interval in 1.2, the Cybertruck did it in 1.1, my Plaid at 70% SoC did it in 0.9 and my G1 Quad did it in 1.5. The CT and G2 quad did it at much higher SoC than I did with my G1 quad so there is clearly some performance left on the table. I think I could run in the 1.4 range with a higher SoC, warmer ambient temp, motors and batteries.

So, I think at best, the Tri might be in the high 1.3 range, so maybe a tenth better than the G1 quad. Not exactly an earth shattering improvement though each tenth is much harder to achieve when you are going fairly quickly to begin with. That is why the jump from the G2 quad to what my Plaid runs even without a high SoC is pretty incredible. To drop from 1.2 to 0.90 is very significant. Surprising that the G2 quad is still behind the trimotor Cybertruck. Tesla clearly got some things right with it.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

It may not be that simple if you read my post. I've probably made a 100 runs in my G1 quad. The main difference between sport and AP mode in it, is basically at the launch. I would be curious to see what programming changes, if any, they made for the Tri AP and sport mode, aside from adding a launch mode.

They could have just remapped the throttle to make it more aggressive so it feels quicker. They might have just kept the torque output high at launch and dialed it back later. Who knows what they did? Get a few Dragy runs and we can piece together a pretty good picture.

I have mine set up to pull all kinds of info, 0-30, 0-60, 5-60, 20-30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and basically ever 10 mph interval up to 90, as well as throwing in 45-65 since Motor Trend likes to quote that a lot. For reference, the G2 quad did that interval in 1.2, the Cybertruck did it in 1.1, my Plaid at 70% SoC did it in 0.9 and my G1 Quad did it in 1.5. The CT and G2 quad did it at much higher SoC than I did with my G1 quad so there is clearly some performance left on the table. I think I could run in the 1.4 range with a higher SoC, warmer ambient temp, motors and batteries.

So, I think at best, the Tri might be in the high 1.3 range, so maybe a tenth better than the G1 quad. Not exactly an earth shattering improvement though each tenth is much harder to achieve when you are going fairly quickly to begin with. That is why the jump from the G2 quad to what my Plaid runs even without a high SoC is pretty incredible. To drop from 1.2 to 0.90 is very significant. Surprising that the G2 quad is still behind the trimotor Cybertruck. Tesla clearly got some things right with it.

Doesn't the G2 quad have a faster time in the 1/4 than the cybertruck?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

It may not be that simple if you read my post. I've probably made a 100 runs in my G1 quad. The main difference between sport and AP mode in it, is basically at the launch. I would be curious to see what programming changes, if any, they made for the Tri AP and sport mode, aside from adding a launch mode.

They could have just remapped the throttle to make it more aggressive so it feels quicker. They might have just kept the torque output high at launch and dialed it back later. Who knows what they did? Get a few Dragy runs and we can piece together a pretty good picture.

I have mine set up to pull all kinds of info, 0-30, 0-60, 5-60, 20-30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and basically ever 10 mph interval up to 90, as well as throwing in 45-65 since Motor Trend likes to quote that a lot. For reference, the G2 quad did that interval in 1.2, the Cybertruck did it in 1.1, my Plaid at 70% SoC did it in 0.9 and my G1 Quad did it in 1.5. The CT and G2 quad did it at much higher SoC than I did with my G1 quad so there is clearly some performance left on the table. I think I could run in the 1.4 range with a higher SoC, warmer ambient temp, motors and batteries.

So, I think at best, the Tri might be in the high 1.3 range, so maybe a tenth better than the G1 quad. Not exactly an earth shattering improvement though each tenth is much harder to achieve when you are going fairly quickly to begin with. That is why the jump from the G2 quad to what my Plaid runs even without a high SoC is pretty incredible. To drop from 1.2 to 0.90 is very significant. Surprising that the G2 quad is still behind the trimotor Cybertruck. Tesla clearly got some things right with it.

I will have to see when it gets warmer out. The big limitation on the tri seems to be the tires I have on it. Every launch I've done has had tire slip. The extra torque, and perhaps the tire compound, aren't sticky enough when it's 40 degrees out. I'm interested in seeing what it does in summer with warm pavement. Perhaps I will get dragy and report back.

 

[DayTripping]

Doesn't the G2 quad have a faster time in the 1/4 than the cybertruck?

Not sure it is an apples to apples comparison. I am focused more on the speed ranges I can use in normal driving. My Plaid will pull hard to over 200 mph but I can count on 2 hands the number of times I've been able to exercise that capability. The CT is pretty close to the G2 quad in 0-60 times. There have been a lot of inconsistent times based on whether the CT was speed limited or not. That is an issue with the G1 quad in the 1/4.

I will have to see when it gets warmer out. The big limitation on the tri seems to be the tires I have on it. Every launch I've done has had tire slip. The extra torque, and perhaps the tire compound, aren't sticky enough when it's 40 degrees out. I'm interested in seeing what it does in summer with warm pavement. Perhaps I will get dragy and report back.

This was an issue with my G1 quad. I had lots of wheelspin. I purposely did it under less than ideal conditions to see what it would do on any given day. I had street tires, on the street, an unprepped surface, not a warm battery or motors, clearly not warm temps, and a far less than optimal SoC (in the 60-70% range typically during my runs).

Despite all that, I have the second fastest G1 quad time and the fastest that is not on a prepped surface such as a dragstrip. On the Dragy leaderboard for 0-60 times I am just a bit behind the best time and it was at a track with pretty much everything in its favor such as temps, track condition, SoC, etc. I also didn't have all the junk cleared out of my truck and I am not a light person. So, I am pretty happy with the times the truck ran. I can say there is more in it as I had a chance to do some higher speed runs with a better SoC and it improved some of my times vs the 0-60 runs but almost .2 seconds. I wasn't able to do any 0-60 runs then but I was at an 80% SoC and my 50-90 dropped significantly. That might have translated into better 0-60 times as well. My runs were on the 21" wheels but according to what I read here, the 22's should be even quicker. I didn't do any 1/4 mile runs as pretty much a waste with the speed limiter in place.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Not sure it is an apples to apples comparison. I am focused more on the speed ranges I can use in normal driving. My Plaid will pull hard to over 200 mph but I can count on 2 hands the number of times I've been able to exercise that capability. The CT is pretty close to the G2 quad in 0-60 times. There have been a lot of inconsistent times based on whether the CT was speed limited or not. That is an issue with the G1 quad in the 1/4.



This was an issue with my G1 quad. I had lots of wheelspin. I purposely did it under less than ideal conditions to see what it would do on any given day. I had street tires, on the street, an unprepped surface, not a warm battery or motors, clearly not warm temps, and a far less than optimal SoC (in the 60-70% range typically during my runs).

Despite all that, I have the second fastest G1 quad time and the fastest that is not on a prepped surface such as a dragstrip. On the Dragy leaderboard for 0-60 times I am just a bit behind the best time and it was at a track with pretty much everything in its favor such as temps, track condition, SoC, etc. I also didn't have all the junk cleared out of my truck and I am not a light person. So, I am pretty happy with the times the truck ran. I can say there is more in it as I had a chance to do some higher speed runs with a better SoC and it improved some of my times vs the 0-60 runs but almost .2 seconds. I wasn't able to do any 0-60 runs then but I was at an 80% SoC and my 50-90 dropped significantly. That might have translated into better 0-60 times as well. My runs were on the 21" wheels but according to what I read here, the 22's should be even quicker. I didn't do any 1/4 mile runs as pretty much a waste with the speed limiter in place.

The speed limiter is set to 130 in launch mode with the tri. The 1/4 mile time is just as relevant as any other speed metric. The one thing I can tell you so far is the tri feels a lot more aggressive and if what you're concerned with is usable speed the tri is a big improvement. My wife's i4M50 felt faster than my quad, it doesn't feel faster than the tri.

 

[DayTripping]

You are missing my point with the speed limiter on the G1 quad. Its time doesn't reflect its true capabilities as it will hit the limiter before the end. So the time and trap speed don't reflect what it is capable of if it were unlocked. So the G2 quad and tri will appear to be much better than if you were to run them side by side until the G1 quad hit the limiter at 110.

The 1/8th can be a direct comparison, though or if you can get compare 0-110 times, especially without the track mode. Or maybe they will add a track mode to the G1 quad and raise the limiter to 130 mph.

 

[JeromePowell]

I'm following this thread with interest, but I don't understand why someone hasn't done the test we really need: drive two R1S's (or R1Ts) with the same wheels & tires on the same route at the same time in the same conditions in Conserve Mode at the same height. One car is G1 QM and one is G2 TriMax. For a content creator like OOS, that seems like a no-brainer.

Excellent point, if only there were a place to find a bunch of Rivian owners with close to equivalent models then we could test it. Soooooooooooooooooooooooo...

Is anyone game to try this head-to-head test?

 

[JeromePowell]

I'm following this thread with interest, but I don't understand why someone hasn't done the test we really need: drive two R1S's (or R1Ts) with the same wheels & tires on the same route at the same time in the same conditions in Conserve Mode at the same height. One car is G1 QM and one is G2 TriMax. For a content creator like OOS, that seems like a no-brainer.

Maybe consider commenting on the applicable OOS videos; I bet they would consider doing it.

Sponsored