Coast to coast race: Model Y vs R2 (ABRP simulation)

[ksurfier]

UPDATE: This was an overly optimistic estimate, more recent testing has shown to be around 17% less efficient than this. While the R2 can still make it there at nearly the same time (maybe 1 hour longer), it’s going 140% of the energy the Model Y uses.

Efficiency isn’t everything. In this coast-to-coast ABRP simulation, the Model Y is ~20% more efficient, yet it only gains 30 minutes over the R2 Performance. The R2’s larger battery significantly reduces charging overhead, nearly canceling out its higher energy consumption.

Model Y: 3.9 MPK @ 67.4 MPH
R2 Perf.: 3.2 MPK @ 65.9 MPH

At some slower average speeds the R2 appears to be an hour faster due to shorter charging duration and only about 5% less efficient.

With 20” wheels w/ AT tires, drive time stays the same but charging time increase from 16 stops to 20 and adds 45 minutes extra charge time. If ABRP is to be believed, then the 20” wheels efficiency is only 2.9 MPK at 66.6 MPH.

Sponsored

 

[DuoRivian]

I thought the R2 had the same mpge as the Tesla.

 

[DuoRivians]

Ignoring that this is just a simulation, so the data are all hypothetical, I would expect the R2 would do much better for a car that debuts 7 years after the Model Y. And yet, it’s essentially the same and the R2 costs more.

 

[DuoRivian]

Ignoring that this is just a simulation, so the data are all hypothetical, I would expect the R2 would do much better for a car that debuts 7 years after the Model Y. And yet, it’s essentially the same and the R2 costs more.

It has more space, more off road ability and a nicer interior so there are advances.

 

[DuoRivians]

It has more space, more off road ability and a nicer interior so there are advances.

Those are different priorities for customer preferences, eg crossover v suv, not advances in the underlying EV tech, including software.

 

[DuoRivian]

Those are different priorities for customer preferences, eg crossover v suv, not advances in the underlying EV tech, including software.

The efficiency is the same even with a boxier shape so advances in the power efficiency of the motors and internal electronics. I take the point that both are 400V and comparable.
Tesla has made changes to the Y over the years.

You used to be a big Rivian Supporter when R1 first came out but seem to have soured on them in the past year or so. Do you have an R2 reservation?

 

[emroch]

It has more space, more off road ability and a nicer interior so there are advances.

Trippy, I thought you replied to yourself, lol.

I also imagine the Model Y has not been stagnant for 7 years and has probably made efficiency improvements over that time, no? Even if the motor topology and battery chemistry are the same, software tuning has probably gotten better since it launched.

 

[DuoRivians]

The efficiency is the same even with a boxier shape so advances in the power efficiency of the motors and internal electronics. I take the point that both are 400V and comparable.
Tesla has made changes to the Y over the years.

You used to be a big Rivian Supporter when R1 first came out but seem to have soured on them in the past year or so. Do you have an R2 reservation?

I’ve always said: what matters most to me is the advancement in EV tech. I’ve been a fan of Rivian initially, because I thought they had promise. Now, it just seems like they’re playing for the number #2-3 spot in EVs in the US (only)

I already have an R1T and R1S. Unless Rivian adopts 800V at minimum in the next iteration, I don’t see myself buying another.

Anyway, back to the OP’s simulation, I still would have expected more separation in numbers between the cars by now.

 

[ksurfier]

I thought the R2 had the same mpge as the Tesla.

ABRP shows following for a short 47 mile drive at 49.5 mph:
Model Y - 3.6 MPK
R2 Perf w/ 21” - 3.1 MPK (16% less efficient)
R2 w/20” AT - 2.8 MPK (30% less efficient)

 

[ksurfier]

Trippy, I thought you replied to yourself, lol.

I also imagine the Model Y has not been stagnant for 7 years and has probably made efficiency improvements over that time, no? Even if the motor topology and battery chemistry are the same, software tuning has probably gotten better since it launched.

Yes, appears a big step between 25 to 26 with a 6-7% battery reduction. Less battery means less weight which pushes efficiency upward.

 

[Jeremy3292]

IMO ABRP is a good resource for those new to EVs. For those of us who have had EVs and know how to road trip it’s not helpful and is worse actually. Just in that tiny snippet I can see some really dumb charging stops. You should only charge the R2 at 10% (or lower) and then charge to 70-73% and move on to the next charger. The same can be said for the Model Y also. 30 min on a 50 hour road trip is within the MOE and statistically insignificant. The R2 could/would easily win if charging stops were optimized for IONNA or other 600+ amp chargers, not just Tesla chargers that limit non Tesla vehicles to 500 amps. Like I said, ABRP is a “cute” toy for newbies but you don’t see people who know EVs using them (like Kyle from OOO for example).

 

[ksurfier]

IMO ABRP is a good resource for those new to EVs. For those of us who have had EVs and know how to road trip it’s not helpful and is worse actually. Just in that tiny snippet I can see some really dumb charging stops. You should only charge the R2 at 10% (or lower) and then charge to 70-73% and move on to the next charger. The same can be said for the Model Y also. 30 min on a 50 hour road trip is within the MOE and statistically insignificant. The R2 could/would easily win if charging stops were optimized for IONNA or other 600+ amp chargers, not just Tesla chargers that limit non Tesla vehicles to 500 amps. Like I said, ABRP is a “cute” toy for newbies but you don’t see people who know EVs using them (like Kyle from OOO for example).

Hmmm…ABRP a “cute toy”? That seems a little odd since Rivian owns it and has built it into every vehicle.

ABRP is effectively Rivian’s fleet-wide trip-planning tool, which makes it a pretty relevant basis for comparison.

Scout may eventually use ABRP through its Rivian-based software architecture, but that hasn’t been confirmed yet.

 

[macb00kemdanno]

Isn’t this whole simulation exercise pointless unless you’re doing a cannonball run? Any sane person doing a trip cross country would be doing multiple longer stops, destination charging at a hotel, etc.

We’re not robots.

 

[ksurfier]

Isn’t this whole simulation exercise pointless unless you’re doing a cannonball run? Any sane person doing a trip cross country would be doing multiple longer stops, destination charging at a hotel, etc.

We’re not robots.

Yes, ifhighlighting the key differences (or not) between Model Y and R2 are pointless…

 

[macb00kemdanno]

Yes, ifhighlighting the key differences (or not) between Model Y and R2 are pointless…

The differences highlighted by this “simulation” are only relevant if you are a robot driving for 50 hours straight across the country.

As I said, many people who are making this kind of trip are going to be doing detours, sightseeing, destination charging at night at their hotel, etc.

There are too many variables for anything more than a day trip (i.e. an overnight or multiple overnight stays).

Sponsored