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

[Jeremy3292]

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.

The ABRP on the website is not the same as Rivian’s route planner in the car. Rivian bought it for the underlying patents and algorithms and have refined them in their vehicles, not for the website.

Sponsored

 

[ksurfier]

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).

Bruh, you’re arguing against a controlled comparison by adding uncontrolled variables.

If both drivers stop for lunch, sightseeing, and hotels, both vehicles get those same delays. Da only thing da simulation trying fo’ isolate is da vehicle itself.

 

[CrazyOne]

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.

This is an argument against relevance of coast to coast drive time. Things change a lot when you are not driving on freeway at 75 mph. Idk if it's true, but R2 may be more efficient at slower speeds than MY.

 

[SANZC02]

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).

I think ABRP is better than a cute toy. I’ve been EV road tripping for 10 years. If you dial ABRP in for your specific parameters it is a great tool for planning your trip while sitting in your leaving room.

Been pretty much using it exclusively for the last 5 years planning several trips over 7k miles.

 

[HaveBlue]

I prefer a bigger battery over faster charging. The range outlasts me for a longer stop anyway. This comparison shows that the travel time is statistically the same. The range between the two is also the same. I gave up on ABRP a long time ago. I find it a convulted app. Actually I just get in the car, let the planner suggest something and then end up stopping by just looking on the map anyway when I want to stop. Same as getting gas.

 

[Millbarge]

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.

shouldn't the comparison be vs Model Y Performance?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

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

Yes and no. To get more space, a better interior, and a boxier shape, you would generally have to sacrifice range. The fact that it has those improvements and the same range means it has improved technologically.

 

[VandalSibs]

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)

If you play for 1st place when you don't have the ability to do so, you're gonna fail. Aiming for 2nd or 3rd is realistic in that situation.

Once you've gotten to that spot and stabilized, then it's safer to try for that 1st place position.

 

[DuoRivians]

Yes and no. To get more space, a better interior, and a boxier shape, you would generally have to sacrifice range. The fact that it has those improvements and the same range means it has improved technologically.

The drag coefficient of the R2 isn’t much different from the Model Y, which suggests it’s more about the aerodynamics of the car than the efficiency of the drivetrain. And the R2 holds more kWh than the Model Y, about 10kWh more.

So imo, it’s not really better engineering wrt to pure EV tech.

 

[DuoRivian]

The drag coefficient of the R2 isn’t much different from the Model Y, which suggests it’s more about the aerodynamics of the car than the efficiency of the drivetrain. And the R2 holds more kWh than the Model Y, about 10kWh more.

So imo, it’s not really better engineering wrt to pure EV tech.

Mpge is comparable and independent of battery size.

 

[DuoRivians]

Mpge is comparable and independent of battery size.

According to OP, they are not comparable and MY is 20% more efficient.

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.

 

[Jeremy3292]

The drag coefficient of the R2 isn’t much different from the Model Y

Incorrect.

R2 Cd is 0.29 and Model Y is 0.22 which is a huge difference. This shows how efficient R2 really is, not to mention a much larger frontal area on R2 too.

 

[Thebandit]

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

Not at 80 mph. The Model Y is a much smaller, more aerodynamic vehicle. The tradeoff is that it has far less ground clearance and inteiror space than the R2.

The R2 seems to make some efficiency gains in the battery and motor, but the Model Y makes up for it in aerodynamics at highway speed.

 

[Jeremy3292]

I did a comparison with optimal charging stops, 70 mph speed, and using the Model Y Performance vs R2 Performance for a true comparison.

R2 Performance beats Model Y Performance by 30 minutes or so.

Sponsored