The 330-Mile Question: Where Are the 260+ Mile R2 Drives?

[ksurfier]

Gen 1 Large = 131 kWh & 310 mi range
R2 = 88 kWh & 330 mi range

310 / 131 = 2.366 mi/kWh
330 / 88 = 3.75 mi/kWh

3.75 / 2.366 = 1.585x

I know you're learning on your LLM to do most of your thinking here but perhaps use that squishy noodle in your head every once in a while.

They also used different testing cycles for Gen 1 R1 and R2. Rivian certainly used a more favorable testing cycle with R2 and I agree it likely won't be hitting its efficiency numbers for most drives. At this point you aren't discussing in good faith.

Or you could avoid the insults and just ask for my calcs?

Sponsored

 

[Rivian Roamer]

Or you could avoid the insults and just ask for my calcs?

What's insulting is your inability to engage in constructive discourse and instead copy/pasting LLM slop responses. You're shifting the cognitive burden onto the reader because you aren't willing to do the thinking yourself.

 

[ksurfier]

What's insulting is your inability to engage in constructive discourse and instead copy/pasting LLM slop responses. You're shifting the cognitive burden onto the reader because you aren't willing to do the thinking yourself.

You are good at being wrong, I have zero desire to aid you with that endeavour...best luck

 

[Mathme]

People keep goin and on about 300 miles of range and seem disappointed “when their mileage may vary.” I do t expect to get anywhere near 300 miles out of my R2 when I get it. I’ll get what I get.

my Gen 1 quad R1T says 294 miles on a full charge (or about that). Realistically on numerous trips between SF and Seattle going up I-5, I’ve averaged about 2 miles/kWh. On a typical 80% - 25ish% charging run, that is about 150-200 miles — or about 2.5-3 hours — which is the extent of my bladdar and safe attention span. This is doing about 70.

On the R1T, it goes a full chart on the energy equivalent of about 3.5 gallons of gas. I’ll take that any day and all day.

 

[ksurfier]

People keep goin and on about 300 miles of range and seem disappointed “when their mileage may vary.” I do t expect to get anywhere near 300 miles out of my R2 when I get it. I’ll get what I get.

my Gen 1 quad R1T says 294 miles on a full charge (or about that). Realistically on numerous trips between SF and Seattle going up I-5, I’ve averaged about 2 miles/kWh. On a typical 80% - 25ish% charging run, that is about 150-200 miles — or about 2.5-3 hours — which is the extent of my bladdar and safe attention span. This is doing about 70.

On the R1T, it goes a full chart on the energy equivalent of about 3.5 gallons of gas. I’ll take that any day and all day.

This is simply about your average, which if it's similar to most it's 2.2 to 2.3 MPK. That's also >90% of the EPA value. For R2, the average is heading towards ~2.8 MPK or so, but instead of showing ~250 miles of range, your R2 is going to show you 330 miles...will that bother you at all, prob. not, but does that bother many others? Definitely...

 

[RivRyan]

@ksurfier
P.p.s I have a log going of other people’s captures drive data . I have 2 over 260. But it’s not a surprise . It’s entirely predicable that most drives will be under 260 given the efficiency

It's also entirely predictable that most drives will be under 260 even if I know nothing about vehicle efficiency and available battery power, given the actual driving habits of most people, bladders, hunger, the availability of chargers and the typical distance between your city and one you might need to get to without flying.

Does anyone have a bell curve of trip-distance for gassy vehicles? My guess would be that it declines steeply after 210 miles.

 

[BCondrey]

I think this has been covered to death. It is a big nothingburger IMHO.

 

[GromitATL]

I had a 2018 M3 AWD. It could not make it 200 miles at 78 mph. EPA was 315…I think. The R2 is only modestly better…but I knew that before placing my order. At l ast the R2 has a heat pump for winter time…unlike my M3 of that vintage.

A 2018 M3 AWD was my previous vehicle too. I think you're right about the range.

I didn't worry about it and I really don't care about this concern with the R2. I drive until I need to charge. Then I drive some more.

 

[NinjaWrap]

The 330 mile range is not a highway range, and therefore the highway efficiency is not expected to be 3.67, or probably anywhere close to that.

The highway range extrapolated from the official highway MPGe figures is about 296 miles highway (and 358 city for 330 combined). The problem is no one is even getting 296 highway.

I think a lot of people comparing the R2 to a Y on here are wrong in doing that

I think the only comparison is that the new Y (not the previous generations) meets/exceeds EPA at high speed while R2 is way below EPA.

RJ started this mess when he said the R2 was as efficient as the Model Y

This is the main problem. If he had never said they matched efficiency, we could all just blame the EPA testing process.

 

[savethemanual]

This is the main problem. If he had never said they matched efficiency, we could all just blame the EPA testing process.

But it does match MY efficiency....according to the EPA, why wouldn't one tout that for marketing purposes? The issue lies within the EPA testing process and how wildly variable it is.

 

[Dave Cundiff]

I'm distressed that both sides -- including @ksurfier and @Rivian Roamer, both of whom I respect -- are punctuating substantial arguments with insulting name-calling.

If both sides are name-calling now, has this thread outlived its usefulness to the whole group?

Best to all!

 

[Rivian Roamer]

I'm distressed that both sides -- including @ksurfier and @Rivian Roamer, both of whom I respect -- are punctuating substantial arguments with insulting name-calling.

If both sides are name-calling now, has this thread outlived its usefulness to the whole group?

Best to all!

When exactly did I name-call?

 

[mkhuffman]

Nobody likes to argue with an AI bot. That's perhaps the biggest issue of these threads that he is creating.

It is fine and good to have a honest debate between real people. But if you start using AI instead of your own brain, it becomes a useless waste of time. At least for the human beings who are arguing with the AI, that is.

What if we used an AI bot to respond to all of his posts and then we have AI arguing with AI. Wouldn't that be great?

I think we can all agree the R2 EPA figures are optimistic. But they followed the process. That's just the way it is.

There is no data to support that the 20 inch wheels are as efficient or even as close to as efficient as the 21s. IT is junk science. And AI slop. Clogging up this social media platform.

 

[eggzlot]

Wait, you’re saying 9” of ground clearance and 2-box shape doesn’t match the cruising efficiency of a low-slung, perfectly tapered turd? Remarkable!

The OPs continuous posts are boring and wasted space, I get it. That said, yes the box shape truck doesn't get the same efficiency, but it should hit the efficiency they state, that's all.

 

[Rivian Roamer]

Nobody likes to argue with an AI bot. That's perhaps the biggest issue of these threads that he is creating.

It is fine and good to have a honest debate between real people. But if you start using AI instead of your own brain, it becomes a useless waste of time. At least for the human beings who are arguing with the AI, that is.

What if we used an AI bot to respond to all of his posts and then we have AI arguing with AI. Wouldn't that be great?

I think we can all agree the R2 EPA figures are optimistic. But they followed the process. That's just the way it is.

There is no data to support that the 20 inch wheels are as efficient or even as close to as efficient as the 21s. IT is junk science. And AI slop. Clogging up this social media platform.

It's flat out insulting and disrespectful. To then get upset about it is perplexing to me.

That's like me copy-pasting results out of Google because I can't be bothered to put any thinking into my argument. At that point you aren't adding any value to the "discussion".

One of my biggest pet peeves.

Sponsored