Growing efficiency Gap: R2 w/ 21" vs. 20" tire sets

[mkhuffman]

Careful or you could be banned. It's all fun and games until someone gets banned.

Sponsored

 

[savethemanual]

Careful or you could be banned. It's all fun and games until someone gets banned.

Clearly it’s tongue & cheek. Unless the administrator is like Trump….and has the thinnest skin on the planet .

 

[Dennisis]

Careful or you could be banned. It's all fun and games until someone gets banned.

I just want someone to prove they exist.

 

[Yamazaki]

I just want someone to prove they exist.

The admins definitely exist. Any time you see the "no politics" comment in the thread title (like here: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/are-you-a-tesla-owner-getting-the-r2-as-first-rivian--admin-warning-no-politics-no-elon-discussions-.58172/
and here: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...cement-tires-admin-warning-no-politics.62854/) the admins went in and cleaned out some posts and amended the title.

This thread was so dumb that the admins just locked it shortly after it started: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/the-goat-thread-what-we’ve-learned-so-far.63288/

 

[mkhuffman]

I just want someone to prove they exist.

The admin has deleted some of my posts before.

 

[ohmman]

Range wise it’s just a 2016 Model S (75D) dressed up as a mid size SUV…that 2016 MS had EPA range of 259 vs 330 for R2…so compared to Tesla in 2015/2016 Rivian has overstated the R2 range by 70 miles, or nearly 30% over the actual range.

So you’re taking the Tesla at rated value but not the R2?

I’ve owned 7 Teslas and moderated over at TMC for over a decade. You ought to go check out how people feel about Tesla’s rated range vs. their actual results.

Compare them, sure, but compare similar driving conditions and actual range, not the rated range of one and the arguably spurious data from another.

 

[ksurfier]

So you’re taking the Tesla at rated value but not the R2?

I’ve owned 7 Teslas and moderated over at TMC for over a decade. You ought to go check out how people feel about Tesla’s rated range vs. their actual results.

Compare them, sure, but compare similar driving conditions and actual range, not the rated range of one and the arguably spurious data from another.

Specifically I’m saying that the R2 is range-limited to ~200 miles or so. It’s EPA range is stated at 330 miles!

Likewise, the 2016 Tesla Model S (75D) was also range limited to ~200 miles. Long term its efficiency is ~3.2 MPK. 3.2 x 75 = 240 miles.

So on average the R2 range is equivalent to 75D (or 85 if you prefer), all being said for slower/average speeds…once above 70 mph the R2 will not even match a 75D (2016).

Not sure what’s worse, Rivian producing a vehicle that’s basically 10 year old tech from a range standpoint, or the fact they tried to claim it has 330 mile range (at least Tesla only claimed ~260 miles for the 75D). The icing on the cake is that Rivian had been doing it right in 2022/2023 models, then they made a conscious decision to deceive consumers.

 

[tivoboy]

Now it’s just pure trollin’

 

[Dennisis]

Just curious what it takes to get their attention. As a test I’ll use the “report” icon and mention his request to close and see if that goes to an actual inbox that’s monitored. Edit: done, let’s see what happens!

Well still not locked unfortunately!! Guess the political stuff isn’t working, maybe offer cash?

 

[ksurfier]

Max R2 range using 80% of battery:
224 miles @56.2 mph
208 miles @61 mph
192 miles @67 mph
175 miles @72 mph
160 miles @76 mph

2016 Model S range using 80%
168 miles @75 mph

EV Database: 75D at roughly 215 miles at a constant 70 mph in mild weather, based on about 72.5 kWh usable when new.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Max R2 range using 80% of battery:
224 miles @56.2 mph
208 miles @61 mph
192 miles @67 mph
175 miles @72 mph
160 miles @76 mph

2016 Model S range using 80%
168 miles @75 mph

EV Database: 75D at roughly 215 miles at a constant 70 mph in mild weather, based on about 72.5 kWh usable when new.

Those numbers show it pretty clearly. At 56 mph, 224 miles using 80% works out to about 280 miles on a full battery, which is reasonably close to the R2’s roughly 301-mile EPA highway figure. At 61 mph it is about 260 miles full-pack, then 240 miles at 67 mph, 219 miles at 72 mph, and only 200 miles at 76 mph.

So the R2 can get fairly close to EPA-style results at moderate speeds, but once you reach real interstate speeds, its poor efficiency becomes much more obvious. At 72–76 mph, you are looking at only 160–175 miles in an 80% charging window, which is indeed very close to the 168 miles you listed for a 2016 Model S 75D at 75 mph.

At this point, though, the R2’s highway efficiency has been discussed everywhere, multiple times. Most people still buying one probably understand the compromise and have accepted it. Some buyers will still be surprised and may eventually register here just to complain. Others can look at these numbers, the distances they normally travel, charging infrastructure, and any long detours required to reach chargers, then decide the R2 simply does not work for them and move on.

Thanks to all the discussions about this, including the threads you posted, potential buyers now have enough real-world information to make an informed decision.

 

[savethemanual]

Those numbers show it pretty clearly. At 56 mph, 224 miles using 80% works out to about 280 miles on a full battery, which is reasonably close to the R2’s roughly 301-mile EPA highway figure. At 61 mph it is about 260 miles full-pack, then 240 miles at 67 mph, 219 miles at 72 mph, and only 200 miles at 76 mph.

So the R2 can get fairly close to EPA-style results at moderate speeds, but once you reach real interstate speeds, its poor efficiency becomes much more obvious. At 72–76 mph, you are looking at only 160–175 miles in an 80% charging window, which is indeed very close to the 168 miles you listed for a 2016 Model S 75D at 75 mph.

At this point, though, the R2’s highway efficiency has been discussed everywhere, multiple times. Most people still buying one probably understand the compromise and have accepted it. Some buyers will still be surprised and may eventually register here just to complain. Others can look at these numbers, the distances they normally travel, charging infrastructure, and any long detours required to reach chargers, then decide the R2 simply does not work for them and move on.

Thanks to all the discussions about this, including the threads you posted, potential buyers now have enough real-world information to make an informed decision.

Stop engaging with the OP, just stop already! That's how this thread will die.

 

[bogeyfree69]

My god...I'm new to Rivian forums but I can say I'm losing interest.

 

[rvnxyz001]

Stop engaging with the OP, just stop already! That's how this thread will die.

After the 47th efficiency thread, I think we can finally close the case: the R2 is officially terrible at range. You pay $60,000 for 330 miles of marketing and roughly 200 miles of interstate stamina.
EPA should ban Rivian from printing any number higher than 200, every reservation holder should cancel immediately, and anyone who already bought one should trade it for a 2016 Model S 75D before driving above 70 mph.
Case closed. See everyone in tomorrow’s R2 efficiency thread.

 

[ksurfier]

After the 47th efficiency thread, I think we can finally close the case: the R2 is officially terrible at range. You pay $60,000 for 330 miles of marketing and roughly 200 miles of interstate stamina.
EPA should ban Rivian from printing any number higher than 200, every reservation holder should cancel immediately, and anyone who already bought one should trade it for a 2016 Model S 75D before driving above 70 mph.
Case closed. See everyone in tomorrow’s R2 efficiency thread.

See you tomorrow…

Sponsored