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

[Dennisis]

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.

Don’t try to appease him it just extends the pain…

Sponsored

 

[Captblue]

You guys are beating a dead horse!
(I had to unsubscribe)

 

[mkhuffman]

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.

I hope this is just sarcasm, but if you follow this logic, there are a lot of electric cars the EPA should ban.

And the debate about how the EPA should report highway range is definitely a dead horse. Pretty much every normal person wants to know how far a vehicle can go on the highway, and there is no way to know by looking at the EPA range test results. The best way is independent, controlled tests like those perfomed by C&D and OOS. Not this thread for sure.

 

[jrmbadger]

independent, controlled tests like those perfomed by C&D and OOS.

I will admit that there is no other way currently for people to get good highway range data, but the tests C&D and OOS are doing are not scientific.

I'm not even sure I'd call them controlled as there are too many variables.

Elevation, Wind, temperature, starting battery temperature, road temperature (affects tire temps), traffic, etc... all these are dynamic - meaning that the set of variables are dynamic in both time (over a four hour run) and space (driving 300 miles on a road) and each test has different parameters.

The scientific way to test highway range would be to use a dynamometer in carefully controlled conditions at 75mph (or some other speed) from 100% to dead with no climate control active. Given OOS apparently has enough budget to buy a DC fast charger, I'm surprised they don't just do this instead. Hell, a local auto shop would probably let them use theirs. C&D should have one of these as well.

Of course they couldn't pump out hours long videos of the range test when its sitting on a dynamometer - although I would maintain that such content would be only slightly less interesting than the three hours of "content" they pump out now.

 

[cwq93r]

You guys are beating a dead horse!
(I had to unsubscribe)

Hey, wait up!

 

[mkhuffman]

I will admit that there is no other way currently for people to get good highway range data, but the tests C&D and OOS are doing are not scientific.

I'm not even sure I'd call them controlled as there are too many variables.

Elevation, Wind, temperature, starting battery temperature, road temperature (affects tire temps), traffic, etc... all these are dynamic - meaning that the set of variables are dynamic in both time (over a four hour run) and space (driving 300 miles on a road) and each test has different parameters.

The scientific way to test highway range would be to use a dynamometer in carefully controlled conditions at 75mph (or some other speed) from 100% to dead with no climate control active. Given OOS apparently has enough budget to buy a DC fast charger, I'm surprised they don't just do this instead. Hell, a local auto shop would probably let them use theirs. C&D should have one of these as well.

Of course they couldn't pump out hours long videos of the range test when its sitting on a dynamometer - although I would maintain that such content would be only slightly less interesting than the three hours of "content" they pump out now.

I mostly agree except the C&D/OOS tests are more controlled than the data in Rivian Roamer, which has zero controls. They do a long drive under conditions that are as similar as possible considering they cannot control the weather or traffic.

The best test would be multiple 100-200 mile runs on the same road with the same (generally) weather, and then average them together. Even that test isn't great, but there is no better way IMO.

And even then, it is a reference point and not an absolute certainty. This thread makes it sound like the analysis on the dirty data in RR is absolutely certain and the R2 is a 200-mile range vehicle. Which is ridiculous, of course.

The R2 is definitely more efficient than my R1T. Without a doubt. If I can get 2.4-2.5 mi/kWh on the highway, at real highway speeds (75-80), the R2 should get 2.8+. I bet if I drove it like I drive my R1T, I could get 3 mi/kWh on the highway.

That is 264 miles, which is pretty great considering. But I cannot prove that since I don't have access to a R2. So, it is just another opinion with little basis, just like this thread.

 

[ksurfier]

I will admit that there is no other way currently for people to get good highway range data, but the tests C&D and OOS are doing are not scientific.

I'm not even sure I'd call them controlled as there are too many variables.

Elevation, Wind, temperature, starting battery temperature, road temperature (affects tire temps), traffic, etc... all these are dynamic - meaning that the set of variables are dynamic in both time (over a four hour run) and space (driving 300 miles on a road) and each test has different parameters.

The scientific way to test highway range would be to use a dynamometer in carefully controlled conditions at 75mph (or some other speed) from 100% to dead with no climate control active. Given OOS apparently has enough budget to buy a DC fast charger, I'm surprised they don't just do this instead. Hell, a local auto shop would probably let them use theirs. C&D should have one of these as well.

Of course they couldn't pump out hours long videos of the range test when its sitting on a dynamometer - although I would maintain that such content would be only slightly less interesting than the three hours of "content" they pump out now.

presently this is all we have to work with:

 

[tivoboy]

presently this is all we have to work with:

When I get my R2 (NEXT WEEK) I'm gonna be TOP OF THE LEADER BOARD!

 

[ksurfier]

When I get my R2 (NEXT WEEK) I'm gonna be TOP OF THE LEADER BOARD!

YOU CAN DO ITTTT!


I wanna see 350 miles! Let’s go!

 

[RickS WA]

The retired engineer in me looked at the various numbers came up with this SWAG "Real World Freeway Range" estimate:

RWFR=EPA range *(1-Cd)

OK, you can quit laughing now, but it does come surprisingly close!

For those of you who aren't engineers or project management types, SWAG stands for Scientific Wild- As*@d Guess.

 

[rvnxyz001]

presently this is all we have to work with:

I have this auto scraped and saved into database

33.3 mph → 2.62 mi/kWh (owner, heavy traffic, 100°F+)
34.5 mph → 3.06 mi/kWh (owner, 3,171-mile average, 20" AT)
40 mph → 2.98 mi/kWh (Edmunds mixed route, 21" AS)
47.7 mph → 3.20 mi/kWh (owner commute, mixed city/highway)
50 mph → 4.00 mi/kWh (Out of Spec, 21" AS, controlled loop)
52.5 mph → 3.03 mi/kWh (owner round trip, 20" AT, All-Purpose)
59.2 mph → 2.73 mi/kWh (owner, 172.7 miles, mountainous, 20")
60 mph → 3.15 mi/kWh (Out of Spec, 21" AS, controlled loop)
70 mph → 2.97 mi/kWh (State of Charge, 20" AT, full range test)
70 mph → 3.06 mi/kWh (Out of Spec, 21" AS, efficiency loop)
70 mph → 2.83 mi/kWh (Out of Spec, 21" AS, full depletion/GPS corrected)
76 mph → 2.91 mi/kWh (owner, 238.6 miles, 21", significant uphill)
80 mph → 2.46 mi/kWh (Out of Spec, 21" AS, controlled loop)
80 mph → 2.20 mi/kWh (Out of Spec, 21" AS, 10% Challenge)

 

[ksurfier]

New marketing strategy?

Best guess:

 

[junglebird]

The best test would be multiple 100-200 mile runs on the same road with the same (generally) weather, and then average them together. Even that test isn't great, but there is no better way IMO.

And don't blindly average all the results together. Throw out the high and low outliers in case something unusual happened to throw off the average. Someone with better statistics background than me can look at variances and standard deviations etc. and tell you whether the results are valid.

 

[ksurfier]

The elephant in the room is that all this data is extremely high-biased, once we get into the cold season the numbers will drop significantly. So get out there and collect the high-biased data while you still can!

 

[NinjaWrap]

The thread that keeps going

I really just want to know the 60, 70 and 80mph highway range from 90% to 10% in warm weather conditions because I’ll only charge to 100% to begin a trip and I never let my cars go below 10%

OOS tests from full to dead battery. That’s great for knowing true total range but completely useless in the real world.

city range/under 60 range doesn’t matter one bit to me because that’s basically local driving where I’ll be charging at home every other night

Sponsored