Rivian Max Pack EPA Data (document shows 141-142 kWh usable battery)

[Supratachophobia]

You guys really need to slow down and read the EPA docs instead of guessing.

The standard adjustment factor for the 5 cycle test is 0.7. They used .715, for dual max they used .707. That's really nothing.

Highway cycle range increase is almost exactly what you'd expect with the 11kwh larger battery tested.

The city cycle achieved significant efficiency gains. This is where almost all of the unexpected increase is coming from.

EPA r1s dual max 11" highway range is 332 miles out of 130.7 kwh. The max pack gets up to 365 miles Out of 141.7 kwh.

Is it enough to get the R1S from 390 to 400?

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

So I copied and circled here the relevant info for *R1S 21 DUAL MOTOR*. Only difference is battery pack.

Large Pack

Max Pack

For hwy, we see about a 32 mile difference (364.87-332.52). Like you said, could be explained by the 11 kWh battery pack difference.

And you’re right, the city numbers are quite disparate. 429.60 - 368.05 = 61.5 miles.

Since the only difference between them is the battery pack (presumably), is there anything in these EPA docs that would suggest Rivian is fudging the city numbers? Or, is there a good possibility that these could be legit and we need to understand how?

And does it make sense that the MPGe increased just because of the Max Pack?

 

[Supratachophobia]

So I copied and circled here the relevant info for *R1S 21 DUAL MOTOR*. Only difference is battery pack.

Large Pack

Max Pack

For hwy, we see about a 32 mile difference (364.87-332.52). Like you said, could be explained by the 11 kWh battery pack difference.

And you’re right, the city numbers are quite disparate. 429.60 - 368.05 = 61.5 miles.

Since the only difference between them is the battery pack (presumably), is there anything in these EPA docs that would suggest Rivian is fudging the city numbers? Or, is there a good possibility that these could be legit and we need to understand how?

For city, it can't be the weight attributing to higher regen. Maybe it's like someone else said about running 1 inverter for acceleration and 2 inverters for braking.

And 11kw divided by 32 miles is that infamous ~2.9 miles per kWh. At what speed can you achieve such good efficiency; 55mph and 70 degrees? I'm asking honestly because the large pack used different efficiency numbers, hence my comment about miles not being equal.

 

[DuoRivians]

And does it make sense that the MPGe increased just because of the Max Pack?

I am inclined to believe yes, it is possible for the efficiency to be better from the battery pack type, because it may involve more than just simply more kWh.

My questions are how would it be possible. No cynical takes, please. Assume for now you can take Rivian’s and EPA’s word for their data.

R1S 21 Dual Comparisons. Lower is better.

Large Pack MPGe. (City/Hwy)

Max Pack MPGe (City/Hwy)

 

[Supratachophobia]

Comparisons. Lower is better.

I am inclined to believe yes, it is possible for the efficiency to be better from the battery pack type, because it may involve more than just simply more kWh.

My questions are how would it be possible. No cynical takes, please. Assume for now you can take Rivian’s and EPA’s word for their data.

Large Pack MPGe.

Max Pack MPGe

At what point are we allowed to suggest a cynical explanation? Asking for a friend.....

 

[DuoRivians]

For city, it can't be the weight attributing to higher regen. Maybe it's like someone else said about running 1 inverter for acceleration and 2 inverters for braking.

And 11kw divided by 32 miles is that infamous ~2.9 miles per kWh. At what speed can you achieve such good efficiency; 55mph and 70 degrees? I'm asking honestly because the large pack used different efficiency numbers, hence my comment about miles not being equal.

I think the difference in usable pack size is closer to 142 - 128 kWh = 14 kWh

 

[mkhuffman]

Comparisons. Lower is better.

I am inclined to believe yes, it is possible for the efficiency to be better from the battery pack type, because it may involve more than just simply more kWh.

My questions are how would it be possible. No cynical takes, please. Assume for now you can take Rivian’s and EPA’s word for their data.

IMO, the biggest factors that impact efficiency are aerodynamics and rolling resistance. Sure, you can improve the efficiency of energy delivery, but the previous DM truck was already very efficient.

Maybe if they increased the pack voltage to 800V, which in theory reduces resistance and improves efficiency, it could account for the difference. But they didn't do that. It would have to be a major reworking of the platform to produce a measurable improvement in efficiency. Again, IMO.

I don't know. The only explanation I have is cynical. Or sad.

 

[NCRivian]

I haven’t seen quad 21s get 2.4 mi/kwh, unless limited to exclusively conserve mode.

Unless you can find a car that’s a dual motor large pack, which I haven’t seen shared by anyone, you won’t know how/where the efficiency splits when looking at max pack only, since max pack can only be configured with dual.

I have a quad motor R1t. I am at 28,000 miles after 7 months of use. My lifetime is 2.62miles/kWh. I only drove in all purpose or sport. I am on the 21” road wheels.

 

[DuoRivians]

IMO, the biggest factors that impact efficiency are aerodynamics and rolling resistance. Sure, you can improve the efficiency of energy delivery, but the previous DM truck was already very efficient.

Maybe if they increased the pack voltage to 800V, which in theory reduces resistance and improves efficiency, it could account for the difference. But they didn't do that. It would have to be a major reworking of the platform to produce a measurable improvement in efficiency. Again, IMO.

I don't know. The only explanation I have is cynical. Or sad.

“I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer.

 

[NCRivian]

I’m actually at 2.63 now.

 

[SANZC02]

I’m actually at 2.63 now.

The math actually comes out at 2.54 but still impressive.

What tires are you on? Do you do mostly long drives?

On 22s I get a lot of 1.95 to 2.0 because we do a lot of 3 to 5 mile drives around town but on trips we do much better.

Edit: nowhere near your numbers but between 2.2 and 2.3

 

[CruxOp]

I think the difference in usable pack size is closer to 142 - 128 kWh = 14 kWh

I think the large pack is getting sandbagged. The gross capacity of the large is 141kwh and the api reports 127 usable

 

[NCRivian]

The math actually comes out at 2.54 but still impressive.

What tires are you on? Do you do mostly long drives?

On 22s I get a lot of 1.95 to 2.0 because we do a lot of 3 to 5 mile drives around town but on trips we do much better.

Edit: nowhere near your numbers but between 2.2 and 2.3

I’m on the stock pirelli tires. I drive an hour to work and an hour back each day. Half highway at 75 mph. Other half of my driving is downtown roads in Raleigh, NC. I get better avg in the downtown areas. Curious, why do you say the math is different from what the graphic shows?

 

[SANZC02]

I’m on the stock pirelli tires. I drive an hour to work and an hour back each day. Half highway at 75 mph. Other half of my driving is downtown roads in Raleigh, NC. I get better avg in the downtown areas. Curious, why do you say the math is different from what the graphic shows?

Thanks, that is impressive range.

I divided the miles shown by the total kW, I only did it because mine is off as well.

Could be the average number is what the drive unit uses and the total kW includes usage for other things. I was never able to find out what the discrepancy is but interesting to see it is not only mine.

 

[McMoo]

Thanks, that is impressive range.

I divided the miles shown by the total kW, I only did it because mine is off as well.

Could be the average number is what the drive unit uses and the total kW includes usage for other things. I was never able to find out what the discrepancy is but interesting to see it is not only mine.

Mine is off too, and that is my expectation that preconditioning, gear guard, etc. add to the total energy number but don’t impact the miles per kWh.

And anyone who thinks Rivian didn’t “cook the books” the best they could to get to 400 miles has drank way too much kool aid.

Sponsored