$7,500 to spend on R1S: upgrade to Adventure trim, or 75mi of range?

[DucRider]

1) You'll usually never charge to 100% that much, not good for battery long-term and takes forever compared to like 90%. So 300, becomes 270 right there.

Another Tesla owner used to the "we'll get increased range rating by reducing the battery buffers, then tell owners not to use it".
AFAIK, Tesla is the only EV maker telling owners not to charge to "100%". I doubt Rivian will take that approach, but they might.

Sponsored

 

[bajadahl]

RANGE IS KING - saying that having a few EVs now.

EPA range is never usually very true - and that is at 100%. So, consider:

1) You'll usually never charge to 100% that much, not good for battery long-term and takes forever compared to like 90%. So 300, becomes 270 right there.

2) You'll have some degradation over the years. More at first then levels off. Probably a good 2% to 5%. So that 300 after degradation, at 90% becomes like 257 or so.

3) Drive at >55 or so on freeway, in wind, up hill, could lose a good 20% on a trip. Thus 257 = 205 in reality. This car will drive fast, is not efficient like Model 3, etc.

4) Cold weather, if your somewhere COOL or EVEN COLDER, you'll loose another 5/10% all the way to 30%-35% or so more even. Thus that 257 could become anywhere from 180 miles to 160 miles only in real range use.

5) Won't even estimate it, but towing is a whole other ordeal that could result in up to 40-50% more loss. May not even be an option in cold weather due to distance between DC chargers to two, even not towing at times.

Being conservative some, but trust me - range is king ;-) and you can't add it later.

You didn't list the fact that all of us in Austin need that range to make it out to Bluebonnet Cafe! That will for sure be one of my first "range tests" driving out Hwy 71. Alas, I already completely agree with you which is why I'll be waiting for the 400 mile pack which means I'll be waiting a while longer....

 

[txtravwill]

You didn't list the fact that all of us in Austin need that range to make it out to Bluebonnet Cafe! That will for sure be one of my first "range tests" driving out Hwy 71. Alas, I already completely agree with you which is why I'll be waiting for the 400 mile pack which means I'll be waiting a while longer....

Ha, well we live in Marble Falls (just SE of it in rural area) so will meet ya for a pie out there sometime when we both have our RT1s! Not thinking we'll see too many in the area the first 1-2 years.

 

[Whmorken]

RANGE IS KING - saying that having a few EVs now.

EPA range is never usually very true - and that is at 100%. So, consider:

1) You'll usually never charge to 100% that much, not good for battery long-term and takes forever compared to like 90%. So 300, becomes 270 right there.

2) You'll have some degradation over the years. More at first then levels off. Probably a good 2% to 5%. So that 300 after degradation, at 90% becomes like 257 or so.

3) Drive at >55 or so on freeway, in wind, up hill, could lose a good 20% on a trip. Thus 257 = 205 in reality. This car will drive fast, is not efficient like Model 3, etc.

4) Cold weather, if your somewhere COOL or EVEN COLDER, you'll loose another 5/10% all the way to 30%-35% or so more even. Thus that 257 could become anywhere from 180 miles to 160 miles only in real range use.

5) Won't even estimate it, but towing is a whole other ordeal that could result in up to 40-50% more loss. May not even be an option in cold weather due to distance between DC chargers to two, even not towing at times.

Being conservative some, but trust me - range is king ;-) and you can't add it later.

Having driven the 3, X, and Y, with the X and Y in the garage, my experience with 3 and Y is that there is enough range to easily make the 4 hour trip between Jackson, WY, and Park City, UT, at highway speeds, with one brief supercharger stop to add 30-50 miles of range to ensure a comfortable margin at the end of the trip. The performance X is yet to be tested on that same trip but I anticipate no problem using the same procedure. Celebrating the main point I am responding to, range is indeed “king” and out west driving fast and in cold weather — this is especially so!

 

[Gshenderson]

I’d actually flip this around and say that charging infrastructure is king. If you have adequate charging infrastructure, then range becomes much less of an issue. YMMV.

 

[skyote]

I’d actually flip this around and say that charging infrastructure is king. If you have adequate charging infrastructure, then range becomes much less of an issue. YMMV.

I'm in your camp on this. The 300 mile LE range will be fine for 98% of my travels, and I see charging infrastructure increasing at a very rapid pace. I'm looking forward to RAN, but the third party CCS DCFC charging is both expanding & getting more reliable, and I expect it to exceed Tesla infrastructure in 2-3 years.

 

[Whmorken]

I’d actually flip this around and say that charging infrastructure is king. If you have adequate charging infrastructure, then range becomes much less of an issue. YMMV.

Right on: less of an issue, but not no issue.

 

[Whmorken]

I'm in your camp on this. The 300 mile LE range will be fine for 98% of my travels, and I see charging infrastructure increasing at a very rapid pace. I'm looking forward to RAN, but the third party CCS DCFC charging is both expanding & getting more reliable, and I expect it to exceed Tesla infrastructure in 2-3 years.

Yes! In my experience 300 miles of range is sufficient, but not optimum, because with even the best charging system that we anticipate, 400 is more convenient and safe, and 500 would be close to optimum.

 

[Whmorken]

Yes! In my experience 300 miles of range is sufficient, but not optimum, because with even the best charging system that we anticipate, 400 is more convenient and safe, and 500 would be close to optimum.

Also: since driving range is limited by both battery capacity and charger access - and always will be - then we can say “range” is king though battery capacity is not.

 

[DucRider]

I’d actually flip this around and say that charging infrastructure is king. If you have adequate charging infrastructure, then range becomes much less of an issue. YMMV.

Another key is not just the infrastructure but the speeds both the charging equipment and the vehicle are capable of.
A very robust L2 system with dozens of EVSEs every 100 miles would be nearly useless for traveling distance.
So would a robust network of 50 kW CCS would be nearly so, as would the Rivian if it could only accept 50 kW (or even 100) from more powerful stations.

Bigger batteries add more cost, reduce efficiency, and take up valuable space. The R1S fold flat seats are a prime example of this, as are the reduced rear passenger space in vehicles like the Lucid Air with the biggest pack.
An R1T with the most possible range would have the bed and frunk completely filled with batteries leaving virtually no cargo space, cost who knows how much ($150K?), be far too heavy for decent performance on or off road. But it might be a 500-600 mile vehicle.
If range is indeed King and valued above all else, this would be the vehicle Rivian should be making. Or those looking for the absolute most possible EV range should be buying a Lucid Air or Tesla Semi.

Reality is that it will always be a balance, and for some range will have more value than some what is required to be sacrificed to get it. That might be $$, space, utility or ??.
If you are looking to tow or frequently drive in frigid temps, the sacrifices to get more rage are likely worth it. For many others, not so much.

Also: since driving range is limited by both battery capacity and charger access - and always will be - then we can say “range” is king though battery capacity is not.

Driving range is also greatly impacted by vehicle efficiency. Something like the Ludic Air or Model S get far more range per kWh that the Rivian or Hummer could ever hope to.

 

[Whmorken]

Another key is not just the infrastructure but the speeds both the charging equipment and the vehicle are capable of.
A very robust L2 system with dozens of EVSEs every 100 miles would be nearly useless for traveling distance.
So would a robust network of 50 kW CCS would be nearly so, as would the Rivian if it could only accept 50 kW (or even 100) from more powerful stations.

Bigger batteries add more cost, reduce efficiency, and take up valuable space. The R1S fold flat seats are a prime example of this, as are the reduced rear passenger space in vehicles like the Lucid Air with the biggest pack.
An R1T with the most possible range would have the bed and frunk completely filled with batteries leaving virtually no cargo space, cost who knows how much ($150K?), be far too heavy for decent performance on or off road. But it might be a 500-600 mile vehicle.
If range is indeed King and valued above all else, this would be the vehicle Rivian should be making. Or those looking for the absolute most possible EV range should be buying a Lucid Air or Tesla Semi.

Reality is that it will always be a balance, and for some range will have more value than some what is required to be sacrificed to get it. That might be $$, space, utility or ??.
If you are looking to tow or frequently drive in frigid temps, the sacrifices to get more rage are likely worth it. For many others, not so much.


Driving range is also greatly impacted by vehicle efficiency. Something like the Ludic Air or Model S get far more range per kWh that the Rivian or Hummer could ever hope to.

True. Well said!!

 

[Gshenderson]

Another key is not just the infrastructure but the speeds both the charging equipment and the vehicle are capable of.
A very robust L2 system with dozens of EVSEs every 100 miles would be nearly useless for traveling distance.
So would a robust network of 50 kW CCS would be nearly so, as would the Rivian if it could only accept 50 kW (or even 100) from more powerful stations.

Totally agree with this. 50kW are OK for mall parking lots and such, but for freeway in-route charging, 150kW is bare minimum. Given the lower efficiency of a Rivian vs other EV models currently on the road, you’d be looking at upwards of 2 hrs to add 150-200 miles of charge to a Rivian on a 50kW charger. That would almost double the time it takes to do a long road trip vs ICE.

 

[davrow_R1T]

I’d actually flip this around and say that charging infrastructure is king. If you have adequate charging infrastructure, then range becomes much less of an issue. YMMV.

Nobody seems to be considering cost of charging away from home. I consider home charging cheapest, as charging on trips currently costs more than gasoline!

If more range means charging only at your home (eg. for a round trip adventure) the range becomes a much greater issue, regardless of how much charging infrastructure exists.

 

[DucRider]

Nobody seems to be considering cost of charging away from home. I consider home charging cheapest, as charging on trips currently costs more than gasoline!

If more range means charging only at your home (eg. for a round trip adventure) the range becomes a much greater issue, regardless of how much charging infrastructure exists.

$10K pays for a lot of public charging!
If you pay top tier EA rates, it would be over 50K miles worth. If you look at the price differential and a subscription plan, it's likely approaching 100K miles from public charging before you break even on the additional $10K for the max pack.

 

[davrow_R1T]

$10K pays for a lot of public charging!
If you pay top tier EA rates, it would be over 50K miles worth. If you look at the price differential and a subscription plan, it's likely approaching 100K miles from public charging before you break even on the additional $10K for the max pack.

Hm, very true. At today's "range per $" difference, the equation certainly supports your argument much more than mine!

Sponsored