ABRP (ABetterRoutePlanner) (owned by Rivian) has a bunch of efficiency numbers for the R2, R3, and R3X.

[theyoungone]

Could be nothing, could be something. I’m sure this is place holder unofficial information and has nothing to do with range & efficiency targets..., but never say never. Either way, I'm loving what I'm seeing.

See this thread.

Sponsored

 

[zefram47]

There's almost zero chance those numbers are accurate. Way, way, way too efficient and the "public data" part means it wasn't Rivian that added them.

 

[Rob Stark]

Comparing an actual car to an idea of a car is kinda silly.

 

[DeafPug]

I tried using that to plan a trip from Wichita to a little past the Denver area. It failed to find a valid route.

The route said

Charging stops were just at Tesla Supercharger locations that are NACS enabled. It didn't pick any of the EA stations that were also along the same Interstate. Because of that, it has you arriving in Denver with negative 8% charge after a 100% charge in Oakley, KS.

Maybe, once Rivian has a CCS to Tesla adapter available, this route would be planned using both Tesla and traditional CCS charging stations. I looked around, but didn't see any way to specify that I had a CCS to NACS adapter available to modify the routing to use both types of chargers.

 

[Riviot]

I tried using that to plan a trip from Wichita to a little past the Denver area. It failed to find a valid route.

The route said

Charging stops were just at Tesla Supercharger locations that are NACS enabled. It didn't pick any of the EA stations that were also along the same Interstate. Because of that, it has you arriving in Denver with negative 8% charge after a 100% charge in Oakley, KS.

Maybe, once Rivian has a CCS to Tesla adapter available, this route would be planned using both Tesla and traditional CCS charging stations. I looked around, but didn't see any way to specify that I had a CCS to NACS adapter available to modify the routing to use both types of chargers.

ABRP has been known to fail in the past...

 

[COdogman]

Probably came from people making educated guesses at the battery sizes. Seems pretty optimistic, but who knows… R3 is still several years away.

 

[emoore]

I tried using that to plan a trip from Wichita to a little past the Denver area. It failed to find a valid route.

The route said

Charging stops were just at Tesla Supercharger locations that are NACS enabled. It didn't pick any of the EA stations that were also along the same Interstate. Because of that, it has you arriving in Denver with negative 8% charge after a 100% charge in Oakley, KS.

Maybe, once Rivian has a CCS to Tesla adapter available, this route would be planned using both Tesla and traditional CCS charging stations. I looked around, but didn't see any way to specify that I had a CCS to NACS adapter available to modify the routing to use both types of chargers.

Probably due to the fact that there aren't any superchargers open to CCS cars between Oakley, KS and Denver. Not sure how long it will take before Tesla either adds more on I-70 or upgrades the 3 V2 superchargers along that route. Actually Limon has 8 V3 chargers but Tesla decided not to open up some V3 chargers for some reason. You'll have to hit the EA charger at Turner to make it to Denver.

 

[theyoungone]

Probably came from people making educated guesses at the battery sizes. Seems pretty optimistic, but who knows… R3 is still several years away.

ABRP actually debunked it after I posted, but I swear if Rivian has found a way for the R2 to be a tri-motor setup AND get 330 miles of range SHEESH

 

[SANZC02]

ABRP works pretty well for me but they may need to work on CCS and NACS routing.

If I do OC to Phoenix in the R1S and I have both CCS and NACS selected as charger types with RAN as my top priority, it only routes to NACS even in Quartzsite where there is both NACS and RAN.

Could be by design based on number of stations at those locations assuming the NACS having so many more chargers is more likely to have an open charger but I would have assumed it would choose the RAN where possible if there.

 

[COdogman]

ABRP actually debunked it after I posted, but I swear if Rivian has found a way for the R2 to be a tri-motor setup AND get 330 miles of range SHEESH

Agreed! That would be impressive!

 

[jjswan33]

ABRP actually debunked it after I posted, but I swear if Rivian has found a way for the R2 to be a tri-motor setup AND get 330 miles of range SHEESH

But if ABRP is owned by Rivian and they wanted to debunk a leak can we trust them

That said the efficiency drops from adding motors seems too small to be real.

 

[SANZC02]

But if ABRP is owned by Rivian and they wanted to debunk a leak can we trust them

That said the efficiency drops from adding motors seems too small to be real.

You would think that would always be true but checkout this old chart, note the range differences between the 70 vs 70D, 85 vs 85D, and the 90 vs90D, I always assumed it was because of the additional regen that second motor added but just a guess.

 

[jjswan33]

You would think that would always be true but checkout this old chart, note the range differences between the 70 vs 70D, 85 vs 85D, and the 90 vs90D, I always assumed it was because of the additional regen that second motor added but just a guess.

I guess my reference point was a RWD vs AWD Ioniq 5. That difference is closer to 15% (303 vs 260).

Kudos to Rivian if they can have that kind of motor efficiency.

Sponsored