All Terrain Upgrade - why the loss of 50 mi of range?

[Jim4]

When looking at building an R1S on the site, if you start off with the standard package it gets 321 mi of range on a large battery pack quad motor. Once you add the all terrain package, it goes down to 274 mi of range. Anyone know what causes this drop - is it the addition of the reinforced underbody or the wheels? Combo of both?

Sponsored

 

[MidnightRivian]

Tires

 

[jjswan33]

Tires

 

[R.I.P.]

Yes. Both.

 

[jjswan33]

Tires

Jinx!

 

[Jim4]

Hmmm any idea how much/if any is contributed to just the underbody? I'm considering switching tires to add range, but don't want sh*t tires either since we do a lot of ski trips in the winter/snow.

 

[CrazyOne]

If you put all seasons on 20 wheels, the range loss will be minimal, if any. 20s also have aftermarket aero caps, which may help. It's hard to do a perfect test though. So YMMV.

 

[KeithPleas]

Hmmm any idea how much/if any is contributed to just the underbody? I'm considering switching tires to add range, but don't want sh*t tires either since we do a lot of ski trips in the winter/snow.

Underbody shield has reportedly little impact on range. And the 20 ATs are a combination of the 20" forged wheels which have lower aero efficiency and the tires (more rolling resistance). There have been some annecdotal reports of getting some of that range loss back when switching to AS tires. I think those QM range numbers are also on All Purpose - you can likely get another 10% or so on the highway by switching to Eco (front drive only).

 

[ElGuapo]

I’d say 0% due to underbody. I have underbody and 21” and have the same energy usage and range as most folks I’ve seen post here. Underbody is relatively light and aerodynamic. It’s all the wheels and tires!

I’ve actually just switched from the 21” to to 20” ATs, but plan to post on that elsewhere.

 

[bummin]

Rolling resistance of all terrain tires is crap, no matter the brand. Stock are probably better than a BFG or Duratrac tire as they were designed for an EV. Can always have 2 sets of wheels/tires and swap depending on needs, we a just used to charging a bit more and never worry about traction. We do swap AT for Haka winter tires each season on both vehicles.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

When looking at building an R1S on the site, if you start off with the standard package it gets 321 mi of range on a large battery pack quad motor. Once you add the all terrain package, it goes down to 274 mi of range. Anyone know what causes this drop - is it the addition of the reinforced underbody or the wheels? Combo of both?

Rolling resistance: Energy lost to higher level of friction. Well, not really lost—due to law of conservation of energy. It's converted to heat instead of distance traveled.

 

[jjswan33]

Hmmm any idea how much/if any is contributed to just the underbody? I'm considering switching tires to add range, but don't want sh*t tires either since we do a lot of ski trips in the winter/snow.

Its not going to have an aero impact so it the only contribution of the RUS will be added weight, that has been estimated at about 140 lbs (~2% higher weight) or the equivalent of a small passenger.

It's going to be really hard to tell a difference honestly with and without the RUS in my opinion.

 

[rhumbliner]

If you put all seasons on 20 wheels, the range loss will be minimal, if any.

This!

I switched from the 21’s to 20’s and replaced the Pirelli AT+ with Nokian’s One HT. I performed a few before/after test drives, nothing super scientific, and feel like I recovered most of the lost range.

 

[Jac]

I’d say 0% due to underbody. I have underbody and 21” and have the same energy usage and range as most folks I’ve seen post here. Underbody is relatively light and aerodynamic. It’s all the wheels and tires!

I’ve actually just switched from the 21” to to 20” ATs, but plan to post on that elsewhere.

I agree that the reduced range is not caused by the underbody shield. Until last year, there was no All Terrain Package. The R1S with 20” wheels/AT tires without the then optional reinforced underbody shield had the same range.

I‘ve added rock sliders by Direct Current Engineering sold by Weistec Engineering and no detectable range impact from the rock sliders either.

 

[sub]

Hmmm any idea how much/if any is contributed to just the underbody?

It is nearly 100% the tires. A few extra pounds have a negligible impact on highway range. You might be able to measure a impact in stop and go traffic, but once you are up to speed rolling down the highway, weight does not impact your range and the only time range really matters is when you are rolling down the highway.

but don't want sh*t tires either since we do a lot of ski trips in the winter/snow.

There are reasons to get the 20" tires, but traction on snowy roads isn't one of them. The OEM 20's are the sh*t option when it comes to snow.



To recap the video, in general, most of the all terrain tires did worse in the snow, including the 3-peak ones, than the non-3-peak road tires. And were WAY worse than the 3-peak rated road tire.

This wasn't a Rivian specific test so they didn't include the exact tires mounted on Rivan's 21 or 22 wheels in the test, but they did test the exact tire that is mounted on the 20's and that tire came out at the bottom of the pack.

If you are going to buy real snow tires, then get either the 20's or the 22's and swap out the tires. There are no snow tires available for the 21's so don't get those if you would want to switch to real snow tires. If you would not consider buying dedicated snow tires then look at either the 21's or 22's. Not only do you get better range, you also are going to get better snow traction too.

Since you didn't say anything about rock climbing, I am assuming that is not a consideration. If you do spend a lot of time driving on rugged trails far from pavement, then that clearly would change the recommendation.

Sponsored