Any tests done on Vampire battery drain?

[chrismc]

Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone gathered any solid data on how much the 2022.15.0 update improves standby drain seeing as how that was specifically mentioned in the release notes?

Sponsored

 

[AllInev]

Actually they are quite efficient. Unfortunatey Rivian uses the term "efficiency" when they should be using "energy consumption". Others have commented on this here before.

This is real efficiency IOW if 100W is delivered by the mains only 90 - 95 W gets to the battery.


That's consumption. E.G. if the rolling resistance is 100 W/mi with the standard wheels it goes up to 110 - 115 W/mi with the non standard.



This is neither an efficiency nor consumption cost as it does not contribute to traction. It is an overhead cost for maintaining the vehicle is a "ready to go" state at all times. It can be stirred into an overal energy cost to operate calculation. Clearly it can increase overall consumption by a factor of 2 or more if the truck is not driven much or can be insignificant if it is.

@ajdelange Do you know if the EPA Fuel Economy Label for EVs accounts for the so called "vampire" drain. In my opinion, up to 2-4kWh/day is significant energy loss and should be included in annual energy cost on the Fuel Economy Label.

 

[DJG]

Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone gathered any solid data on how much the 2022.15.0 update improves standby drain seeing as how that was specifically mentioned in the release notes?

I've seen anecdotal reports of reduction in drain by 50% to 65% (reporting 24hr drain of 1% vs. 2.5% before), but nothing scientific. I think 1% or less per 24hr would be a decent enough end point if that is ultimately the best that can be done. More than some other vehicles, but that would only leave some pretty extreme cases where that would cause issues.

 

[Max]

I've seen anecdotal reports of reduction in drain by 50% to 65% (reporting 24hr drain of 1% vs. 2.5% before), but nothing scientific. I think 1% or less per 24hr would be a decent enough end point if that is ultimately the best that can be done. More than some other vehicles, but that would only leave some pretty extreme cases where that would cause issues.

I think power loss when the vehicle is not moving should be measured in terms of KWh not percent. 1% of Rivian large pack is twice as much power as 1% in most EVs.

 

[DJG]

I think power loss when the vehicle is not moving should be measured in terms of KWh not percent. 1% of Rivian large pack is twice as much power as 1% in most EVs.

Sure, but I'm speaking to the primary concern of it causing an available range issue when coming back from a long absence away from home. When people were reporting 4% per day, that's really impactful over the course of a week or more. At 1%, not so much.

It also has twice the battery to maintain than other EVs, which is a significant portion of the energy use. Even if they get all other uses to the same level of power draw (not unreasonable depending on design), it will still use more energy than a smaller vehicle to maintain battery health.

 

[jjswan33]

I've seen anecdotal reports of reduction in drain by 50% to 65% (reporting 24hr drain of 1% vs. 2.5% before), but nothing scientific. I think 1% or less per 24hr would be a decent enough end point if that is ultimately the best that can be done. More than some other vehicles, but that would only leave some pretty extreme cases where that would cause issues.

In my view I'm not going to agree 1% loss is acceptable, maybe it is.

The goal should be to have it as small as possible so that critical functions still happen, if that is 1% then so be it. If Rivian wants non-critical functions to be available in sleep mode then it should be configurable, ie gear guard, etc.

I also agree with @Max that we should be thinking in terms of kWh as well.

 

[Olsonsolar]

I think power loss when the vehicle is not moving should be measured in terms of KWh not percent. 1% of Rivian large pack is twice as much power as 1% in most EVs.

For sure 1% of the small pack is a lot less than 1% of the upcoming Max pack.

 

[DJG]

In my view I'm not going to agree 1% loss is acceptable, maybe it is.

The goal should be to have it as small as possible so that critical functions still happen, if that is 1% then so be it. If Rivian wants non-critical functions to be available in sleep mode then it should be configurable, ie gear guard, etc.

I also agree with @Max that we should be thinking in terms of kWh as well.

I guess, but while the reduction from 1% to 0.5% (I don't imagine anything less is achievable) is a noble pursuit, that's not going to change most people's lives. It becomes an issue of diminishing returns on the resources needed to achieve it.

That 0.5% equates to an additional $25/year in electricity for me, and that's assuming 365 days a year of drain, when in reality most days I'm driving so it's baked into the normal use.

And the 0.5% less per day isn't going to change the use for 99.9% of owners, so for a company with limited time/resources at some point they will call it a day and move on.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

For sure 1% of the small pack is a lot less than 1% of the upcoming Max pack.

That is true, but all things being relative. The max pack will need more energy to maintain battery health or nominal temperature in out of norm conditions due to it being either a larger battery, or less for a smaller battery. So 1% in general isn't that bad. Not great, but better than 3-5% per day.

Had a 2020 model 3 in near zero degree C temperature overnight and lost nearly 6-10% (can't remember which it was) overnight for comparison.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Maybe I’ve missed it, but has anyone gathered any solid data on how much the 2022.15.0 update improves standby drain seeing as how that was specifically mentioned in the release notes?

I haven't done any extended testing yet, but 2022.15.0 seems to have gotten rid of the superfluous fan noise when the truck is just sitting doing nothing that was happening under 2022.11.2

 

[jjswan33]

I guess, but while the reduction from 1% to 0.5% (I don't imagine anything less is achievable) is a noble pursuit, that's not going to change most people's lives. It becomes an issue of diminishing returns on the resources needed to achieve it.

That 0.5% equates to an additional $25/year in electricity for me, and that's assuming 365 days a year of drain, when in reality most days I'm driving so it's baked into the normal use.

And the 0.5% less per day isn't going to change the use for 99.9% of owners, so for a company with limited time/resources at some point they will call it a day and move on.

<0.5% is definitely possible at least that was my observation on the Kia EV6.

Edit: with a 77kWh battery the drain was negligeble.

 

[ajdelange]

@ajdelange Do you know if the EPA Fuel Economy Label for EVs accounts for the so called "vampire" drain. In my opinion, up to 2-4kWh/day is significant energy loss and should be included in annual energy cost on the Fuel Economy Label.

No, I don't. I assume those numbers do not reflect vampire drain because they are per 100 mi driven not per day or week.

 

[ajdelange]

I think power loss when the vehicle is not moving should be measured in terms of KWh not percent.

Well kWh/per day or Wh/hour just as the traction consumption should be measured and displayed as kWh/mi (or Wh/mi).

 

[Max]

That 0.5% equates to an additional $25/year in electricity for me, and that's assuming 365 days a year of drain, when in reality most days I'm driving so it's baked into the normal use.

That is 6 packs of 48 fl oz Ice-Cream a year. What would I get for missing out on all that Ice-Cream? My point is that putting energy on waste reduction is not a waste. It will translate to a better product on all other vehicles they will make. 400 hp vehicle would do but hey decided to go with 800 hp. They spent a lot of time improving the aerodynamics of the vehicle and developing special tires to eke out a few more miles. If they can reduce the waste to 0.5%, they should not stop at 1%. This is their flagship vehicle that is suppose to show the world they know what they are doing. Sloppy engineering will not make that point.

All that said I get your point. If it was 4% and now it is 1%, that puts me back in the running. Still not happy about it but I could live with it until they improve it even more or give me the option to turn some stuff off.

Had a 2020 model 3 in near zero degree C temperature overnight and lost nearly 6-10% (can't remember which it was) overnight for comparison.

I always thought the main concern with battery is heat and cold only reduces the power available and once it warms up, you get that power back. Are you saying storing battery in cold temperatures is damaging as well and it need to be kept warm? or you lost that 6-10% just in the morning trying to condition the battery and cabin for departure?

My knowledge of battery chemistry and it's behavior is limited. I appreciate everything you can share.

 

[Riventures]

Sorry I cannot help, but troll

Sponsored