Any tests done on Vampire battery drain?

[DJG]

I fully agree with what you're saying here. My testing will not tell me exactly how much vampire lose/parasitic loss the truck actually has, but it will tell me exactly how much extra I'll be spending everyday on my electric bill. This is what I was going for to see what settings I can change on the truck to reduce how much $$ I'm wasting on a daily basis for the truck just sitting there. Obviously in the grand scheme of things, it's not much $$ per day, but if I can reduce waste as much as possible with a few setting tweaks on the truck, then I will do it. I just wanted to share what I was seeing to try and help someone else do the same without having to go through these steps.

Yep, agree. Overall you seem to be doing really well at about 1.5%/day.

Sponsored

 

[DavidSPumpkins]

Next update boasts 15% improvement in overnight range loss (allegedly)

 

[therealhoff]

I went on vacation a couple weeks ago (July 15) and left the truck at home (R1T had the most current firmware). Just prior to leaving, charged it to 85%. ~7 days later, was sitting at 70%. Gearguard was "on" but the truck was at "home" so in theory, shouldn't have been active. I did use the app to eyeball where the battery was at percentage wise a couple times during the week. With the latest firmware, I think a good rule of thumb to be safe is estimating ~2% per day vampire drain if the truck is just sitting there. I have to imagine the software team will continue to work on optimizing the resting energy usage and this will improve with future updates.

 

[RivnSoon]

I lost 7%- 71% to 64% Saturday early morning (end of charging) to Tuesday afternoon (today). Truck was parked in the garage, gear guard and proximity inactive. Very hot and ambient temps, 90F

 

[Max]

It absolutely uses more energy to charge back up, and isn't the correct way to measure the drain. It's measuring the energy required from the wall to get back to a base state, not what the drain out of the battery was.

A simplistic adjustment would be subtracting about 10% from the energy put back in to measure what was actually lost. That extra amount is real in that it is an expense, but it's not technically part of what the drain was if you're trying to extrapolate to how much SoC you'll lose over XX period of time.

The most exact measurement of any discussed would be to open the service menu and record the exact total energy in the pack (which shows to several decimal places I believe) at the beginning and end of a certain time period.

I have no idea why it would take more energy to bring it back up rather than keeping it there. I thought it is harder to pack the electrons at a higher SOC but I have never owned an EV and not an electrical Engineer so I take your word for it.

My point was not at all, this way of measuring vs that way of measuring. I was saying Rivian may have designed the software so that it does more of what owner may consider unnecessary when it is plugged in like reporting driving habits back to mothership, which would makes sense; if they know you are not losing range, they are not as worried about using energy. I have no idea if that is actually the case. What I was suggesting was to try to compare unplugged loss to the plugged loss to see if this is true. If you lose a lot less unplugged with the same settings, it may make sense to leave it unplugged for couple of days if you don’t need the range and charge periodically rather than every day.

 

[DJG]

I have no idea why it would take more energy to bring it back up rather than keeping it there. I thought it is harder to pack the electrons at a higher SOC but I have never owned an EV and not an electrical Engineer so I take your word for it.

I'm referring to the fact there are charging losses (actual charging losses plus additional conditioning and 12v accessory use), so it takes roughly 1.1kwh of energy to replace 1kwh of drain (at least, it's even higher as you go down in charge rate). The poster was reporting what his EVSE was showing for energy delivered back to the vehicle coming from the circuit, which is the full gross number. So when they say they needed to add back 1.5kwh, that was to replace only 1.35kwh or less of drain (assuming it actually charged back to the starting point exactly, which isn't a given either).

It's borderline over precise, but then again all of this topic is based on being overly precise.

 

[Max]

I'm referring to the fact there are charging losses (actual charging losses plus additional conditioning and 12v accessory use), so it takes roughly 1.1kwh of energy to replace 1kwh of drain (at least, it's even higher as you go down in charge rate). The poster was reporting what his EVSE was showing for energy delivered back to the vehicle coming from the circuit, which is the full gross number. So when they say they needed to add back 1.5kwh, that was to replace only 1.35kwh or less of drain (assuming it actually charged back to the starting point exactly, which isn't a given either).

It's borderline over precise, but then again all of this topic is based on being overly precise.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. If I understand it correctly, what you are saying is that when he is plugged in, the power lost comes directly from the house and bypasses the battery (going through an inverter?) so the electrons are traveling a shorter path and there is less heat loss due to skipping the charging circuits.

My misunderstanding must have been the assumption that power was lost comes from the battery the same way plugged in as it is unplugged and battery being continuously (with shorter intervals) charged instead of being charged at a later time when it is unplugged. What you are saying is that assumption is incorrect. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[DJG]

Thanks for taking the time to explain. If I understand it correctly, what you are saying is that when he is plugged in, the power lost comes directly from the house and bypasses the battery (going through an inverter?) so the electrons are traveling a shorter path and there is less heat loss due to skipping the charging circuits.

My misunderstanding must have been the assumption that power was lost comes from the battery the same way plugged in as it is unplugged and battery being continuously (with shorter intervals) charged instead of being charged at a later time when it is unplugged. What you are saying is that assumption is incorrect. Thanks for setting me straight.

No, I'm saying that if the battery loses 1kwh to whatever, then you need 1.1kwh out of the wall to get back to your starting point, because only 1kwh of that 1.1 is making it into the battery. The rest is also lost as part of the process (heat, electronics related to the charging, etc.).

So the measurement of what it took through the EVSE overstates what was actually lost from the battery. Again, this makes the assumption that it precisely is putting back exactly what it lost (i.e. charging back to the same starting SoC). It's relevant in the sense of the "cost" of drain, but overstates what the drain actually was.

 

[Rousie13]

I did some more testing last night. The truck was unlocked (proximity is on but o have it set to not lock at home), music was paused, WiFi was on, ac was turned off, and gearguard was completely turned off. With gearguard completely off, I do not see the red lights inside the cameras.

After 17 hours, 1.46kWh have gone through the EVSE. The truck just finished charging when I got this value.

Update: It’s been 25 hours now and 2.37kWh have gone through the EVSE. It has been warmer in the garage today, but in summary I don’t think it makes any difference if GearGuard is completely off or on but set to off at home.

 

[DJG]

I did some more testing last night. The truck was unlocked (proximity is on but o have it set to not lock at home), music was paused, WiFi was on, ac was turned off, and gearguard was completely turned off. With gearguard completely off, I do not see the red lights inside the cameras.

After 17 hours, 1.46kWh have gone through the EVSE. The truck just finished charging when I got this value.

So to my earlier point, if you go to the energy screen and look at the Session Summary, you can see how much of that 1.46kwh went to the battery, and assuming it was perfectly backfilling drain, that is what the drain was. You'd also want to confirm the gross number shown there is also the 1.46kwh, as I'm not sure if they report that as the gross number (to match the EVSE), or if they take out charging losses first (before showing deductions for conditioning and low voltage).

Thought as I'm writing this, if you have been plugged in for longer and there was an earlier charging session that completed, before kicking back on for the additional 1.46, it will show everything since first plugging in on that screen.

 

[Max]

I don’t have a garage. I am curious what folks see in terms of the loss parking in their driveway in 90-100 degree sunny days? Does R1T try to keep the battery cool? If it does not, do you know if those temps shorten battery life?

 

[Deleted member 7086]

Just a casual observation regarding the most recent software upgrade. When I park my R1T in the garage I leave the doors unlocked. The outside door handles have LED lights which when I close the door remain on sometimes for a few minutes other times for an hour or more and often randomly come on and turn off after a substantial period of time. Not being one to sleep in the garage to figure out this conundrum I simply believe the LED lights remain on when the truck is awake and turn off when it sleeps. If I am correct the truck suffers from intense insomnia which might account for part of the drain owners are reporting. Now the good news. After the most recent update the lights remain on for about three minutes after I close the door, the rear taillight blinks once, there is a slight clicking noise from the dash area and the lights go out. I have yet to see the lights randomly coming on but again I don’t sleep in the garage. Perhaps Rivian has solved part of the drain problem by getting rid of the truck’s insomnia?

 

[Marchin_MTB]

I have run recorded some SOC losses (based on what the app reports) since we got our R1T and can confirm an average of about 2% per 24 hours. Gear guard off. I havent checked since the latest software update.

 

[JoelD]

I went on vacation a couple weeks ago (July 15) and left the truck at home (R1T had the most current firmware). Just prior to leaving, charged it to 85%. ~7 days later, was sitting at 70%. Gearguard was "on" but the truck was at "home" so in theory, shouldn't have been active. I did use the app to eyeball where the battery was at percentage wise a couple times during the week. With the latest firmware, I think a good rule of thumb to be safe is estimating ~2% per day vampire drain if the truck is just sitting there. I have to imagine the software team will continue to work on optimizing the resting energy usage and this will improve with future updates.

I’ve been away for a couple days. I left my truck at 70%, with the EVSE set to charge at 24 amps (6kW; this amount works for us given solar production, Powerwall battery capacity, etc.) when it drops below. In 48 hours, the EVSE (which I can review remotely) has recorded 5.9 kWh provided, or 2.95 kWh per day. The EVSE shows a pattern of a draw every 4 hours or so, and looks very regular. This is about 2.3% (based on 130 kWh capacity) discounting the charging loss.

Gearguard disabled at home.

I’m looking forward to the 15% improvement in the drain

 

[GangWarily]

So my truck has been at the SC waiting for repairs and I was able to get the OTA update installed. It seem to have improved vampire drain from what I’ve seen over the course of a little over 24 hours.

Also if I remember correctly, I'm pretty sure I left Gear Guard on.

Sponsored