Battery cell/pack specs

[Rivianmd]

My theory on this is that the pack size has not changed. Since the usable battery Kwh will be less than the total capacity, I submit that they are just being careful by dropping the actual size in the description (and giving the explanation that it will be slightly less than the previously published 135Kwh), which accounts for the buffer.

I think you are right. I am hoping that after they gather better data with the packs they are able to access some buffer to offset degradation - I think Audi was able to do his with the e tron once they gained more comfort. I am apprehensive that 300+ will be more like 200-225 in practical use a few years down the line

Sponsored

 

[mkennedy1996]

I think you are right. I am hoping that after they gather better data with the packs they are able to access some buffer to offset degradation - I think Audi was able to do his with the e tron once they gained more comfort. I am apprehensive that 300+ will be more like 200-225 in practical use a few years down the line

I have the same concern. My experience with one of Xs is along those same lines. When you factor in over 4 years of battery degradation and driving style/HVAC usage, I have a "Realistic" range of just 185 miles at 100% charge and only 167 miles at the typical 90% charge (down from the original EPA range of 289 miles). Note: that does include about 15% of the miles were towing something.

 

[Rivianmd]

Will throw this question here. I rewatched the hot weather towing video again (Rivian fix for the day) and they mention drivetrain and battery temperatures while towing. I believe it was the Death Valley grade. I think drivetrain was quoted as 88 and 96 C back front respectively. Battery was 44C. For the engineers on the board, are those values respectable given the test case? I think the battery value seems about right and within range; however, the front drivetrain value seems pretty toasty. Curious to hear thoughts from those that know more than me about thermal management.

 

[BigE]

With the fresh news that came at the end of last week, I began rethinking my R1T Max Pack order vs should I just go with the mid (Large) pack? Our R1T will be my wife's daily driver, but also our family vehicle, and occasionally pulling our small camper on moderate to very long trips. With thinking about only charging the pack to 80%, loss of 1/2 range in towing, battery degradation over time, is the Max Pack really my only option? In an early post on this thread, I think Rivianmd had worked through ~428 wh/mile which at 80% is ~336 miles. A Better Route Planner has a base rate of 516 wh/mile or ~279 miles. Then add in 22" tires, speed, etc., etc., I think I just answered my question. And then there's the Senate Bill that currently has the $80K cap.

 

[ajdelange]

The 180 kWh battery is supposed to give us 400 + miles EPA range. Working range under EPA driving conditions is about 80% of that or 320 miles. Head winds, fast driving, cold weather positive grade, rain all conspire to reduce that. Towing a trailer will cut it by at least half. Should you instead chose a vehicle with 300 + mile range? I don't think so, especially as you plan to tow, but it's really up to you.

 

[McRat]

Comparing other EVs to Teslas when it comes to EPA range filings can be misleading.
Tesla submits numbers that are more optimistic than other brands.
My "351 mile" Tesla Model X is really about 270 miles for 100%-0% or 216 miles 90%-10%.

When I drove our "238 mile" Jaguar I-Pace on the same trip from Norco, CA to Salt Lake City, UT, versus the Model X, there wasn't a huge difference. We tended to drive 175 miles between stops in either the MX or I-Pace. We had one leg that was 212 miles in the I-Pace, and that was cutting it close. There is no way I'd run 90% of the EPA range in the MX.

If people are concerned about the Rivian range, they really need to wait for some professional reviews by non-EV (Teslacentric) publications. I remember when a Tesla Blog said the I-Pace had 140 miles of range, and A Better Route Planner (ABRP) used that number, making their program worthless for I-Pace owners. It would say certain trips were impossible even after I'd have made these "impossible" trips.

It's sad to say, but Tesla Blogs and sites (they often pretend to be all EVs) are one of the biggest anti-EV sources of misinformation about EV ownership.

 

[ajdelange]

There is certainly lots of misinformation on the blogs and there is certainly a lot here and there is certainly a lot on the Tesla fora as well. Some of it comes from bias, some of it comes from ignorance, some of it comes from malevolence. Some can read through the fog. Some can't. One of the most common pieces of misinformation is that Telsa is somehow deceptive in their EPA ratings. That they have somehow managed to dupe (or perhaps bribe) the EPA officials. I have not found this at all to be the case. I've had two Tesla cars (both X's) and have found the EPA ratings on each to be quite "accurate" which I put in quotes because the EPA rating cannot, by its very nature be accurate. My X has a rated EPA consumption of 282 Wh/mi and an EPA range of 351 miles. I realize, in actuality, somewhat better than that. My 351 mile Tesla would be 386 miles if using the whole battery capacity if my wife is driving and somewhat more than that if I do. This is, of course, not the case if I drive at 75 mph into a headwind. The same with my previous Tesla. This is consistent with where and how I drive.

Rivian will be subject to the same testing protocols and EPA review that Tesla was. If the Monroney sticker says the range of my R1T is 400 miles I will expect to get a little better than 400 miles if I drive it in the same way I have driven my Teslas. I would encourage others to do the same. If you are getting 80% of rated range in the Tesla you are driving now it is because your driving habits and conditions are tougher than those of the EPA protocol - not becasue Tesla cheated. If you drive your Rivian in the same way and under the same conditions you can expect to about 80% of the Rivian's EPA range. Do not assume that just because R.J. looks more like a boy scout than Elon does that you will get 120%.

 

[BigE]

There is certainly lots of misinformation on the blogs and there is certainly a lot here and there is certainly a lot on the Tesla fora as well. Some of it comes from bias, some of it comes from ignorance, some of it comes from malevolence. Some can read through the fog. Some can't. One of the most common pieces of misinformation is that Telsa is somehow deceptive in their EPA ratings. That they have somehow managed to dupe (or perhaps bribe) the EPA officials. I have not found this at all to be the case. I've had two Tesla cars (both X's) and have found the EPA ratings on each to be quite "accurate" which I put in quotes because the EPA rating cannot, by its very nature be accurate. My X has a rated EPA consumption of 282 Wh/mi and an EPA range of 351 miles. I realize, in actuality, somewhat better than that. My 351 mile Tesla would be 386 miles if using the whole battery capacity if my wife is driving and somewhat more than that if I do. This is, of course, not the case if I drive at 75 mph into a headwind. The same with my previous Tesla. This is consistent with where and how I drive.

Rivian will be subject to the same testing protocols and EPA review that Tesla was. If the Monroney sticker says the range of my R1T is 400 miles I will expect to get a little better than 400 miles if I drive it in the same way I have driven my Teslas. I would encourage others to do the same. If you are getting 80% of rated range in the Tesla you are driving now it is because your driving habits and conditions are tougher than those of the EPA protocol - not becasue Tesla cheated. If you drive your Rivian in the same way and under the same conditions you can expect to about 80% of the Rivian's EPA range. Do not assume that just because R.J. looks more like a boy scout than Elon does that you will get 120%.

Just for clarification, I was actually using a base range for the Max Pack of ~420 miles. I was just using 80% then of that range as available as you should not typically charge to 100% and your not running it down to 0, so ~336 actual available miles. Then subtract additional factors like 22” tires, windy/weather/speed/towing/degradation leads me to Max Pack would be my best option.

 

[Gshenderson]

Just for clarification, I was actually using a base range for the Max Pack of ~420 miles. I was just using 80% then of that range as available as you should not typically charge to 100% and your not running it down to 0, so ~336 actual available miles. Then subtract additional factors like 22” tires, windy/weather/speed/towing/degradation leads me to Max Pack would be my best option.

There’s nothing wrong with charging to 100% on long trips. You just don’t want to do it and leave it there. It takes a LONG time to get to 100% though due to declining charge rate as the battery gets more full.

 

[ajdelange]

It's sort of like getting drunk. It certainly isn't good for you but if you only do it occasionally it probably won't hurt your life expectancy by much.

 

[Interferon]

One possible scenario I see is a switch to the more common 96s configuration (Tesla, GM, etc).
This would reduce the cell count and thus both the energy rating and physical size of the "modules" (if they stuck with that design).

96s 8p modules would have 768 cells and be ~350V nominal and energy of ~14 kWh (using the M50T specs from above).
The "large" pack would be ~126 kWh nominal, with an unknown actual usable capacity.

If we go with the Tesla method, I expect to see Wh/mi in the 375 to 425 range (with the 21s at the low end of the range, the 20s on the higher side and the 22s somewhere in between)
That equates to ~2.3 to 2.7 mi/kWh (common display in most vehicles)

My Tesla S has gotten about 350 wh/mi averaged over its 40,000 mile lifetime. And the S was highly optimized aerodynamically. Tesla claimed an S in my configuration should be around 315 wh/mile.

I would suspect that real-world energy usage in a more traditional non-optimized truck body would be more like 500 wh/mile. So the real-world range of a max-pack at 180kwh would be around 360 miles.

 

[ajdelange]

My Tesla S has gotten about 350 wh/mi averaged over its 40,000 mile lifetime. And the S was highly optimized aerodynamically. Tesla claimed an S in my configuration should be around 315 wh/mile.

It is very important that people understand this and they just don't seem to be able to grasp it. Tesla did not claim an S in your configuration should be around 315. Tesla ran a series of tests according to an EPA specified protocol. The EPA monitored and approved the testing. The number that come out of those tests, the rated consumption, was 315 Wh/mi. That is a benchmark. The actual consumption depends entirely on how, where, and when you drive. You drive more aggtressively. I drive less aggressively. My rated consumption is 282 and my average is 255.

I would suspect that real-world energy usage in a more traditional non-optimized truck body would be more like 500 wh/mile. So the real-world range of a max-pack at 180kwh would be around 360 miles.

The EPA range of the R1T is estimated (and by now the estimate should be pretty solid) as 400 + miles with + probably representing 5 - 10 miles. With a 180 kWh usable battery capacity (and that's a can of worms on its own) the rated consumption would be 450 Wh/mile. Given the conditions under which you drive and the way you drive you will probably see close to 500 Wh/mi. Given the conditions under which I drive my average will probably be 407.

Sponsored