Cancelling R1T Preorder - Reasons

[COdogman]

I certainly respect OP’s and others concerns and reasons for canceling their reservation. Each of us has to do what is right for our own situation.

Just to provide another perspective, Like many others here I have been following Rivian closely since day 1, but only put down my $1k about a month ago. Ironically the reasons I waited are among those mentioned by others who reserved early and are now having second thoughts.

From the start I absolutely loved what Rivian was trying to do and it appeared they were trying to develop this truck the right way, putting in years of testing out in the world in all conditions. I realize they have a skilled marketing team helping them put that image out there, but it still felt right to me.

$73k is a lot of money for a vehicle. And because they went first, no one knew how their design would stack up against the other EV pickups that followed. So I waited to see what else was coming. Cybertruck. Hummer EV. F-150 Lightning. Silverado EV. It was after the Silverado that I decided Rivian was the best value among all those options. What I mean by that is what am I getting for the price compared to it’s competitors?

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. The battery tech is looking a little outdated already, which is actually a good sign for the industry As a whole. I still felt the R1T was the best overall. I also decided that waiting for the *perfect* EV pickup was a waste of time and would not help us as a society push the auto industry in the direction it needs to go any sooner. In other words, I am more than happy to be an early adopter and accept all the frustrations that may come with that as long as I get to enjoy a really impressive EV pickup. If in 10 years there is something better (I sure hope there is), I will go through that same decision making process and look at what’s available at that time.

Sponsored

 

[ohmman]

True the X runs on 280 Wh/mi but more significant is that it (LR+) gives me 3.51 miles per percent battery (or did when new). The R1T Large will give us 3.13 mi/% and the Max 4.1 so in terms of consumption as related to range the Large is a better deal than the X and the Large somewhat (89%) but not dramatically less so.

This metric makes very little sense to me as a value proposition. Perhaps you can explain why you think it matters.

If the EPA rated consumption of the R1T Large is 486Wh/mi, that's it's consumption rate. It means I'll have to pay for/generate more electricity per mile. Perhaps there's an argument for capital expense amortized by mile combined with consumption, but why does miles per percent battery matter in the real world? Absolute range, sure. Absolute consumption, sure. Absolute cost, sure to some.

 

[ajdelange]

True the X runs on 280 Wh/mi but more significant is that it (LR+) gives me 3.51 miles per percent battery (or did when new). The R1T Large will give us 3.13 mi/% and the Max 4.1 so in terms of consumption as related to range the Max is a better deal than the X and the Large somewhat (89%) but not dramatically less so.

This metric makes very little sense to me as a value proposition. Perhaps you can explain why you think it matters.

Well the beauty of a metric is in the eye of the beholder for sure but I'll try to explain its value. The reason I say "try" is because, simple as it seems it is to me, a lot of people don't seem to be able to come to terms with it.

First off is its simplicity. It is the rated range of your vehicle expressed in chunks of 1 percent of the battery. If my truck has 400 miles rated range then it goes 4 miles on a percent of its charge. In planning a trip of 275 miles it doesn't take me long to figure, without calculator, paper or pencil, that half a battery will get me 200 miles and that each aditional 10% will get me 40 more so I am going to need about 70% of my battery to go the 275 mi. If my truck has 300 mi range then I get 3 miles per percent and its clear that I am going to need 92% of the battery to do the 275 and will need to plan a charging stop. En route if I see that I have 32% battery left I immediately know that I've got about 124 miles left in the 400 mi truck but only 96 in the 300 mile one.

Now at this point I'll observe that whenever I post this I get some number of responses the jist of which are "Wow! You call that simple. You sure know how to make things complicated!" I attribute this to part of the population simply being mathphobic as to the mathphilic this is simplicity in itself and it sure make knowing one's fuel conditon easy to keep track of in any phase of a trip. Whether you can appreciate its beauty or not depends on which group you fall in.

If the EPA rated consumption of the R1T Large is 486Wh/mi, that's it's consumption rate.

I think you may have missed the key phrase in my post. I've re-quoted the post above and boldened the key phrase.

It means I'll have to pay for/generate more electricity per mile.

If your concern is what you are paying per mile then yes, the Wh/mi is the most important parameter. If comparing what you can realistically do on the road or where you are range wise whilst on a trip then miles/% is the most important.

why does miles per percent battery matter in the real world?

It's the key parameter descriptive of vehicle operational performance. I hope the preceding has helped to make that clear.

 

[Zoidz]

It makes sense. I assume less heat means less waste too. I was surprised how much loss there was when Tommy was charging that R1T.

Yep, you got it, less heat means less waste. Any time electric power flows, there is wasted power due to heat being generated. The goal is to minimize that effect.

 

[ohmman]

First off is its simplicity. It is the rated range of your vehicle expressed in chunks of 1 percent of the battery. If my truck has 400 miles rated range then it goes 4 miles on a percent of its charge. In planning a trip of 275 miles it doesn't take me long to figure, without calculator, paper or pencil, that half a battery will get me 200 miles and that each aditional 10% will get me 40 more so I am going to need about 70% of my battery to go the 275 mi. If my truck has 300 mi range then I get 3 miles per percent and its clear that I am going to need 92% of the battery to do the 275 and will need to plan a charging stop. En route if I see that I have 32% battery left I immediately know that I've got about 124 miles left in the 400 mi truck but only 96 in the 300 mile one.

I get all of this - I have always kept my range setting on my Teslas on the percentage setting instead of the range setting.

If your concern is what you are paying per mile then yes, the Wh/mi is the most important parameter. If comparing what you can realistically do on the road or where you are range wise whilst on a trip then miles/% is the most important.

My concern is more about efficient use of energy and less about cost per mile, though I'd argue that for the broad population cost per mile is a more valuable metric. I'd say that if you care about how much range you have, then total range is the more valuable metric.

It's the key parameter descriptive of vehicle operational performance. I hope the preceding has helped to make that clear.

Bold statement that I strongly disagree with. More accurately, it's a parameter describing pack size relative to vehicle size and shape. I'd say it has very little if any value outside of that. It has no real predictive value that I can ascertain, and in fact it obscures factors like drag coefficient and vehicle weight entirely. Presupposing that the Max pack, which is likely to have a rated efficiency north of 486Wh/mi, has a better "vehicle operational performance" is as misleading as can be. It's more accurate to just say "it has more range," because that's all this metric is getting at.

 

[ajdelange]

I was surprised how much loss there was when Tommy was charging that R1T.

I was too to the point that I realize that something is wrong here. There is no way there can be 15% loss in a DC to DC charge unless there are poor contacts is the plug or elsewhere in which case the thermal protection systems would trip.

 

[ajdelange]

More accurately, it's a parameter describing pack size relative to vehicle size and shape.

...and rolling resistance and slip and drive train efficiency - in fact all aspects of vehicle performance. That's the beauty of it.

... It has no real predictive value that I can ascertain,

I'll just state, again, that I use it to predict fuel condition in every phase of every trip I make so this statement either says that you don't believe me or that you don't understand it. Better to just leave it there a my experience has taught me that, given that I know which class you are in, there is nothing I can do to bring you to the light.

and in fact it obscures factors like drag coefficient and vehicle weight entirely.

Uh, vehicle shape determines drag coefficient and obscuring all those things (really simplifying operational performance prediction by rolling all of them into a single parameter) is exactly what a good metric does. Do I care what my Cd is when going down the freeway? No. What I care about is what's in the battery and what we be in it when I get to my destination.

Presupposing that the Max pack, which is likely to have a rated efficiency north of 486Wh/mi, has a better "vehicle operational performance" is as misleading as can be. It's more accurate to just say "it has more range," because that's all this metric is getting at.

Yes! it IS the range normalized into convenient sized bites which facilitate planning, asessment and prediction. Doesn't more range mean better operational performance to you? It does to me.

 

[ohmman]

. Better to just leave it there a my experience has taught me that, given that I know which class you are in, there is nothing I can do to bring you to the light.

As I mentioned, I use percentage display on all of my cars. You missed that. Additionally, this metric is yours and is not something widely discussed in the EV world. That is informative.

Since you appear determined to pivot to personal attacks, I’ll drop off of this discussion with you. Best wishes.

 

[ajdelange]

Personal attacks? Come now. I am sure you are a very fine fellow. I never said nor implied that people in your group were anything other. My wife in in your group and I love her dearly. I can't explain this to you nor can I explain it to her. I can't play the violin. That's just how it is.

I can't really take much credit for promulgating this approach as it should be obvious to anyone (in group 2) that it is a very easy way to manage your SoC but I have pointed it out from time to time over the years and I think it has been helpful to some.

 

[roth_nj]

Yep, you got it, less heat means less waste. Any time electric power flows, there is wasted power due to heat being generated. The goal is to minimize that effect.

like with this....

https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-purdue-liquid-cooled-ev-charging-cable/

 

[ajdelange]

Both EA and SC chargers (the larger ones anyway) use cooled cables at the present time. The cooling is definitely achieved by phase change but whether the evaporation occurs on one side of a heat exchanger or in the cable itself I do not know (the former I would think with current tech).

 

[ajdelange]

A rough analogy is your home uses 120/240 VAC power, but the utility and transmission distribution systems use anywhere from 600 volts to hundreds of thousands of volts. Higher voltage improves efficiencies.

This is actually an instructive point in this context. Where transmission and distribution are involved higher voltage is more efficient. The same is true in the EV charger world. It is easier for a manufacturer to build a high voltage charger than a low voltage one because he doesn't have to use a huge cable (uncooled) or cool it. But most of the advantage goes to him. The car manufacturer obtains some benefits from higher voltage but as the transmission distances within the vehicle are relatively short the advantages are relatively small. Nonetheless some manufacturers have taken this approach and my gut feel is the industry will migrate that way as the component level people come up with higher PIV switches, better insulation schemes etc.

 

[Trekkie]

I won't say you are driving it wrong because everyone has his own style and is forced to drive in the surroundings life has put him in, but I will say you are driving hard for whatever reason. On the east coast we don't have many freeways with speed limits over 65 relative to what they have out west, for example.

My X LR+ has a rated consumption of 282 Wh/mi. In the last 1500 miles I've averaged 275 and in the last 6500 miles 269 Wh/mi. I am an older guy and thus probably drive more conservatively than average. I know, for example, that I don't come out of a red light or stop sign as aggressively as FSD does. Driving is a mix of around town and freeway. So the fact that OP sees the rated consumption is not at all surprising to me. And it's gratifying to see the "Tesla cheats on its EPA tests..." nonsense debunked by another driver. And, naturally, we wonder if those who espouse that theory will come to conclude that Rivian has cheated on theirs.

[Edit]Another thought. You may be driving an older X with a higher rated consumption. I think the consumption on my first X was a bit over 300. Getting 280 on that car would be an accomplishment!

I'm older, I'm 50, grumpy gen-x represent. I have and always will more of a lead foot. These days I try and keep it within 10% of the limit, at least in NC it keeps you from getting run off the road or passed on a double yellow. When I first got it I did some experimenting and keeping it at speed people just are stupid. especially in town on two lanes. so like 60 in a 55, and 70 in a 65. In the city I usually stick it to the limit, but not a lot of other folks do.

I have a 75KW Raven Model X. It says it's the Model X Standard, not 75D. it's a bit of a unicorn, only made for three months I'm told. I also read that it's less efficient than the 100KW LR versions, don't know if it's true but in my experience from the data I get out of the car my best average is about 85% when it's 75-80 out and I have <1900 miles at that speed worth of data, but that's still 327 wh/mi

I'm in southeast, and until covid I commuted about 55 miles. Would usually let autopilot (not FSD) keep me in the lane and not running into the people in front of me. Our speed limit is NC is more of a suggestion so you need to do 75+ to not get run off the road by idiots. 75+ with a 4 on the distance usually keeps things from getting too nuts. We're talking 'I can't see your bumper when you lane changed angrily in front of me'. Covid has done a lot for my blood pressure levels not having to deal with it, but even after autopilot my wife commented that I wasn't as wound up when I got home as I used to be.

I don't understand how you can get that low, there must be something else different. Ever since this conversation started I look at the energy meter and my accelerations are always under 50 watts on that meter on the console in front of me. Granted its winter right now, and I'm running heated seats / cabin heat more but I had to get new tires and I went with non OEM so I've been watching the efficiency a lot more to see if I can see how bad they've changed it. I'm always in chill / range mode too.

 

[ajdelange]

Bring up the energy display and look for the dashed line labeled "rated". Do some driving to get the "average" line right over the dashed line and read the average. That's your rated consumption. If is probably considerably higher than 282 in an earlier model. Thereafter monitor the usage graph/meter comparing to the rated consumption.

 

[cardad]

First, I want to say that I am not here to complain about anything Rivian is doing or has done. This isn't a rant on Rivian in the least. It's just an explanation of where I am for anyone who feels like reading it.

I've really been looking forward to my R1T. I enjoyed my test drive at the First Mile event and have a lot of respect for the thoughtfulness of the vehicle. It's a well designed, great looking truck that hits a sweet spot on size and power. So why am I canceling my 8/25/20 preorder? Timing, mainly, but also efficiency.

The primary reason for my purchase was to replace or supplement our Model X in towing our Airstream. We've been EV towing since early 2017 and while our LR+ Model X has plenty of range to get us around, I was looking for something that could also get me to remote trailheads once we were at camp. I also liked the idea of bed storage for those trips so that we're not loading the trailer with our toys.

All of that said, towing a travel trailer comfortably requires the max pack, which is what I had on order. It's absolutely possible without it, but I've towed with my old X that didn't have the 370+ miles of range the new one does, and it can be discomfiting and logistically taxing to do so. Add on battery degradation, elevation gain, and cold weather range loss and things get even tighter. With our old X, we charged to 100% more times than I'd have liked, and flirted with the bottom 5% just as often. Those are pretty harmful things to do to a battery and our range degradation confirmed this for us.

My R1T max pack is at least a year away. In the year and a half that I've had a preorder for the R1T, my kids have grown a year and a half older, and they'll be another year (at least) older by the time we get the max pack. We aren't camping as much as they get older and my son will be of driving age by the time the R1T arrives. It's just sadly timed out of being a good fit.

There is one other important factor that has always nagged me, but wasn't enough to make me cancel my reservation earlier. That is the efficiency level of the vehicle. I have a sizable PV array and try to offset our consumption with that array. I am all but certain that I'd be driving our Model X around town for local trips when given the option of it or the R1T, mostly in the name of energy consumption. The R1T is necessarily a heavy and relatively inefficient EV. The max pack version will be even more so, specifically with regards to weight.

So, sadly, I couldn't find a way forward with this very cool vehicle. I've decided to replace my S with a Model Y. The good news is that everyone behind me is likely to get theirs just a little sooner. I'm still a fan!

To be frank you're chasing unicorns and wasting a lot of time. I've put 30k miles on our Winnebago Era 170A with up to 4 dogs, 2 kids and a wife (4 ppl + 3 large dogs) and not wasting time charging is a substantial reason why the conceptual model you speak of is nowhere near possible in the semi-distant future (aka 2025). No one has time for that masochism.

The ONLY EV camper I see being feasible is the Cybertruck + Cyberlandr bed camper as it will not suffer aerodynamic losses and adds solar panel charging. That's at least one year out and doesn't give you the room of a trailer or a van so you'd need to bring two vehicles for a family.

Diesel isn't "clean" but at least emissions wise it is far superior to air travel and if you're having to take long drives you just can't afford to waste half your day charging.

Sponsored