Daily 10% Battery loss while Parked

[NY_Rob]

They have to do something about it, even the lower numbers (~2pct/day) seem awful high for anything it should be doing.

Other than camera stuff what on earth would it need to do? My car sits in the garage for 2 weeks and doesn't kill a lead acid battery which is good for what, 500Whr? If other cars did this (or god forbid burned gas without anyone using them) no one would accept it ever.

Two of the three EV's I've owned (Chevy Bolt and BMW i3) have no measurable vampire drain at all, and my Model Y lost maybe 1 mile/day at home with Sentry Cam off. MY daughter's 2021 Model 3 (with Sentry Cam off) will also lose 1 mile/day.. .but keep in mind that our Tesla's are very efficient and get 4mi/kWh so losing 1 mile range/day is losing 0.25kWh worth of electricity which even at our high NY rates of $0.23/kWh only amounts to $1.75/month or $21/year.

Newer posts are reporting 2 to 3kWh/day loss on R1T's with newer software, but even that is still wayyyy too high.


If Chevy, BMW and Tesla can get vampire drain down to almost nothing, Rivian can do it too. Maybe Rivian need to poach additional SW Engineers from Tesla

Sponsored

 

[Ronimal]

I’m seeing an improvement in idle drain with the recent 2022.19 OTA update and it’s new features. For example I lost 2 miles of range the last 12 hours parked at home, which is under 2kwh / day or around 1%

Could be much better of course, but I am encouraged with the improvements that are being made here.

 

[ajdelange]

I'd better chime in again and point out that I have owned two Tesla Model X each of which has drawn about 4 kWh/da phantom drain. It is only fair to note that I have run both TeslaFi and Stats on both.

 

[jffkm]

The drain on Tesla’s varies dramatically. I have a model 3, which I love, that loses 12% per day with no sentry mode on. I’ve contacted support several times over the past three years to raise the issue and their internal spec is apparently as high as 25% loss per day before classifying it as an issue they need to repair. It’s absolutely my favorite car I’ve ever owned but it has nearly died on me several times when leaving it for a week in airport parking for eg. I’ve done a lot of testing (sentry plus minus, app check plus minus) and it’s consistently 12% per evening on average. If I turn sentry on and check the app it goes down much faster.

 

[Engi_Nerd]

We left our Model Y in our inlaws garage 10 days ago while we're on vacation. With everything off, it's dropped 2 percent in that time.

 

[Attesan997]

I think this is a mix of immature software not forcing vehicles to sleep and telemetry data Rivian is puling. For a company that talks about sustainability I find it hard to believe they intend to sell hundreds of thousands of vehicles all burning through millions of kWhs a year sitting parked. There was another thread where I'd responded about this being wasted energy and people were quick to say that it wasn't because of "reasons". I'm still not clear on what those reasons are considering there are plent of EVs on sale today that have less drain. I'm not new to EVs, I accept a certain level of drain but some of the examples here are far from what I'd consider reasonable.

 

[Max]

Maybe Rivian need to poach additional SW Engineers from Tesla

That may be the problem to begin with. It seems like some of the highest leaks reported in EVs are from Tesla. I think Rivian is following Tesla‘s playbook a little too closely.

 

[ajdelange]

There was another thread where I'd responded about this being wasted and people were quick to say that it wasn't because of reasons I'm still not clear on.

Let's try an example. I drive an X. It's phantom drain is very close to 4 kWh/d (4%). In a year that's 1460 kWh that goes to phantom. What does that energy do for me? If I approach the vehicle the lights come on and if I get close enough the driver's door opens for me. If I get into the car and step on the brake pedal the door shuts automatically and my seat moves into my desired driving position. The air conditioning comes on. Sirius starts to play. I can say "Navigate to ___" and route to ___ will be calculated and displayed. All these things take electricity and as all of them happen when the car is in P that electricity is counted as part of phantom drain.

Later when I am back from my drive and the car is sitting in the garage I can open the Tesla app and do a bunch of things like initiate a charge, stop one that is underway, adjust the charge level and rate, flash the headlights, turn on HVAC or blow the horn. All these things use energy and as the car is in P that is part of phantom.

Every minute while the car is parked it reports a bunch of data to two applications which record things like battery SoC, temperature and tire pressure to servers, This uses energy for the modem. That gets counted as phantom drain (and, in my case, accounts for half of it i.e. 2 kWh/da).

So the question is as to which of these services wastes energy. I think personal opinion will be the determiner of that. Surely many would argue that I can perfectly well open the damn door myself and adjust my own seat position. Probably fewer would suggest that the energy used to plan a route is a waste. But I like those features and I am willing to pay for the energy to operate them. The 1460 kWH would cost me $190/yr if I bought it from the utility. Thus, IMO, none of them is a waste.

Final comment: I don't get my electricity from the utility. I get it from the sun so I don't pay $190 a year for these services. The sun shines down whether I use it to adjust my seat or not so from that persepective none of my phantom drain is a waste.

 

[ajdelange]

That may be the problem to begin with. It seems like some of the highest leaks reported in EVs are from Tesla. I think Rivian is following Tesla‘s playbook a little too closely.

Well no. It seems that the reported Rivian and Tesla vampires are (after the Rivian OTA) about equally thirsty at ca. 2 kWh/da.

They are both luxury vehicles and both have lots of bells and whistles which have to be fed.

Maybe Rivian need to poach additional SW Engineers from Tesla

Certainly additional software work has the potential to improve overall vehicle efficiency which involves both reduced phantom drain and improved Wh/mi. Remember that as soon as you go from P to D some of the phantom drain (e.g. Nav system) comes out of the phantom drain account and goes into the Wh/mi account.

The super-skinflints who whinge about the $100 extra per year on their electric bills and the environment alarmists who lie awake at night worrying about the extra 730 kWh don't have a very credible case when they show up in a vehicle with nearly 500 Wh/mi consumption. Let them drive a 300 Wh/mi vehicle and save much more than that. But the guys that want to park at a trailhead for 10 days do. The software engineers need to give them control over some of the phantom loads.

 

[RivianXpress]

Mine has lost over 25 miles of range in four days sitting inside at the service center.

I was able to remotely update the software yesterday but it still lost 6 + miles last night.

 

[Attesan997]

Let's try an example. I drive an X. It's phantom drain is very close to 4 kWh/d (4%). In a year that's 1460 kWh that goes to phantom. What does that energy do for me? If I approach the vehicle the lights come on and if I get close enough the driver's door opens for me. If I get into the car and step on the brake pedal the door shuts automatically and my seat moves into my desired driving position. The air conditioning comes on. Sirius starts to play. I can say "Navigate to ___" and route to ___ will be calculated and displayed. All these things take electricity and as all of them happen when the car is in P that electricity is counted as part of phantom drain.

Later when I am back from my drive and the car is sitting in the garage I can open the Tesla app and do a bunch of things like initiate a charge, stop one that is underway, adjust the charge level and rate, flash the headlights, turn on HVAC or blow the horn. All these things use energy and as the car is in P that is part of phantom.

Every minute while the car is parked it reports a bunch of data to two applications which record things like battery SoC, temperature and tire pressure to servers, This uses energy for the modem. That gets counted as phantom drain (and, in my case, accounts for half of it i.e. 2 kWh/da).

So the question is as to which of these services wastes energy. I think personal opinion will be the determiner of that. Surely many would argue that I can perfectly well open the damn door myself and adjust my own seat position. Probably fewer would suggest that the energy used to plan a route is a waste. But I like those features and I am willing to pay for the energy to operate them. The 1460 kWH would cost me $190/yr if I bought it from the utility. Thus, IMO, none of them is a waste.

Final comment: I don't get my electricity from the utility. I get it from the sun so I don't pay $190 a year for these services. The sun shines down whether I use it to adjust my seat or not so from that persepective none of my phantom drain is a waste.

"So the question is as to which of these services wastes energy."

There's a bit of nuance here right? I understand there are several systems which require power that will ultimately pull from the battery. My point isn't to advocate shutting them down, few would purchase a "connected as a feature" vehicle to then just turn off the connected part? My aim is simply to ask: is the software (and/or hardware) fully matured and optimized for efficiency in performing those various tasks? It sounds like you have confidence that's the case, if so feel free to disregard my musings. For a first time car maker, in their first product I'd be inclined to wager things are not as mature as they'd prefer. Each software update so far, based on the notes, has attempted to address vehicle sleep in some way so things don't appear Rivian believes things have been fully optimized.

While I'm glad your energy is renewable many don't have that option and while it's only my humble opinion, I'd rather not "burn" energy while it comes from less than renewable methods.

 

[ajdelange]

There's a bit of nuance here right?

Yes or rather a number of perspectives.

My point isn't to advocate shutting them down, few would purchase a "connected as a feature" vehicle to then just turn off the connected part?

This is actually exactly what is required. For example Sentry mode on the Teslas. It uses a lot of phantom to buy security. Where that isn't needed (e.g. at home in your locked garage) you turn it off thus saving phantom. Where you can't afford the phantom (i.e. in an airport parking lot) you can turn it off at the cost of losing the security. It;s there because customers asked for it.

My aim is simply to ask: is the software (and/or hardware) fully matured and optimized for efficiency in performing those various tasks?

I think we know the answer to that especially for the Rivian which is a brand new vehicle.

It sounds like you have confidence that's the case,

No, not at all as I hoped my posts have made clear but I guess they haven't.

if so feel free to disregard my musings. For a first time car maker, in their first product I'd be inclined to wager things are not as mature as they'd prefer. Each software update so far, based on the notes, has attempted to address vehicle sleep in some way so things don't appear Rivian believes things have been fully optimized.

I'm not trying to convince you that you are in error. I'm trying to give you the perspective that will enable you to see that if you want something you will probably have to pay for it. The blue paint option costs $2000. A logging app will cost you 1% phantom. drain. One way to reduce phantom drain is to forego features. Another is to make sure those features that use phantom energy use it as efficiently as possible. That's where software/hardware tweaking comes in.

I'd rather not "burn" energy while it comes from less than renewable methods.

Then you need to cancel your Rivian order and order something with much more reasonable consumption (and less phantom drain). In transporting you 100 miles the Rivian will use nearly 50 kWh of energy as opposed to 20 - 25 in a more reasonable sized/shaped BEV. That's 25 - 35 kWh "burned" by you if you stay with the Rivian.

Or you could move to Quebec or the PNW where you will have to pay for the phantom but the source is renewable (hydro).

Perspective!

 

[Max]

Well no. It seems that the reported Rivian and Tesla vampires are (after the Rivian OTA) about equally thirsty at ca. 2 kWh/da.

They are both luxury vehicles and both have lots of bells and whistles which have to be fed.

Sounds like you agree with me but started your response with No. I agree with you, they are equally thirsty. Hence Rivian is too close to Tesla for comfort. I don’t care how Rivian is labeled; “Luxury“. I consider a power consumption for any purpose that is useless to me wasteful. Although this is often the case, just because something is expensive, it does not have to be wasteful especially if it claims to have an environmental mission.

 

[Max]

Let's try an example. I drive an X. It's phantom drain is very close to 4 kWh/d (4%). In a year that's 1460 kWh that goes to phantom. What does that energy do for me? If I approach the vehicle the lights come on and if I get close enough the driver's door opens for me. If I get into the car and step on the brake pedal the door shuts automatically and my seat moves into my desired driving position. The air conditioning comes on. Sirius starts to play. I can say "Navigate to ___" and route to ___ will be calculated and displayed. All these things take electricity and as all of them happen when the car is in P that electricity is counted as part of phantom drain.

Later when I am back from my drive and the car is sitting in the garage I can open the Tesla app and do a bunch of things like initiate a charge, stop one that is underway, adjust the charge level and rate, flash the headlights, turn on HVAC or blow the horn. All these things use energy and as the car is in P that is part of phantom.

Every minute while the car is parked it reports a bunch of data to two applications which record things like battery SoC, temperature and tire pressure to servers, This uses energy for the modem. That gets counted as phantom drain (and, in my case, accounts for half of it i.e. 2 kWh/da).

So the question is as to which of these services wastes energy. I think personal opinion will be the determiner of that. Surely many would argue that I can perfectly well open the damn door myself and adjust my own seat position. Probably fewer would suggest that the energy used to plan a route is a waste. But I like those features and I am willing to pay for the energy to operate them. The 1460 kWH would cost me $190/yr if I bought it from the utility. Thus, IMO, none of them is a waste.

Final comment: I don't get my electricity from the utility. I get it from the sun so I don't pay $190 a year for these services. The sun shines down whether I use it to adjust my seat or not so from that persepective none of my phantom drain is a waste.

‘You are presenting a false choice here. Just because I like to turn on the light in my living room at night when I read, it does not mean it has to be on 24/7. Either Rivian is unable to or unwilling to give me a functional light switch. All or nothing is an idiotic choice for a company if they wish to sell more products.

 

[ajdelange]

I don’t care how Rivian is labeled; “Luxury“. I consider a power consumption for any purpose that is useless to me wasteful.

That's rather ego centric. To Rivian it is the consideration of the majority of what they consider to be their customer base that matters and undoubtedly they did surveys from which they determined that the majority of that base wanted the features that this phantom drain fuels. I for one would be more than willing to pay an extra $100/yr for those features and if Stats and TeslaFi do versions for the R1T I will certainly sign up and pay another $100 for the value those apps return.

Although this is often the case, just because something is expensive, it does not have to be wasteful especially if it claims to have an environmental mission.

Using the US average of 1,000 miles a month I find someone who drives a BEV requiring 500 Wh/mi when he could drive one using 200 thus wasting 3.6 MWh/yr who whinges that 0.73 MWh/yr phantom drain is a waste to be at least as hypocritical as Rivian in claiming their mission is an environmental one.

Sponsored