Do I really need the Max Pack?

[SANZC02]

I read the 0-60mph time for the R1T is 3.0sec. Is that only for the 130kWh variant? And has anyone read anything confirming 1/4 mile times and trap speeds?
I sold my Challenger Redeye with the plan to replace it with the Rivian. I just could never get that car to hook up from a dead stop. Hell, floor it at 55mph with the OEM tires, and it would still break loose!

What I read was the fastest 0-60 was the large pack (135KW) with the 22's

Sponsored

 

[skyote]

I won't need the additional range 95%+ of the time, so large pack is plenty for me. I will have to destination or DCFC on regular trips to Houston & Dallas, but charging time difference is negligible.

For even longer road trips I've mapped, additional charging time is also minimal, to the point it's not even really inconvenient. And $10K for added convenience on occasional or rare use cases is silly...it would take a whole lot of additional DCFC to make up for that cost.

It's a no for me, but others here have brought up good reasons why more range is needed for their intended usage.

 

[skyote]

I read the 0-60mph time for the R1T is 3.0sec. Is that only for the 130kWh variant? And has anyone read anything confirming 1/4 mile times and trap speeds?
I sold my Challenger Redeye with the plan to replace it with the Rivian. I just could never get that car to hook up from a dead stop. Hell, floor it at 55mph with the OEM tires, and it would still break loose!

Older spec was 3.2 sec 0-60 for the Max Pack. I have a feeling both times might be better than originally quoted, as we know HP & torque have increased.

 

[ajdelange]

Even with Tesla's SpC network, there are still some pretty major gaps in the Southeast. ...The Greenville supercharger,

Not that I disbelieve you - I don't drive around there - but a check of the comments on PlugShare for this SC showed one that said that 2 out of 8 were failed. That's the worst I saw for that station. There are gaps in the Tesla network and it does have failures.

More to the point here is that however the Tesla network may be the Rivian network is not as advanced as the Tesla network. I one uses ABRP (and I strongly advocate doing that) he will often find that while charging stations may not be that far apart ones that will deliver more than 50 kW sometimes are and that some extra time is often required to get the driver to a fast one that is somewhat off route as opposed to a slow one that is closer.

IMO some extra range in the back pocket is comforting in such circumstances but I am not trying to sell anyone on anything.

 

[bmac]

For the majority of the time, I know that the 300 mile range will be just fine. However, I do plan to make a few long trips a year and many of the times I will be towing a heavy boat. For this reason, I originally planned to purchase the 400 mile R1T to ensure I have plenty of range for the longer trips. However, since the 400 mile range is not available at launch and given the huge price premium I have opted to get the 300 mile LE and put in a second reservation for a 400 mile model. This will enable me to save some money, get a vehicle sooner, and discover if the 300 mile range works for my needs. If I find I need more range, then I will just sell my LE after the 400 mile range is delivered. I expect resale values will remain quite high given the supply constraints that are expected to last many years.

 

[ajdelange]

However, I do plan to make a few long trips a year and many of the times I will be towing a heavy boat.

This has been mentioned here but not nearly enough. Something as simple as rain can lop 20 - 30% off range as can high speed driving, head wind and driving up hill but the biggest stealer of range is towing.

 

[Autolycus]

Not that I disbelieve you - I don't drive around there - but a check of the comments on PlugShare for this SC showed one that said that 2 out of 8 were failed. That's the worst I saw for that station. There are gaps in the Tesla network and it does have failures.

More to the point here is that however the Tesla network may be the Rivian network is not as advanced as the Tesla network. I one uses ABRP (and I strongly advocate doing that) he will often find that while charging stations may not be that far apart ones that will deliver more than 50 kW sometimes are and that some extra time is often required to get the driver to a fast one that is somewhat off route as opposed to a slow one that is closer.

IMO some extra range in the back pocket is comforting in such circumstances but I am not trying to sell anyone on anything.

Most of the reports I've seen are on the Tesla Motor Club forums and 2nd hand reports from local Facebook Tesla groups, but if you look back through May on Plugshare you'll see that frequently only 1A and 1B were working or 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. Obviously 4 people charging at the same time on those 4 will mean everybody's charge is much slower than if there were more stations working. I hope it's been resolved!

It's just a reminder to us all that the EV charging infrastructure is still highly variable and needs a lot of work to be up to the standard we need as more and more people switch to EVs.

For me, the Max pack is most likely not necessary, considering only existing EA stations and the planned RAN. As fast-charging networks are built out more and more in the next few years, I will be even more confident of that.

 

[CommodoreAmiga]

This has been mentioned here but not nearly enough. Something as simple as rain can lop 20 - 30% off range as can high speed driving, head wind and driving up hill but the biggest stealer of range is towing.

why would rain drop range significantly?

Rain doesn't seem to affect ICE range.

 

[Wanderer]

This has been mentioned here but not nearly enough. Something as simple as rain can lop 20 - 30% off range as can high speed driving, head wind and driving up hill but the biggest stealer of range is towing.

That’s really excessive for the rain hit. maybe 5% is more accurate unless you’re talking about standing water on the roads type of rain.

Also, there is no reason to believe yet that the highway range won’t be close to the 300/400 target. It would be the exception rather than rule if it doesn’t.

 

[ajdelange]

Open your palm and swing your arm in an arc. Now do the same with your hand in the bath tub (or swimming pool, hot tub, ocean....). Water is much heavier and much more viscous than air. When your tires have to push it out of the way they must do work on it and a surprising amount of work. Perhaps it isn't so much of a surprise if the water is deep enough that you are raising rooster tails but it is surprising to me how much is lost when the pavement is merely wet with no visible standing water. I usually run about 300 Wh/mi on the freeway. A heavy rain can take that up to 360 - 380.

Were we to pay as careful attention to energy consumption with our ICE vehicles as we do with our BEV I am sure we would find the losses from wet pavement to be commensurate.

 

[Inkedsphynx]

I'm willing to bet some percentage of the 'rain loss' is actually just humidity loss. Humid air is denser than dry air, so it offers more resistance. I really don't think the water on the pavement has a whole lot to do with it, but I'm not an expert. Just trying to apply some reasonable logic.

EDIT: Except this graphic proved me wrong I didn't think humid air would be less dense - seems counterintuitive.

 

[ajdelange]

That’s really excessive for the rain hit. maybe 5% is more accurate unless you’re talking about standing water on the roads type of rain.

No, 'fraid not. As I said in my last post I usually do 300 or so on the freeway. Checking my last freeway run in the rain I logged 383. That's a 28% increase. One data point but typical in my experience. Do you have some numbers we could compare with what I've observed?

Also, there is no reason to believe yet that the highway range won’t be close to the 300/400 target. It would be the exception rather than rule if it doesn’t.

There's a very good reason. The 300 and 400 mile ranges are based on the EPA protocol which blends in town and highway driving and the highway part is not at the 70-75 mph level that most of us use on the freeways. As speed increases above 60 drag begins to emerge as the dominant energy sink and the drag component of total wh/mi is quadratic with speed above that point.

 

[ajdelange]

I'm willing to bet some percentage of the 'rain loss' is actually just humidity loss. Humid air is denser than dry air, so it offers more resistance. I really don't think the water on the pavement has a whole lot to do with it, but I'm not an expert. Just trying to apply some reasonable logic.

Dry air is 80% nitrogen (molecular weight 28) and 20% oxygen (molecular weight 32). Water's molecular weight is 18. Thus water vapor is considerably less dense than dry air and humid air is less dense than dry air.

There was an accident on takeoff at SFO many years back involving a 747 I think. It clipped the landing lights at the departure end of the runway because it couldn't develop enough lift. The NTSB concluded that when the copilot did the calculations he neglected to include the correction for humidity. Lift is proportional to density. Humid air = less drag and less lift.

 

[Ray R]

Are you running the defroster while suffering that 28% loss?
Also, what tires are you running to achieve that level of resistance in the rain?

 

[Inkedsphynx]

Dry air is 80% nitrogen (molecular weight 28) and 20% oxygen (molecular weight 32). Water's molecular weight is 18. Thus water vapor is considerably less dense than dry air and humid air is less dense than dry air.

There was an accident on takeoff at SFO many years back involving a 747 I think. It clipped the landing lights at the departure end of the runway because it couldn't develop enough lift. The NTSB concluded that when the copilot did the calculations he neglected to include the correction for humidity. Lift is proportional to density. Humid air = less drag and less lift.

Yea, after a bit of googling I discovered that as well. Seems counterintuitive to me, but many things are! Thanks for the info

Sponsored