Sponsored

Do I really need the Max Pack?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Smithery

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
404
Reaction score
737
Location
California
Vehicles
MX 100D, XC70, Cooper S JCW, R1T Large
Mind-bending acceleration is probably the most important feature to me. I think the lighter weight of the Large pack should help with that.
If your #1 priority for a new vehicle is mind bending acceleration, there's places to look besides pickup trucks ?

That said... I'm not remotely sure what vehicles you're used to or what you've driven before, but there's 2 points here to dig deeper:

1 - Have you ever driven a vehicle with a sub-4s 0-60?
10 years ago, sub-4s 0-60 was supercar territory. Now midrange performance EVs hit it routinely.

Your specific experiences with acceleration might make the following NOT apply to you... But it is extremely likely in the population overall that you've never driven anything with a sub-4s 0-60, and even likely you've never experienced that even as a passenger.

If you're in that large group of the population I defined above, the odds of you being able to tell 3.0s 0-60 apart from 3.2s are extremely low.

2 - Have you ever driven a midrange performance EV or faster EV?

The instant torque from 0rpm is insane.

While only Teslas, Porsches, and a scant few others go sub 4.0s 0-60, MANY MANY MANY of them have supercar 0-30 and 0-40 times.

You can hop in a used 5 year old Mercedes B-class and plant your foot to the gas, and the way that glorified minivan will punch you into the back of your seat is unreal.

My (non-performance) Model X 100D is absolutely frightening when I plant my foot to the floor from a stop, even though it doesn't get to 60 until 4.4s have passed.

If you want to "feel acceleration" in most normal driving situations and not on the drag strip... then you would be perfectly happy with the max pack and probably not be able to tell the difference between large and max.
Sponsored

 
OP
OP

Ray R

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
69
Reaction score
115
Location
Canby, OR
Vehicles
Bolt
If your #1 priority for a new vehicle is mind bending acceleration, there's places to look besides pickup trucks ?

That said... I'm not remotely sure what vehicles you're used to or what you've driven before, but there's 2 points here to dig deeper:

1 - Have you ever driven a vehicle with a sub-4s 0-60?
10 years ago, sub-4s 0-60 was supercar territory. Now midrange performance EVs hit it routinely.

Your specific experiences with acceleration might make the following NOT apply to you... But it is extremely likely in the population overall that you've never driven anything with a sub-4s 0-60, and even likely you've never experienced that even as a passenger.

If you're in that large group of the population I defined above, the odds of you being able to tell 3.0s 0-60 apart from 3.2s are extremely low.

2 - Have you ever driven a midrange performance EV or faster EV?

The instant torque from 0rpm is insane.

While only Teslas, Porsches, and a scant few others go sub 4.0s 0-60, MANY MANY MANY of them have supercar 0-30 and 0-40 times.

You can hop in a used 5 year old Mercedes B-class and plant your foot to the gas, and the way that glorified minivan will punch you into the back of your seat is unreal.

My (non-performance) Model X 100D is absolutely frightening when I plant my foot to the floor from a stop, even though it doesn't get to 60 until 4.4s have passed.

If you want to "feel acceleration" in most normal driving situations and not on the drag strip... then you would be perfectly happy with the max pack and probably not be able to tell the difference between large and max.
I’ve owned a few quick cars over the years. Viper, ZR-1, Challenger Redeye, etc. Even a 1939 Willys Knight that would do 9s in the 1/4. But I’m not here to get into some sort of dick swinging contest.
The problem with most of those is trying to get traction when you stomp the go-pedal from a dead stop. It seems 4wd is a must unless running slicks, which aren’t very practical for street use.
As my original post indicates, I originally ordered the Max pack. But after owning the Bolt for a month, I just can’t imagine any situations where a 300+ mile range would be insufficient FOR ME. And as I’m getting older, climbing in and out of exotic sports cars is becoming more and more challenging. The Rivian, FOR ME, combines great performance with the utility of a pickup. It’s like combining my Redeye with my Ridgeline.
I appreciate all the discussion this thread has generated. It’s helpful to hear other viewpoints and reasoning others have used in their decisions.
 
Last edited:

Smithery

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
404
Reaction score
737
Location
California
Vehicles
MX 100D, XC70, Cooper S JCW, R1T Large
I’ve owned a few quick cars over the years. Viper, ZR-1, Challenger Redeye, etc. Even a 1939 Willys Knight that would do 9s in the 1/4. But I’m not here to get into some sort of dick swinging contest.
The problem with most of those is trying to get traction when you stomp the go-pedal from a dead stop. It seems 4wd is a must unless running slicks, which aren’t very practical for street use.
As my original post indicates, I originally ordered the Max pack. But after owning the Bolt for a month, I just can’t imagine any situations where a 300+ mile range would be insufficient FOR ME. And as I’m getting older, climbing in and out of exotic sports cars is becoming more and more challenging. The Rivian, FOR ME, combines great performance with the utility of a pickup. It’s like combining my Redeye with my Ridgeline.
I appreciate all the discussion this thread has generated. It’s helpful to hear other viewpoints and reasoning others have used in their decisions.
Wasn't trying to get into a dick swinging contest - I think I worded everything very carefully to make it clear "the following may not apply to you based on your experience"

Your original post did *not* point out the performance desire, yet you later said it was the most important thing for you.

Even with true high performance ICE experience under your belt, I would wager you won't be telling the difference between max acceleration from a stop in the two R1Ts because the *absolute kick in the back* when you floor the pedal will be just as extreme either way.

If this is truly your forever truck and you drive at any speed higher than 65mph, I still urge you to consider range loss due to shitty aerodynamics (WAY worse than your Bolt) and degradation.

Making a decision based on this...

> If I get the 300 mi pack, perhaps the cost of replacement will be inexpensive enough down the road that spending an extra $10k now doesn’t make sense.

...is quite wishful thinking.

Might a sub-$10k replacement be available in 5 or 10 years? Maybe.

But it's also possible that *NO REPLACEMENT* will be available in 5-10 years.

Financing that $10k over 4 or 5 years now is a sure thing, versus taking a chance on something Rivian (afaik) has literally never mentioned as a design goal.

Even if you were prepared to pay cash for an $70k truck, you could consider paying $70k cash, financing the remaining $10k for the max pack, and truly future proof your "forever truck" :)
 
OP
OP

Ray R

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
69
Reaction score
115
Location
Canby, OR
Vehicles
Bolt
It’ll be interesting to see what 300+ and 400+ turns out to be in reality. It’s one of the reasons I don’t mind waiting for my build to come through, after reading actual owner’s real world experiences.
And I agree I likely couldn’t tell the difference .2 sec makes going 0-60. But the clock sure can! ;-)
 

SANZC02

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bob
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Threads
29
Messages
5,258
Reaction score
8,860
Location
California
Vehicles
Tesla Model S, LE - R1S
Occupation
Retired
Your comments actually convince me to get the Large pack. I will never use the truck in any of the examples you listed.
Mind-bending acceleration is probably the most important feature to me. I think the lighter weight of the Large pack should help with that.
That said, I asked a CSS today which configuration would offer the best performance for 0-60 and 1/4 mile. She said they should all perform the same. Not sure I believe it, but there it is.
I should also add that the Rivian will not be our only vehicle. We also have a Subaru Outback, and a Bolt that will go to our daughter once the Rivian arrives.
You were given bad information from CS.

I recall reading the quickest was going to be the 135 pack with 22s although they all will be impressive.
 

Sponsored

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Threads
9
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
2,317
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla XLR+2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, R1T
Occupation
EE Retired
Isn’t battery power somehow regulated to avoid damage to the motors and controlling components, as well as damage to the batteries themselves?
If so, then I think Rivian would have to use different regulators for the different battery packs to achieve similar performance results.
Ir is absolutely regulated to protect battery, motor, drive train etc. Each version has, I am sure, the same 4 motors and each of these would have, therefore, the same speed/torque curve. The rate at which a battery can be charged and discharged is expressed in terms of its capacity, C. Usually charged at around 1C and discharged at peak rares of 3 or more C. Thus a bigger battery can be ooerated fartrher into the speed/torqe curve (higher power). Control is done by PWM. I expect the inverters are rhe same across the 3 models just as I am sure the motors are the same though in truth I do not know this for a fact. The level to which they can be driven would be programmed into the software which drives the PWM. Different level for each model.
 

Gshenderson

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Threads
13
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Park City, UT / Kemmerer, WY
Vehicles
2015 Tesla S 85D, 2019 4Runner TRD Offroad, R1T
I haven't read all 6 pages (so far) of this thread. I hope this has been said already.

If this is your forever truck, then yes you want the max pack.

We're on our 2nd owned EV, 3rd overall. And the takeaway from our progression is simply "battery capacity is king"

You'd resent your forever-truck the first time you need it to go 310 miles and you didn't get the max pack.
You'd resent your forever-truck once you realize that regularly driving at 80 and taking a 20% reduction in range is worth more to you than that $10k-spread-out-over-4-years was.
You'd resent your forever-truck when - 5 years down the line when you really start to see the battery degradation - your occasional 250 mile trips are no longer possible on one charge.
You'd resent your forever-truck when you want to start towing things to a common destination you go to but "can't quite make it anymore" without charging.

Get the max pack.
I disagree, but that’s OK. We all have our unique preference. My Tesla S gets 267 miles after owning it for 6 years. It was about 272 when I got it. The ONLY thing I regret about it is that I can’t take it offroad. I’m going with 300 mile R1T even though it’ll mean turning a two hour drive that I do fairly often into a 3 hr drive until somebody decides to put a high speed charger in Evanston, WY (and neither Rivian nor EA show one planned at this point). Why would I do that? Many cross country trips in my Tesla back in the days when supercharger coverage was not anywhere near what it is today has thought me that getting from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible isn’t always the best things. I’ve seen places I never would have seen and spend extra time in many of them while charging. Life is a journey, not a destination, and sometimes it’s refreshing to slow down and smell the roses. But I fully understand that other may have different priorities.

My one hour diversion route will “force” me to go through Bear Lake to hit an L3 charger there. It’s a beautiful place and beautiful drive on 2 lane roads. Since the destination is my remote cabin, I’m fine beginning my relaxation when I get in the truck vs. racing to get there so I can start relaxing 2 hrs later.

Enjoy your MaxPack @Smithery, but please understand that your priorities may be different than other’s, and you have no way of knowing what they will or will not regret.
 

TessP100D

Banned
Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
587
Reaction score
429
Location
So cal
Vehicles
Tesla 2017 P100D MS
I disagree, but that’s OK. We all have our unique preference. My Tesla S gets 267 miles after owning it for 6 years. It was about 272 when I got it. The ONLY thing I regret about it is that I can’t take it offroad. I’m going with 300 mile R1T even though it’ll mean turning a two hour drive that I do fairly often into a 3 hr drive until somebody decides to put a high speed charger in Evanston, WY (and neither Rivian nor EA show one planned at this point). Why would I do that? Many cross country trips in my Tesla back in the days when supercharger coverage was not anywhere near what it is today has thought me that getting from point A to point B as quickly and efficiently as possible isn’t always the best things. I’ve seen places I never would have seen and spend extra time in many of them while charging. Life is a journey, not a destination, and sometimes it’s refreshing to slow down and smell the roses. But I fully understand that other may have different priorities.

My one hour diversion route will “force” me to go through Bear Lake to hit an L3 charger there. It’s a beautiful place and beautiful drive on 2 lane roads. Since the destination is my remote cabin, I’m fine beginning my relaxation when I get in the truck vs. racing to get there so I can start relaxing 2 hrs later.

Enjoy your MaxPack @Smithery, but please understand that your priorities may be different than other’s, and you have no way of knowing what they will or will not regret.
Get the biggest battery you can afford. Period.
Range is king.
Range is king.

for those who don’t own a Tesla, get this tip memorized in your head.
Range is King.


if you do end up buying buy an expensive Rivian you will thank the me for years to come.
 

Gshenderson

Well-Known Member
First Name
Greg
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Threads
13
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
2,767
Location
Park City, UT / Kemmerer, WY
Vehicles
2015 Tesla S 85D, 2019 4Runner TRD Offroad, R1T
Get the biggest battery you can afford. Period.
Range is king.
Range is king.

for those who don’t own a Tesla, get this tip memorized in your head.
Range is King.


if you do end up buying buy an expensive Rivian you will thank the me for years to come.
I still disagree. ?
 

TessP100D

Banned
Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
587
Reaction score
429
Location
So cal
Vehicles
Tesla 2017 P100D MS
I still disagree. ?
Well. Spend your big money and then you will Learn.


the old saying still rings true.

you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

by the way. The water is right over there.
 

Sponsored

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Threads
9
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
2,317
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla XLR+2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, R1T
Occupation
EE Retired
Went back and looked at the INSIDEEVs data. Though they admit that their data is pretty useless still it is a data series and we ought to be able to draw some conclusions from it about BEV in general if not any particular model of BEV. The eye of any real analyst will immediately focus on the Porsche numbers. There is something wrong. The laws of physics tell us that their cars cannot perform 37% better at 70 mph than they do near 50 and that, therefore, their "EPA" number isn't really the EPA number that pertains to these cars. Thus the analyst would either remove these "outliers" from the series or use a more robust estimator than the mean. First choice is the median.. Median loss for 70 mph is -7.8% including the Porsche numbers. I'm comfortable with that.

If one removes the outliers the sample mean is -7.6% but the SD is 6.8. The corresponding CV of 0.9 is an indication of how poor this data set is.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Threads
9
Messages
2,883
Reaction score
2,317
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla XLR+2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, R1T
Occupation
EE Retired
From the INSIDEEVs data we can conclude with about 87% confidence that consumption will increase (range will decrease) with speed but we don't need a test series to tell us that. Common sense and a little knowledge of the nature of drag tells us that. Looking at the data set an obvious question is as to why is it so bad. The obvious answer is that the individual measurements themselve are pretty worthless because of sample size of 1 for each vehicle and low replication count (1 in most cases, 2 in a few). None the less if we assume that the individual data points are better than they are (which some of us are all to willing to do) we might gain a bit of insight with respect to the fundamental question to which this thread is dedicated. The relevant question is "Why are the data so dispersed?" The answer is in how the 6 loads (drive line, slip, drag, rolling resistance, gravity and inertia) are distributed. We immediately knock out gravity as we assume we are driving on a level surface. Let's also assume we are operating at constant speed so we can also knock out inertial. Wheel slip and drive line loss per mile increase gradually with speed because they are proportional to the power being transferred and that increases with speed because drag increases with speed. As the square of the speed, in fact. Drive line loss remains low because the drive line is efficient, Wheel slip load increases with speed but not nearly as dramatically as drag. Rolling resistance load remains constant with speed. The result of all this is that total Wh/mi plotted against speed increases more or less linearly until some point at which drag clearly dominates. Above that speed the curve becomes parabolic. At what speed does that breakout occur? That depends on the relative magnitudes of the loads and that in turn depends on the relative sizes of the efficiency, rolling resistance and drag coefficients. It should be clear that an R1T with a Thule atop will show drag breakout at lower speed than one with nothing but the truck itself dipping into the airstream. Thus I suggest that some of the variance exhibited by this data set is due to the differences in the coefficients which characterize the loads. This does not preclude nefarious practice on the part of Tesla for those who wish to attribute such to Elon Musk.

What has all this to do with the underlying question of this thread? A truck such as the Rivian is going to have larger Cd and cross sectional area than a sports car. Thus it is reasonable to expect that the R1T is going to be subject to more range reduction with speed than a sports car because drag will dominate rolling resistance, slip and drive train loads at lower speed. The resulting conclusion is that if you plan to operate your R1T on freeways with 75 mph speed limits the larger battery will be important to you. This is, of course, in addition to all the other benefits of a larger battery. You can't be too rich, too thin or have too much battery. The only downside to a bigger battery is that you have to pay for it.

Keep in mind that if you are doing the double nickle into a 20 mph headwind you are subject to 75 mph drag.
 
Last edited:

Wanderer

Banned
Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
39
Reaction score
74
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Etron
You've already convinced us that you don't understand statistics or testing. No futher proof is required.
I assure you I do, and I also assure you neither is what I’m talking about in this case. This has nothing to do with statistics or scientific testing. That’s not the exercise.

As of now, the data supports my argument, and until disproven with contradicting data it remains true. If we want to compare the size of our data, mine is infinitely larger than yours, which is zero, just conjecture and anecdotal. I’m not trying to prove an absolute truth with perfect scientific method and statistical analysis, I’m just debating your claim and providing support for my position. On a relative basis, my argument is more likely to be true than yours.
From the INSIDEEEV data we can conclude with about 87% confidence that consumption will increase (range will decrease) with speed but we don't need a test series to tell us that. Common sense and a little knowledge of the nature of drag tells us that. Looking at the data set an obvious question is as to why is it so bad. The obvious answer is that the individual measurements themselve are pretty worthless because of sample size of 1 for each vehicle and low replication count (1 in most cases, 2 in a few). None the less if we assume that the individual data points are better than they are (which some of us are all to willing to do) we might gain a bit of insight with respect to the fundamental question to which this thread is dedicated. The relevant question is "Why are the data so dispersed?" The answer is in how the 6 loads (drive line, slip, drag, rolling resistance, gravity and inertia) are distributed. We immediately knock out gravity as we assume we are driving on a level surface. Let's also assume we are operating at constant speed so we can also knock out inertial. Wheel slip and drive line loss per mile increase gradually with speed because they are proportional to the power being transferred and that increases with speed because drag increases with speed. As the square of the speed, in fact. Drive line loss remains low because the drive line is efficient, Wheel slip load increases with speed but not nearly as dramatically as drag. Rolling resistance load remains constant with speed. The result of all this is that total Wh/mi plotted against speed increases more or less linearly until some point at which drag clearly dominates. Above that speed the curve becomes parabolic. At what speed does that breakout occur? That depends on the relative magnitudes of the loads and that in turn depends on the relative sizes of the efficiency, rolling resistance and drag coefficients. It should be clear that an R1T with a Thule atop will show drag breakout at lower speed than one with nothing but the truck itself dipping into the airstream. Thus I suggest that some of the variance exhibited by this data set is due to the differences in the coefficients which characterize the loads. This does not preclude nefarious practice on the part of Tesla for those who wish to attribute such to Elon Musk.

What has all this to do with the underlying question of this thread? A truck such as the Rivian is going to have larger Cd and cross sectional area than a sports car. Thus it is reasonable to expect that the R1T is going to be subject to more range reduction with speed than a sports car. The resulting conclusion is that if you plan to operate your R1T on freeways with 75 mph speed limits the larger battery will be important to you. This is, of course, in addition to all the other benefits of a larger battery. You can't be too rich, too thin or have too much battery. The only downside to a bigger battery is that you have to pay for it.

Keep in mind that if you are doing the double nickle into a 20 mph headwind you are subject to 75 mph drag.
I think the issue is that we were asking different questions. You’re looking at the question as what is the range loss for higher speed. That’s physics and a mathematical exercise. I believe that is about 15% range difference for every extra 10mph at around highway speed (per Dep of Energy). That is, you’ll lose about 15% to go 80 vs 70mph. This loss increases with speed as the formula is velocity squared.

The question I was addressing, and what the Inside Evs tests were addressing, was what is the range at 70mph vs what the EPA stated range for the vehicle is. The V EPA stated range is not just a simple average of city and highway driving, which is why the Taycan achieves such a higher than EPA result.

If you have fifteen minutes, this is a great video explaining range and the EPA process, comparing the Model S to the Taycan. On paper the Tesla has double the range but in reality it’s far less.

 

Wanderer

Banned
Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2021
Threads
0
Messages
39
Reaction score
74
Location
Texas
Vehicles
Etron
Went back and looked at the INSIDEEVs data. Though they admit that their data is pretty useless still it is a data series and we ought to be able to draw some conclusions from it about BEV in general if not any particular model of BEV. The eye of any real analyst will immediately focus on the Porsche numbers. There is something wrong. The laws of physics tell us that their cars cannot perform 37% better at 70 mph than they do near 50 and that, therefore, their "EPA" number isn't really the EPA number that pertains to these cars. Thus the analyst would either remove these "outliers" from the series or use a more robust estimator than the mean. First choice is the median.. Median loss for 70 mph is -7.8% including the Porsche numbers. I'm comfortable with that.

If one removes the outliers the sample mean is -7.6% but the SD is 6.8. The corresponding CV of 0.9 is an indication of how poor this data set is.
Any real analyst would first understand what they are looking at. This data is not the range loss due to speed. It’s stated range vs constant 70mph range.
 

Dark-Fx

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Threads
96
Messages
9,360
Reaction score
17,749
Location
Michigan
Vehicles
Polestar 2, R1T, R1S, Livewire One, Fisker Ocean
Occupation
Engineering
Clubs
 
Range is King.
Range is less and less relevant the higher the average range of an EV is and the more the fast charging infrastructure grows. I had one day last year that I absolutely needed to stop for charging in my Bolt. The amount of stops we made coincided with when we actually needed to stop anyway. No extra time was spent just waiting for a charge. It was a hair over 400 miles almost all highway driving. Still would have had to stop for a charge in a "400 mile" R1T, would have still made all of the stops we did and would have gained nothing by having more range.

The upcoming issue I foresee is the lack of charging infrastructure that has pull-through spots for towing. Complicated by the fact that manufacturers can't agree on the positioning of the vehicle's charge ports. The fact that this is going to be an issue is making me shy away from committing to trying to use an EV with a trailer for longer trips, thus negating the need for the higher capacity to counter the loss of efficiency anyway.
Sponsored

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 




Top