Dragy and timed runs - post your data here

[No_Name5330]

Just chipping away at the times. As for Dragy, I now have the quickest times for a non-prepped surface on Dragy. I am less than a tenth of on 0-60 and just over a tenth behind in the 1/8th. That truck was run on the track, fully charged, and had a totally prepped surface. I was at 72% SoC and battery temps were 79F. I am still rolling on 21's, and so far, they seem to be the fastest on the street. I improved upon my 50-90 time and now at 4.31.

Following are my 0-60 runs and 1/8th mile. I had a headwind on both. Very solid times considering the SoC, on the road and battery temps. I was getting a lot of wheel spin at launch from the rear and front was really starting to spin about 30-50 mph. Heck, I could go along at 40 mph and stab the throttle and it would break the tires loose.

My combined 30-70 time is 2.79 seconds. Compare that the C/D time slips I posted earlier of 3.8 and the best I saw from them was 3.6. So I am at a minimum .8 seconds better 30-70 mph which is huge. For reference, their test of the PDM was 4.1 seconds 0-60.

A solid 3.22 run without rollout. Playing the rollout games, it 3.07. That would have beaten my 2022 (refreshed) Model S Long Range.

The 1/8th mile was one of the few I could run almost to completion. I had to let off right at the end and brake, unfortunately. A 7.38 omitting rollout at 90.73 is pretty good. My S long range would have pipped it just at the end. It would have been a very tight race. I am consistently in the 1.70's for 60' times. My best was 1.68 a few days ago on a better surface.

I’ve read through this whole thread but haven’t decided what the best configuration is for speed. Also how come you aren’t in lowest with stiff suspension as i would think that that would keep the weight more balanced, therefore giving all tires maximum grip?
Would you mind summarizing what the fastest settings are(suspension height, stiffness, drive mode, TC on/off)?As well as any other tips you can think of.

Sponsored

 

[DayTripping]

I wish it was that simple. It would be so much easier if it had launch mode. I've played around on so many different surfaces on the street, the traction varies a lot and that impacts what settings work best.

If you want the simplest, but maybe not the quickest, but consistently quick, I'd go with sport mode and low with traction control on. Firm or soft didn't seem to make a measurable and consistent difference. That what I'd suggest for 0-60. AP is always at least .25-.30 seconds slower to 60 mph with my truck. It dramatically softens the launch. Basically it turns it into a PDM (but maybe just a touch quicker).

If I were to roll race it, I put it in AP mode. There is a thread here where someone had mentioned that the truck accelerates slower at higher speeds in Sport than AP. I ran a lot of runs testing them back to back and for my truck it was similar. At least at the SoC's I typically have been running at which is 50-75%. That caveat should apply to all my advice here. If you are running at a higher SoC like 80-100% it may require a different scenario.

I am not chasing the title of the quickest G1 quad but I wanted to see how quickly I could make it go in my daily driver scenario. Also, keep in mind that tires you are running might require something different. I was running the factory 21's in my scenario which everything I had read basically said they are not the quickest tire. Didn't matter to me as back to my point about as a daily driver, how consistently quick I could make it go.

My advice to anyone is if you have at least at 50% SoC, put in Sport and low, leave the traction control on and you should run 3.3-3.4 all day long. That is without rollout. If you factor that in to make the numbers similar with the way other cars quote their times, you are looking at about 3.1-3.2. Even with a bunch of junk in the truck, and a 55% SoC, I could run 3.4x easily on the street (no rollout). I am posting a run with myself, a large passenger (250#'s) and a bunch of stuff in the truck (tools, charger, badlands offroad jack) along with a big car seat.

This was run in Sport mode, low, TC on 50% SoC on a random street. Still a pretty solid run and it was easily enough to pip a BMW M3 competition who tried to cut us off.

The biggest thing since there isn't any launch mode is finding the combination of accelerator and brake that gets your truck to launch the best. That is what took me a good 30-40 runs of trial and error to find the sweet spot where it launches pretty hard. If you want the most consistent launch, just brake torque it. That was not quickest for me, but it was pretty consistently quick.

 

[Jivian]

In this article from Car buzz with a R1S Tri they got the following (and noted times were independently confirmed and retested with a Racebox data recorder)

Launch: 2.86s
Sport: 3.04s
AP: 3.58s
Conserve: 4.51s

Looks like the built in Launch timer lines up pretty well with independent confirmation based on my experience (2.84s).

https://carbuzz.com/electric-suv-that-is-quicker-than-most-supercars/

 

[DayTripping]

Thanks for sharing. One glaring omission with their numbers is do they include or omit rollout? Their time for Sport mode without launch mode is about the same as a G1 one in Sport mode. In AP mode, it might be slower than the G1. My last run I think was 3.48 in AP on the street and about a 60% SoC.

Add launch mode to the G1, if they could, and likely would be similar times 0-60. Depending on what they did.

I'd also love to see something like 60-90 or 50-90 times as well. Not blown away but what I am seeing but at the same time, not surprised either. Well, other than how slow it is in AP mode.

 

[DayTripping]

G2 R1S Tri Max runs and analysis vs my R1T G1 Quad Large

I had a chance to do some runs in a Tri Max. It provided me with some interesting data. I am not going to post the runs as I think a narrative is more useful as nuance matter as much as the numbers.

For those that are TL;DR people the bullet points will be helpful. As always the devil is in the details as I think the nuance matter here since the trucks are so close in performance.

My key observations are:

• Tri is faster than the G1 quad in some modes, and some speed ranges, but without Launch mode, not much of an improvement, but there still is some.
• Launch mode really works and I hope they port it to G1’s.
• Not many cars are going to beat a Tri Max on the street, or the G1 quad for that matter, 0-60. Basically, avoid any performance Tesla other than a Y. You don’t need a high SoC for them to be quick.
• Rivian really needs to work out the R1S’s porpoising front to rear. It may be better in the dual, but the extra torque of the Tri makes it worse. The G2 quad is just going to exacerbate this problem, so maybe that is why they are taking longer to release it.
• The sound system is as bad as everyone says it is on the G2s.
• A used G1 quad might be the best performance bang for the buck right now.
• A Tri motor Cybertruck will pretty much crush any Tri max’s (or G1 quad’s) performance metrics that aren’t limited by a factory speed limiter.
• One thing to note as well: my times may not be as comparable as I’d hoped, as I used a newer version of Dragy for these runs. It has a higher refresh rate 10Hz vs 25Hz. Based on my experience, which is mirrored by others, the newer one is more accurate but also seems to show “better” i.e. faster, times by maybe a few hundredths so the differences may be less than I’ve written below.
• I followed the same approach as I did for my truck, not chasing absolute best times but more of run what I brung with a typical charge level as I might usually run. The difference for the Tri is while it wasn't at max charge, it was a lot higher than what runs I timed for my truck. Higher SoC's almost always equate to better times with EVs and the faster you go, the more it matters.

I ran the truck in similar way as I've done mine. I wanted the most comparable apples to apples comparison. The one difference here is it was at a much higher SoC. When I started it was 84 and dropped down to 82% by the end. I'll also make an assumption that the max pack would likely supply more power at a comparable SoC than the large pack. So running at a lower SoC may not have as much of an effect on the acceleration times of a max pack as it might for a large or std pack. So, the max pack at 84% might be able to provide as much power as my large would at a much higher SoC.

So after about 10 runs, some 0-60, some from other intervals, I think I have enough data to get a better understanding of how a G2 Tri Max compares to a G1 Quad Large. There is one caveat is I wasn’t able to go over 80 mph. Even when indicating 80, my GPS said it was about 77-78. At 70 mph indicated, the GPS showed a steady 70 mph. The Tri was rolling on the factory 22’s. Which supposedly are the quickest factory wheel/tire combo if I believe what has been posted in forums.

This might turn into a sort of a mini-review of the G2 as well. I must tell you the premium sound is so much worse (at least to my ears) than even the Elevation, let alone Meridian, that Rivian should be ashamed. I tried a few different audio sources and now I get why people complain. I even tried some of the settings posted on the forum here, and I’ll still take my G1 Elevation over it.

The heat pump on this one was quieter than the last 2 I drove but still louder than my G1. At the temperatures we were at today (in the 50s), it did seem to have less impact on efficiency than my G1’s heating system.

Wind noise was better than my R1T and seemed better than the last G2’s I drove. I have been slowly sealing things up and has made good progress with my truck. Still not at the level of wind noise as on this R1S. At the same time, I didn’t drive it at the same speeds but at 75, it was definitely a bit quieter.

While in town the R1S and its tighter turning make it feel more nimble, when tossing it through some turns, it didn’t feel as planted. Getting hard on the power out of turns, it didn’t feel as dialed in and the front to aft pitching (porpoising) is still an issue.

While it is improved over the G1 R1S’s I drove, I have to say I still don’t think they fixed the porpoising. It would rock back and forth noticeably under hard acceleration. It might be better than the G1’s, but my wife would hate it. Primarily if I ever used launch mode. The ride quality is far worse than my G1 R1T. I tried every street mode and a variety of suspension settings. Still nowhere near as good as my truck. When I got back in my truck and hit the throttle, it felt rock solid by comparison and stayed level. They need to dial this in better before the new quad comes with all that extra power. It definitely rocked more when in launch mode.

When talking about launch mode, it is really easy to use and makes a noticeable difference. I absolutely want it on my G1 truck. The timer is exactly as I thought, it is isn’t showing the absolute time. It is almost like it is measuring with rollout. A good rule of thumb is add at least .2 seconds to it. For my best run, it was off 0.19 seconds against the absolute time, according to Dragy. It could be allowing for rollout, and possibly more. It absolutely is slower without launch mode, at least on the surfaces I tried. Best run I was 2.92 on the timer, and Dragy said 3.11 or 2.92 with 1’ rollout. Another run the time said 3.01 and Dragy said 3.25 and 3.06 with rollout.

Based on my runs, with launch mode it is a touch quicker than my runs and without launch mode, it is about the same or a bit slower. The caveat to this is I was running a significantly slower SoC with a smaller pack on slower wheels. Even if I could true everything up, the G2 will be slightly quicker to 60 mostly due to launch mode. Without it, I think a G1 Quad Large could run heads up with a G2 Tri Max on the street. If at a light, reaction time would give either truck the win over the other one.

The best run I got out of the Tri Max was 3.11. With rollout it would have been 2.92. This is almost exactly .1 seconds better than my R1T quad. The R1S had nothing but me in it and it had over more at least 12% more SoC and my best run had a headwind unfortunately and this Tri had a tailwind. Even if you take that adjust for all that, the Tri is going to probably be at least .05 seconds quicker than the R1 quad. I will say my times were much more consistent with my quad than the Tri. That is partly due to knowing the vehicle but if using the launch mode on the Tri, it seems to be more consistent.

I also looked at some other metrics such as 45-65. The Tri shows more an edge here. I don’t know how much of that is due to SoC though. Most of my data for my truck is when I was at a lower SoC such as 50-60% range, and the Tri was never lower than 82%. So if I take my best run at 59% against the Tri’s best run at 83%, the Tri is 0.1 seconds quicker. There were some Tri runs slower than the midrange of my runs but the fastest ones were definitely quicker than mine. If I averaged the runs out, the Tri was about 0.08 seconds quicker.

I looked at another interval, 50-70 and again the same caveats apply about SoC. My experience with Teslas has shown that lower SoC’s will have an impact on 0-60 times and it becomes more significant at higher speeds. Normally 0-60 is often limited by traction on the quicker vehicles. That becomes less of an issue. On my Plaid, which is very traction limited, running about a 50-60% SoC costs me 0.2 seconds to 60 on the street; 2.25 vs 2.45 but even more when above 60.

For the 50-70 sprint, the best run for the Tri was at 83% and it was 0.09 seconds quicker than the times my quad in somewhere between 55-62%.

I have some initial observations. The Tri is marginally quicker, for the 0-60 times, it is due to launch mode. Without it, my quad would have beaten it to 60 on some of the runs. For the higher speed runs, where I think the Tri may have enough of a gap that the quad can’t close, it seems most likely in the 45-65 range. Without running to higher speeds, I can’t make any assessment if it will pull the quad at higher speeds. The 50-70 times shows it slightly quicker, but I think a lot of that gap would be close, if not totally, with a higher SoC in my truck.

Again, none of these runs were chasing absolute bests. As I called out early in this thread for my truck, it is more about what it can do at the typical SoC I am operating my truck. Based on Rivian’s stats, the Tri is faster than the G1 quad. So none of my findings should come as a surprise but it looks like most of that gain is to whatever is going on under the hood with launch mode. I can tell you the truck did launch harder in that mode than without. I didn’t see any significant differences in times at the higher speeds that I was able to run.

On paper, Rivian was able to accomplish what they wanted with the Tri, at least be as fast, and maybe a bit faster, as the previous quad to get people to upgrade to it. In the real world, it isn’t that much quicker, if at all. In AP mode it was slower than my truck. In Sport mode, they are pretty much heads up to the point I think a significantly higher charge level will give the advantage to that truck. The biggest difference is the launch mode.

So, for those that upgraded thinking the try is so much quicker, honestly, I am not seeing it. Maybe it is confirmation bias. Perhaps they are running a higher SoC. Maybe their quad was slow. Maybe their Tri is fast. Maybe my quad is fast. Maybe there is a more significant difference if close to 100% charge. Perhaps it needs more tire as I did notice more wheelspin from the rear than I usually experience and less from the front. I don’t know. I absolutely wouldn’t upgrade to a Tri solely for any perceived improvement in performance; the numbers I am seeing just don’t back it up. At least it isn’t quick enough to move the needle for me.

The one thing I did notice was that efficiency was about 5% better than mine when I was running it the same way, but I was also hitting higher speeds in my runs, even if not for that long. At cruise it seemed a bit better but I couldn’t go for long enough without traffic causing me to slow.

Based on what I experienced today, I would either buy a G2 performance dual motor (PDM) or the G2 quad over the Tri if I were to buy new. I can see a case where someone might want the nicer interior over the PDM, but didn’t need/want the power of the G2 quad. I really liked the launch mode. It does make getting the truck off the line a lot easier and more consistent. It makes launches almost foolproof. While I’ve got it down pretty good on my truck, every once in a while I get what I’d call a failed launch. That instantly costs me about a ¼ second to 60.

 

[portdirect]

Thanks @DayTripping this is the best performance comparison I’ve seen anywhere for the g2 tri vs g1 quad. In the short time I’ve been in the tri my butt dyno essentially matches your findings, good to know it’s so well calibrated though you were mostly doing 0-x’s id be super interested in your opinion re braking/regen if you have any?

 

[DayTripping]

Thanks @DayTripping this is the best performance comparison I’ve seen anywhere for the g2 tri vs g1 quad. In the short time I’ve been in the tri my butt dyno essentially matches your findings, good to know it’s so well calibrated though you were mostly doing 0-x’s id be super interested in your opinion re braking/regen if you have any?

Thanks, glad you found value in it. My initial impression of acceleration was that it was quicker than my G1 R1T. Not by a huge margin but quicker. I think that feeling was exacerbated by the porpoising. It definitely launched with a higher nose attitude than my T does. The numbers painted a much closer story. I think the only area as I went back through my notes was on the 45-65 acceleration range. I don't think my truck would every close that gap even at full SoC and the Tri where it was at. It would narrow it, but never cover it. A solid win for the Tri in that range.

As for regen, it definitely felt softer. It was initially on low, and even when I let it warmed up, it seemed less than my truck on low. I didn't do any formal testing to check the rate of decel. The highest setting seemed somewhere between med and high on my truck but leaning more toward medium than high. Honestly, I kept wanting more regen.

One thing I did like about it was it much easier to move the truck a very small amount when trying to park. My hold mode is much grabbier than this one is but neither allowed me to position the vehicle as easily as I can with any of my Teslas.

I think overall I think it was about as close I anticipated and had mentioned in other threads. If I had a G1 quad, there is no way I'd upgrade purely for the performance as I am not just seeing the value. Where it was faster, the improvements were very incremental. It also made more of a higher pitched whine under hard acceleration than my truck does.

There are improvements over the G1 but to me they were very incremental where they existed. By that I'd say single digit % improvements. I'd absolutely rule out the Tri and go for the Quad Max if I were to go with a G2 truck. I can also see the improvement in the build quality compared the G2 trucks I drove last Sep and Oct.

Unless I needed 3 rows, more interior room, or a shorter truck, I'd absolutely rule out the R1S. Maybe someday they'll get the suspension dialed in. I should qualify that is based on how I drive which tends to me more aggressive. So. maybe with more steady-state cruising, you won't deal with the front-to-rear pitching. It makes me want to find an R1T Tri to try.

For me I made the right choice by going with a used G1 quad vs a G2 tri. After buying it I could have done some logical contortions to justify spending 50k more, but as some who values performance, the extra cost wouldn't have been justified for me. Unlike when I went from my S long range to my S Plaid, the delta was similar but you got a lot more acceleration for the money. Shaving a second off an already quick (Lambo level of acceleration) 0-60 time is pretty significant and at least 1.5 seconds off the 1/4 and at least 25mph more in the 1/4 is huge.

So for me only the G2 Quad would max sense from a performance perspective vs the Tri. For only 10k more, you get a lot more performance but sadly the Cyberbeast will pretty much run heads up with it using far less HP/TQ, at least until it hits is speed limiter. If only that thing wasn't so hideous and Elon wasn't such a wildcard now. So glad I didn't buy one but every time I drive a friend's of mine I am reminded how seriously quick it is. It will easily stomp the G2 quad in things like 45-65. Honestly it doesn't feel that far off my Plaid. I hope the retune the Quad before release and squeeze more performance out of it.

If they could do that, I might seriously consider selling my S Plaid, my R1T, and buy a G2 quad R1T. Right now neither the Tri or G1 Quad is quick enough for me to consider doing that. I'd miss the Plaid to much. If I can at least get pretty close to the 0-60 time, I'd be willing to give up the incredibly acceleration the Plaid still has at 100 mph, at least where I live now.

 

[brancky3]

Thanks for sharing. One glaring omission with their numbers is do they include or omit rollout? Their time for Sport mode without launch mode is about the same as a G1 one in Sport mode. In AP mode, it might be slower than the G1. My last run I think was 3.48 in AP on the street and about a 60% SoC.

Add launch mode to the G1, if they could, and likely would be similar times 0-60. Depending on what they did.

I'd also love to see something like 60-90 or 50-90 times as well. Not blown away but what I am seeing but at the same time, not surprised either. Well, other than how slow it is in AP mode.

Always assume that published times omit rollout.

 

[DayTripping]

Always assume that published times omit rollout.

I get your point but I don't want to assume anything. Most magazines call out if rollout is omitted. Many car companies do as well. That is one thing I appreciated about Tesla and their stats. They would normally asterisk it and annotate accordingly. I wish everyone would do it so it is clear rather than guess.

A car running 7 seconds to 60, ~0.2 seconds adjustment isn't as significant as one running in the 3's or 2's. I really want an accurate comparison as possible when it comes to stats.

 

[Glembi2]

Awesome write-up, @DayTripping !

Your comments reinforce how closed EV power systems are compared to ICE systems. From old-school piggybacking chips remapping ignition timings and throttle responses to NOX tanks, free flow air intakes, and modified intake and exhaust manifolds, there were lots of options we tinkered with to eek out more performance. With BEVs, our tinkering is limited to adjusting software presets and wheel/tire selection - for now. It would be a hoot for the end driver to remap max current flows per throttle position and wheel speed but we may be years off for that.

What continues to impress me most about the R1 and other BEVs is how much they really are apples compared to most comparably sized ICE vehicles. Talking about sub-4 second 0-60 times for vehicles that can haul 7 people, tow all the vehicles it’s compared with, ford flooded roads that swallow others, and have 15” of ground clearance, makes me smile.

When my brother-in-law was making noise about how his BEV was as fast if not faster than my G1, I laughingly reminded him that 1. We were driving with him, his two sons, and me (adding ~800 lbs to the truck) and still dusting everything around us and 2. I could fit his BEV in the back with the seats down (not really but it got the point across).

BEVs are just different. They change how we think about performance.

*Still looking forward to Launch ode on G1s

 

[DayTripping]

I think we are on the same page here. Having driven many of the smog motor cars of 70's, when you were lucky to run a 15 second 1/4 mile with your 5L V8, I am all for the acceleration that EVs bring. I spent a long time tuning cars and motorcycles. Worry about what tune I had when there were finally ECU and EFI. Adding or pulling timing easily or raising or lowering boost from a laptop.

EVs have already reset my butt dyno. For my daily driver I want a sub 4 second 0-60 time. Part of it also I have some very quick and fast motorcycles and I love having a quick car/truck that I can also take the family along for the ride. My youngest absolutely prefers to ride in my cars/truck rather than their mom's. Mom's car does 0-60 in about 3.5 depending the charge. My Rivian is the slowest of mine but my child can tell the difference.

I do miss the fact that there isn't much "tuning" you can do as an end user to improve the acceleration. They are sort of like a Macbook. You better buy what performance level you want since there are almost no, likely no, user upgrades you can perform later.

 

[LL75]

Awesome write-up, @DayTripping !

Your comments reinforce how closed EV power systems are compared to ICE systems. From old-school piggybacking chips remapping ignition timings and throttle responses to NOX tanks, free flow air intakes, and modified intake and exhaust manifolds, there were lots of options we tinkered with to eek out more performance. With BEVs, our tinkering is limited to adjusting software presets and wheel/tire selection - for now. It would be a hoot for the end driver to remap max current flows per throttle position and wheel speed but we may be years off for that.

What continues to impress me most about the R1 and other BEVs is how much they really are apples compared to most comparably sized ICE vehicles. Talking about sub-4 second 0-60 times for vehicles that can haul 7 people, tow all the vehicles it’s compared with, ford flooded roads that swallow others, and have 15” of ground clearance, makes me smile.

When my brother-in-law was making noise about how his BEV was as fast if not faster than my G1, I laughingly reminded him that 1. We were driving with him, his two sons, and me (adding ~800 lbs to the truck) and still dusting everything around us and 2. I could fit his BEV in the back with the seats down (not really but it got the point across).

BEVs are just different. They change how we think about performance.

*Still looking forward to Launch ode on G1s

Man, I remembered those days. Used to have a 11.5 sec 1/4 mile modified turbo Nox system Nissan maxima which got annihillated by my buddy 10 secs Honda Civic

 

[Glembi2]

I think we are on the same page here. Having driven many of the smog motor cars of 70's, when you were lucky to run a 15 second 1/4 mile with your 5L V8, I am all for the acceleration that EVs bring. I spent a long time tuning cars and motorcycles. Worry about what tune I had when there were finally ECU and EFI. Adding or pulling timing easily or raising or lowering boost from a laptop.

EVs have already reset my butt dyno. For my daily driver I want a sub 4 second 0-60 time. Part of it also I have some very quick and fast motorcycles and I love having a quick car/truck that I can also take the family along for the ride. My youngest absolutely prefers to ride in my cars/truck rather than their mom's. Mom's car does 0-60 in about 3.5 depending the charge. My Rivian is the slowest of mine but my child can tell the difference.

I do miss the fact that there isn't much "tuning" you can do as an end user to improve the acceleration. They are sort of like a Macbook. You better buy what performance level you want since there are almost no, likely no, user upgrades you can perform later.

I agree with you. There’s an argument that EVs are less interesting as the end user has fewer options to change performance (a black box on wheels). The counterpoint is that EVs are more interesting because they have limits but the types of limits are new and we (the manufacturers and the end users) are learning how to move past them.

Edit - and 2 points for adding “butt dyno “ to my vocabulary!

 

[DayTripping]

I agree with you. There’s an argument that EVs are less interesting as the end user has fewer options to change performance (a black box on wheels). The counterpoint is that EVs are more interesting because they have limits but the types of limits are new and we (the manufacturers and the end users) are learning how to move past them.

Edit - and 2 points for adding “butt dyno “ to my vocabulary!

Your comment is really on point. I am an aeronautical engineer and spent a lot of time working in related areas. I grew up building quick cars and motorcycles and racing them. I am not an electrical engineer but I know enough to troubleshoot typical electrical issues, rewire my car, etc. But designing a super fast electrical powertrain is not in my wheelhouse yet.

I do know how to meticulously document what I am doing when racing/testing to find out what works. I can't tell you how many runs I did in my truck, carefully refining how I launched it and what seems to work based on what the street looked like, my SoC, mode, etc. Do a quick pass, and adjust. By doing those things I was able to trim at least 0.2 seconds off my 0-60 times from when I first started and matching what the factory claimed (within .07 seconds) but on the street, with supposedly slower tires than the 22's, a much heavier driver (me) and some junk in the truck, and most importantly of all nowhere near a full charge.

Since I've changed wheels and tires, I'll have to start all over to see what works for my truck. They likely might not grip as well as the tread is more offroad-oriented than the 21" Pirellis were. I plan to add a topper and running boards. That is at least another 400 pounds before I even get in it so it will never be as quick as it was. I will make some runs and see where it is with the final config. I should be around 3.25 omitting rollout which is still pretty quick but not as quick as my 3.07 run.

Quite honestly, neither the G1 quad or the Tri is quick enough to keep me interested long term from a performance perspective. It is less about their 0-60 times but acceleration from 50 on up. I drove my Plaid for the first time in a long time, and it was pulling harder at 100 than either the Tri or G1 quad does at 50. The Cyberbeast is about what I'd want for acceleration in my truck, at least from 50 on up. So maybe the G2 quad will get me there.

 

[DayTripping]

I had a chance to do some runs at a higher SoC and with my Goodyear Territory AT's. These are an optional Rivian OEM tire made just for Rivian by Goodyear. They are 275/60/20 and have a more offroad-biased tread design than the 21" OEM Pirellis I did in previous testing. According to the test results that I saw from magazines, the factory 20" offroad tires slowed the truck by at least a tenth 0-60 and 2 tenths in the 1/4. I have to say they are performing great so far and the truck launched far harder than I thought it would for a tire that doesn't have a tread optimized for the road.

I don't have time to post a bunch of Dragy screenshots, and it was a cold day, much colder than my testing on the 21's. Battery was much colder too. The charge level was about 79-80% and I got 2 quick hits. With rollout they 3.13 and 3.16 seconds in Sport mode. This was on a surface much worse than I've typically run (very undulating) and the cold surface and tires didn't help. My SoC was a bit higher (7-8%) but battery temps were in the 40-50's as it was below freezing all night long and I charged for a few hours before going out. Density altitude (DA) was much lower (so denser air) -273 vs about +1400 before.

I was able to get a pass up to higher speeds but I wasn't able to run an 1/8th or 1/4. I had posted elsewhere comparing some of my times to the Tri max I did some test runs on. I had opined that the 1.5x 45-65 mph time (CD loves to reference this) would probably close a lot when my truck has a similar state of charge to the Tri. So I ran solidly in the 1.4x now at about a 2-3% lower SoC than the Tri. The Tri is still quicker but we are looking at a .07 second advantage with its slightly higher charge level and warmer battery. For reference again, the G quad was 1.2 and the Cyberbeast 1.1, and my Plaid (at a lower SoC) was 0.9

DA was pretty similar, and again the Tri was on what likely will be the quickest factory tires. I still think that even if everything was absolutely as even as you could get, the G1 quad will be just a hair (.01-.02) slower than the Tri. My G1 quad's best runs would have put it mid-pack of the Runs I ran with the Tri. So it wouldn't be inconceivable that a G1 quad with a higher charge level than a G2 Tri could pull it in a 45-65 dash.

I did some more granular higher speed runs. I looked through all my data and tried to find the speed range, for which I had data, where the Tri had the biggest advantage. Other than 0-60 which the launch mode helps, the biggest advantage I could find for the Tri was in the 30-70 range. The Tri is about 0.15 – 0.18 seconds quicker with both of them clocking in the mid to upper 2 second range. Most that gain was coming once above 50 mph.

Keep in mind that to not treat any of these times as absolute bests but as relative. At the beginning of this thread I am not doing anything I can to get the absolute best times the trucks are capable of. It is just run what you brung at any given time and any of these times could be beaten at the track with better traction, higher SoC, warmer battery, heating the tires up, etc. I look at the times as pretty much worse case scenarios.

I would still love to see what my G1 quad could run in launch mode, with higher SoC and better traction. I think it could hit the high 2’s 0-60. If I were to engage with a Tri on the street, if they aren’t in launch mode it will be a good match, at least up to about 70. Above that they will likely slight pull me.

Last gen Tesla Model 3’s aren’t likely an issue except for a Model 3 Performance and in the 0-20 range. They will run heads up 0-60 but that is because of how quick they are off the line, hence the comment about 0-20. Unless you stumble across a really quick one, a Gen 1 quad should pull one until it hits the 110 mph speed limiter. Model Ys will be in the rearview mirror no matter what speed range. A Gen 2 Model 3 Performance will take any Rivian but G2 quad to Gapplebees. For the G2 quad from a roll, it would be an interesting match up.

Any Model S with a P will be a challenge. So P90D or newer will take a G1 quad or Tri to 60. Don’t run anything that is a Plaid G2 quad or not. If they have at least a 20% charge, all you’ll see is taillights with G1 quad or Tri. A 2022+ Model S long range will lose to 60 but pull a G1 quad or G2 Tri from 40mph up.

For a Cybertruck (CT), a Cyberbeast will take the G1 quad and Tri. I think it will be a tight race for the G2 quad. A performance dual motor Rivian will beat a dual motor CT, but a dual motor Rivian will lose. I doubt many people buying a standard dual motor will care.

Outside the Tesla ecosystem, an Ioniq 5 N is very quick. Motor Trend clocked one at 2.8 0-60 and [email protected]. That car has some serious go. Only the G2 quad if it matches its claimed specs will beat the Ioniq 0-60 or in the 1/4. Pretty amazing times we live in.

As I wrote earlier, there is no real point upgrade from a performance perspective from a G1 quad to a G2 Tri. If acceleration is one your main reason to upgrade. Wait for the G2 quad if/when it becomes available. If the roughly 10k pricing delta is accurate per Car and Driver, it is a way to go if you want a significant performance upgrade from your R1.

Sponsored