Edmunds EV Charging Test: How do Rivian's R1 models compare with other EVs?

[AllInev]

Edmunds EV Charging Test: How Do the R1 models compare with other EVs? Short answer: Not great. Luckily we (R1 owners) have huge batteries that help mitigate some aspects of the poor rankings.

https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-charging.html#info-graphic

Sponsored

 

[jjswan33]

This has been posted before.

mi/hour only partially correlates with charging speed so this is all just silly. I know others will argue it's what matters, if so then buy a more efficient car.

It's like comparing the fuel economy of a F350 with a Geo Metro of course the Geo is more efficient.

 

[VSG]

This just annoys me.
Do they realize it takes four times as long to fill up a F-150 Raptor (36 gal) as it does to fill up a Scion iQ (8.5 gal)?
What's the point?

The problem is, presenting data in this way leads to the conclusion that Rivian's charging system sucks compared to other vehicles. That's just not true, but that's what most will take away from this.

The real takeaway should be that larger vehicles consume more energy (duh).

It would be far more useful to compare like to like, so that if I NEED a truck with a certain range, I can consider which truck with that range will charge faster. Or, perhaps an 800V system will do better than a 400V system in the same class of vehicles?

All this Edmonds graph tells me is that if I want to wait less at a charger I should buy an e-bike ...

 

[Doug]

This just annoys me.
Do they realize it takes four times as long to fill up a F-150 Raptor (36 gal) as it does to fill up a Scion iQ (8.5 gal)?
What's the point?

The problem is, presenting data in this way leads to the conclusion that Rivian's charging system sucks compared to other vehicles. That's just not true, but that's what most will take away from this.

The real takeaway should be that larger vehicles consume more energy (duh).

It would be far more useful to compare like to like, so that if I NEED a truck with a certain range, I can consider which truck with that range will charge faster. Or, perhaps an 800V system will do better than a 400V system in the same class of vehicles?

All this Edmonds graph tells me is that if I want to wait less at a charger I should buy an e-bike ...

I agree with you on this. A raptor and a Scion are both ICE so the must be the same. That is the logic people use with EV's. I have had people do this with Hybrids too. A prius gets 50 plus mpg so my Highlander that is a hybrid should get 50 too despite it is twice as big. People look at me funny sometimes when I say it gets mid 30's for mpg. This article could have been more effective if it grouped different classes of EV's instead of one test for all. All they did is prove as you said big vehicles take more energy to move. I like your (Duh too). I did notice according to them the Rivian loses about 8% of energy charging if I saw that right. Seems like a lot.

 

[VSG]

As far as I know, the R1T blows away its only competitors (the Lightning and the CT) when it comes to charging speed.

That's not to say Rivian couldn't improve things. An 800V system, for example, but that wouldn't necessarily help until the charging infrastructure supported 800V fully (I'm talking about you, Tesla).

But for what it is, Rivian is IMO doing a very good job here.

BTW, read the Edmunds FAQ on this test:

The calculation for miles per charging hour is carried out by dividing the average charging power (in kilowatts) by the Edmunds tested consumption figure (kilowatt-hours used for every hundred miles traveled, or kWh/100 miles) and then multiplying the result by 100 to arrive at our mi/hr units. Again it is a measure used to gauge the charging efficiency of electric vehicles, providing insights on how many miles an EV can potentially cover per hour of charging.

While this is consistent between models, it is decidedly NOT useful for practical use.

For practical use, no one charges to 100%.
An "average charging power" is a meaningless number, since it is an average over the entire curve.
If a manufacturer optimizes for the (typical) 10% - 80% range, that is not reflected in the Edmunds numbers but IS super important from a day-to-day user's perspective.

Likewise the "Edmunds test" for efficiency is NOT the standard that auto makers are using. They are using EPA. The "Edmunds" number for Rivian efficiency is notoriously and comically low. It doesn't even come near to MY actual efficiency over the past 25k miles and two years. So there's that ...

 

[Dave Cundiff]

Not everything that matters can be measured. And not everything that can be measured matters. It seems to me that the Edmunds article is relevant only to a pretty unusual use case.

They seem to be saying that, if you're racing across the country, trying to minimize total trip time by charging as quickly as possible, and if you have immediate access to really really fast chargers along the way, most smaller vehicles (if the model is new enough) might arrive a little more quickly than our Rivians, but our Rivians will arrive a lot more quickly than most Bolts.

The Edmunds article isn't relevant to home charging. It's not very relevant to charging at hotels. It's not very relevant to trips less than 400-500 miles. It loses relevance if the vehicle is less comfortable than our Rivians, so the HUMAN needs to stop more often or for more time per stop. And it seems to assume that the human doesn't do anything really worthwhile during a charging stop, when their minds and bodies are no longer distracted by the responsibilities of driving.

Every one of Edmunds' assumptions is almost irrelevant to me, the vast majority of the time. Even on long road trips, where these data might matter, the more important question is: Are we going to have a safe and enjoyable trip?

Sponsored