Gen 1 Quad vs Gen 2 Tri Range Difference

[Great Gatsby]

With the new quad not being too incremental of an upgrade, and if anything making every other trim look more appealing, I'm now considering upgrading my Gen 1 RIS LE to a Gen 2 Tri RIS. Honestly, the main reason is for the 370-400 mile advertised range. My Gen 1 estimates 288 miles in all purpose, 321 in conserve and generally speaking I have found this to be very accurate, if not a bit on the conservative side, specially after switching to Michelin tires.

For current tri owners on the 22s, how have you found the range to be? Also how are charging speeds compare to Gen 1? I road trip a lot, so this does affect my overall usage of the vehicle. While I don't mind the range and charge times (for the most part) of my Gen 1 Quad, my wife is a little less patient.

Any input greatly appreciated!

Sponsored

 

[Jivian]

I find the range estimates in any given trip to be accurate for my R1S tri with sport 22s.

Overall, if you're thinking about road tripping range, it's very speed dependent. On a somewhat traffic-y 30 mile commute to work where speeds don't exceed the upper 60s very often, I'll get in the high twos (2.9 mi/kwh) in conserve mode. Highway driving at 74mph, I'll get between 2.3 and 2.5 depending on wind conditions.

My long term efficiency (mix of many driving modes but mostly sport and conserve), is 2.36. FWIW, it's significantly higher than my buddy's 2023 R1T who has off-road 20s. I think his long term number was in the neighborhood of 1.8.

For charging speeds comparison, I can't really comment as I do have direct fast charging experience with a Gen 1. When I've fast charged, I think experience has been "normal" for a Rivian. I'll get peak speeds of ~200kw as long as the battery is starting low enough.

 

[usulio]

I don't have a Gen 2 but I have read just about every forum thread about efficiency. The Tri Max gives you a 10 kWh larger battery. The highway efficiency is just barely higher than Gen 1 Quad. So on the same tires, probably 25-30 more highway miles at most. Haven't seen much about charging speed differences.

 

[Great Gatsby]

I find the range estimates in any given trip to be accurate for my R1S tri with sport 22s.

Overall, if you're thinking about road tripping range, it's very speed dependent. On a somewhat traffic-y 30 mile commute to work where speeds don't exceed the upper 60s very often, I'll get in the high twos (2.9 mi/kwh) in conserve mode. Highway driving at 74mph, I'll get between 2.3 and 2.5 depending on wind conditions.

My long term efficiency (mix of many driving modes but mostly sport and conserve), is 2.36. FWIW, it's significantly higher than my buddy's 2023 R1T who has off-road 20s. I think his long term number was in the neighborhood of 1.8.

For charging speeds comparison, I can't really comment as I do have direct fast charging experience with a Gen 1. When I've fast charged, I think experience has been "normal" for a Rivian. I'll get peak speeds of ~200kw as long as the battery is starting low enough.

Good to know, thank you!

 

[mkhuffman]

My commute to work is just under 150 miles one way. I have done the drive to and from work quite a few times since I got my Tri in March. I set the cruise for 81 mph (79 actual speed), but the route does have a lot of traffic depending on the time of day. That said, a large percentage of the drive is at 81 (79) mph.

The average mi/kWh I get on those trips is between 2.4 and 2.5. I get the best efficiency when I run it in Conserve (of course) and at the lowest suspension height. At the lowest suspension setting the ride is a little bouncy, as there is very little suspension travel available to absorb bumps. But when I am alone, it is fine.

Here are a couple representative examples:

At those efficiency levels I can go 340-350 miles when charging to 100% and driving to 0%. That seems a little better than what you are getting in your quad, which makes sense.

I think the Gen2 is probably more efficient. I bet running one motor up front with the rear two disconnected (which is what happens in Conserve) is better than the quad running two motors up front in Conserve.

 

[iansriv]

Alex-if I read this correctly you want to upgrade to a G2 for about 50 miles of additional range. It's your decision but that's not enough for me to consider doing that. If your G1 is trouble free-enjoy the ride. Cheers.

 

[Great Gatsby]

My commute to work is just under 150 miles one way. I have done the drive to and from work quite a few times since I got my Tri in March. I set the cruise for 81 mph (79 actual speed), but the route does have a lot of traffic depending on the time of day. That said, a large percentage of the drive is at 81 (79) mph.

The average mi/kWh I get on those trips is between 2.4 and 2.5. I get the best efficiency when I run it in Conserve (of course) and at the lowest suspension height. At the lowest suspension setting the ride is a little bouncy, as there is very little suspension travel available to absorb bumps. But when I am alone, it is fine.

Here are a couple representative examples:

At those efficiency levels I can go 340-350 miles when charging to 100% and driving to 0%. That seems a little better than what you are getting in your quad, which makes sense.

I think the Gen2 is probably more efficient. I bet running one motor up front with the rear two disconnected (which is what happens in Conserve) is better than the quad running two motors up front in Conserve.

Those are actually very promising and impressive figures, all things considered. How have you found converse mode in the tri? In terms of speed, it seems like it does better than the gen 1 quad, which is straight up sluggish in conserve and why I never bother using it, even when going long distances.

 

[Great Gatsby]

Alex-if I read this correctly you want to upgrade to a G2 for about 50 miles of additional range. It's your decision but that's not enough for me to consider doing that. If your G1 is trouble free-enjoy the ride. Cheers.

Well in theory, it would be an additional 70-80ish miles depending on drive modes. Which, along with the potentially better charging curve, could make a difference. However, that is all in theory based on specs available by Rivian. Was wondering how real world examples fare. Though I will say, when road tripping, 50 additional miles per stop can mean a world of a difference. Is it worth the upgrade? Still not sure, but considering my options. Stuff like better ADAS, ascend interior, dynamic glass roof, etc. could make the switch worth it, depending on the deals Rivian is willing to throw at us to keep inventory moving.

 

[mkhuffman]

I posted this somewhere else in the Forum (I think it was the 2025.18 thread) but I am extremely impressed with the new charging curve. Not sure this is what you are seeing in your Quad, but I don't think it can get any better than this using a 400V platform.

The green curve is post 2025.18. The blue is before that OTA update. Both were done on a RAN charger.

 

[mkhuffman]

Those are actually very promising and impressive figures, all things considered. How have you found converse mode in the tri? In terms of speed, it seems like it does better than the gen 1 quad, which is straight up sluggish in conserve and why I never bother using it, even when going long distances.

Conserve is very slow. I only use it if I need to "conserve" the energy in the battery. I often put it in Sport when driving around where I live, which is insanely fast. So much fun. But horrible from an efficiency perspective. I will never commute to work in Sport mode.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

On mine I noticed a pretty significant improvment in range on 22's in conserve. 75 and under without crazy wind or needing the heater I get the 400 miles advertised. On a 1K mile trip I take semi regularly the tri has eliminated a charge stop completely and shortened other stops. Honestly it's pretty close to an ICE for me as I only need 3 stops at under 30 min of charging each assuming the chargers aren't shit.

Also there's a substantial difference in how conserve works in the tri VS the gen 1 quad. In the gen 1 quad the rear motors are physically disconnected from the truck so until you manually turn the back on you're running on two motors. The tri works more like the duals do, where the disconnect is electronic so if you apply more throttle than the single motor up front can provide the truck automatically uses the rear motors to provide it. In passing situations where you might need a quick application of throttle this is a big deal and makes using conserve a no brainer for highway travel.

I mainly ride in sport daily because I like that extra power that isn't available in AP, but for traveling conserve is where it's at.

 

[Great Gatsby]

Conserve is very slow. I only use it if I need to "conserve" the energy in the battery. I often put it in Sport when driving around where I live, which is insanely fast. So much fun. But horrible from an efficiency perspective. I will never commute to work in Sport mode.

Oh ok, was hoping conserve was slightly better in the tri. I'm generally in all purpose and do sport when the roads can tolerate it. Highway I just lower all purpose to low ride height and see pretty decent efficiency, specially compared to conserve mode, which makes me feel uneasy to even try and pass someone in how slow it can be.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Oh ok, was hoping conserve was slightly better in the tri. I'm generally in all purpose and do sport when the roads can tolerate it. Highway I just lower all purpose to low ride height and see pretty decent efficiency, specially compared to conserve mode, which makes me feel uneasy to even try and pass someone in how slow it can be.

See the edit I made to my comment. Conserve will engage the rear motors in the tri if throttle is applied beyond what the single front motor can supply. It will give you the power delivery of AP mode in a seamless fashion. AP is more than enough to pass anyone on the highway.

 

[Great Gatsby]

On mine I noticed a pretty significant improvment in range on 22's in conserve. 75 and under without crazy wind or needing the heater I get the 400 miles advertised. On a 1K mile trip I take semi regularly the tri has eliminated a charge stop completely and shortened other stops. Honestly it's pretty close to an ICE for me as I only need 3 stops at under 30 min of charging each assuming the chargers aren't shit.

This. If I can get the 400 or even 370 as advertised, I'd be up for the upgrade. I also do a 1k trip twice a year and a 500 mile trip semi-often and that would cut down a stop, which would make a huge difference. We currently use an ICE car for road trips, but outside of fueling up quickly, I find myself not missing anything related to a gas vehicle and will gladly sell it once we can get an EV that can do a true 400 miles.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

This. If I can get the 400 or even 370 as advertised, I'd be up for the upgrade. I also do a 1k trip twice a year and a 500 mile trip semi-often and that would cut down a stop, which would make a huge difference. We currently use an ICE car for road trips, but outside of fueling up quickly, I find myself not missing anything related to a gas vehicle and will gladly sell it once we can get an EV that can do a true 400 miles.

Just keep in mind there is a asterisk there of "weather depending". You will be closer to 350 in winter.

Sponsored