If the official EPA range is....

[TessP100D]

... disappointing (like 270) does that mean LE reservation holders will:

a) jump ship and order a F-150 Lightning
b) cancel their LE and wait for the Max Pack
c) shrug and be annoyed but keep their LE spot
d) hope Rivian offers to swap their reservation for a newly announced Max Pack LE !!

Range is King folks. I’m telling. It’s true.

Sponsored

 

[TessP100D]

Well, we have a LE R1S reserved which should be just a tiny bit better than an R1T. But, if the R1T comes out and is 270 or so, even 300, we will have the luxury of getting some real world reviews on efficiency and TRUE range before taking delivery.

Thus, if range is 270, and ends up being a true 270 or even could be greater in normal driving then we would continue. Since that would compare to a Tesla like the Y that says 316 miles rated range but ends up with closer to 240 miles, i.e. way over estimated for regular driving styles.

If it ends up being 310, and holds close to 300 that would be awesome. If it is 310 and real world shows its closer to 250, then would maybe make some considerations for changing as well.

Folks. gather up.

electric vehicles do not get the rated range. They expend a great deal more when weather and uphill travels rip range off your meter.

Then you just subtract 10% for safety and don’t forget range loss due to wear and tear. you will be amazed how much range matters.

279? Less 10%, less 25-30% driving and maybe you could drive 120 each way.

please please purchase the biggest battery you can.

 

[txtravwill]

Folks. gather up.

electric vehicles do not get the rated range. They expend a great deal more when weather and uphill travels rip range off your meter.

Then you just subtract 10% for safety and don’t forget range loss due to wear and tear. you will be amazed how much range matters.

279? Less 10%, less 25-30% driving and maybe you could drive 120 each way.

please please purchase the biggest battery you can.

And on top of that if you live in COLD weather or travel up elevation - your screwed, subtract a good additional 30%+

 

[azbill]

The EPA highway range is the number I really care about, not the combined number. Anyway I have not configured an LE, so would not cancel yet.

I ordered a Mach E Route 1 with 305 combined EPA and 281 highway EPA. The independent 70mph test for the 270 EPA AWD version came in at 282. EPA highway rating for that model was 249.

Because the Rivian will not be so aerodynamic, I have doubts they can match the Mach E for highway or 70mph test.

Here is a link to the article, and it was in mild conditions, not cold weather. the only other car to beat the EPA was the Taycan.

https://insideevs.com/reviews/502506/mustang-mach-e-70mph-range-test/

 

[SeaGeo]

The EPA highway range is the number I really care about, not the combined number. Anyway I have not configured an LE, so would not cancel yet.

I ordered a Mach E Route 1 with 305 combined EPA and 281 highway EPA. The independent 70mph test for the 270 EPA AWD version came in at 282. EPA highway rating for that model was 249.

Because the Rivian will not be so aerodynamic, I have doubts they can match the Mach E for highway or 70mph test.

I've had the same thought, but ballpark speaking, it wouldn't be rediculous. If you assume the 135 kwh battery is usable, that's a 50% increase over the mach e. All things being equal, that's a similar ratio of highway efficiency between a CUV the size of a Mach e and a Ridgeline for example.

 

[timesinks]

electric vehicles do not get the rated range.

The Chevy Volt has an EPA electric-only range of 53 miles. In winter, we see about 40 (25% hit due to weather and/or cold). But most of the year, I can pretty readily get 60, or 13% more miles than the EPA rating.

Based on most of the data out there, it's Teslas that don't get the rated range, not all EVs.

 

[Babbuino]

The Chevy Volt has an EPA electric-only range of 53 miles. In winter, we see about 40 (25% hit due to weather and/or cold). But most of the year, I can pretty readily get 60, or 13% more miles than the EPA rating.

Based on most of the data out there, it's Teslas that don't get the rated range, not all EVs.

From a few articles, Tesla can drive longer after the car tells you it's empty and they used that as well to get their EPA rating. So in a pickle, you'll be able to hit EPA which doesn't really help...

 

[ajdelange]

If your ICE vehicle has a 20 gallon tank and EPA rates it at 20 mpg the range is 400 miles, right? Wrong and you all know that. Why then do you say that the Tesla EPA range is inaccurate if you don't realize it when you drive your Tesla?

I've discussed the reasons there are deviations from EPA range many, many times here so I won't do it again. It is a nominal number useful for comparing vehicles on a somewhat consistent basis. At least that's the intent. YMMV depending on how, where and when you drive. I consistently get 119% of EPA range in my Tesla Model X. Someone who does most of his driving on the freeway at 85 mph in cold weather should expect to get appreciably less than his vehicle's EPA rated range.

Because most people don't understand what EPA range really signifies it becomes a great marketing point. Should Rivian fail to meet the estimated EPA ranges it has been publicizing from the beginning that will be a marketing disaster for them. I was attracted to the R1T by the estimated 400 mile range in the days when my car was rated at 294. Well 400 isn't so impressive these days and if that 400 turns out to be 350 my enthusiasm will be damped for sure.

 

[Gshenderson]

From a few articles, Tesla can drive longer after the car tells you it's empty and they used that as well to get their EPA rating. So in a pickle, you'll be able to hit EPA which doesn't really help...

I’ve run my Tesla down to zero a couple of time and made it another 5 miles or so to a charger. Car was fine. Me, not so much!

 

[ajdelange]

OK, I elicited the knee jerk response with out ever stopping to ask "Where does this 270 number come from?" Do you all know something I don't know?

I checked my account and my truck is still listed as having a range of 400+ miles.

???

 

[SANZC02]

OK, I elicited the knee jerk response with out ever stopping to ask "Where does this 270 number come from?" Do you all know something I don't know?

I checked my account and my truck is still listed as having a range of 400+ miles.

???

That 270 number took on a life of it's own, not unlike much in this forum.

Someone saw it in some web code with no context and everyone started thinking it meant the Large pack and range was going to be short.

Personally I would read nothing into it. Could have been code left in from something else, could have even been the small pack. No one really has a clue beyond wild speculation.

 

[ajdelange]

Thus, if range is 270, and ends up being a true 270 or even could be greater in normal driving then we would continue.

Define "normal" driving. Even EPA doesn't have the temerity to do that. So they do the next best thing: define nominal driving. If you drive according to EPAs nominal prescription you will get very close to the EPA rated range. If you drive more aggressively than nominal you will get less and if you drive less aggressively you will get more. Same as in a Tesla.

Since that would compare to a Tesla like the Y that says 316 miles rated range but ends up with closer to 240 miles, i.e. way over estimated for regular driving styles.

I have never driven a Y but I have owned two X's. Driven nominally they produce the EPA rated range. Driven less aggressively they produce more and driven more aggressively they produce less. I consider my driving normal whether I am around town or whether I am on the highway and the performance I get vis a vis the EPA rated performance is perfectly consistent with what I would expect.

If it ends up being 310, and holds close to 300 that would be awesome.

It will if you drive it nominally.

If it is 310 and real world shows its closer to 250, then would maybe make some considerations for changing as well.

It shouldn't because that is exactly what will happen when driving conditions become tougher than EPA nominal.

You can hardly be expected to understand this all with no prior BEV experience (but may who do have the experience don't understand it either) but what is important to you is not the EPA range but rather the rated consumption which is the battery size divided by the EPA range. My Tesla X has a battery of 98.982 kWh and an EPA rated range of 351. Its rated consumption is 282 Wh/mi. This morning we drove it 41 miles up and down hills at an average speed of 40 mph with peak speed 64 mph 52°F and no appreciable winds and burned 278 Wh/mi. That's 98.58% of rated consumption and implies that the range of the car is 1.014*351 = 356 miles 1.4% better than the EPA rating. Several things conspire to produce this result but the most likely is that the destination was 267 feet below the departure point. It would be dumb to conclude that the "real" range of the Model X is 356 miles and that Tesla sandbagged from this.

After getting some coulombs and a bagel we set out again and drove 170.7 miles and used 310 Wh/mi on that leg. This is 9.93% more than the EPA rating and implies that the "real" range of the car is 319 miles. I would be as dumb to draw that conclusion from this leg as it would be to conclude that the real range is 356 miles from the first leg. On the second leg average speed was 64 mph with peak speed of 73 mph and the destination was 688 higher than the origin.

It is essential that every BEV buyer understand this. 310 rated turning into 250 realized means an increase in consumption of 24%. YOU WILL EXPERIENCE THESE CONDITIONS! All it takes is a wet road, a positive grade and a headwind on a cold day. You may not get all of these on every trip (at least I hope not) but it does occur. So when someone tells you that Tesla cheats and the range is much less than the published range ask them for the level of detail I've given in these two examples. If they do, you should now know enough to understand why the actual range was lower or higher the the EPA number.

This. I am not smart enough to know how Tesla seems to cheat the EPA ratings but as a Model S owner, it is very annoying how inaccurate the onboard range estimate is. It seems like the Mach E, Porchse and other brands are much truer to their numbers. Hopefully Rivian is the same way.

Clearly this is an example of an experienced BEV driver who does not understand the principles discussed above. He is not alone! The Teslas' on board estimators are excellent. Today, for example, the SoC at end of trip was withinn 1 or 2% of the original estimates. And that happens time and time again. If an estimate is off by more than that it is (or should be) obvious why (you drove faster or slower than the speed limit, there was a head or tail wind, it rained or snowed...)

The EPA numbers are bench marks - not ranges to be expected for every trip. They are, as is the case, will all such bench marks flawed but really the best that can be done under the circumstances. Tesla happens to do a particularly good job of determining EPA ratings (because they do all 5 tests). I think Rivian is a class outfit and expect them to do as good a job. Thus I think we will be able to use Rivians ratings numbers as effectively as we can use Tesla's but we will, of course, have to wait to see. Nonetheless I am quite confident that my drive of this morning which cost me 9.9% premium in consumption relative to Tesla's rated will cost me something like with the Rivian - perhaps a bit more because of greater Cd and frontal area.

 

[bowhunter]

That 270 number took on a life of it's own, not unlike much in this forum.

Someone saw it in some web code with no context and everyone started thinking it meant the Large pack and range was going to be short.

Personally I would read nothing into it. Could have been code left in from something else, could have even been the small pack. No one really has a clue beyond wild speculation.

The data point changed to 300 when the configurator was updated with the accessories. I don't know what purpose, if any, it ever had; just seemed like an odd number attributed to a "projected range" attribute.

 

[Hopper]

300 is my line in the sand. I have a once a month 400 mile round-trip day trip with minimal charging support and cold winter weather for part of the year.

 

[ajdelange]

As the announcer at WTKO (Ithaca) used to say there are only 3 seasons there: winter, July and August. And yes indeed upstate seems to be a charging desert. Three hundred miles rapidly shrinks to 240 if you stay out of the top and bottom 10% (as you should) and highway speed will, as discussed above, knock off perhaps another 10% (24 miles) leaving you 216 which is enough for each one way trip but the problem is that you have very little margin. That margin can be easily eaten by wind the biggest threat in your circumstances would be rain or snow on roadway. This is a strong argument for holding out for the nominally 400 mile version but it really doesn't matter what your particulars are there is always a strong argument for extra range and that argument is this one: insurance.

I'd be sure to have the 14-50R and similar adapters on board as this let's you charge at camp grounds, gas stations and welding shops etc. If it's always the same route you will be able to figure out something I am sure.

As the 300 (or 400) mile "limits" are, in terms of what you will actually be able to drive, so blurry I wouldn't treat them as lines in the sand.

Sponsored