Sponsored

dleepnw

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2021
Threads
131
Messages
2,790
Reaction score
3,118
Location
WA
Vehicles
Rivian, Toyota, Lexus
Clubs
 
I think he covered most of the consumer interest changes but he didnt cover anything new. Guess there's not much to add since its been out and reviewed already for a while. He did miss a lot of the under cover changes like network architecture, wiring, faster processor, difference in driver assistance tech.
Sponsored

 

strykerwsu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2022
Threads
4
Messages
743
Reaction score
895
Location
Kansas
Vehicles
Chevy SS, Ford Bronco, Ram Rebel, Ford Flex, G8
Sad to see yet another influencer perpetuate that the claimed range in AP is 371, and make up a justification for it displaying lower :(
What? He's simply stating the EPA range and states that cold likely impacts. He is an owner and we just got a software update about impacted range in cold.
 

strykerwsu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2022
Threads
4
Messages
743
Reaction score
895
Location
Kansas
Vehicles
Chevy SS, Ford Bronco, Ram Rebel, Ford Flex, G8
I have the same Tri, coming off a Gen1 quad and to me, his take is pretty spot on. The Gen 2 Enduro motor and suspension improvements are more refined to me as well with a more fluid, smoother experience. He briefly mentions the new motor, but it really is a noticeable improvement to me and one of the reasons I bought it.
There are real issues with the doors, closure sound/feel and. The sound is very much like a sound door makes that did not close. That is not good, it should at least sound solid. The rear door lacks a readily accessible manual handle. That is not good either and a potentially really bad decision. At minimum there should be a readily accessible pull cord or something for an emergency. To me, a Rivian is much more than the sum of their parts and the team has made so many great safety and design decisions, so the door issues seem to be an anomaly.
I think Rivians are revolutionary vehicles. Sure there are things that you could complain about but really nothing else comes close to this vehicle in so many areas. The company has a tremendous amount of potential. We really enjoy our R!S Tri, it's so capable and enjoyable that we make excuses to drive it all the time.
Just add some cheap Killmat off Amazon, speakers and door thump will both sound better.
 

ElGuano

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2024
Threads
14
Messages
404
Reaction score
672
Location
Cali
Vehicles
R1T Trimax - Storm Blue, Driftwood, Sport Dark
Occupation
darkweb peddler
What? He's simply stating the EPA range and states that cold likely impacts. He is an owner and we just got a software update about impacted range in cold.
Yeah, the claimed range IS 371, and 405 in Conserve. I don't see what the lie is?
 

MarkNorman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Threads
2
Messages
110
Reaction score
164
Location
Yakima, WA
Vehicles
ā€˜22 R1T QM, ā€˜25 R1S DM L, ā€˜24 Tesla Model 3 DM
I don't claim to be an expert in this area but I've read several articles and my experience with a non heat pump Model 3 and the same version with heat pumps showed I had worse efficiency in the Texas summers. Heat pump efficiency is typically less than traditional AC units at higher temps if this graph and article is to be believed. It aligns with other articles I've read.

Also keep in matter the faster you go, the less heating/cooling are a portion of the overall energy used and matter less than at lower speeds as aero dynamic drag is largest consumer of energy.

I'll also add there is a very good thread here where someone has compared their efficiency over the same route in the Gen1 truck and Gen2 truck and basically no difference in efficiency between the 2.
Thanks! Couple parts of the article definitely went over my head, but the gist was ā€˜at very high and very low temps heat pumps are not as efficient as the AC/PTC comboā€™. So, I guess the answer to whether the switch to a heat pump in Gen 2 will benefit you is dependent on youā€™re local climate. For Marques in New Jersey, it will likely be more efficient throughout the course of the year, though not necessarily at all times.

In regard to the Gen 1/Gen 2 efficiency test, that would also totally depend on the temp it was run at. Ideally, itā€™d be repeatable over a range of temperatures to get an definitive answer. Rivian obviously believes the heat pump is more efficient on average and if the article is correct stating the heat pump is more expensive than the AC/PTC combo, they would have no reason to switch if it wasnā€™t the case.

Just based on my own experience in my home, switching to heat pumps for HVAC, water heater, and dryer dramatically reduced my annual energy consumption.
 

Sponsored

savethemanual

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2024
Threads
3
Messages
240
Reaction score
453
Location
USA
Vehicles
Future R2
Heat pumps usually have larger condensers to get that efficiency when in heating mode, this would typically mean more efficient A/C too. Certainly the case with residential heat pumps.
 

narmstrong79

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Apr 2, 2022
Threads
41
Messages
494
Reaction score
622
Location
New Hampshire
Website
www.youtube.com
Vehicles
2024 Rivian R1S Performance Dual Motor Standard+
Occupation
Marketing
Clubs
 
Marques made a few stupid mistakes, But he openly acknowledged and apologized which is a lot more than others would do. I'm a fan of his content.
 

DayTripping

Well-Known Member
First Name
Timothy
Joined
Sep 12, 2024
Threads
4
Messages
859
Reaction score
1,115
Location
DFW
Vehicles
Gen1 R1T QM, S Plaid, Highland 3 Perf, 3 Long Range, R2 on order
Occupation
Consultant
Thanks! Couple parts of the article definitely went over my head, but the gist was ā€˜at very high and very low temps heat pumps are not as efficient as the AC/PTC comboā€™. So, I guess the answer to whether the switch to a heat pump in Gen 2 will benefit you is dependent on youā€™re local climate. For Marques in New Jersey, it will likely be more efficient throughout the course of the year, though not necessarily at all times.

In regard to the Gen 1/Gen 2 efficiency test, that would also totally depend on the temp it was run at. Ideally, itā€™d be repeatable over a range of temperatures to get an definitive answer. Rivian obviously believes the heat pump is more efficient on average and if the article is correct stating the heat pump is more expensive than the AC/PTC combo, they would have no reason to switch if it wasnā€™t the case.

Just based on my own experience in my home, switching to heat pumps for HVAC, water heater, and dryer dramatically reduced my annual energy consumption.
You are in the sweet spot for heat pumps whereas I am not. Hence the reason in every thread where I commented that for me it isn't much of a benefit and can be a detriment. A lot of my days are typically 80+ for months on end with a lot of 100+ days. So for me heat pumps aren't as much of a benefit and I don't deny that they can be. You need to be in the sweet spot where most of your temps are basically about 25-80F and there is a clear benefit.

Most of the time I start running AC when the temps are 80 and up. I don't worry about heat between 40-70, and will start to use it once below freezing. So where the heat pump is the most advantageous is where I don't really use it much so not much benefit for me. I am pretty good with just the heated seat and wheel in the 35-55 range. My wife is pretty good with that approach too. So no point running something I don't need.

So a heatpump is not the best solution for everyone but it could be a better solution for a lot of people. If I lived in NYC, Oregon, Washington and similar states, Eastern seaboard, a lot of California, most of the midwest, it could be more beneficial. In Florida, most of the south, NM, TX, AZ and the desert of California, likely better off with the traditional systems.

So I am perfectly fine with my G1 system. It worked well this winter in TX and my efficiency wasn't total crap. We already had some 80 degree days but we'll be in the teens next week.

I think Rivian had to have a heatpump at a minimum to keep up with the industry. It will also help a lot of their customer base even if not all. Being an eco-friendly company, it also has to be part of their marketing strategy and image.
 

portdirect

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2023
Threads
3
Messages
329
Reaction score
413
Location
Missouri
Vehicles
R1T (2023 QM - RIP, 2025 Tri Max), R1S (2024 DM Large)
Occupation
Blinkenlight Hearder
What? He's simply stating the EPA range and states that cold likely impacts. He is an owner and we just got a software update about impacted range in cold.
Yeah, the claimed range IS 371, and 405 in Conserve. I don't see what the lie is?
What Drive Mode Corresponds to the Advertised 371-Mile Range?
In shortā€”none.

According to Rivianā€™s own testing and submissions to the EPA:

  • All-Purpose (AP) Mode: ~346 miles
  • Conserve Mode: ~395 miles
Yet, Rivian promotes a 371-mile ā€œEPAā€ range figure. This number appears to result from mixing data from different drive modes: applying AP mode efficiency for highway driving (45% weighting) and Conserve mode efficiency for city driving (55% weighting). This methodology is entirely backward and not standard practice for EPA ratings.

By blending results from two distinct modes, Rivian achieves a more appealingā€”but less transparentā€”range estimate. However, this figure cannot be directly compared to any other EV on the U.S. market, as no other automaker takes this approach. Despite this, Rivian submitted the 371-mile figure to Fuel Economy for inclusion on the Monroney label.

Is This Misleading?
Technically, EPA guidelines sometimes allow multi-mode testing, meaning Rivian may not be violating explicit rules. However, this approach only holds up if Rivian can convince the EPA that the majority of drivers actually use Conserve mode in city driving and AP mode on the highway (which is highly questionable).

As a result, R1T owners and reviewers frequently ask why no drive mode actually displays ā€œ371 milesā€ on the dashboardā€”leading to repeated attempts to rationalize the discrepancy - like Marques did in the video here. This raises concerns about transparent reporting of electric vehicle range and how automakers can ā€œgame the systemā€ by merging results from multiple modes to produce a more attractive but less realistic number.

This practice isnā€™t an apples-to-apples comparison with other EVs and makes it difficult for consumers to accurately assess real-world range expectations.

The Problem Becomes Worse When Executives Make Misleading Statements
This situation shifts from creative marketing to borderline deception when statements like the following are made publicly:

Transcript from Sandy Munroā€™s Interview with RJ Scaringe (Rivian CEO)
Sandy: so what's the range on this one here with the tri motor and stuff like that
RJ: so with the tri in um on the EPA test it's 371 miles EPA certified number yeah and to get that number we actually have to test it with uh essentially with all-wheel drive locked because we wanted to have it such that if you put in the uh normal mode the front L axles are both on if you go into conserve mode on this which has uh Dynamic uh rear disconnect so it goes on and off in conserve mode it does around 400 miles but the EPA number is 371 and that's different than our dual motors where we we actually have the dynamic rear disconnect always engaging or disengaging and the reason for that with the tribe we wanted to be able to lock so it's always immediately there full performance at all times even when you're in all-purpose mode so it's a decision we made to trade off a little bit on Range the EPA range but it's still 371 miles but I I'm driving one I I regularly get 400ish miles uh just by you know having it in conserve mode and and the neat thing about conserve mode on this is you can access both it's all wheel drive it's just all wheel drive on demand so the rear axle comes to life when you need it.

The Certification Processā€”Or Lack Thereof
Notably, Rivian has not yet been audited for the 2025 R1 values they submitted, and without pressure likely never will be, meaning the certification is currently just a rubber-stamp approval.

Also, notice that RJ never explicitly states that the 371-mile figure corresponds to AP modeā€”yet, given all the information above, itā€™s understandable why most people would assume that an EPA cycle would produce a 371-mile range in AP mode. That assumption, however, is simply incorrect.

#RangeGate?
Oh, I know some people wonā€™t like thatā€¦ šŸ˜†


Edit: Fixed transcript of interview
 
Last edited:

DayTripping

Well-Known Member
First Name
Timothy
Joined
Sep 12, 2024
Threads
4
Messages
859
Reaction score
1,115
Location
DFW
Vehicles
Gen1 R1T QM, S Plaid, Highland 3 Perf, 3 Long Range, R2 on order
Occupation
Consultant
What Drive Mode Corresponds to the Advertised 371-Mile Range?
In shortā€”none.

According to Rivianā€™s own testing and submissions to the EPA:

  • All-Purpose (AP) Mode: ~346 miles
  • Conserve Mode: ~395 miles
Yet, Rivian promotes a 371-mile ā€œEPAā€ range figure. This number appears to result from mixing data from different drive modes: applying AP mode efficiency for highway driving (45% weighting) and Conserve mode efficiency for city driving (55% weighting). This methodology is entirely backward and not standard practice for EPA ratings.

By blending results from two distinct modes, Rivian achieves a more appealingā€”but less transparentā€”range estimate. However, this figure cannot be directly compared to any other EV on the U.S. market, as no other automaker takes this approach. Despite this, Rivian submitted the 371-mile figure to Fuel Economy for inclusion on the Monroney label.

Is This Misleading?
Technically, EPA guidelines sometimes allow multi-mode testing, meaning Rivian may not be violating explicit rules. However, this approach only holds up if Rivian can convince the EPA that the majority of drivers actually use Conserve mode in city driving and AP mode on the highway (which is highly questionable).

As a result, R1T owners and reviewers frequently ask why no drive mode actually displays ā€œ371 milesā€ on the dashboardā€”leading to repeated attempts to rationalize the discrepancy - like Marques did in the video here. This raises concerns about transparent reporting of electric vehicle range and how automakers can ā€œgame the systemā€ by merging results from multiple modes to produce a more attractive but less realistic number.

This practice isnā€™t an apples-to-apples comparison with other EVs and makes it difficult for consumers to accurately assess real-world range expectations.

The Problem Becomes Worse When Executives Make Misleading Statements
This situation shifts from creative marketing to borderline deception when statements like the following are made publicly:

Transcript from Sandy Munroā€™s Interview with RJ Scaringe (Rivian CEO)
Sandy: So whatā€™s the range on this one here with the tri-motor setup?
RJ: So with the tri, um, on the EPA test, itā€™s 371 milesā€”thatā€™s the EPA-certified number. And to get that number, we actually had to test it with all-wheel drive locked because we wanted it so that in normal mode, the front axles are both on. If you go into Conserve mode, which has a dynamic rear disconnect, it does around 400 miles. But the EPA number is 371. Thatā€™s different from our dual motors, where we actually have the dynamic rear disconnect always engaging or disengaging. The reason for that is that with the tri, we wanted to be able to lock it so it's always immediately there for full performance, even in AP mode. So itā€™s a decision we madeā€”to trade off a little bit on EPA rangeā€”but itā€™s still 371 miles. But Iā€™m driving one, and I regularly get around 400 miles in Conserve mode. And the neat thing about Conserve mode on this is that you can access bothā€”itā€™s all-wheel drive on demand, so the rear axle comes to life when you need it.

The Certification Processā€”Or Lack Thereof
Notably, Rivian has not yet been audited for the 2025 R1 values they submitted, and without pressure likely never will be, meaning the certification is currently just a rubber-stamp approval.

Also, notice that RJ never explicitly states that the 371-mile figure corresponds to AP modeā€”yet, given all the information above, itā€™s understandable why most people would assume that an EPA cycle would produce a 371-mile range in AP mode. That assumption, however, is simply incorrect.

#RangeGate?
Oh, I know some people wonā€™t like thatā€¦ šŸ˜†
Thanks for posting that. I was looking for that reference earlier.
 

Sponsored

portdirect

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2023
Threads
3
Messages
329
Reaction score
413
Location
Missouri
Vehicles
R1T (2023 QM - RIP, 2025 Tri Max), R1S (2024 DM Large)
Occupation
Blinkenlight Hearder
Thanks for posting that. I was looking for that reference earlier.
In my post, I mistakenly referenced the R1T throughout - sorry. What's actually in some ways even more eyebrow-raising is that, as far as I'm aware, Rivian only submitted full test results to the EPA for the R1S but used the same values for both the R1S and R1T. Itā€™s surprising that they got away with that.
 

MarkNorman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Threads
2
Messages
110
Reaction score
164
Location
Yakima, WA
Vehicles
ā€˜22 R1T QM, ā€˜25 R1S DM L, ā€˜24 Tesla Model 3 DM
In my post, I mistakenly referenced the R1T throughout - sorry. What's actually in some ways even more eyebrow-raising is that, as far as I'm aware, Rivian only submitted full test results to the EPA for the R1S but used the same values for both the R1S and R1T. Itā€™s surprising that they got away with that.
From my understanding, R1S has consistently been slightly less efficient than R1T, even though they initially thought the opposite would be the case. Using R1S for both is probably safe.
 

portdirect

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2023
Threads
3
Messages
329
Reaction score
413
Location
Missouri
Vehicles
R1T (2023 QM - RIP, 2025 Tri Max), R1S (2024 DM Large)
Occupation
Blinkenlight Hearder
From my understanding, R1S has consistently been slightly less efficient than R1T, even though they initially thought the opposite would be the case. Using R1S for both is probably safe.
Itā€˜s probably somewhat safe (you are spot on in that the R1S has consistently performed slightly worse in the EPA test cycles than the R1T), however claiming it to be ā€˜EPA estimatedā€™ is highly dubious without having submitted any paperwork to that effect. Iā€™d have no issues with that marketing material if they stated ā€˜Rivian Estimatedā€™ - which they use for some values (eg note they never claim the 405 conserve value is EPA cycle derived).
 

MarkNorman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Dec 23, 2024
Threads
2
Messages
110
Reaction score
164
Location
Yakima, WA
Vehicles
ā€˜22 R1T QM, ā€˜25 R1S DM L, ā€˜24 Tesla Model 3 DM
@portdirect You are right. I guess after 9 EVs, 7 years, and about 150K combined miles, I donā€™t even consider the EPA range, but it is important for some folks that are still learning this stuff And as a point of comparison. Itā€™d probably be better if they just made broader categories, i.e. this car is in the 200, 250, or 300 mi range class.
 

tps5352

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
169
Reaction score
222
Location
California Central Valley
Vehicles
2021 Tesla Model X Long Range Plus (5-seater)
What Drive Mode Corresponds to the Advertised 371-Mile Range?
In shortā€”none.

According to Rivianā€™s own testing and submissions to the EPA:

  • All-Purpose (AP) Mode: ~346 miles
  • Conserve Mode: ~395 miles
Yet, Rivian promotes a 371-mile ā€œEPAā€ range figure....
(Just came across this post.)​

The mathematical average (mean) of 346 and 395 is 370.5--i.e., 371 when rounded up to a whole number.

Is that merely coincidence? Or could it explain the origin of the (inflated) 371 mile claim?
Sponsored

 
Last edited:
 








Top