Out of Spec Highway Range Test of Gen2 R1T dual Max - Nowhere near EPA

[usulio]

Lost on efficiency

Okay, buy a Lucid ...

I just don't get how in a head to head comparison, people think it's a terrible performance by the Rivian because it didn't beat the Cybertruck by "enough".

Yes, Rivian's EPA numbers for Gen 2 are misleading -- I've been saying that for a while -- but in terms of head to head, a win is a win.

Sponsored

 

[greyboundary]

I still think that doing one test, whether for a model to model comparison or charging performance, being taken as canonical performance indicators is extremely questionable.

The charge speed really got me. Everyone knows how temperamental and inconsistent chargers are. Honestly, one of the reasons I don’t take small vehicle differences too seriously is that the individual charger performance itself has always been the largest determinant of my long trip times.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Okay, buy a Lucid ...

I just don't get how in a head to head comparison, people think it's a terrible performance by the Rivian because it didn't beat the Cybertruck by "enough".

Yes, Rivian's EPA numbers for Gen 2 are misleading -- I've been saying that for a while -- but in terms of head to head, a win is a win.

And the Rivian has the benefit of not looking like a door stop POS.

 

[shap]

Problems - yes. Reliability and service centers.

Innovation? That is definitely not Rivian's problem. If anything their problem is offering too much performance for the money compared to competitors like the EV9. The R2 is supposed to address that.

I do not see a lot of real innovation after the initial launch of Gen 1. Neither with better ADAS (at least for now), nor battery technology & charging. Performance - yes, it has 800+ HP. It was the first truck to have 4 motors. But after a few years, there was very little innovation IMHO.

Personally, I need a better ADAS for long trips (Priority 1) and a better charging curve (priority 2).
And then software - I want to see voice control, I do want to have AA/Car Play in a separate window OR the ability to run Waze/Google Maps.

And they need to offload basic things like windshield replacements and alignments - no reason for them to hold this to themselves and bottleneck their SC.

P.S. As a bonus I do want to see fewer phantom drain - right now, 100K cars waste 150 Mega Watt energy daily (!) on phantom drain..

 

[shap]

I still think that doing one test, whether for a model to model comparison or charging performance, being taken as canonical performance indicators is extremely questionable.

The charge speed really got me. Everyone knows how temperamental and inconsistent chargers are. Honestly, one of the reasons I don’t take small vehicle differences too seriously is that the individual charger performance itself has always been the largest determinant of my long trip times.

Agree, but Tesla SC's performance is very predictable and repeatable. I never had any issues with unpredictability or strange charging curves with Rivian and tesla SC. I can wish for a better charging curve, but as it is now, it is very repeatable.

 

[OrthoBlock]

Well my mild weather Thanksgiving round trip going at least 70mph was 2.5 so ten percent off EPA on my gen 1 Max pack. I can't argue with that while exceeding the speed limit.

What was the average speed (as recorded by the vehicle) for this trip?

People, my self included, often mis-index on the top speeds they had for the trip (even for a majority of the trip) and forget the meaningful amount of time driven at lower speeds to get that consumption number.

Unless I reset the trip meter while I’m already on the highway and then take the reading as I exit, I find it very difficult to capture the actual “highway speed” consumption values.

 

[HaveBlue]

What was the average speed (as recorded by the vehicle) for this trip?

People, my self included, often mis-index on the top speeds they had for the trip (even for a majority of the trip) and forget the meaningful amount of time driven at lower speeds to get that consumption number.

Unless I reset the trip meter while I’m already on the highway and then take the reading as I exit, I find it very difficult to capture the actual “highway speed” consumption values.

I should have immediately looked. It's been a day with some city driving and parking if that changes things. Average speed is now reported as 51mph.

 

[Bar_Down]

Depends on whether you drive the way Kyle drives, doesn't it?

My speeds are way lower and my range is quite a bit better. At 55 mph in summer, I think I get right about the Rivians' EPA range.

IDK about Cybertruck, but I am satisfied with our Rivians.

Best wishes!

The way Kyle drives is "as fast as safely possible" and he generally ends up arriving sooner even though more charging enroute. If you unplug at 70% and drive faster to the next charger (ideally pulling in as close as you dare to 0%.... I usually arrive with 5-10% SOC), you save time vs. driving slower and needing to charge less.

 

[DayTripping]

The way Kyle drives is "as fast as safely possible" and he generally ends up arriving sooner even though more charging enroute. If you unplug at 70% and drive faster to the next charger (ideally pulling in as close as you dare to 0%.... I usually arrive with 5-10% SOC), you save time vs. driving slower and needing to charge less.

That has been the approach I've used with my Teslas for years. It keeps you in the sweet spot of the charging curve on most EVs. It can save a huge amount of time on a trip. It is also why the Rivian sucks compared to others. The efficiency just falls off so much above 75 mph, and the charging curve isn't that robust anywhere.

I had a chance to spend more time in a CyberTruck this week and even on its big chunky tires, it was about as efficient as my R1T on 21's at the same speeds and roads that I drive on. It was the Cyberbeast and a lot quicker than my G1 quad.

 

[dleepnw]

EPA tests are not done in the real world. They do their tests in a laboratory on a dynamometer. Plus they mix in "city" and "highway" driving. OOS does theirs outdoors, with the HVAC on, at 70mph and for this test it was done in the cold. Run it again in the spring/summer with other variables being the same and it will be higher. Don't read too much into this.

 

[Kaiju]

I tend to think that the Gen 2s have fallen afoul of one of the darkest forces in the universe.

Marketing.

While there were improvements and updates with Gen 2, that's not why Gen 2 exists. One part of that whole profitability effort has involved forcing things that make their numbers only look better without being much better.

I think we all knew the posted increase in efficiency (not range, but the same range on smaller batteries and the like) smelled off given the aerodynamics haven't changed, and it seems like Rivian has started stacking the deck in optimizing things for EPA testing as opposed to real world application. This leads to bigger outlier events when the conditions are different.

Nobody ever gets EPA MPG in ICE cars either, and it also drops precipitously at 75 and 80 mph, the issue is that most people who buy them don't care about how far it goes. You just fill it up again when it gets close to E and everyone sees that as normal. Charging for 28 minutes is an inconvenience so range numbers matter to buyers. Because of Tesla's exaggerations numerous skeptics are fairly convinced that all EV range numbers are bullshit, which punishes the honest ones.

So here we are with strong motivations for makers to fluff their numbers. I don't like that we're here, but I feel that Rivian is yielding to pressure to cut costs while trying to keep the numbers up.

 

[DTM]

Shocking to me that the EPA estimate is nowhere near real life testing. Now I feel bad I'm waiting on delivery of a new Tri MAX R1T and trading my Quad. I sold it to my wife on the basis the range was a lot better (371mi) and in reality looks like I'll be getting a similar 266 miles like I am with my Quad

EPA Rating:
R1T - 420 miles
CT - 325 miles
Difference - 95 miles

Actual Range:
R1T - 266 miles
CT - 252 miles
Difference - 14 miles

Total kW Used:
R1T - 141kWh
CT - 121kWh
Difference - 20 kWh

Efficiency: R1T - 1.89 miles/kWh
CT - 2.08 miles/kWh

I have a '22 Gen 1 quad. Yesterday (Sunday after Thanksgiving) We took a trip to visit a relative. It was nearly all highway & driven at either near or at most +5 mph over. So-55-60 mph on both flat & hills (=/- 1000' changes). In All purpose low departed home with 98% soc. Returned home @ 11% soc. Total distance covered 247.4 miles used 106.8 kWh, at 2.32 mi/kWh with 11%/37 miles remaining at arrival. ran the heater (72°) for about 20 min of the ~4.5 hr. drive. The truck said I had 175 miles of range remaining at the departure point to return home (which is 112 miles from home). Prior to leaving home the range said 305 miles. We got 247.4 driving + 37 estimated range when arriving home. I never plan to get over 250 miles & normally expect 200 miles of range. The truck now has 32,773 miles. We have done trips up the Calif & Oregon coast to Tillamook & from our home near the Calif coast to Salt Lake to Tucson & back with lower efficiency results due to the speeds driven.
I was thinking of getting a Gen 2, however, not likely as I have a 12V plug in the frunk I use for refrigerator a lot (it get over 100° here in summer & ice cream melts before I can get it the 20+ miles home). That is 'Strike one'. I like our forest edge interior-not available on gen 2--'strike 2'. Added range is questionable at highway speeds--'strike 3'.

 

[shap]

I tend to think that the Gen 2s have fallen afoul of one of the darkest forces in the universe.

Marketing.

While there were improvements and updates with Gen 2, that's not why Gen 2 exists. One part of that whole profitability effort has involved forcing things that make their numbers only look better without being much better.

I think we all knew the posted increase in efficiency (not range, but the same range on smaller batteries and the like) smelled off given the aerodynamics haven't changed, and it seems like Rivian has started stacking the deck in optimizing things for EPA testing as opposed to real world application. This leads to bigger outlier events when the conditions are different.

Nobody ever gets EPA MPG in ICE cars either, and it also drops precipitously at 75 and 80 mph, the issue is that most people who buy them don't care about how far it goes. You just fill it up again when it gets close to E and everyone sees that as normal. Charging for 28 minutes is an inconvenience so range numbers matter to buyers. Because of Tesla's exaggerations numerous skeptics are fairly convinced that all EV range numbers are bullshit, which punishes the honest ones.

So here we are with strong motivations for makers to fluff their numbers. I don't like that we're here, but I feel that Rivian is yielding to pressure to cut costs while trying to keep the numbers up.

ICE has much less impact from high speed - much less than EV. For my X5 it does not really matters, 70mph or 85 mph. same 25-26 mpg efficiency.

 

[shap]

I have a '22 Gen 1 quad. Yesterday (Sunday after Thanksgiving) We took a trip to visit a relative. It was nearly all highway & driven at either near or at most +5 mph over. So-55-60 mph on both flat & hills (=/- 1000' changes). In All purpose low departed home with 98% soc. Returned home @ 11% soc. Total distance covered 247.4 miles used 106.8 kWh, at 2.32 mi/kWh with 11%/37 miles remaining at arrival. ran the heater (72°) for about 20 min of the ~4.5 hr. drive. The truck said I had 175 miles of range remaining at the departure point to return home (which is 112 miles from home). Prior to leaving home the range said 305 miles. We got 247.4 driving + 37 estimated range when arriving home. I never plan to get over 250 miles & normally expect 200 miles of range. The truck now has 32,773 miles. We have done trips up the Calif & Oregon coast to Tillamook & from our home near the Calif coast to Salt Lake to Tucson & back with lower efficiency results due to the speeds driven.
I was thinking of getting a Gen 2, however, not likely as I have a 12V plug in the frunk I use for refrigerator a lot (it get over 100° here in summer & ice cream melts before I can get it the 20+ miles home). That is 'Strike one'. I like our forest edge interior-not available on gen 2--'strike 2'. Added range is questionable at highway speeds--'strike 3'.

Agree - 200 in worst case, 250 in normal weather. R1T Quad Large pack.

 

[Kaiju]

ICE has much less impact from high speed - much less than EV. For my X5 it does not really matters, 70mph or 85 mph. same 25-26 mpg efficiency.

Air resistance increases with the square of velocity, so I have some trouble believing that efficiency doesn't change when the force required to overcome drag increases by 47%. The more brick-shaped your vehicle is, the more it's affected by it vs rolling resistance and mechanical losses. Over about 45 mph drag dominates losses.

EVs aren't any more or less susceptible to that. It's more that the split between city and highway driving has a large impact on the actual numbers and it's more a problem with how often people pay attention. EVs see their ranges hit when driving faster than their EPA test speeds on highways, which are virtually always lower than actual traffic speeds, and situations where people need that 250 mile range are usually making highway trips. I can't say I've ever cared that getting 14 MPG driving 80 in a truck on a highway only allowed me to go 350 miles instead of the 500 miles it would have if it was getting its advertised 20 highway MPG. Nobody driving in stop and go city traffic ever cares about how terrible their mileage is because usually nobody is driving 200 city miles in one shot.

An EV buyer just sees '300 miles' and expects that to be road trip range, which it isn't. Since the EPA range number is a blend of city stop/go and highway driving, the harder a maker tries to game the tests to make the number go up, the more likely it is that the range depends on the proportion of more efficient city driving. Which then makes its highway performance look like absolute ass, since there's no real way to make it perform better at higher speeds without changing its aerodynamics.

Sponsored