20" Inch Quad MPK Poll: 60 mph and 60°F

[mudito]

2.2 with 21" road.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

here is my best guess for your setup:
20” OEMs: 2.25 MPK
20” Goodyears with AW01:
Total MPK: 2.8
(Increase from tires: 0.3 MPK)
(Increase from rims: 0.25 MPK)
Weight reduction: 7-8 lbs from tires
14.5 from rims
While it may be a little bit more efficient it’s hard to tell from your tests so far. If someone can test Goodyears with OEM rims that will give us a good idea how much the rims are influencing the MPK gain…

Dude. Come on. You can't assign mi/kWh like that. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but no. It isn't that simple.

You created a good thread though. People reporting their efficiency at 60 mph is great information. I think a similar thread at 80 mph would be awesome. That is the speed I drive on the highway. 60 mph is what I blow through when getting to 80. LOL.

While I think there is some benefit to them, I think it is far less on the highway than around town where I am accelerating a lot more. These are not the most aerodynamic or lightest of all Atomic Wheels. I think I saw a YT vid where someone was trying to quantify the impact of the wheels on their config. It was for their lightest and most aerodynamic wheel.

I think their testing was about a 2% improvement on the highway and almost 4% around town. I could believe that. Their wheels were another 2 pounds lighter than mine but they were also running a mild all season tire with them. It was also on a PDM I think which is likely more efficient than my quad.

I have about 1200 miles on the Goodyears so far and no issues with noise, handling, vibration, ride comfort or any things that were my top priorities in choosing a tire. The efficiency is just icing on the cake. Since they are so efficient at lower speeds, I may slow down more often and take advantage of it. I may have a chance to do some 70 and 80 mph runs over the next week if traffic isn't too bad. It will be cool to cold and be an interesting test. At this point I'll absolutely buy another set if I can get at least 25k miles out of them the way I typically drive.

Weight only has an impact when accelerating or deaccelerating. The 2% improvement on the highway might be possible if there is a lot of slowing down and speeding up. Steady state, nope. It is all aerodynamics and rolling resistance.

A more aerodynamic wheel will improve highway range. Do you have a link to that rim? I am curious regarding how they addressed aerodynamics.

 

[Cascadian]

You should change title to be very specific about the configuration that you want tested or do you not care where R1t or R1S?

 

[ksurfier]

You should change title to be very specific about the configuration that you want tested or do you not care where R1t or R1S?

Rivian doesn’t show much diff. between the two, so no need to differentiate
R1T dual standard - 258 miles
R1S dual standard - 258 miles

Dude. Come on. You can't assign mi/kWh like that. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but no. It isn't that simple.

You created a good thread though. People reporting their efficiency at 60 mph is great information. I think a similar thread at 80 mph would be awesome. That is the speed I drive on the highway. 60 mph is what I blow through when getting to 80. LOL.




Weight only has an impact when accelerating or deaccelerating. The 2% improvement on the highway might be possible if there is a lot of slowing down and speeding up. Steady state, nope. It is all aerodynamics and rolling resistance.

A more aerodynamic wheel will improve highway range. Do you have a link to that rim? I am curious regarding how they addressed aerodynamics.

One of these days I just might believe you…

 

[DayTripping]

I spent some time going through my YT history and found the vid where the guy put on the Atomic Wheels and tried to quantify the efficiency. I linked to the point where he is displaying his graphs.

His wheels are 25#'s and mine are 27#'s. Honestly I never weighed mine but according to Atomic that is what they weigh. He quantified the efficiency improvement at 3.8% in the city and 2.3% for the highway.

So even if I take my 2.93 and adjust the efficiency by 2.3%, that still puts me at ~2.85 or for my 2.99 run it is at 2.90. I am not sure what wheels he originally had on his truck.

Anyway I look at it, I am pretty happy with the efficiency even though it is super important to me. Any long roadtrips will be in one of our Teslas. I am collecting the data more to help others. I could be at 1.5 mpk and all it would do is drive up my electric bill rather than impact how I use my truck. I understand how some want to squeeze out every mile they can. I don't want to be wasteful but efficiency was my #1 priority, I wouldn't be driving my truck instead of my cars or motorcycles.

Here are my Atomic AW01 rims and the YT vid I quoted.
https://atomic-wheels.com/collectio...oducts/aw01-for-rivian-r1t-r1s-aw01-208545br1

His wheels are the AWZZ in a custom color.

 

[mkhuffman]

I spent some time going through my YT history and found the vid where the guy put on the Atomic Wheels and tried to quantify the efficiency. I linked to the point where he is displaying his graphs.

His wheels are 25#'s and mine are 27#'s. Honestly I never weighed mine but according to Atomic that is what they weigh. He quantified the efficiency improvement at 3.8% in the city and 2.3% for the highway.

So even if I take my 2.93 and adjust the efficiency by 2.3%, that still puts me at ~2.85 or for my 2.99 run it is at 2.90. I am not sure what wheels he originally had on his truck.

Anyway I look at it, I am pretty happy with the efficiency even though it is super important to me. Any long roadtrips will be in one of our Teslas. I am collecting the data more to help others. I could be at 1.5 mpk and all it would do is drive up my electric bill rather than impact how I use my truck. I understand how some want to squeeze out every mile they can. I don't want to be wasteful but efficiency was my #1 priority, I wouldn't be driving my truck instead of my cars or motorcycles.

Here are my Atomic AW01 rims and the YT vid I quoted.
https://atomic-wheels.com/collectio...oducts/aw01-for-rivian-r1t-r1s-aw01-208545br1

His wheels are the AWZZ in a custom color.

Those are great looking rims. I really like them. But at high speeds, rotational air resistance will be significant. There is no way all those air gaps are more aerodynamic than the G1 21s or the G2 22 Range rims. I would buy them because of how they look, but not to increase efficiency on the highway.

 

[DayTripping]

When I had my 21s on there, I rarely used the aero covers since I couldn’t stand how they looked. Aerodynamic efficiency was a relatively low priority on my list. I didn’t anticipate efficiency would be stellar with the tires that I was planning to buy. Not to mention most aerodynamic wheels don’t look that appealing to me.

There were three reasons I bought them. First, they were very lightweight. I’m pretty focused on unsprung mass, which is another reason why I wanted the Goodyears. I didn’t want to pair a lightweight rim with a very heavy tire. They weren’t the lightest tire, but they were pretty lightweight. This wheel/tire combo makes the truck a lot more nimble on its feet.

Second, I really like the looks. I think they look good in the photos, but in person they definitely look better.

Lastly, they are a fully forged wheel. Given the weight of my truck and how I drive it, that was important to me.

Factor in they are priced very fairly, @Atomic Wheels has great customer service, and they are an outstanding value. I’ve been super happy with the combo so far, in case it isn’t evident.

 

[ksurfier]

At this point the poll results are a mean of 2.2 MPK with acceptable data range of 1.63 to 2.63. Only 1 outlier (2.9) observed (result of AW lightweight rim and Goodyear tires?)
The mean of 2.2 MPK results in ~285 miles expected range. Daytripping, did you actually see a significant change in the range? If not then there may be something amiss…

 

[DayTripping]

I have been posting lots of data in the Goodyear thread I started. I can run it again when I have time. Trying to get calm days are hard right now for decent testing.

One thing to NJ otenis any new tests will be with the correct tires in the truck's configurator.

 

[usulio]

At this point the poll results are a mean of 2.2 MPK with acceptable data range of 1.63 to 2.63. Only 1 outlier (2.9) observed (result of AW lightweight rim and Goodyear tires?)
The mean of 2.2 MPK results in ~285 miles expected range. Daytripping, did you actually see a significant change in the range? If not then there may be something amiss…

This is a cool data-collecting effort. I would have expected a somewhat higher average at 60mph even on the 20" AT Pirellis. That wide range of values is interesting, I wonder why. Also, I'm not sure how much to trust the Rivian guess-o-meter graph or even the trip meter.

 

[ksurfier]

This is a cool data-collecting effort. I would have expected a somewhat higher average at 60mph even on the 20" AT Pirellis. That wide range of values is interesting, I wonder why. Also, I'm not sure how much to trust the Rivian guess-o-meter graph or even the trip meter.

some explanations could be that the lower ranges were cold-soaked batteries that needed extra kWh to warm up. Surprisingly the type of road can make a considerable difference (concrete is harder than asphalt and results in about 0.3 increase in MPK compared to asphalt). Wind speed and air density (elevation/weather) also can have similar impacts. Then of course the incline of the road surface plays a major role, steeper hills having a large impact…

 

[ksurfier]

I have been posting lots of data in the Goodyear thread I started. I can run it again when I have time. Trying to get calm days are hard right now for decent testing.

One thing to NJ otenis any new tests will be with the correct tires in the truck's configurator.

Got it, at this point 33 of 34 results seem reasonable, for your retest, anything under 10 mph should be fine…

 

[DayTripping]

OK, I just made a run today. The longer distance started at our lower elevation than what I finished at so it was uphill overall. The second one is where I could typically have pretty close to the same elevation at the beginning and the end. There were winds of about 8 mph.

I am also posting a capture from Electrifi for my entire drive today.

I was in AP mode, low, had the cruise control set at 61 but according to my GPS was 60 mph, and I never had to slow down, and sometimes I actually went faster.

Temps started out at 68° and ended at 70. Battery test for 91 when I left dropped to 90 later on. Motte sprayer high 130 lower and 40s in the front, and low 130s high 120s in the world. It started in the 90s though when I got on the highway. I didn’t run any AC or heat. I was using my cruise control with Comma.Ai.

just reminder, this was with the factory computer set to the appropriate Goodyear tires the Territory AT 275/60/20 116H.

 

[ksurfier]

Poll is closing soon, any more votes?

 

[ksurfier]

Poll closing soon, 80% of responses are 2.0 to 2.4 MPK….
This could be helpful for anyone that’s significantly lower (could indicate a serious issue with the vehicle, tires/allignment, or some other factor…)

Sponsored