R2 Range Estimates

[SANZC02]

After 8 years of Tesla ownership and 3 years of Rivian, my understanding is that this displayed range doesn't change based on a persons speed or driving style. I believe that it's essentially reflection of the EPA rated range in the particular drive mode you've selected ie: conserve, sport, all purpose. To my knowledge the only other variables that seem to impact it are battery degradation.

That has been my experience as well.

If running navigation that makes adjustments but the dash readout seems to be rated range times remaining charge level.

Sponsored

 

[macb00kemdanno]

Where is this battery “sticker” that everyone is talking about?

 

[blipit]

Where is this battery “sticker” that everyone is talking about?

It has been mentioned in a couple tweets. Apparently Kyle from Out of Spec was texted a picture of it. It was a battery information label...87.4 kwh capacity and minimum pack voltage 240v.

 

[Just Passing By]

Where is this battery “sticker” that everyone is talking about?

Photo included with InsideEVs report

 

[Gen(R3)Xer]

These are AT tires. Does Rivian adjust range based on tire size or type of tires or just adjust based on your average mi/kwh. If so, then the range would be longer with strict road tires.

Good point. You can go in and update your tire type in the system. There has to be a reason for that feature, which is probably to adjust the range based on your tire. Otherwise the BMI would be way off.

 

[JasonK]

87.4 seems small to me for a large pack. Either R2 is more efficient than most people expect or this is the standard battery. It seems a little big for a standard battery as well. So that makes me think of another option. Maybe there is 3 battery pack options. I remembered when I seen the pick of the 3 compartments in the battery that there may be 3 options.

 

[blipit]

87.4 seems small to me for a large pack. Either R2 is more efficient than most people expect or this is the standard battery. It seems a little big for a standard battery as well. So that makes me think of another option. Maybe there is 3 battery pack options. I remembered when I seen the pick of the 3 compartments in the battery that there may be 3 options.

I saw this analysis on X.

768 cells of which I'm assuming are LG 4695 which are 3.6V at 34AmpH

-Based on the disclosed charging performance, we are still at a ~400V architecture.
-We need around 120 cells to hit the ~400v nominal, but given 768 is the total number, I'm using 128 Cells per Module which gives a total of ~460V MAX voltage (seems OK)
-That will give us 6 modules of 460V at 34Ah each, for a total of 204 AmpHours.

Hence, 460v * 204Ah = 93840wH or 93.8kWh

So yeah, 87.4kWh looks to be the USABLE capacity out of 93.8kWh

 

[KRIV_ian]

Photo included with InsideEVs report

I'm pretty sure those stickers show gross capacity.

 

[Just Passing By]

Something to consider. The vehicles used for this media launch might just have been equipped with the small battery. Rivian deliberately didn't provide specific battery capacity, charging or range numbers, or at least required them to be kept under embargo, if they briefed the media on them at all.

If embargoed, then would InsideEVs still go ahead and post a picture of embargoed information? Seems unlikely. It also seems unnecessary for Rivian to provide this data so far ahead of the main March 12 launch date, knowing how such information tends to leak.

So then why would Rivian go ahead and hold back battery capacity, charging and range numbers, but still go ahead and paste a very obvious sticker with battery capacity information? They would also have to presume that someone like Matt could just go to a Tesla fast charger to get additional data? It seems an unlikely oversight by Rivian when they know the R2 will be under such scrutiny.

 

[JasonK]

I saw this analysis on X.

768 cells of which I'm assuming are LG 4695 which are 3.6V at 34AmpH

-Based on the disclosed charging performance, we are still at a ~400V architecture.
-We need around 120 cells to hit the ~400v nominal, but given 768 is the total number, I'm using 128 Cells per Module which gives a total of ~460V MAX voltage (seems OK)
-That will give us 6 modules of 460V at 34Ah each, for a total of 204 AmpHours.

Hence, 460v * 204Ah = 93840wH or 93.8kWh

So yeah, 87.4kWh looks to be the USABLE capacity out of 93.8kWh

Thanks, this makes sense. And it makes sense for the 110-115 mile range estimates for this performance duel motor with AT tires. I hope they make a Lower HP long range model. I can see a 450 HP duel motor R2 with 350 miles range. That would be the model I would want to buy.

 

[usulio]

I really hope 87 kWh isn’t the largest battery size. That just won’t cut it for highway range. The Mach E large pack is 91 kWh.

 

[VSG]

I saw this analysis on X.

768 cells of which I'm assuming are LG 4695 which are 3.6V at 34AmpH

-Based on the disclosed charging performance, we are still at a ~400V architecture.
-We need around 120 cells to hit the ~400v nominal, but given 768 is the total number, I'm using 128 Cells per Module which gives a total of ~460V MAX voltage (seems OK)
-That will give us 6 modules of 460V at 34Ah each, for a total of 204 AmpHours.

Hence, 460v * 204Ah = 93840wH or 93.8kWh

So yeah, 87.4kWh looks to be the USABLE capacity out of 93.8kWh

Why are we still speculating about this (and still getting the details wrong, e.g it's THREE modules not 6 ...)?
We've known the right numbers for a year now, directly from RJ's keyboard.

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/r2-r3-battery-pack-photos-from-rj.42860/

Why do people think that "secret" information in ABRP (which has been there for two years) has more credibility than official information straight from Rivian?

 

[SnowFlyer]

Thanks, this makes sense. And it makes sense for the 110-115 mile range estimates for this performance duel motor with AT tires.

A 110-115 mile range seems extremely low.

 

[JasonK]

A 110-115 mile range seems extremely low.

Oops I meant 310 to 315. LOL. That's what happens when I only get 4 hours sleep at night.

 

[Dark-Fx]

As someone who's spent decades doing M&A work, "independently" is something they may want people on the outside to think about as a marketing point. But in reality, no one acquires something to leave it alone entirely - makes for a sub-optimal investment case as all you end up doing is adding expense and overhead. That never maths, especially not for a public company.

Maybe ABRP left in some placeholders for pack sizes, but they didn't accidentally publish that a week or two before the embargo came off. It's the same company, someone in Rivian corporate knew about it and greenlit it.

The only way ABRP operates independently (no quotes) is if a friendly neighborhood PE firm does a carve out. But even then it's likely Rivian would continue to hold some equity and a board seat until it's sold again in a few years to another PE firm at which time Rivian would likely have an opportunity to liquidate most, or all, of its outstanding interest.

ABRP is in no way independent today. It's Rivian. Plain and simple. Rivian employees with Rivian benefits and Rivian stock options.

PS if you believe ABRP is independent, then the marketing ploy worked on you. Nothing wrong with that, but know it's marketing fluff and nothing else.

I know people that work at Rivian. If it isn't public news and they didn't have a direct hand involved in a particular thing, they generally don't know about other things. An entirely different org under the chart? No way.

Sponsored