Rivian announces 7-Seat version with longer range

Lmirafuente

Well-Known Member
First Name
Lionel
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
214
Reaction score
201
Location
California
First Name
Lionel
Vehicles
BMW740i, Trailblazer, Audi Cabriolet
good discussion here. I am wondering in addition to battery size could Rivian be also looking at the electric motor technologies that can be more efficient and keep or increase performance and provide more range?
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
940
Reaction score
435
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Definitely. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, the motor control algorithms plus eventual transition to higher voltage.
 

JayJay

New Member
First Name
Edward
Joined
Feb 24, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Cary, NC
First Name
Edward
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Lexus LX470
Occupation
Retired Military, Owner, Hunter Alliance Properties LLC
Did anyone see an option for a towing package or is that standard with the R1S?
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
940
Reaction score
435
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Definitely. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, the motor control algorithms plus eventual transition to higher voltage.
Interesting that within hours of posting this we see that the Tesla Model S now offers EPA rating of 409 miles thus putting it ahead of Lucid and making Rivian's 300 mile early release even more of a disappointment to many. The improvement apparently comes from software tweaks.
 

McMoo

Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
5
Location
St. Louis
Vehicles
Tesla Model 3 Performance
Interesting that within hours of posting this we see that the Tesla Model S now offers EPA rating of 409 miles thus putting it ahead of Lucid and making Rivian's 300 mile early release even more of a disappointment to many. The improvement apparently comes from software tweaks.
I love Tesla, and have one, but it’s rare to get more than 75% of range on the highway. And I mean 100-0% range, not just usable. The key to me is what is the actual range on the highway. Around town range really doesn’t matter due to charging at home. If Rivian can be more like the Taycan which easily beats its EPA range on the highway, 300 will be ok for most people. If it’s like Tesla where 75% is the norm (based on my experience) then I may want the bigger battery. Aside from the lower price, this is one reason why I am ok waiting for 2022 for the explore trim. I’d like to see some real data before making a decision.

The Taycan has two gears which really helps. Maybe Rivian can find a way to better maximize efficiency with its quad motor setup vs. the Tesla dual motors.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
940
Reaction score
435
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
The first thing an experienced BEV driver does is look at the EPA range and take 80% of it. Thus he considers the "working range" of the S to be 327 miles and of the early release R1T to be 240. He knows that on a long road trip that his leg lengths will be of about those magnitudes - more with a good tailwind and less with a headwind or rain/snow. As he drives the car the thing he looks at after every trip (assuming he is interested in this which many or probably most aren't) is the consumption (Wh/mi) averaged over various time periods. He soon learns how his vehicle does relative to its rated consumption under various conditions.

Stats collects statistics on realized efficiency from their subscribers. Tesla drivers (that subscribe to Stats) get on overage 94 - 97% of rated miles in the warm months and 82 - 83% in the colder ones but some get appreciably better than that and some worse.

The variation is not in the car. It is in the conditions it is driven under and that depends on the terrain, the temperature, the weather and, of course the driver.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
485
Reaction score
505
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
The first thing an experienced BEV driver does is look at the EPA range and take 80% of it.
I worry a bit about some of the people posting - both on this forum and in general - expecting to get the rated range at highway speed and at all temperatures/weather conditions.
When we engage with people at events like Auto Shows, we put this on the FAQ signage (not too many actually read the signs) and are forthright about it when asking and answering questions.

Some have proposed the EPA number be the minimum you will achieve under any circumstances. Not a very useful metric in my book.

Others have proposed a cold weather range (at something like freezing). Still other want range numbers for all situations - urban and freeway numbers at a constant 70 and 85 with all of them performed at a variety of temperatures. That would be one messy label.

The EPA metric and Monroney label are indeed confusing and hard for the average consumer to understand. Still not sure why the MPGe number is the most prominent. It is often confused for the range of the vehicle and almost always requires explanation for people to even understand what it is measuring.

I do think a 70(ish) mph constant speed highway test at a defined temperature would be a useful metric to publish. Possibly even in normal and "cold" (with cabin heat set to 70?). Not sure these should be on the window sticker, but should be readily available.
 

MadMac

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
13
Location
Washington, D.C.
Vehicles
Jeep Grand Cherokee, Tesla Model 3
So, before I got my Model 3 “stealth” performance, I was concerned about the approx 300 range. Around town with home charging it’s irrelevant but the occasional road trip would be my concern. What I came to realize was that my family itself has a range of only 150 to 175 miles before someone needs a bathroom or a coffee or a snack. Once I’d gotten everyone to sign on to the “we stop when we charge” logic, we made good time...and charging was just what was happening while everyone did everything else. Of course, those of you who actually make more miles on each stint will need to adjust —the logic with BEV is just different (not necessarily worse or better) as you generally want to keep the battery pack in the 20% to 80% window to stay in the fastest part of the charging curve. Driving based on the ultimate range between each charging stop is supposedly the slower way to road trip. Of course, like I said, you have to have a family that lasts that long! Can’t wait for our R1S as the kids keep getting bigger and the dog would like to come along.
 

Mikers

Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
6
Reaction score
7
Location
UK
First Name
Mike
Vehicles
1999 Landrover Discovery, 1974 Volkswagen Thing
So, before I got my Model 3 “stealth” performance, I was concerned about the approx 300 range. Around town with home charging it’s irrelevant but the occasional road trip would be my concern. What I came to realize was that my family itself has a range of only 150 to 175 miles before someone needs a bathroom or a coffee or a snack. Once I’d gotten everyone to sign on to the “we stop when we charge” logic, we made good time...and charging was just what was happening while everyone did everything else. Of course, those of you who actually make more miles on each stint will need to adjust —the logic with BEV is just different (not necessarily worse or better) as you generally want to keep the battery pack in the 20% to 80% window to stay in the fastest part of the charging curve. Driving based on the ultimate range between each charging stop is supposedly the slower way to road trip. Of course, like I said, you have to have a family that lasts that long! Can’t wait for our R1S as the kids keep getting bigger and the dog would like to come along.
I agree. I usually only average about 60 or so miles on an hour on longer road trips factorin in traffic and would rarely go more than three hours without a short break. I drink a lot of coffee and have kids and a dog. After thinking about it some, I think I can do fine with the "large pack" and don't need 400+ miles range. With charging at home cover over 90% of my driving and never needing to go to a gas station that net savings in time is huge.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
940
Reaction score
435
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Clearly extra range is, especially if you charge at home, pretty useless. It is only on road trips where it really counts and what it grants is flexibility both in the sense that you can do longer stages if you want to but also in the sense that there are more charging sources available if you prefer shorter segments. You are more likely to be able to stop where you want to rather than having stopping places dictated by battery requirements. Plan some trips in a 400 mile car and a 300 mile one and you'll see this.

Of the 5 C's

Charge
Convenience
COVID
Cleanliness
Comestibles

you are able to focus more on the latter four and less on the first in deciding where to stop.
 

manitou202

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
4
Reaction score
9
Location
Colorado
Vehicles
Taycan Turbo S, Audi E-tron, R1S Launch Edition Reservation
Ignore the EPA ratings. They are pretty much BS. My Taycan far exceeds the EPA rating, my Audi E-tron gets almost exactly the EPA rating, and the Model X we used to have never got close.

Using real world experience and data, let's compare the R1S to a Tesla Model X (probably the closest in terms of efficiency, size, and weight). With my Model X 100D (EPA rated 295) we averaged around 0.380 kWh/mi. The Model X has a usable battery capacity of about 94kWh. So this equals roughly 247 miles of range. Now the newer Model X has a higher EPA range, but I think some of this is just optimization of the EPA testing and not real world efficiency. So let's say it's closer to 0.340 kWh/mi. The would be roughly 276 miles of range. Now keep in mind this is an average overall with a mix of city and highway driving. When cruising at 75-80mph my Model X used 0.420-0.450 kWh/mi. So my highway range dropped to about 216 miles.

Now lets assume the R1S uses more energy than the Model X. It's taller, at least looks a little less aerodynamic, and probably doesn't have as much special sauce in terms of efficiency as a Tesla. So lets say worst case its 0.400 kWh/mi in mixed driving and 0.480 kWh/mi on the highway. Assuming the 135kWh battery has a usable capacity of 120kWh this would be a mixed range of 300 miles and a highway range of 250 miles.

Now as someone stated above, if the battery modules are 15kWh, then each extra module would add 37.5 mixed miles or 31 highway miles. So we can do the rough math on the possible large battery pack range. It will probably be 375/312 (mixed / highway) for two modules or 412/344 for three versus 300/250 for the medium pack.
 

Rob P

Active Member
First Name
Rob
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
19
Location
Issaquah Washington
First Name
Rob
Vehicles
2006 Range Rover HSE Supercharged, 2014 BMW 650 convertible, 2014 Mercedes C class wife, 4 Dodge Rams trucks for work
Occupation
Own a Landscape and Christmas decorating company
I really wish they would just make the R1s 6 to 8 inches longer. They did it with the truck. It seems like a design flaw from day 1 to make the SUV shorter than the truck and have to compromise one of the main advantages (7 seats) to get max range
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
485
Reaction score
505
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
I really wish they would just make the R1s 6 to 8 inches longer. They did it with the truck. It seems like a design flaw from day 1 to make the SUV shorter than the truck and have to compromise one of the main advantages (7 seats) to get max range
The main reason I'd consider the R1S is because it is shorter. I see that as it's main advantage, not disadvantage. But then again I don't want or need 7 seats. It's impossible to spec any vehicle that's going to please everybody. Both models have what I would consider compromises to my ideal vehicle. I configured R1T, but after the wife and I see and drive them, that could change.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
940
Reaction score
435
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Ignore the EPA ratings.
Very bad advice!

They are pretty much BS.
Only to those who don't understand what they represent nor, consequently, how to interpret them and use them to advantage. Now in saying this I recognize that there are many who happily drive these cars that fall into that group.



My Taycan far exceeds the EPA rating, my Audi E-tron gets almost exactly the EPA rating, and the Model X we used to have never got close.
That depends on how you drive them. I've had 2 X's now and both were, on average, very close to the EPA ratings. That didn't mean that I always got/get (I still have an X) rated consumption. As I said above, what you get depends on how, when and where you are driving. If you want to use the EPA rating information you must educate yourself as to what the effect of, say, rain is (-30 %). This is easy to do if you are numerate and impossible to do if you are, by nature or intent, innumerate.

Using real world experience and data, let's compare the R1S to a Tesla Model X (probably the closest in terms of efficiency, size, and weight). With my Model X 100D (EPA rated 295) we averaged around 0.380 kWh/mi. The Model X has a usable battery capacity of about 94kWh.
The key word there is "about". The energy available from a battery depends on how fast it is withdrawn. If you drive fast not only do you use more Wh/mi to overcome drag (number depends on the square of the airspeed) but you lose more to warming the battery. Bit is any case the available discharge energy from the X battery is in the mid or low 90's (even though everyone knows that the X has a 100 kWh battery, nes pas?). The consumption for the 294 mile rated X was about 300 Wh/mi so with 93 kWh available discharge energy you would expect about 313 miles range. The actual available discharge energy from that version of the X was probably closer to 92 kWh for an estimated range of about 307 miles. Pretty close to the EPA rating of 294.



So this equals roughly 247 miles of range.[/QUPTE] If you got 247 miles you were obviously driving in parts of the envelope distant from the ones on which the EPA rating is based. You should understand that before making statements that the EPA rating are not useful.


Now the newer Model X has a higher EPA range, but I think some of this is just optimization of the EPA testing and not real world efficiency.
The newer X has 351 mile EPA range and this was realized by lopping 30 wH/mi off the consumption. In my personal experience with the newer X I see about 280 Wh/mi which, gives me about 329 miles from 92 KWh of battery energy. Again, pretty close to the EPA rating for the car.


So let's say it's closer to 0.340 kWh/mi.
Let's say it is closer to 272 which is the rated consumption for the car. Or to 280 which is what I see. Let's also note that if you take the 351 mile EPA range and the rated consumption and put them together they tell you that the available discharge energy is 95.472. kWh.


The would be roughly 276 miles of range. Now keep in mind this is an average overall with a mix of city and highway driving. When cruising at 75-80mph my Model X used 0.420-0.450 kWh/mi. So my highway range dropped to about 216 miles.
If you are seeing consumptions as high as this then I cannot say what it is you are doing but whatever it is it is quite dissimilar from the condtions under which the EPA measurement is made. The EPA number strives to do an impossible thing: predict performance under the conditions a typical driver can expect. I find it does so quite well. You do not but that is because your use mode is atypical. Most Tesla X drivers realize 70 - 100% "efficiency" with respect to the rated consumptions (meaning consumption of 272 - 388 Wh/mi) with average of 82% in the winter and 94 - 96% in summer)



Now lets assume the R1S uses more energy than the Model X. It's taller, at least looks a little less aerodynamic, and probably doesn't have as much special sauce in terms of efficiency as a Tesla. So lets say worst case its 0.400 kWh/mi in mixed driving and 0.480 kWh/mi on the highway. Assuming the 135kWh battery has a usable capacity of 120kWh this would be a mixed range of 300 miles and a highway range of 250 miles.
That's actually a reasonable set of assumptions that does not fit at all with the first sentence in your post. 400 may be a little optimistic but my gut feel says it's not too far off. Because of all the uncertainty attached to specification of battery "capacity" Rivian an Tesla have dropped battery size specification in their sales and labeling and now refer to the individual vehicles by their ranges. Thus the early release car is no longer the 135 kWh truck but the 300 mile truck. Nonetheless if 400 to 410 wH/mi be reasonable estimates of the rated consumption and the EPA mileage comes in at 300 then the available discharge energy in the battery pack would clearly be around 120 - 123 kWh.


Now as someone stated above, if the battery modules are 15kWh,
If the battery pack architecture is required to be such that packs with nominal discharge energies of 105, 135 and 180 kWh can be built from them and that the packs can be charged from either 500 V or 920 V chargers then the largest the individual modules can be iis 3.75 kWh. In the firs place no one has said the modules have to be the same size and in the secons it's moot. Just as the early release RIT will be a 300 + mile vehicle so the ones coming later will be 400+ mile vehicles however the battery packs are configured.
 

manitou202

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
4
Reaction score
9
Location
Colorado
Vehicles
Taycan Turbo S, Audi E-tron, R1S Launch Edition Reservation
Very bad advice!

Only to those who don't understand what they represent nor, consequently, how to interpret them and use them to advantage. Now in saying this I recognize that there are many who happily drive these cars that fall into that group.
The EPA range is calculated based on drag results from a dynamometer and then some calculations to account for aerodynamics. No data from the actual road. Show me any independent test that correlates to the EPA range ratings across multiple vehicles.

A rating where I can drive my Taycan aggressively and exceed the EPA rating by 50% and then drive my Model X conservatively and fall short by 30% is not a reliable metric.

I would not trust any EPA range or efficiency rating without real world data. So whatever rating Rivian gets for the R1S won't tell you much until we get some results from Independent testers.

There are several journalists along with YouTubers conducting decent real world tests the provide much better data.

Here is an example using Bjorn's data. He does range tests at 90 km/hr and 120 km/hr. As you can see the Taycan is a clear outlier. It dramatically over-performs in the real world. Now looking at the E-tron versus the Model X, you can see a big advantage for the E-tron over the Model X at slower speeds (90 km/hr) relative to the EPA rating. This aligns with my experience between my E-tron and my Model X which have both been used for daily driving. At the time my Model X had an EPA rating of 295 miles and my E-tron was 204. In the real world a true range rating might have been 265 miles for the Model X and 230 for the E-tron in mixed driving (90km/hr average speeds).

Image 11-23-20 at 3.26 PM.jpg


Image 11-23-20 at 3.27 PM.jpg
 

Advertisement












 


Advertisement


Top