Rivian announces 7-Seat version with longer range

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
875
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
No need to apologize. Probably at least the preponderance of consumers don't know what the EPA rating is telling them but there are enough that do that it is a good thing to have. In fact it is absolutely necessary to have something like this. I was about to say that were it not mandated by the EPA the SAE would probably promulgate it but then I remembered that it is, I believe, synthesized from numbers obtained for testing according to J1634.

I too should apologize for not realizing that it would be as useless to you as a treatise on quantum field theory would be to me.





Advertisement

 

McMoo

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
28
Reaction score
32
Location
St. Louis
Vehicles
Tesla Model 3 Performance
You, nor i nor anyone else outside of Tesla has any idea about how big Tesla's "buffers" are.

Tip: don't run your battery down to 0 % nor charge it to 100%!

This is the sort of thing you should be taking note of. They are indicative of how, when and where you drive. 83% isn't too bad for 70 -75 mph. And 70% isn't that bad for cold weather either (depending on how cold you are talking about).

Well we understand what the EPA number tells us and we understand how to interpret it but it is obviously important that we have real world data RE our own driving in order to be able to use it effectively for trip planning and we want to see ensemble (fleet data) in order to see how we compare to others.

It is pretty clear it does work for EVs. As I did in another post I will ask why anyone would bother with it if it didn't work.
We’ll just have to disagree. They bother with it because it’s required by the government. This is beyond “your results may vary” these are inherent inconsistencies with EVs in various situations. An ICE car MPG doesn’t vary by 30% or more based on speed or cold temperatures. There is an explanation for each difference, like speed and weather, but the impact to EVs is so much greater it questions the test. Its not just someone driving fast and accelerating at every opportunity that causes differences.

Also, there’s no real explanation why a Taycan can have such a low rating but easily get well above the rating in every independent test and real world experience.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
875
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
We’ll just have to disagree. They bother with it because it’s required by the government.
So the government went to SAE and decreed "You must promulgate a stradard!" ? No. That's not how government works. That's not how industry works and that ignores the fact that it is clear to anyone in the industry that something like the SAE rating system is needed. That's where J1634 came from. The government then decided that J1634 could serve as the basis for the number that goes on the Monroney sticker. Disclaimer: I don't know that this is in fact the history but I'd bet more than one beer that it is.

This is beyond “your results may vary” these are inherent inconsistencies with EVs in various situations.
I'll say again (please pay attention this time) that these variances are systematic - not random - and that one can, therefore, pretty easily compensate for them.

An ICE car MPG doesn’t vary by 30% or more based on speed or cold temperatures.
Yes, actually they do. ICE vehicles operate under exaxtly the same laws of physics as BEVs. What's different in an ICE car is that the miles derived from a gallon of fuel represent 20 -30% of the energy content of the fuel with the rest wasted as heat. That swamps the variation in the miles as a function of speed, for example.


There is an explanation for each difference, like speed and weather, but the impact to EVs is so much greater it questions the test.
No it doesn't but you do not understand why and I will not be able to explain to you why so I think it is best that you do as you have suggested: disagree with the parts of the community that can put this important info to good use.


Also, there’s no real explanation why a Taycan can have such a low rating but easily get well above the rating in every independent test and real world experience.
There's always an explanation. You just don't know what it is (and I don't either). There is, and has since the car first came out, been something fishy about it mileage rating. When it was released everyone dismissed it based on its really poor reported mileage relative to its size, weight and power pack specs.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,153
Reaction score
1,881
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
If most of the intended audience is not "savvy" enough to understand the message, the fault is not with the audience.

The EPA range estimate is indeed useful, but primarily because it's all we've got. Most of the time it actually comes closer than the WLTP, and the NEDC so so far out of line to be laughable.

None of these testing standards convey to prospective owners what variables will impact range the most, and the degree to which that might happen. Dealerships (I include Tesla stores in this) are hit and miss as to relying this information as well.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
875
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
It’s clear the EPA test doesn’t work for EVs and it’s not just due to conditions.
This implies that ABRP which is based on rated mileage does not work either. Just to be clear on it do you recommend that those of us who have relied on it for years should no longer do so?
 

manitou202

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
28
Reaction score
97
Location
Colorado
Vehicles
Taycan Turbo S, Audi E-tron, R1S Launch Edition Reservation
This implies that ABRP which is based on rated mileage does not work either. Just to be clear on it do you recommend that those of us who have relied on it for years should no longer do so?
Not to continually rehash the EPA argument, but I found ABRP worked well for my Model X but is way off for my Taycan (go figure). I used ABRP for a 1250 mile road trip in my Taycan and I had to significantly reduce the reference energy consumption from 405 down to 340. I was initially showing up to charging points with 15-25% more battery than ABRP predicted.

Regardless, ABRP is the best tool available in my opinion for route and charge planning. Everyone just needs to keep in mind that adjustments are potentially required to compensate. Start with the default and adjust on the fly.
 

McMoo

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2020
Messages
28
Reaction score
32
Location
St. Louis
Vehicles
Tesla Model 3 Performance
This implies that ABRP which is based on rated mileage does not work either. Just to be clear on it do you recommend that those of us who have relied on it for years should no longer do so?
You’re making up a hypothetical conclusion from a completely unrelated topic to fit a narrative and make it seem like my viewpoint is illogical or unfounded in facts.

This topic is like extremely conservative and extremely liberal individuals discussing politics. Neither person will be swayed so it’s best to just move on and have different opinions.
 

jjwolf120

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
463
Reaction score
568
Location
Arcadia
First Name
John
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
TPA
In the ICE world, the EPA ratings show city mileage and highway mileage on the stickeer (at least the last time I bought a car). It would probably be more useful to consumers if they did the same for Evs. One should keep in mind that ICE vehicles usually get better mileage on the highway than in city driving and Evs do the reverse.
 

DucRider

Well-Known Member
First Name
Gary
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,153
Reaction score
1,881
Location
rRegon
First Name
Gary
Vehicles
Clarity Electric
In the ICE world, the EPA ratings show city mileage and highway mileage on the stickeer (at least the last time I bought a car). It would probably be more useful to consumers if they did the same for Evs. One should keep in mind that ICE vehicles usually get better mileage on the highway than in city driving and Evs do the reverse.
They do the same for EVs
1606268696863.png

In this example, 119 combined, 124 city and 112 highway.

ICE vehicles do not show range or recharge time
F150 Raptor:
1606269347747.png
 

jjwolf120

Well-Known Member
First Name
John
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
463
Reaction score
568
Location
Arcadia
First Name
John
Vehicles
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Occupation
TPA
Once we have these numbers (post #69 above) for the Rivian, we should be able to better estimate the actual range of our vehicles for a stated use. With a little real world use, we should be able to adjust for our leadfootedness or lack there of.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
875
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
Not to continually rehash the EPA argument, but I found ABRP worked well for my Model X but is way off for my Taycan (go figure). I used ABRP for a 1250 mile road trip in my Taycan and I had to significantly reduce the reference energy consumption from 405 down to 340. I was initially showing up to charging points with 15-25% more battery than ABRP predicted.
Exactly. Is 405 wh/mi a reasonable number for the consumption for car with Taycan's specs? No and that's obvious. Taking the explanations for this from the video in the post preceding this Porsche screwed up the relevant tests, provided bad data to the EPA and EPA accepted it. The EPA rating for this car is, as everyone has known for quite a while now is NOT valid. This does not mean that there is a flaw with SAE's tests nor in the way EPA uses them. But, at the same time, it does not mean that the tests will be properly carried out by the OEM or that the EPA will catch that.

Data taken from the Stats fleet indicates that the rating system does work as the EPA numbers give good predictions of what a driver will see on the road if he knows how to interpret them. The driver that does not know how to interpret them can use ABRP (which does) to great benefit in planning his trips and thousands of Tesla drivers do that. Of real relevance here is the question as to whether we can use ABRP (or, if we are D.I.Y.) the EPA estimated (and we emphasize that at this point the numbers published by Rivian are estimates) to see how trips in one of the Rivian vehicles would compare to the same trip in a Tesla or how they would compare between the 300 mile Rivian and the 400 mile one. How do we know that Rivian hasn't screwed up as badly as Porsche or than when it comes to the record run for EPA certification that they too won't bobble the test? Well we don't, of course, but if you look at the available data it seems that around 420 Wh/mi is a resonable average consumption for something the size and weight of the Rivian vehicles. It is not a reasonable number for the Porsche.

Regardless, ABRP is the best tool available in my opinion for route and charge planning. Everyone just needs to keep in mind that adjustments are potentially required to compensate. Start with the default and adjust on the fly.
Yes, amen to that! But that accepts the basic thesis of the EPA ratings being sound. If you find that in the way you drive you use more or less energy per mile than what the EPA number suggests, put that in. If you know that the road is going to be wet, put that in. If you are transporting you anvil collection, put that in. ABRP has terrain height data so it compensates for that and in the paid version uses traffic and weather data too.
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
1,389
Reaction score
875
Location
Virginia/Quebec
First Name
A. J.
Vehicles
Tesla X Extended Range Plus 2019, Lexus, Landcruiser, SR5
Occupation
EE Retired
You’re making up a hypothetical conclusion from a completely unrelated topic to fit a narrative
No I'm not. ABRP uses the EPA model to make it's predictions. If the EPA model is invaliid ABRP would not work. It's a simple question. Do you think ABRP is worthless?

..and make it seem like my viewpoint is illogical or unfounded in facts.
If the shoe fits....

This topic is like extremely conservative and extremely liberal individuals discussing politics. Neither person will be swayed so it’s best to just move on and have different opinions.
It isn't. It is based on engineering principles. It is true that not everyone agrees with what the science says (the Flat Earth Society still exists) and those of us who adhere to the scientific approach recognize, or should recognize, that we can't convince Flat Earthers.
 

State11

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Messages
17
Reaction score
25
Location
San Francisco
Vehicles
Landrover LR3 (soon to be donated) 2019 LR Discovery (emergency bridge vehicle to Rivian), Landrover Defender D90, Tesla 3
But they are useful to consumers - savvy consumers. You just don't happen to be in that group. Accept that and stop trying to convince others that you know what you are talking about here.
Dude, I really appreciate your input here....I've learned a lot from you (and yes, I belong in the dumbass group), but this post was unnecessarily hostile.
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top