The first (and only) Aero Spoke Inserts for Rivian R1T / R1S 20" All-Terrain Wheels!

[Ivman]

Not sure how my response could be called “barking”, but my sincere apologies if that was your take.

This is the first time I’ve reiterated a 100% satisfaction gauranteed, open return policy….and still get attacked on the forum, ha ha. Good example, not matter the effort to please, some remain simply unpleasable.


There is no numeric range claim on the product page, never has been. But I respectfully disagree, saying nothing is not right. We can / will / do explain the products best we can. Everyone is free to have some or pass!

happy days To all!

thx gang

Not attacking at all, merely making observations and even mentioned the policy was great - it really is and being in the customer service business myself, I can very much appreciate it. Maybe barking was the wrong way to say it, but defensive is definitely true, even in the response here. There is no need to apologize.

I, too, appreciate the investment into innovation and product building you are doing. I've always loved to mod my cars / trucks over the years and without people like you, I'd never would have had the opportunity to do so.

Finally, any claims of efficiency gains on the product page, numerical or not, is still a claim. "along with providing the benefit of reducing the aero-robbing open spoke surface area of the wheels." And while not on the product page, you have made those numerical claims here. Presumably, you are a trusted authority and therefore your claims are to be considered trusted by consumers.

Simply stating "everyones experience is different" is not adequate for the real-world results relayed here. You simply cannot make a claim to efficiency gains without evidence (actual evidence) to back it up. It's misleading. I understand if you see this as an attack, but I assure you it's not. It's simply adding clarity to my previous meaning. I mean no ill will.

Sponsored

 

[Riviot]

Has anyone else noticed a droning noise at 40-50mph? My commute is 70mph and I listen to music or podcasts, so today's low speed drive talking to the wife gave me a chance to listen. I ruled out AC, motors, pretty much anything else.

FWIW I got 3 mi/kWh in a 40-50mph area I used to get <3. Maybe there's a specific speed range the aero works best at?

 

[Riviot]

So, I did a thing. I put on @twraps gunmetal staple covers, @brainexploder chrome delete on the butt, and @AO_Pete hook covers (love all these). I'm still thinking about these @EV Sportline aero covers, thinking maybe I should've gone black as the grey is lighter than the wheels, but the most important part is actual efficiency gains. Drum roll please...

Starting from a "cold" battery in a 65°F garages, mild 67° AC running low both tests, with identical 60s° temperature and 70mph for the 21 highway miles in All Purpose Standard Soft ride, I'm seeing a 4% efficiency hit in my first test . There was slow traffic in a normal 50mph drive getting to the highway for painting new road lines, effecting time and speed, but I thought slow would've helped it. Maybe not.

I'll try again next week, I'm not making the normal commute again till then. I'm pretty perplexed. Am I forgetting to hit a button?

Take 2: 2% drop. We're getting better!

 

[Redmond Chad]

Riviot raised the question about whether the aero inserts may work best at a specific speed. That's an interesting question - in general I assume that anything that lowers drag is going to have a larger effect at higher speeds. However, I suppose it's possible that turbulent flows around a rotating wheel could change course entirely as the speed varies (because the presentation of open and closed sections will come at different rates w.r.t the air speed). Air flow around wheels may be different than air flow around fixed parts of the car.

It is an interesting question, but I don't have the background to evaluate it. I hope someone here can make a more intelligent comment, but until then I'm going to continue to assume that higher speeds = more benefit (or harm!). Certainly at low enough speeds the effect is small enough that you can't measure it, so there has to be a minimum speed where the effect is measurable - regardless of whether there is also a higher speed at which the effect lessens.

 

[Redmond Chad]

With that assumption in mind, I did my own test. Some of the test runs that others have posted here (thanks!) are disappointing - I bought these inserts to get an aero improvement; if they really make things worse I want to send them back. But I didn't want to send them back until I tried them myself. I know there are a LOT of variables, and this sort of testing is difficult (especially when you are looking for small changes), but I did what I could.

TL/DR version: I saw a 7% improvement in a 75mph test when using the aero inserts. Weather, traffic, etc all seemed nearly identical on both runs.

OCD version:

Assuming aero effects would be magnified at higher speeds, I looked for a high-speed route "near" me. The best I could do was a 17-mile-long 70mph freeway section around 40 miles away. I'd drive there, go 75 mph along the section and back for a 34-mile high-speed test. There are hills on the route; but for the PNW it's fairly flat, and I'd do a round-trip to reduce that factor from affecting the efficiency numbers. I'd do everything I could to make the car as efficient as possible to help magnify any effects. I'd try to make the two runs as identical as possible. And of course I'd measure the lower-speed trip there and back as well.

The car:

• 2023 R1S with 1k miles (1.1k for the second test)
• 20” wheels with Michelin Defender 275/65 tires (and EVSportline aero inserts for one run)
• (EDIT: forgot this earlier) TWraps mud flaps front and rear. Between the mud flaps and the non-AT tires, air flow near the aero inserts may be different for my R1S than yours (and an R1T may be even more different)
• Hitch cover on; no bars, pods, bikes, etc on the exterior

Controlled conditions:

• Conserve mode, auto height, soft ride, strong regen
• Gentle but not-in-the-way acceleration
• HVAC at 72
• Cruise set for 5mph over limit where possible (except 67 in a 60)
• Empty car; just the driver

For the two high-speed runs, I was fortunate that the traffic and weather both seemed very nearly identical. Aside from the fact that I wish the runs were longer, this seems like pretty good data. I had cruise set at 75, but I had to turn around in the middle and there were about 4 times on each run that I had to slow down briefly before switching lanes to get around a slower vehicle - so the average speed was 71mph on both runs. Temperatures were around 69 degrees for both runs, and weather was overcast. HVAC was set at 72, but I never felt any heat - I had driven a while to get here so the car started warm, and the tires, battery and motors no doubt kept things warm enough. In fact I think there was a little A/C going, but the overhead from that - more importantly, the DIFFERENCE between the overhead on the two runs - would be negligible compared to pushing the car at these speeds.

75mph section without inserts:

• 34.6 miles taking 29 minutes; 71mph average
• 16.3kWh for an average efficiency of 2.12 mi/kWh

75mph section with inserts:

• 34.6 miles taking 29 minutes; 71mph average
• 15.2kWh for an average efficiency of 2.27 mi/kWh

The run with the aero inserts was about 7% more efficient. It's possible there were other things affecting this test that I didn't account for - for example, wind. But the forecast called for mild winds in both cases, I never felt any gusts, I didn't see any trees moving, and it was a round trip so hopefully that reduced the effect of any wind differences. But still...I'd encourage others to try similar trips and report results!

--------------------------------------------------

I also measured the trip as a whole - it was a 116.9 mile round-trip (so again, net elevation was zero). The first trip in the morning (with inserts) saw temperatures go from 65 to 73; the second trip (no inserts) in the evening saw temperatures go from 73 to 64. In both cases the car started a little warmer in the garage, so I don't believe the heater ever came on. With HVAC set to 72, I believe there was very little AC running either.

I like that this was a much longer run with, again, very similar weather. Traffic, unfortunately, was not identical on the slower sections. It was a little heavier (though smooth) on the morning run with inserts, so my average speed was about 3mph lower which clearly improves the results of the run with the inserts.

Whole trip without inserts:

• 116.9 miles taking 2:10; 54mph average
• 50.2kWh for an average efficiency of 2.34 mi/kWh

Whole trip with inserts:

• 116.9 miles taking 2:16; 51mph average
• 46.9kWh for an average efficiency of 2.5 mi/kWh

The whole trip with inserts was 6.8% better than the trip without them (which is much closer to the 75mph results than I expected). But as noted earlier, the trip with inserts was 3mph slower due to traffic, which likely is the majority cause of this efficiency difference rather than the inserts.

Also, note that I contrasted these results with the "high-speed" run, but this trip includes that run and an awful lot of 60-67mph driving, so it not much of a "low-speed" run - average speed was still in the 50's (and I assume - though I could be wrong - that that includes time at stoplights where you're not notably modifying the miles or kWh part of the equation. There were no stoplights in the 75mph section - and I also started and ended that section going 75mph - so the average speeds are not as far apart as they appear). I expect that if you are going 25-40mph around town you aren't going to notice any efficiency improvement from any aero gadget.

That's what I saw. But it's different than what others have seen; there are a ton of variables so I'd love to see more testing. Mo data = mo betta.

 

[Ivman]

With that assumption in mind, I did my own test. The test runs that others have posted here (thanks!) so far are disappointing - I bought these inserts to get an aero improvement; if they really make things worse I want to send them back. But I didn't want to send them back until I tried them myself. I know there are a LOT of variables, and this sort of testing is difficult (especially when you are looking for small changes), but I did what I could.

TL/DR version: I saw a 7% improvement in a 75mph test when using the aero inserts. Weather, traffic, etc all seemed nearly identical on both runs.

OCD version:

Assuming aero effects would be magnified at higher speeds, I looked for a high-speed route "near" me. The best I could do was a 17-mile-long 70mph freeway section around 40 miles away. I'd drive there, go 75 mph along the section and back for a 34-mile high-speed test. There are hills on the route; but for the PNW it's fairly flat, and I'd do a round-trip to reduce that factor from affecting the efficiency numbers. I'd do everything I could to make the car as efficient as possible to help magnify any effects. I'd try to make the two runs as identical as possible. And of course I'd measure the lower-speed trip there and back as well.

The car:

• 2023 R1S with 1k miles (1.1k for the second test)
• 20” wheels with Michelin Defender 275/65 tires (and EVSportline aero inserts for one run)
• Hitch cover on; no bars, pods, bikes, etc on the exterior

Controlled conditions:

• Conserve mode, auto height, soft ride, strong regen
• Gentle but not-in-the-way acceleration
• HVAC at 72
• Cruise set for 5mph over limit where possible (except 67 in a 60)
• Empty car; just the driver

For the two high-speed runs, I was fortunate that the traffic and weather both seemed very nearly identical. Aside from the fact that I wish the runs were longer, this seems like pretty good data. I had cruise set at 75, but I had to turn around in the middle and there were about 4 times on each run that I had to slow down briefly before switching lanes to get around a slower vehicle - so the average speed was 71mph on both runs. Temperatures were around 69 degrees for both runs, and weather was overcast. HVAC was set at 72, but I never felt any heat - I had driven a while to get here so the car started warm, and the tires, battery and motors no doubt kept things warm enough. In fact I think there was a little A/C going, but the overhead from that - more importantly, the DIFFERENCE between the overhead on the two runs - would be negligible compared to pushing the car at these speeds.

75mph section without inserts:

• 34.6 miles taking 29 minutes; 71mph average
• 16.3kWh for an average efficiency of 2.12 mi/kWh

75mph section with inserts:

• 34.6 miles taking 29 minutes; 71mph average
• 15.2kWh for an average efficiency of 2.27 mi/kWh

The run with the aero inserts was about 7% more efficient. It's possible there were other things affecting this test that I didn't account for - for example, wind. But the forecast called for mild winds in both cases, I never felt any gusts, I didn't see any trees moving, and it was a round trip so hopefully that reduced the effect of any wind differences. But still...I'd encourage others to try similar trips and report results!

I also measured the trip as a whole - it was a 116.9 mile round-trip (so again, net elevation was zero). The first trip in the morning (with inserts) saw temperatures go from 65 to 73; the second trip (no inserts) in the evening saw temperatures go from 73 to 64. In both cases the car started a little warmer in the garage, so I don't believe the heater ever came on. With HVAC set to 72, I believe there was very little AC running either.

I like that this was a much longer run with, again, very similar weather. Traffic, unfortunately, was not identical on the slower sections. It was a little heavier (though smooth) on the morning run with inserts, so my average speed was about 3mph lower which I suspect slightly improves the apparent effect of the inserts.

Whole trip without inserts:

• 116.9 miles taking 2:10; 54mph average
• 50.2kWh for an average efficiency of 2.34 mi/kWh

Whole trip with inserts:

• 116.9 miles taking 2:16; 51mph average
• 46.9kWh for an average efficiency of 2.5 mi/kWh

The whole trip with inserts was 6.8% better than the trip without them (which is closer to the 75mph results than I expected). As I noted before, the trip with inserts was a little slower, so that magnifies these results. And while I contrast these results with the "high-speed" run, this trip includes that run and an awful lot of 60-67mph driving, so it not much of a "low-speed" run - average speed was still in the 50's (and I assume - though I could be wrong - that that includes time at stoplights where you're not notably modifying the miles or kWh part of the equation. There were no stoplights in the 75mph section - and I also started and ended that section going 75mph - so the average speeds are not as far apart as they appear). I expect that if you are going 25-40mph around town you aren't going to notice any efficiency improvement from any aero gadget.

That's what I saw. But it's different than what others have seen; there are a ton of variables so I'd love to see more testing. Mo data = mo betta.

Wow great results and nicely detailed test parameters!

 

[Riviot]

With that assumption in mind, I did my own test. The test runs that others have posted here (thanks!) so far are disappointing - I bought these inserts to get an aero improvement; if they really make things worse I want to send them back. But I didn't want to send them back until I tried them myself. I know there are a LOT of variables, and this sort of testing is difficult (especially when you are looking for small changes), but I did what I could.

TL/DR version: I saw a 7% improvement in a 75mph test when using the aero inserts. Weather, traffic, etc all seemed nearly identical on both runs.

OCD version:

Assuming aero effects would be magnified at higher speeds, I looked for a high-speed route "near" me. The best I could do was a 17-mile-long 70mph freeway section around 40 miles away. I'd drive there, go 75 mph along the section and back for a 34-mile high-speed test. There are hills on the route; but for the PNW it's fairly flat, and I'd do a round-trip to reduce that factor from affecting the efficiency numbers. I'd do everything I could to make the car as efficient as possible to help magnify any effects. I'd try to make the two runs as identical as possible. And of course I'd measure the lower-speed trip there and back as well.

The car:

• 2023 R1S with 1k miles (1.1k for the second test)
• 20” wheels with Michelin Defender 275/65 tires (and EVSportline aero inserts for one run)
• Hitch cover on; no bars, pods, bikes, etc on the exterior

Controlled conditions:

• Conserve mode, auto height, soft ride, strong regen
• Gentle but not-in-the-way acceleration
• HVAC at 72
• Cruise set for 5mph over limit where possible (except 67 in a 60)
• Empty car; just the driver

For the two high-speed runs, I was fortunate that the traffic and weather both seemed very nearly identical. Aside from the fact that I wish the runs were longer, this seems like pretty good data. I had cruise set at 75, but I had to turn around in the middle and there were about 4 times on each run that I had to slow down briefly before switching lanes to get around a slower vehicle - so the average speed was 71mph on both runs. Temperatures were around 69 degrees for both runs, and weather was overcast. HVAC was set at 72, but I never felt any heat - I had driven a while to get here so the car started warm, and the tires, battery and motors no doubt kept things warm enough. In fact I think there was a little A/C going, but the overhead from that - more importantly, the DIFFERENCE between the overhead on the two runs - would be negligible compared to pushing the car at these speeds.

75mph section without inserts:

• 34.6 miles taking 29 minutes; 71mph average
• 16.3kWh for an average efficiency of 2.12 mi/kWh

75mph section with inserts:

• 34.6 miles taking 29 minutes; 71mph average
• 15.2kWh for an average efficiency of 2.27 mi/kWh

The run with the aero inserts was about 7% more efficient. It's possible there were other things affecting this test that I didn't account for - for example, wind. But the forecast called for mild winds in both cases, I never felt any gusts, I didn't see any trees moving, and it was a round trip so hopefully that reduced the effect of any wind differences. But still...I'd encourage others to try similar trips and report results!

I also measured the trip as a whole - it was a 116.9 mile round-trip (so again, net elevation was zero). The first trip in the morning (with inserts) saw temperatures go from 65 to 73; the second trip (no inserts) in the evening saw temperatures go from 73 to 64. In both cases the car started a little warmer in the garage, so I don't believe the heater ever came on. With HVAC set to 72, I believe there was very little AC running either.

I like that this was a much longer run with, again, very similar weather. Traffic, unfortunately, was not identical on the slower sections. It was a little heavier (though smooth) on the morning run with inserts, so my average speed was about 3mph lower which I suspect slightly improves the apparent effect of the inserts.

Whole trip without inserts:

• 116.9 miles taking 2:10; 54mph average
• 50.2kWh for an average efficiency of 2.34 mi/kWh

Whole trip with inserts:

• 116.9 miles taking 2:16; 51mph average
• 46.9kWh for an average efficiency of 2.5 mi/kWh

The whole trip with inserts was 6.8% better than the trip without them (which is closer to the 75mph results than I expected). As I noted before, the trip with inserts was a little slower, so that magnifies these results. And while I contrast these results with the "high-speed" run, this trip includes that run and an awful lot of 60-67mph driving, so it not much of a "low-speed" run - average speed was still in the 50's (and I assume - though I could be wrong - that that includes time at stoplights where you're not notably modifying the miles or kWh part of the equation. There were no stoplights in the 75mph section - and I also started and ended that section going 75mph - so the average speeds are not as far apart as they appear). I expect that if you are going 25-40mph around town you aren't going to notice any efficiency improvement from any aero gadget.

That's what I saw. But it's different than what others have seen; there are a ton of variables so I'd love to see more testing. Mo data = mo betta.

Thanks so much for doing this! I really want to do a better controlled test than my commute, but alas, time...

Did you happen to hear any droning at 40-50mph?

What erks me most is multiple people have complimented the new look, so I feel obliged to keep them despite unproven gains. I really want them to help, and I really want to prove it myself!

 

[Redmond Chad]

Did you happen to hear any droning at 40-50mph?

No, I haven't noticed any noises from the inserts.

There are two things (EDIT: three!) that I mentioned earlier, but I'd like to call out again as they may (? or may not) explain some of the differences between my numbers and those that others have seen. One is that I tested on an R1S, and some others are testing on an R1T...they are shaped very differently in the back, so it's possible that airflow over the rear wheels is different. The other is that I switched from Pirelli All-Terrains to Michelin Defender All-Seasons; again it is possible that the extra tread on the All-Terrains causes different airflow interactions with the inserts. (EDIT The third thing is that I have TWraps mud flaps on my car.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know, I am just looking for ways to explain the differences!

Along those lines, something else that may be at play: Rivians are very heavy, so accelerating takes a lot of energy. For an efficiency test, ideally you'd have very steady speeds. I did have a few slowdowns, but not very many considering the distance I traveled - and I was fortunate in that even when traffic was heavy and slower, it was pretty steady. Slower steady speeds can improve efficiency (though reduce the effect of aero gadgets) but repeatedly slowing down and speeding up can reduce efficiency - even when the average speed is the same.

 

[Riviot]

So, I did a thing. I put on @twraps gunmetal staple covers, @brainexploder chrome delete on the butt, and @AO_Pete hook covers (love all these). I'm still thinking about these @EV Sportline aero covers, thinking maybe I should've gone black as the grey is lighter than the wheels, but the most important part is actual efficiency gains. Drum roll please...

Starting from a "cold" battery in a 65°F garages, mild 67° AC running low both tests, with identical 60s° temperature and 70mph for the 21 highway miles in All Purpose Standard Soft ride, I'm seeing a 4% efficiency hit in my first test . There was slow traffic in a normal 50mph drive getting to the highway for painting new road lines, effecting time and speed, but I thought slow would've helped it. Maybe not.

I'll try again next week, I'm not making the normal commute again till then. I'm pretty perplexed. Am I forgetting to hit a button?

Attempt #3 today, negligible drop now, but still not an improvement. I credit the increase with me fixing my tire pressure yesterday.

I'm taking aero covers off tonight and will do a couple non-aero tests again. Maybe I just had a really strong tailwind on my original non-aero test? 🛻

 

[EV Sportline]

Attempt #3 today, negligible drop now, but still not an improvement. I credit the increase with me fixing my tire pressure yesterday.

I'm taking aero covers off tonight and will do a couple non-aero tests again. Maybe I just had a really strong tailwind on my original non-aero test? 🛻

Thanks for sharing - my suggestion is keep them on for a long(er) period. It is very difficult to measure efficiency in short periods, due to all the variables and indirect factors (weather, routes, traffic, etc) Long periods will more properly average the highs/lows. If you have similar driving day in, day out....with 1000 miles you should have a decent baseline. Then make a switch, and check after another 1000 miles.

Now this wont work well if you have a random road trip mixed in, or you are comparing do different seasons (1000 winter miles vs 1000 summer miles wont work).

Enjoy!

 

[Riviot]

Good news: my 40-50mph droning noise is NOT coming from the aero inserts!
Bad news: my Without-Aero test #2 came up identical consumption to my first without-aero test.

 

[EV Sportline]

Good news: my 40-50mph droning noise is NOT coming from the aero inserts!
Bad news: my Without-Aero test #2 came up identical consumption to my first without-aero test.

Whew on noise, glad that's not an issue! Keep on at it with more date on the range, let's see what you report over more time

 

[EV Sportline]

Sneak peak, our new internal Aero efficiency test rig is coming together nicely....working to finish building this soon!

 

[Riviot]

Whew on noise, glad that's not an issue! Keep on at it with more date on the range, let's see what you report over more time

I'm rooting for these to work! Perhaps they're better for road trips/long distance/higher speed? Either way, I'm likely to keep. It's annoying how many compliments I get on them.

 

[EV Sportline]

I'm rooting for these to work! Perhaps they're better for road trips/long distance/higher speed? Either way, I'm likely to keep. It's annoying how many compliments I get on them.

+1 on the compliments, they look cool on your truck!

Sponsored