Towing test: how far can you tow (9K lbs) with Rivian R1T [by Motortrend]

[RexRemus]

https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-far-can-you-tow-with-electric-truck-range/

Looks like things fall inline with estimates. But if you need to tow in cold weather or are going uphill most of the way, I'd expect something like a 60% range hit or more. As ever, this wouldn't be significantly different in an ICE vehicle as far as percentage lost. The difference being it's much harder to charge with a trailer than it is to pump gas, but you'll be doing more of both when you tow regardless. Still this is a nice datapoint for those who keep asking

Sponsored

 

[Dbeglor]

This is a fun comparison:

R1T towing 9k lbs: Instrumented testing revealed the truck was still able to accelerate to 60 mph from a stop in 7.5 seconds

Tacoma 0-60: 7.7 seconds.

 

[kylealden]

Honestly this is pretty much a glowing outcome for a towing test. Close to max payload, hideously non-aerodynamic load, and lots of mountain passes, still coming in more or less right on target at 50% efficiency. I'll take it!

I do wish there was an obvious trip-o-meter with Wh/mi numbers so outlets could report that - it would really help more effectively inform planning. Hope that's either undiscovered or coming via OTA.

Either way, this result confirms that my mid-range towing scenarios (moving vehicles across WA on I-90, taking travel trailers to camp at local ski areas) are fully covered by the existing EA charging network without a Max Pack.

I wish I knew if MotorTrend's statement that they were on the 21s when all the photos are on 20s is Yet Another Gaffe, or just confusing. I know they have at least one R1T on 21s but most of their towing shots show the AT 20s - this would be an even more impressive result if they were actually towing on the ATs.

 

[koersontap]

Honestly this is pretty much a glowing outcome for a towing test. Close to max payload, hideously non-aerodynamic load, and lots of mountain passes, still coming in more or less right on target at 50% efficiency. I'll take it!

I do wish there was an obvious trip-o-meter with Wh/mi numbers so outlets could report that - it would really help more effectively inform planning. Hope that's either undiscovered or coming via OTA.

Either way, this result confirms that my mid-range towing scenarios (moving vehicles across WA on I-90, taking travel trailers to camp at local ski areas) are fully covered by the existing EA charging network without a Max Pack.

I wish I knew if MotorTrend's statement that they were on the 21s when all the photos are on 20s is Yet Another Gaffe, or just confusing. I know they have at least one R1T on 21s but most of their towing shots show the AT 20s - this would be an even more impressive result if they were actually towing on the ATs.

Looks like the silver one they had pulling might have been on the 21's, based on this shot. Looks like the inserts to me.

 

[Sgt Beavis]

I kinda dig that van. ?

 

[koersontap]

I kinda dig that van. ?

I know! Think of all the candy I could give away in that thing. And even go off-road, to where the kids really are!

 

[Max]

“Putting the truck into Towing mode automatically revises your estimated range, which is itself based on how you've been driving lately. We weren't surprised, then, to see our range drop from nearly 300 miles in default All Purpose mode to less than 200. Thirty-nine miles later, we arrived with 136 miles of range remaining and the battery at 55 percent. Assuming the rate of energy usage remained about the same, that would give us a total range of 175 miles, or 56 percent of its EPA-rated range. This is slightly better than Rivian's guidance, which is impressive considering the second half of the drive was all uphill.”

I am not sure if I am getting their math. They lost 32% of range going 39 miles. 100% would be 122 miles not 175. That is 39% of EPA not 56%. It’s been decades since I graduated so my math may be rusty. What am I missing here?

Side note: Does anyone know what is a difference in pulling 7,700 Ib vs R1T and R1S? Is shorter wheel base makes a big difference? Any features or design difference that impact the experience?

 

[Dbeglor]

“Putting the truck into Towing mode automatically revises your estimated range, which is itself based on how you've been driving lately. We weren't surprised, then, to see our range drop from nearly 300 miles in default All Purpose mode to less than 200. Thirty-nine miles later, we arrived with 136 miles of range remaining and the battery at 55 percent. Assuming the rate of energy usage remained about the same, that would give us a total range of 175 miles, or 56 percent of its EPA-rated range. This is slightly better than Rivian's guidance, which is impressive considering the second half of the drive was all uphill.”

I am not sure if I am getting their math. They lost 32% of range going 39 miles. 100% would be 122 miles not 175. That is 39% of EPA not 56%. It’s been decades since I graduated so my math may be rusty. What am I missing here?

Side note: Does anyone know what is a difference in pulling 7,700 Ib with R1T and R1S? Is shorter wheel base makes a big difference? Any features or design difference that impact the experience?

They charged close to 100% and showed about 300mi in AP mode. They changed it to towing mode, and it dropped to some number under 200 (they don't say exactly). However, that number is going to be a guess based on some input Rivian put in the software based on general impacts of towing.

After driving 39 miles, and the onboard computer analyzing the efficiency and energy used for those miles, the range projection calibrated to 136 remaining assuming the same efficiency will be seen for the remainder. At that point, the 136 is a better number than they started with because it's using real time data. Adding the 39 mi they actually drove gives a gross number of 175mi.

The other variable that they don't comment on is whether they used the navigation system. If they did, it should also account for elevation gains/losses in the range projections to make them more accurate.

 

[Max]

They charged close to 100% and showed about 300mi in AP mode. They changed it to towing mode, and it dropped to some number under 200 (they don't say exactly). However, that number is going to be a guess based on some input Rivian put in the software based on general impacts of towing.

After driving 39 miles, and the onboard computer analyzing the efficiency and energy used for those miles, the range projection calibrated to 136 remaining assuming the same efficiency will be seen for the remainder. At that point, the 136 is a better number than they started with because it's using real time data. Adding the 39 mi they actually drove gives a gross number of 175mi.

The other variable that they don't comment on is whether they used the navigation system. If they did, it should also account for elevation gains/losses in the range projections to make them more accurate.

I get your point that we shouldn’t trust the initial estimate of the computer but the second one could be more accurate. If we ignore the range estimator all together and look at just energy consumption. Loosing 44% charge to go 39 miles gives you 89 miles total range which is even worse 28% of EPA. I think we need more data from members here in different conditions. I think they were going up hill for this segment so flat may give better Numbers. At this point I am thinking towing with any EV should be just local until battery tech and infrastructure improves.

 

[kylealden]

I am not sure if I am getting their math. They lost 32% of range going 39 miles. 100% would be 122 miles not 175. That is 39% of EPA not 56%. It’s been decades since I graduated so my math may be rusty. What am I missing here?

Something that has been bugging me for a while is Rivian's insistence on changing the denominator based on modes and other inferences (even things like charge maximum, if I'm understanding correctly). So 100% could mean 200 miles, or 314 miles, or 150 miles, or anywhere in between based on your charge cap, mode, towing, etc.

I get this if you have a miles-based range estimate, but sometimes I just want to know in straightforward terms what percentage of the total battery capacity is full. I trust my mental math more than opaque estimations based on factors beyond my control.

The first thing I do in any Tesla is change the rangometer from "miles" to "%" for exactly this reason. I hope Rivian provides a way to just show a straight percentage of the full capacity as well.

In the meantime, any conclusion based on # indicated is a little suspect. There are too many confounding variables. Ultimately what we really need is real-time and average Wh/mi data and change in SoC.

 

[Max]

The first thing I do in any Tesla is change the rangometer from "miles" to "%" for exactly this reason. I hope Rivian provides a way to just show a straight percentage of the full capacity as well.

Based on Motor trend review it looks like you can tell the % charge you have left. I am not sure if you can have it on driver display. @Iwantatesla may be able to tell you how R1T interface show you that info.

 

[Dbeglor]

I get your point that we shouldn’t trust the initial estimate of the computer but the second one could be more accurate. If we ignore the range estimator all together and look at just energy consumption. Loosing 44% charge to go 39 miles gives you 89 miles total range which is even worse 28% of EPA. I think we need more data from members here in different conditions. I think they were going up hill for this segment so flat may give better Numbers. At this point I am thinking towing with any EV should be just local until battery tech and infrastructure improves.

I think you are mis-reading the 56% comment. What they are saying is that the total projected range for that trip was 175 miles, or 56% of the original 314 EPA range, meaning the totality of all conditions present for the trip amounted to a 44% reduction in range (towing being primary).

They don't ever say how much of the battery they used for those 39 miles, but presumably it's about 22% (39/175).

The reality is that Rivian has gathered more data than we will ever be able to, and they have calculated the average/typical range loss from towing to be 50%, but there is a bell curve around that figure. If MT had been towing a Lucid Air with the exact same total weight, they would have achieved better efficiency/range results because of the improved aero of the setup. So, the point is literally YMMV. The engineers here could probably walk through the actual math and predict what the confidence interval around that 50% loss is depending on a range of weight and coefficient of drag parameters.

Something that has been bugging me for a while is Rivian's insistence on changing the denominator based on modes and other inferences (even things like charge maximum, if I'm understanding correctly). So 100% could mean 200 miles, or 314 miles, or 150 miles, or anywhere in between based on your charge cap, mode, towing, etc.

I get this if you have a miles-based range estimate, but sometimes I just want to know in straightforward terms what percentage of the total battery capacity is full. I trust my mental math more than opaque estimations based on factors beyond my control.

The first thing I do in any Tesla is change the rangometer from "miles" to "%" for exactly this reason. I hope Rivian provides a way to just show a straight percentage of the full capacity as well.

In the meantime, any conclusion based on # indicated is a little suspect. There are too many confounding variables. Ultimately what we really need is real-time and average Wh/mi data and change in SoC.

I think the disconnect may stem from the fact that, as I understand it, Tesla's range estimate is derived by using the rated range/efficiency and applying it to the remaining battery capacity. In this case, yes you'd want to know what % of battery you have remaining.

However, in a real-time efficiency-based application, the battery percentage is less relevant, because the range projection is doing all the calculations for you and most likely much more accurately. For example, in my Audi this is what happens (numbers used not real/specific, just for illustration purposes):

- Fully charged sitting in my climate-controlled garage at 80 degrees with AC set to OFF, assuming my recent trip was equal to rated range/efficiency: 204 miles of range
- Open garage door, back out into driveway, where the ambient temp is 30 degrees: range drops to 175 mi
- Turn on AC set to 60 degrees: range drops to 170 mi
- Increase AC temp to 75 degrees: range drops to 165 mi
- Turn off rear AC because it's just me: range increases to 167 mi
- Input NAV for a destination within range that includes roads with an average speed limit of 60mph and no elevation change: range drops to 160 mi
- Change destination to one that includes an elevation drop of 1,000 ft: range increases to 170 mi

Throughout all of this, I have still never left the driveway. The Audi doesn't even have a battery % display in plain sight, it's buried in menus and only shown as part of setting charge limits, but I've never needed it because ultimately what I want to know is the remaining range. There is a small general battery level indicator that is just taken from their ICE engine fuel tank display, but you could only approximate what it's telling you to within 10% or so.

 

[LoneStar]

I know! Think of all the candy I could give away in that thing. And even go off-road, to where the kids really are!

Is that a tiny swingset I see through the van's rear window ...

 

[Craigins]

I think you are mis-reading the 56% comment. What they are saying is that the total projected range for that trip was 175 miles, or 56% of the original 314 EPA range, meaning the totality of all conditions present for the trip amounted to a 44% reduction in range (towing being primary).

They don't ever say how much of the battery they used for those 39 miles, but presumably it's about 22% (39/175).

The reality is that Rivian has gathered more data than we will ever be able to, and they have calculated the average/typical range loss from towing to be 50%, but there is a bell curve around that figure. If MT had been towing a Lucid Air with the exact same total weight, they would have achieved better efficiency/range results because of the improved aero of the setup. So, the point is literally YMMV. The engineers here could probably walk through the actual math and predict what the confidence interval around that 50% loss is depending on a range of weight and coefficient of drag parameters.


I think the disconnect may stem from the fact that, as I understand it, Tesla's range estimate is derived by using the rated range/efficiency and applying it to the remaining battery capacity. In this case, yes you'd want to know what % of battery you have remaining.

However, in a real-time efficiency-based application, the battery percentage is less relevant, because the range projection is doing all the calculations for you and most likely much more accurately. For example, in my Audi this is what happens (numbers used not real/specific, just for illustration purposes):

- Fully charged sitting in my climate-controlled garage at 80 degrees with AC set to OFF, assuming my recent trip was equal to rated range/efficiency: 204 miles of range
- Open garage door, back out into driveway, where the ambient temp is 30 degrees: range drops to 175 mi
- Turn on AC set to 60 degrees: range drops to 170 mi
- Increase AC temp to 75 degrees: range drops to 165 mi
- Turn off rear AC because it's just me: range increases to 167 mi
- Input NAV for a destination within range that includes roads with an average speed limit of 60mph and no elevation change: range drops to 160 mi
- Change destination to one that includes an elevation drop of 1,000 ft: range increases to 170 mi

Throughout all of this, I have still never left the driveway. The Audi doesn't even have a battery % display in plain sight, it's buried in menus and only shown as part of setting charge limits, but I've never needed it because ultimately what I want to know is the remaining range. There is a small general battery level indicator that is just taken from their ICE engine fuel tank display, but you could only approximate what it's telling you to within 10% or so.

This all assumes you trust the vehicle to guess the range. I don't have an EV but none of my ICE vehicles are good at projecting miles till empty.

I once got a mustang from Enterprise, with a full tank of gas it said something like 180 miles till empty. After driving about 40 miles on the highway it was up to 220 miles till empty.

I've had similar, less drastic, examples of that with my prius and ram. With my prius I routinely make a 20mi trip and only go down like 2-3 miles on the distance to empty. On my Ram, if I fill up after a full tank of highway driving, I'm at 520 miles till empty. If it is filling up after city driving im at about 440.

 

[Dbeglor]

This all assumes you trust the vehicle to guess the range. I don't have an EV but none of my ICE vehicles are good at projecting miles till empty.

I once got a mustang from Enterprise, with a full tank of gas it said something like 180 miles till empty. After driving about 40 miles on the highway it was up to 220 miles till empty.

I've had similar, less drastic, examples of that with my prius and ram. With my prius I routinely make a 20mi trip and only go down like 2-3 miles on the distance to empty. On my Ram, if I fill up after a full tank of highway driving, I'm at 520 miles till empty. If it is filling up after city driving im at about 440.

I can only speak to my experience with the Audi, and it's extremely accurate and the little bit it is sometimes off, it's usually conservative which is good. I would say on average if it gives me a range estimate of 175mi, the actual range I'll get is within 173-180 without fail. Of course, the caveat is always that a 60mph headwind could arise, or I could choose to drive 90mph, etc......But in both of those cases, the original projection will end up wrong, but it will adjust itself along the way.

I think that is probably the advantage of EV's, they are much more tuned in/interconnected with much higher computational power. That, and the range estimate being accurate could be the difference between staying in business and not. In an ICE vehicle, it's just "oops, got that wrong" because there are typically plenty of gas stations to make up for it. EV batteries also aren't susceptible to fuel gathering at the opposite end of the fuel tank when you are on an incline, tricking the gauge....

Sponsored