What is 2mi/kWh?

[Andystroh]

I am a little confused by the 'baseline' indicator on this efficiency graph that is showing up in some photos of the UI behind the steering wheel. Any thoughts on what this is supposed to indicate? I would expect it to be aligned with the EPA-estimated range, but if the pack is 135 kWh this would only correlate with a 270 mile range. I suppose since they dropped the talk about specific kWh battery pack size its possible they increased it to 157 kWh - that would be a pretty substantial increase, but would validate this 2.0 value. Does anyone have insight into what this represents, if it changes, or know If you were to drive at a 2.0/kWh rate for 100% of the battery pack should you expect to meet the EPA-rated range?

Sponsored

 

[Taycanfrank]

270 mile range is likely the accurate real world number.

Welcome to the world of the terrible EPA and completely bogus marketing range numbers.

 

[kylealden]

We don't know how the UI adapts to various conditions but we do know that it does - for example, the "range remaining" is based on historical driving, drive mode, and wheel/tire selection.

270 miles is about right for all terrain tires in "all-purpose mode," so there's a reasonable possibility that the baseline is adapted to those factors (it would be interesting to see if it changes when you change drive modes).

The EPA rating, on the other hand, is a different set of factors (mix of speeds/conditions, mix of all-purpose and conserve, standard-trim (21" all season) tires, etc.).

 

[jtshaw]

There is also a lot we (or at least I) don't know about the Rivian UI so I don't know if that baseline is the tested range or a baseline based on YOUR driving behavior (and if so, how dynamic it is). One thing I noticed in my test drive is the miles left on the battery indicator did seem to adjust on the fly based on how I was hammering the truck. The miles left indicator on the battery of my Tesla doesn't do that and ends up being useless as a result.

 

[SeaGeo]

270 mile range is likely the accurate real world number.

Welcome to the world of the terrible EPA and completely bogus marketing range numbers.

Sort of this. But also almost all of the trucks we've seen are on the 20s, which you'd expect closer to that 270 miles of range.

That being said, I don't think that's the reason that the "efficiency" screen shows 2 mi/kwh. That drive efficiency screen is using just using a fixed round number that's static (2 mi/kwh). 314 miles of range would be about 2.3 mi/kwh.

So I am guessing that it's literally just a round number with 1 significant digit to provide people for reference, rather than having it fixed at 2.32592592592592592. I've yet to see that reference move, so it's not a GOM or anything.

 

[SeaGeo]

270 miles is about right for all terrain tires in "all-purpose mode," so there's a reasonable possibility that the baseline is adapted to those factors (it would be interesting to see if it changes when you change drive modes).

I'm a good 90% sure it doesn't. Given Rivian's attempts at "simplifying" things, I really think they didn't want a decimal place on their graph. They don't even show a Y-axis scale it's just "more efficient and less efficient," relative to 2 mi/kwh.

 

[kylealden]

So I am guessing that it's literally just a round number with 1 significant digit to provide people for reference, rather than having it fixed at 2.32592592592592592. I've yet to see that reference move, so it's not a GOM or anything.

There's also some psychological value to "if the graph's baseline is less efficient than the real-world average, owners are more likely to see green, which makes them happy."

 

[SeaGeo]

There's also some psychological value to "if the graph's baseline is less efficient than the real-world average, owners are more likely to see green, which makes them happy."

Yep! That thought crossed into my mind as well. Clever if that was on purpose. For all we know they could have set it to coincide with the least efficient package they have and rounded to the nearest whole number still as well.

In any case, it's just a reference.

 

[Taycanfrank]

I don't know what screen we're talking about exactly but the kWh/100 mi number (basically the same as mile/kWh just flipped around a bit) is accurate in every EV I've driven.

As @SeaGeo mentions it could be rounded but I doubt it is rounded to a really significant extent.

Generally the kWh/100 mi number is the best & most accurate real time number to know how much range you have. You need to know your usable battery capacity and understand the progression of efficiency but the number itself has been within 95% accuracy in every EV I've driven.

 

[Peter del Rio]

The bottom line is Rivians miles per kW is the lowest in the industry. Weight has a lot to do with it and the 4 electric motors.

 

[SeaGeo]

I don't know what screen we're talking about exactly but the kWh/100 mi number (basically the same as mile/kWh just flipped around a bit) is accurate in every EV I've driven.

As @SeaGeo mentions it could be rounded but I doubt it is rounded to a really significant extent.

Generally the kWh/100 mi number is the best & most accurate real time number to know how much range you have. You need to know your usable battery capacity and understand the progression of efficiency but the number itself has been within 95% accuracy in every EV I've driven.

They're referring to this.

 

[Dark-Fx]

The bottom line is Rivians miles per kW is the lowest in the industry. Weight has a lot to do with it and the 4 electric motors.

E-tron S is rated worse than the R1T and the R1S.

 

[ERguy]

They're referring to this.

2.29 mi/kWh sounds about right. That would give a range of 309 miles.

The 2 mi/kWh seen on the left in that photo is simply the scale for the graph and should not be confused for the actual mi/kWh that vehicle is averaging. I think the OP may be looking at that and mistakenly thinking the vehicle is only getting 2 mi/kWh.

 

[SeaGeo]

2.29 mi/kWh sounds about right. That would give a range of 309 miles.

The 2 mi/kWh seen on the left in that photo is simply the scale for the graph and should not be confused for the actual mi/kWh that vehicle is averaging. I think the OP may be looking at that and mistakenly thinking the vehicle is only getting 2 mi/kWh.

right. Or why 2 mi/kWh what chosen. Which (I'm guessing) is because it's a round number as discussed above.

 

[Max]

The bottom line is Rivians miles per kW is the lowest in the industry. Weight has a lot to do with it and the 4 electric motors.

But it is the best rate for any BEV truck on American roads

Sponsored