Rivian Forum – Rivian R1T & R1S News, Pricing & Order... banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Can you elaborate? The EPA estimates the Model Y is much more efficient. Of course, a less capable vehicle should be.
I don't have a Y, but I can comment on Teslas in general....they typically don't come close to hitting the published ratings and ranges.

I keep my Trip 1 on my cars as lifetime meters.

My MX is rated at 360Wh/mi and averages 406Wh/mi over the course of 70,000+ miles, 13% worse than EPA
My MS is rated at 280Wh/mi but it has a lifetime of 372Wh/mi over the course of 90,000+ miles, 33% worse than EPA

My F-150L for comparison over 2000 miles averages 2.2mi/kWh, 7% better than EPA
My R1T over 1000 miles is averaging 2.18mi/kWh, 5% better than EPA
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,679 Posts
I don't have a Y, but I can comment on Teslas in general....they typically don't come close to hitting the published ratings and ranges.

I keep my Trip 1 on my cars as lifetime meters.

My MX is rated at 360Wh/mi and averages 406Wh/mi over the course of 70,000+ miles, 13% worse than EPA
My MS is rated at 280Wh/mi but it has a lifetime of 372Wh/mi over the course of 90,000+ miles, 33% worse than EPA

My F-150L for comparison over 2000 miles averages 2.2mi/kWh, 7% better than EPA
My R1T over 1000 miles is averaging 2.18mi/kWh, 5% better than EPA
I don't debate that Telsa is over-optimistic in their ratings... But even with your numbers the Tesla is objectively more efficient compared to the R1T.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere yet, but R1T gets way more actual mileage per “battery mile” than Model Y. In both “All road” and even more so in “Conservative” mode.
No idea what you are talking about. The MY is rated to 270 Wh/mi and the R1T 425 Wh/mi. That is 57% more energy used per mile in the Rivian. Not surprising since one is a crossover and the other a truck.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
I don't debate that Telsa is over-optimistic in their ratings... But even with your numbers the Tesla is objectively more efficient compared to the R1T.
I don't think I stated a Rivian is more efficient than a Tesla. Just merely that a Rivian is more efficient than it's EPA rating where as Tesla is less efficient than it's own EPA rating, respectively.

Ie, the R1T will generally go the full distance of the EPA rated range. A Tesla will not.
It's more about the rating of each individual vehicle.

That's my interpretation of what the OP was trying to say.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
I don't have a Y, but I can comment on Teslas in general....they typically don't come close to hitting the published ratings and ranges.

I keep my Trip 1 on my cars as lifetime meters.

My MX is rated at 360Wh/mi and averages 406Wh/mi over the course of 70,000+ miles, 13% worse than EPA
My MS is rated at 280Wh/mi but it has a lifetime of 372Wh/mi over the course of 90,000+ miles, 33% worse than EPA

My F-150L for comparison over 2000 miles averages 2.2mi/kWh, 7% better than EPA
My R1T over 1000 miles is averaging 2.18mi/kWh, 5% better than EPA
summer (June through early October) I consistently get better then rated in my model 3 I drove all weekend, highs in the low 40’sF and got 225 Wh/mi. Even this summer where I did a ton of long trips I averaged pretty much right at rated 252 Wh/mi. Lifetime in just over 4 years in at 291 Wh/mi. In Alaska with ~6-7 months of snow covered roads and high temps rarely above freezing. I had a similar experience related to rated range in my Model S prior to the 3.

Speed is the largest factor for people
Not getting rated range in a Tesla. Going 70-75mph (which is very rare here in Alaska) I’ll get a 20-25% range reduction. 55-60 mph rated or better.

Gadget Font Communication Device Multimedia Electronic device
 

· Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
summer (June through early October) I consistently get better then rated in my model 3 I drove all weekend, highs in the low 40’sF and got 225 Wh/mi. Even this summer where I did a ton of long trips I averaged pretty much right at rated 252 Wh/mi. Lifetime in just over 4 years in at 291 Wh/mi. In Alaska with ~6-7 months of snow covered roads and high temps rarely above freezing.
Are you saying you're right around 15% more consumption than EPA as well? (291wh/mi lifetime / 252Wh/mi rated) That's pretty impressive considering the weather against you in Alaska. I don't get those temps but I am in Zone 5. The HVAC definitely sucks a good amount of juice.

There's not a whole lot of data yet so I'm interesting in seeing as I get more miles. But for reference my mix is about 40% local, 60% highway and I average about 20,000 miles a year. So hopefully I can get some better information about how the R1T performs over time.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Are you saying you're right around 15% more consumption than EPA as well? (291wh/mi lifetime / 252Wh/mi rated) That's pretty impressive considering the weather against you in Alaska. I don't get those temps but I am in Zone 5. The HVAC definitely sucks a good amount of juice.

There's not a whole lot of data yet so I'm interesting in seeing as I get more miles. But for reference my mix is about 40% local, 60% highway and I average about 20,000 miles a year. So hopefully I can get some better information about how the R1T performs over time.
Yes lifetime year round I’m at 291 Wh/mi. I see many days in the middle of winter where I’m >450 Wh/mi, well below 0F, studded tires, fresh loose snow.

like I said “summer” which is when I’m running my summer tires (OEM MXM4’s) I easily get rated, last summer I got 241 wh/mi as I didn’t do nearly as many long trips. This “summer” it was last week in May through yesterday when I put my studded (Nokian Hakka 9’s) winter tires on.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
The difference here is that the Rivian is much less efficient than all the current teslas. The more efficient a vehicle the more you notice range impacted by additional external forces.

for example. An additional 50 Wh/mi in drag by increasing speed (so from 250->300 Wh/mi) is a 20% range reduction in my model 3. On a R1T is is only a ~12% (425-> 475 Wh/mi). This is the same reason EVs range is much more impacted by towing than an ICE. That additional 1+kWh/mi is a 30% range reduction in my truck that is 2.7 kWh/mi at baseline vs a 70% reduction in a R1T that is 0.425 kWh/mi baseline.

I guess what I’m saying less efficient vehicles have less variability.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
The difference here is that the Rivian is much less efficient than all the current teslas. The more efficient a vehicle the more you notice range impacted by additional external forces.

for example. An additional 50 Wh/mi in drag by increasing speed (so from 250->300 Wh/mi) is a 20% range reduction in my model 3. On a R1T is is only a ~12% (425-> 475 Wh/mi). This is the same reason EVs range is much more impacted by towing than an ICE. That additional 1+kWh/mi is a 30% range reduction in my truck that is 2.7 kWh/mi at baseline vs a 70% reduction in a R1T that is 0.425 kWh/mi baseline.

I guess what I’m saying less efficient vehicles have less variability.
That's very true. That's why nobody complains in the winter when gas cars lose 2-3mpg in the winter. We just shrug it off.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
I've had both, Tesla Model S & Model 3. I really wish Tesla would post realistic numbers, rather than boast just the "potential" range. Just about every other EV has range estimates that adjust based on your driving style. Tesla, for some reason, refuses to do this.

Both Tesla's never got anywhere near the rated range in "real world" driving. On open roads through the desert, keeping up with the flow of traffic at 80-85, was lucky to get 260 miles in actual range out of the Model S that said I had 360 or 365. Model 3 was even worse.

This is where I LOVE the Rivian. This thing tells me I have 290 miles in range and I actually get 290 miles of driving out of it. For as advanced as the Tesla's are, their range estimates are utterly and completely useless. It's such a pleasure to now have a vehicle that gives me a range estimate I can rely on. Somehow, someway, this 7,000 brick moving through the air, goes further on a charge than my Tesla's did. Yes, it has a bigger battery. But, in the 80-85 mph range, I averaged about 2.7 miles per wh in the Tesla. In the Rivian, I'm in the 2.3 to 2.4 miles per wh. Tesla Model S equals around 257 miles. Rivian equals 287 miles (on the low end).

I will say, I do miss the simplicity of the Tesla charging network. Relying on public chargers is not always fun. Too unreliable to run your range down to less than 5%. If you do so, then arrive at a charger that doesn't work, you're screwed. Far less likely to happen with the Tesla chargers. About a 25% (or higher) probability with the public networks. So, I do a search for a charger that I would prefer to stop at (that would have me arrive around the 5% range), then search for the next nearest charger. Thus, don't go as far as I could to give myself some type of backup. If that one is out, then hopefully the next one is working.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
582 Posts
What a great first-hand testament, thank you! Regarding the charging network, welcome to the club. You won't believe how much it has improved over the last three+ years, when I bought my first I-Pace. It was really challenging then .. now you still have to plan, but things have improved quite a lot ... not like we want it or as frictionless as the Tesla network, but getting better by the month.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
I've had both, Tesla Model S & Model 3. I really wish Tesla would post realistic numbers, rather than boast just the "potential" range. Just about every other EV has range estimates that adjust based on your driving style. Tesla, for some reason, refuses to do this.

Both Tesla's never got anywhere near the rated range in "real world" driving. On open roads through the desert, keeping up with the flow of traffic at 80-85, was lucky to get 260 miles in actual range out of the Model S that said I had 360 or 365. Model 3 was even worse.

This is where I LOVE the Rivian. This thing tells me I have 290 miles in range and I actually get 290 miles of driving out of it. For as advanced as the Tesla's are, their range estimates are utterly and completely useless. It's such a pleasure to now have a vehicle that gives me a range estimate I can rely on. Somehow, someway, this 7,000 brick moving through the air, goes further on a charge than my Tesla's did. Yes, it has a bigger battery. But, in the 80-85 mph range, I averaged about 2.7 miles per wh in the Tesla. In the Rivian, I'm in the 2.3 to 2.4 miles per wh. Tesla Model S equals around 257 miles. Rivian equals 287 miles (on the low end).

I will say, I do miss the simplicity of the Tesla charging network. Relying on public chargers is not always fun. Too unreliable to run your range down to less than 5%. If you do so, then arrive at a charger that doesn't work, you're screwed. Far less likely to happen with the Tesla chargers. About a 25% (or higher) probability with the public networks. So, I do a search for a charger that I would prefer to stop at (that would have me arrive around the 5% range), then search for the next nearest charger. Thus, don't go as far as I could to give myself some type of backup. If that one is out, then hopefully the next one is working.
I'm in complete agreement, also owning Model S/Model 3's previously. Same thoughts on charging too. When I got my first Tesla back in 2015, it was not terrible, but was not great either as there were only a handful of locations to charge - only 1 in San Diego. I've been able to do a decent amount of long cross state trips and had no issues charging. I know that won't be the case in the Rivian, so I'm really hoping they start building out the RAN as quick as Tesla did.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
I'm in complete agreement, also owning Model S/Model 3's previously. Same thoughts on charging too. When I got my first Tesla back in 2015, it was not terrible, but was not great either as there were only a handful of locations to charge - only 1 in San Diego. I've been able to do a decent amount of long cross state trips and had no issues charging. I know that won't be the case in the Rivian, so I'm really hoping they start building out the RAN as quick as Tesla did.
It was still a long while though, for me supercharging really only became an afterthought starting around 2019. Those first 3-4 years was not a fun time.

For longer road trips it was reliable but still scarce, nowadays I could hit 0 miles remaining and still get to a supercharger.
 

· Registered
Tesla Model Y LR 2020; Rivian R1T Adventure 2022 (Reservation)
Joined
·
110 Posts
That's very true. That's why nobody complains in the winter when gas cars lose 2-3mpg in the winter. We just shrug it off.
Well, there's also still more range in a gasoline car, AND fueling options are wildly more abundant and the refueling is less than ten minutes to restore full range.

I still intend to never own a non-EV again, but the refueling of a liquid fuel vehicle is undeniably vastly superior.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top