-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Rivian - Electric Truck - Reveal set for Nov 30 at LA Auto Show
- Thread starter Thunder7ga
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
I think your using your math to exagerate your point because not a single Tesla SUV gets 4 miles per kWh. But I get it somewhat, and you're making assumptions to prove you point:
The 75D which uses 75kWh to go 237 miles right, per the 2017 fueleconomy.gov rating assuming you charged to 100% and went to 0%, which is 3.16 miles/kWh no-where near 4. (But who charges to 100 and goes to 0...nobody according to this forum - but that'll probably apply equally to Rivian).
The rating for the Rivian SUV hasn't been completed but lets assume the biggest battery, 180kWh only gets 400 miles, which they've already stated is 400+ but we don't know what the "+" is (could be 402..LOL). That would make it 2.2 miles/kWh. But we don't know the real Rivian range and the smaller battery R1S may be more efficient much like the 75D is more efficient than the 100D and the difference between the two may be less than you think - so yes if you consder 2.95 kWh (100D) to 2.2ish(R1S 180kWh) a gas guzzler, then so be it.
Don't get me wrong, I want an X for myself. But as for me I'll take 2.2m/kWh when I can go 400+ miles on a charge. I think it premature and a bit "not Teslaitis" to compare numbers off a promo to proven performance in an apples to oranges comparison. Hence my 100D to R1S big battery ratio.
When the Tesla Truck is introduced maybe I'll get my reservation fee back from Rivian, until that time it's the only EV pickup (albeit a small one).
In the end the consumer is going to win because competition will force Tesla to get better and the opposite is tru as well.
Dzm
I'm not exaggerating and you don't need to go from 100% to 0% charge to figure it out. I wasn't referring to the X when I made my initial statement. You are correct about the Model X getting less than 3 miles per kWh but thanks to their aerodynamics it is possible to achieve 3 miles per kWh.
Isn't the Model 3 rated at 250 Wh/mile? If so, that's 4 miles/kWh. My S has an average of less than 290 Wh/mile over the past 20,000 miles and that's even with a lot of highway miles. Before version 9, I always had the odometers on the screen and could see that my ~10 mile commute took about 2.5 kW every day. That's 4 miles per kWh right there. Often my S uses less than 200 Wh/mile. The 3 is lighter so it's even easier for it to get 4 miles per kWh.
We don't know enough about the Rivian's true Wh/mile figures yet so I did get the 2.2 figure by dividing things out. True it does say 400+ but if you calculate for all three battery sizes, it's 2.2 miles/kWh for each.
Last edited:
Don TLR
Active Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
My son in law has one of these which he is restoring. We looked at converting it to electric but too expensive.
It's a classic.
Yeah I don't care about comparing the Model 3 to the RT1 truck.....How much can the model 3 tow? So 4 is out IMO. Might as well compare the range of a Volt to the M3 - about as logical. The factors that make the M3 have that range are as much about the battery as the aerodynamics so lets still to SUV to SUV.
Here's more info with more accurate numbers....it infers the 400+ is 410:
Rivian R1S Compared To Tesla Model X
You asked why @Vitold was comparing it to a gas guzzler. I assume he said that because the R1T uses more energy than any Tesla. Yes, they are totally different vehicles and have different purposes but the R1T just isn't as energy efficient.
I get it, trying to figure out what "Gas Guzzler" is in consensus opinion in terms of EV power was my effort, I found out: Anything less efficient than a Tesla is a guzzler.
But IMO the RS1/RT1 are not gas guzzlers in comparison, which points to the fact that 'guzzler' is subjective. It's inarguable that they are less efficient, which I don't really care about because I care about range, payload, towing and other factors. His gas guzzler comparison of M3 to the RT1 works both ways - the M3 is an EV guzzler because it can't haul 1600 lbs of payload in it's bed and tow 11,000lbs while seating 5 people........it's all relative.
I love the fact that in a diff threat on this forum someone asked how to put the MX tow bar onto the MS - he/she was chastized immediately...
Dzm
Don TLR
Active Member
I thought the same thing! And yes, I do have a 1972 Scout
We have to see pics,, you know to compare it to a Rivian
That's obvious, though. The R1T/S are larger, it'd be truly miraculous if they were more energy efficient than something smaller.
Calling them equivalent to "gas guzzlers" is clearly meant to be disparaging, and completely ignores the fact that the capabilities are entirely different and folks (like me) who need that capability have no other choice (other than an ICE). I'm all for efficiency, but if it can't do the job then that's a non-starter.
CarlK
Active Member
There is a difference between want and need. People have lived for years without the use of personal 3 ton monsters. Most people in the world still don't have that option. Not trying to nitpick but your argument would sound better and more convincing if you just say that's what you want.
Last edited:
Btw, wasn't being argumentative, I need to have debates/discussions as it forces me to research, do fact checking, in this case math, and act vs just taking things for granted. So for that thanks.
Dzm
Sorry, but that's pretty much the definition of nitpick. Sure, I don't "need" much of anything, none of us do. Perhaps one day I'll abandon all worldly goods, but for the moment I have stuff and I "need" to move it around.
The other secret sauce Tesla has is that *they don't consider superchargers a profit center*, and that results in advantages like $0.26/kWh charging in CA, which is in-line with home electric rates (cheaper than?), while commercial competitors currently charge more than twice that to sip on their level 2! I'm waiting to hear the competition's answer to 100kW charging at $0.26/kWh in CA, but I don't expect to hear anything anytime soon...
Forest Green is a popular color for offroad vehicles -- Jeep Cherokee XJ, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Subaru Forester
I have a forest-green Jeep Grand Cherokee ZJ. See this nice buildup of a green Cherokee XJ
Not too-crazy oversize tires (31"), solid upgraded front & rear axles (from '78 Ford F150 4WD pickup), 4.10 gears, winch.
^^^ This is a good solution for mild-serious offloading -- rock crawling, backcountry use, etc
In Offroad community, there is a (conservative) classification called "highlander" for general offroad use. This is the Rivian target market. Toyota has the Highlander. For more radical users, it requires EXTENSIVE modification with aftermarket parts -- suspension lifts, oversize tires/rims, beefy steering, etc
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I really think calling them "gas guzzlers" is a cheap shot. Gas guzzlers, duh, guzzle fossil fuel, polluting the environment, etc.
EVs can be run from clean renewable energy. So, even an inefficient EV will be much easier on the environment than any fossil fuel car.
As we transition to abundant renewable energy, I think we need to be less concerned about using that energy efficiently. If you need a big truck to haul a lot of stuff, you can run it on renewable energy and not worry about the environment.
Cory Doctorow has a novel, "Walkaway", which takes place in a future where there is abundant free energy and because of that, everything else (food, technology, buildings, clothing, stuff) is essentially free, made by autonomous robots who continually recycle matter into useful stuff. It's a bit dystopian but posits an interesting world.
Summary from Wikipedia Walkaway (Doctorow novel) - Wikipedia :
"In a world of non-work, ruined by human-created climate change and pollution, and where people are under surveillance and ruled over by a mega-rich elite, Hubert, Etc, his friend Seth, and Natalie, decide that they have nothing to lose by turning their backs and walking away from the everyday world or "default reality".[3][4]
With the advent of 3D printing – and especially the ability to use these to fabricate even better fabricators – and with machines that can search for and reprocess waste or discarded materials, they no longer have need of Default for the basic essentials of life, such as food, clothing and shelter.[3][4]"
swaltner
Active Member
I’m rounding the numbers to make it easier to read. Ignore the exact details.
The Rivian is about 2 miles per kWh, while the Tesla Semi is about 2 kWh per mile (2,000 Wh/mile). Yes, the both have a 2 in there, but they are way different values. 2 mile/kWh is 500 Wh/mi.
Edit: i’m assuming you meant efficiency not efficacy.
The Rivian is about 2 miles per kWh, while the Tesla Semi is about 2 kWh per mile (2,000 Wh/mile). Yes, the both have a 2 in there, but they are way different values. 2 mile/kWh is 500 Wh/mi.
Edit: i’m assuming you meant efficiency not efficacy.
Similar threads
