Rivian range to charge time is going to be an issue.

[Assquatch]

I hope Rivian can succeed in the long-term because the truck looks great, but it is going to have a big issue with range. It's a truck and is shaped like a truck (a brick). It is expectedly heavy and I have to assume the aerodynamics are horrible. The efficiency seems to back that up, with a similar range to the MYP, but using a nearly 2x as large of a battery.

After a few months with the Tesla MYP I've learned that an advertised ~300 mile range isn't at all what it seems. Real world range is more like 220mi, from 10-80%. I've stared at the energy display enough to become uncomfortably attuned to cargo weight and wind resistance (windows down) pulling on my range. On a road trip, the 20-40min supercharger stops feel frequent, bearable, and occasionally even enjoyable, but if they were any longer they would be annoying.

Rivian has a non existent charging infrastructure, but lets say they knock it out of the park and match Tesla's SC network early on. It will still need double the charge time to fill that huge battery. I don't think you'll even be able to home-charge in a reasonable amount of time on 240v. An L2 could take most of a day. Basically all of those adventurous situations you see on their website are the last thing you can do with a Rivian. I probably wouldn't even take it on a camping trip because I'd be utterly screwed if there wasn't an L3 near the campground or an L2 at it.

My 2c

 

[BooMan]

I hope Rivian can succeed in the long-term because the truck looks great, but it is going to have a big issue with range. It's a truck and is shaped like a truck (a brick). It is expectedly heavy and I have to assume the aerodynamics are horrible. The efficiency seems to back that up, with a similar range to the MYP, but using a nearly 2x as large of a battery.

After a few months with the Tesla MYP I've learned that an advertised ~300 mile range isn't at all what it seems. Real world range is more like 220mi, from 10-80%. I've stared at the energy display enough to become uncomfortably attuned to cargo weight and wind resistance (windows down) pulling on my range. On a road trip, the 20-40min supercharger stops feel frequent, bearable, and occasionally even enjoyable, but if they were any longer they would be annoying.

Rivian has a non existent charging infrastructure, but lets say they knock it out of the park and match Tesla's SC network early on. It will still need double the charge time to fill that huge battery. I don't think you'll even be able to home-charge in a reasonable amount of time on 240v. An L2 could take most of a day. Basically all of those adventurous situations you see on their website are the last thing you can do with a Rivian. I probably wouldn't even take it on a camping trip because I'd be utterly screwed if there wasn't an L3 near the campground or an L2 at it.

My 2c

Not sure I understand what you mean when you say Rivian has a non existent charging network. You know they use CCS, right? Which means they can use EA,Evgo etc…

 

[thesmokingman]

Not sure I understand what you mean when you say Rivian has a non existent charging network. You know they use CCS, right? Which means they can use EA,Evgo etc…

He's talking about efficiency and the real world charging time and in general these EV trucks have abysmal efficiency thus real world charging is gonna take forever and a day. This has been discussed before but not really in depth. It's just a reality no one wants to really look at it yet. For ex. how the R1T achieves its EPA rating yet at the same time has the worst efficiency ever? Thru the use of a freaking huge battery that is gonna be a pain to charge.

Edmunds Tested: Electric Car Range and Consumption | Edmunds

Which EVs have the best electric car range? The EPA provides range estimates for every electric vehicle, but they don't test EV range in the real world -- and Edmunds does. Read all the latest real-world EV test results from the Edmunds experts.

www.edmunds.com

The Rivian R1T achieves its EPA-estimated range but is the least efficient EV we've tested to date

 

[Assquatch]

Not sure I understand what you mean when you say Rivian has a non existent charging network. You know they use CCS, right? Which means they can use EA,Evgo etc…

I was referring to their own network, but you're right there is something... But based on what I've seen in the wild and on plugshare (while intentionally looking into this), the L3s are too few, too sparse, and not ideally located. Not to mention the horrid UX of having to have 3+ different apps with credit cards or money pre-loaded and the reliability of those non-SC chargers. But that is besides the point. A 135Kw pack with a 300mi range is too much charge time for a reasonable person on the go, even at an L3.

 

[glide]

I hope Rivian can succeed in the long-term because the truck looks great, but it is going to have a big issue with range. It's a truck and is shaped like a truck (a brick). It is expectedly heavy and I have to assume the aerodynamics are horrible. The efficiency seems to back that up, with a similar range to the MYP, but using a nearly 2x as large of a battery.

After a few months with the Tesla MYP I've learned that an advertised ~300 mile range isn't at all what it seems. Real world range is more like 220mi, from 10-80%. I've stared at the energy display enough to become uncomfortably attuned to cargo weight and wind resistance (windows down) pulling on my range. On a road trip, the 20-40min supercharger stops feel frequent, bearable, and occasionally even enjoyable, but if they were any longer they would be annoying.

Rivian has a non existent charging infrastructure, but lets say they knock it out of the park and match Tesla's SC network early on. It will still need double the charge time to fill that huge battery. I don't think you'll even be able to home-charge in a reasonable amount of time on 240v. An L2 could take most of a day. Basically all of those adventurous situations you see on their website are the last thing you can do with a Rivian. I probably wouldn't even take it on a camping trip because I'd be utterly screwed if there wasn't an L3 near the campground or an L2 at it.

My 2c

Tesla’s range numbers are pure voodoo.

Rivian range numbers are pretty accurate in the real world.

 

[Zer0t]

My Taycan 199 range IRL is 337 which virtually matches my 2020 MS LR+. The Porsche charge times are quite fast, even on 220 at home. I did quite a bit of driving all over the east coast and find it to be a non-issue.

As far as the P/U trucks go I cannot speak to it but I don't see how it will be better for CT..

 

[Assquatch]

My Taycan 199 range IRL is 337 which virtually matches my 2020 MS LR+. The Porsche charge times are quite fast, even on 220 at home. I did quite a bit of driving all over the east coast and find it to be a non-issue.

As far as the P/U trucks go I cannot speak to it but I don't see how it will be better for CT..

Taycan is impressive on the range and charge speed but also has a small battery and good aero. I was going to say weight is probably lower than comparable Teslas, but holy f that thing is heavy.

CT may likely be the same situation. I read somewhere that the polarizing looks were to help aerodynamics, but not sure how true that will end up being. My guess is that it will land somewhere in the middle on efficiency. It goes without saying that a typical pickup design where the front is basically a wall is about as bad as it gets for drag. Tesla seems to be putting a lot of effort into aero (as any EV maker should be).

I have been able to get close to EPA rated range in the MYP but aero plays such a large part. Driving in the sweet spot of ~50mph on a highway is ideal (my guess). When you get to >75mph efficiency goes off a cliff. Of course, for a long highway drive, 70+ is more common speed.

 

[tm1v2]

I never noticed hitting EPA range numbers to be any more difficult in my Teslas than achieving EPA MPG numbers in my fun, sporty ICE cars. Which is to say, no I don't typically hit them, but I didn't with my ICE cars either. That's just not how I usually like to drive.

If I slow down and take it easy, and I'm not driving up a mountain, I can hit my S and 3's EPA rated efficiency. My understanding is EPA testing uses gentle acceleration and lower highway speeds than most of us into fast cars actually drive (traffic willing).

If the Taycan easily exceeds its EPA numbers without going real slow/gentle, then it's the oddball in my experience. I can see why Porsche might choose to game their EPA range low though, for new EV buyers, since it's clearly not stopping them from selling all the Taycans they can build!

 

[PhantomX]

I never noticed hitting EPA range numbers to be any more difficult in my Teslas than achieving EPA MPG numbers in my fun, sporty ICE cars. Which is to say, no I don't typically hit them, but I didn't with my ICE cars either. That's just not how I usually like to drive.

If I slow down and take it easy, and I'm not driving up a mountain, I can hit my S and 3's EPA rated efficiency. My understanding is EPA testing uses gentle acceleration and lower highway speeds than most of us into fast cars actually drive (traffic willing).

If the Taycan easily exceeds its EPA numbers without going real slow/gentle, then it's the oddball in my experience. I can see why Porsche might choose to game their EPA range low though, for new EV buyers, since it's clearly not stopping them from selling all the Taycans they can build!

The i3 I had before my Model 3 could easily get within 10% of the EPA rating. My Model 3 driving the same route in same condition is usually 25 to 30% off the EPA range. On top of that, the i3 didn't show any battery degression in the 28 months that I had the car, whereas the Model 3 has already shown 14% degradation (confirmed by service and started it's within expectation) by the time it hit 20 months old.

Regarding ICE. My experience is that Japanese MPG rating is very difficulty to achieve, whereas German cars MPG can be quite easy, especially at high cruising speed. For example, I had on many occasions averaged around 30mpg in my BMW M3 and high 20's in my Cayman when cruising at CA freeway speed. I could never get those results in our Toyota, Honda, and Lexus...

 

[tm1v2]

Ah, I've only owned Japanese and American cars. I guess they have different cultures or philosophies about which way to influence the EPA numbers, never knew that!

i3 vs Model 3 efficiency - are you sure you're not accelerating quicker in your Model 3 because you can? I find in slow ICE cars I get close to EPA MPG much more often...probably because they don't have any power to spare for anything more! I haven't done any long drives in non-Tesla EVs to compare though, and I don't remember how fast/slow i3 was...I did test one back in 2013-ish, I remember liking it a lot more than I expected from the way it looked (I expected to hate it). But it wasn't my kind of car and the Model S was at another level of course.

 

[raptor5244]

Wait until you tow something.

 

[PhantomX]

Ah, I've only owned Japanese and American cars. I guess they have different cultures or philosophies about which way to influence the EPA numbers, never knew that!

i3 vs Model 3 efficiency - are you sure you're not accelerating quicker in your Model 3 because you can? I find in slow ICE cars I get close to EPA MPG much more often...probably because they don't have any power to spare for anything more! I haven't done any long drives in non-Tesla EVs to compare though, and I don't remember how fast/slow i3 was...I did test one back in 2013-ish, I remember liking it a lot more than I expected from the way it looked (I expected to hate it). But it wasn't my kind of car and the Model S was at another level of course.

i3 is definitely slower than my Model 3. However, I don't think my driving characteristic is different between the two cars, since majority of the time was spent cruising on the freeway. I just think that BMW and Tesla compute their EPA number differently, so i3 is a bit easier to get to EPA number then Model 3.

 

[thesmokingman]

Lmao, comparing an i3 to a Model 3 is ridiculous. Considering the cost, size of battery, totally different packaging, and one being 2600lbs vs 4000lbs... seriously?

 

[PhantomX]

Lmao, comparing an i3 to a Model 3 is ridiculous. Considering the cost, size of battery, totally different packaging, and one being 2600lbs vs 4000lbs... seriously?

Don't think those difference should play into the discrepancy in EPA estimates. If anything, Tesla should be able to deliver EPA numbers that consumers can easily match, given their vast amount of experience in EV compared to BMW and others.

 

[Brando]

Production numbers, batteries every ones bottleneck Tesla way ahead.

 

[Candleflame]

Don't think those difference should play into the discrepancy in EPA estimates. If anything, Tesla should be able to deliver EPA numbers that consumers can easily match, given their vast amount of experience in EV compared to BMW and others.

its just a race to the top. Tesla maximizes the EPA test by doing all 5 (rather than just the 2 tests). Porsche doesnt care and just does the bare minimum which leads to lower EPA numbers.

The issue is that Porsche doesnt need to win the EPA race. Whereas with Tesla it would be weird fi the new Model S Plaid only had 400km of range and then Mercedes says "SEE WE GOT 600km RANGE. LOOK AT US. BETTER THAN TESLA".

While none of us here are impressed with EPA range the standard customer who buys the EV almost certainly is.

 

[thesmokingman]

Don't think those difference should play into the discrepancy in EPA estimates. If anything, Tesla should be able to deliver EPA numbers that consumers can easily match, given their vast amount of experience in EV compared to BMW and others.

That's not how it works, how your feelings go. You're comparing a subcompact to a mid-size car, like seriously man? You're joking right?

Oh and if you really had to compare, try the SR/SR+. It's not only cheaper than a ludicrously overpriced i3 it's faster, bigger, more range, better charging, etc etc oh and its worth repeating that its cheaper lol.

 

[PhantomX]

That's not how it works, how your feelings go. You're comparing a subcompact to a mid-size car, like seriously man? You're joking right?

Oh and if you really had to compare, try the SR/SR+. It's not only cheaper than a ludicrously overpriced i3 it's faster, bigger, more range, better charging, etc etc oh and its worth repeating that its cheaper lol.

I still don't understand how any of that has to do with accuracy of EPA assessment. We are not talking about efficiency, which Tesla is very good at. Having accurate EPA number is not about the car but the test method. Regardless of the car specifications and price point, the manufacturers should be able to have accurate assessment of EPA numbers. For example, we have a $80k BMW X7 that weights in at 5300lb, and it can easily beat its highway MPG rating. We also had a Prius before, and we could come very close to its rating as well. On the other hand, my old Lexus IS could never get anywhere near its EPA number, nor can our old Honda Odyssey. The Model 3 is in the same boat, and many have said that Tesla numbers are incredibly hard to achieve. That has nothing to do with what the car is, it's all about how the manufacturer goes about the EPA testing of their cars.

 

[thesmokingman]

I still don't understand how any of that has to do with accuracy of EPA assessment. We are not talking about efficiency, which Tesla is very good at. Having accurate EPA number is not about the car but the test method. Regardless of the car specifications and price point, the manufacturers should be able to have accurate assessment of EPA numbers. For example, we have a $80k BMW X7 that weights in at 5300lb, and it can easily beat its highway MPG rating. We also had a Prius before, and we could come very close to its rating as well. On the other hand, my old Lexus IS could never get anywhere near its EPA number, nor can our old Honda Odyssey. The Model 3 is in the same boat, and many have said that Tesla numbers are incredibly hard to achieve. That has nothing to do with what the car is, it's all about how the manufacturer goes about the EPA testing of their cars.

Many manufacturers cheat and don't list their actual battery size. This is why you get behemoths that hit their EPA numbers while have *sugar* efficiency. You should google this area about EPA numbers, there's a crap ton of gray area. Tesla on the flip side is very specific almost to their detriment. And the EPA number is at a specific speed, ofc you never could hit it because no one ever drives at EPA speeds... like c'mon man?

 

[Unclepaul]

Everything covered up by YMMV.