Why is Rivian so inefficient?

[JohnSnowNW]

Agreed that it does look like they sacrificed efficiency for design, and I’m 100% behind this. We need beefy looking SUV’s to gain more acceptance of EV’s especially in this segment.

Well, judging by the comments I've seen from the SUV/Truck crowd, the more "utilitarian" styling of the Rivian doesn't appear to resonate. IMHO, BEVs are going to need time to be accepted...and making them simply EV versions of their ICE counterparts isn't going to win over the ICE purists.

You have to strike a balance between utility and efficiency in the BEV SUV/Truck segment. I do think Rivian is taking this into consideration, but I think they may have been a bit too conservative. On the other hand, Elon makes it seem that they might be a little on the extreme end of the spectrum with the Tesla pickup.

I am interested in a BEV pickup, and as long as I have a useable bed, I don't particularly care what the rest of the truck looks like. However, I've already drunk deeply from the BEV koolaid well...so I'm not who either company needs to attract.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

The Model X isn't really an SUV. It's a tall wagon based on a sedan, so the ICE truck to SUV comparison is not applicable in this case.

I have a Subaru Outback and an F150. The Outback gets close to 30 mpg while the F150 gets about 16. If you want to compare the X to anything, it's closer to an Outback than to something like an Expedition (which gets pretty close to as low MPG as the F150), and an Outback gets pretty close to the same mileage as the sedan it's based on.

I know what you're getting at, but that's really unfair to the Outback.

A Subaru is essentially a street vehicle that can be driven in fairly reasonable offload situations. It's why they're so darn popular in the PNW among the trail mix lovers.

A Model X is more of a MiniVan.

I really hope the Model Y is tougher than a Model 3 like a Subaru Outback/Crosstrek are tougher than most sedans.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

A Subaru is essentially a street vehicle that can be driven in fairly reasonable offload situations. It's why they're so darn popular in the PNW among the trail mix lovers.

A Model X is more of a MiniVan.

Yeah...

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I am interested in a BEV pickup, and as long as I have a useable bed, I don't particularly care what the rest of the truck looks like. However, I've already drunk deeply from the BEV koolaid well...so I'm not who either company needs to attract.

I'm not so sure as I imagine quite a few of us BEV converts are hungry for something different.

For me I don't really want a truck, but an SUV/Crossover that can be taken off road. I'm not looking for hard core rock crawling, but just a decently tough vehicle.

Something like a Jeep or Subaru of the BEV world.

I could easily see myself getting one of these.

Bollinger Motors | Bollinger Motors

I'd still have a P3D or a Porsche Taycan for normal stuff.

 

[Deeppurple]

OK, I agree, most likely aerodynamics and "better battery" tech is what makes Tesla MX more efficient.

 

[EV-lutioin]

A little background of why efficiency and aerodynamics are so important and why Tesla has spent so much efforts to improve them. EV is so much more efficient compares to ICE that losing 20~30% to air drag is much bigger a deal than for ICE which has lost perhaps 70% to heat already. That is important before we reach 100% renewable. Any efficiency gain means less green house gases generated.

Improving aerodynamics has been a top priority for Tesla since the day one. A little known fact, OK not necessarily a fact but that's my best guess, is Elon came up with the hyperloop idea because he spent so much time trying to figure out aerodynamic solutions.

One more thing is it's not just aerodynamics but if you watch the Sandy Munro interview you'd know Tesla has a very innovative and efficient motor design. Munro got an idea of why it's that way but he still could not figure out the details or how it's made. There are probably other things in battery and electrical circuit done that made the efficiency high as it is.

Since truck beds are not very aerodynamic, do you think the Tesla truck will have a covered bed or a topper included to mitigate this?

 

[anthonyj]

If this thing actually releases (I really doubt it) it will flop. No one will buy one for $120k+. Don’t give me the $69k msrp crap... that won’t happen with those specs. And if it does, save this post and I will buy 4 for my family and prove it.

 

[CarlK]

OK, I agree, most likely aerodynamics and "better battery" tech is what makes Tesla MX more efficient.

Yes aerodynamics and better battery plus better motor design and power electronics as revealed by Munro. Superficial things are easy but that's not on top of Tesla's priority list of where to put most efforts on or where they want to compromise. Another thing is the Model X is not just quick but is also very nimble for a 5,500lb seven passenger vehical. I don't think you can find another one on the market like that. And this is really not that easy to do. All Rivian had shown is a good looking (to some) shell and some crude descriptions on paper of a non-working prototype. The divel is always in the details. The details will be 99% of the work that will decide the make or break of it. It's just too early to go gaga about the it.

Since truck beds are not very aerodynamic, do you think the Tesla truck will have a covered bed or a topper included to mitigate this?

Good question. The way Elon does things there will probably be some out of box solutions. we'll see.

 

[Sig72]

From the TMC article: "The R1T, will seat five passengers, and pack four electric motors. Three battery packs will be offered – a 180 kWh battery that is expected to offer more than 400 miles of range per charge, a 135 kWh option that gives more than 300 miles of range per charge, and a 105 kWh pack, which will give about 230 miles of range per charge."

So a Tesla Model X 100D range is 295 miles (2.95 miles per kWh), while Rivian's 135kwh battery (2.22 miles per kWh) gives about the same range, therefore Tesla Model X is about 30% more efficient.

I understand that Rivian is a truck, but in ICE world there is little difference in gas consumption between trucks and SUVs as both groups are heavy and bulky.

Physics. Rivian weighs 2.5 tons, has the aero efficiency of a brick, and has 4 motors that appear to be tuned for power output/towing as opposed to efficiency

 

[SSedan]

Rivian has air suspension so it can be raised for offroad and lowered for highway.
180 kWh battery for 400 mi range - 180,000/400 = 450 Wh/mile.
135,000/300 = 450
105,000/230 = 456

So at least their calculations are consistent. The CEO is out of MIT so I think these are reasonable.
I am hopeful.
Not surprised that the X is more efficient. It certainly looks the part. But the Rivian has lots more storage room.
I hope GM does not buy them.

To get air suspension to move dramatically and not completely screw up suspension geometry and alignment would be a big engineering challenge.

I would be shocked if it was more than a few inches.

 

[docherf]

If Rivian can produce the truck with a 250 mile range real range (like a 100D), I'd be glad to buy one for a similar price. Love the utility of the design.

I don't see the similarity of the model X and the outback.

 

[APotatoGod]

Because Rivian didn’t compromise the SUV and Truck for sake of aerodynamics. ... Rivian decided to make a no compromise SUV and Truck, and because of that, energy consumption suffers. ...

So, what you're saying is that they made a compromise...

 

[rhumbliner]

Since truck beds are not very aerodynamic, do you think the Tesla truck will have a covered bed or a topper included to mitigate this?

Doesn’t help: Pickup Truck Tailgates | Fuel Economy - Consumer Reports News

 

[EV-lutioin]

Doesn’t help: Pickup Truck Tailgates | Fuel Economy - Consumer Reports News

That's probably because these are owner initiated actions rather than a engineer designed solutions that specifically improve aerodynamics. It's hard to believe that there is no way to make a truck bed more aerodynamically efficient.

 

[DarkHelmet]

I disagree. If you want a functional SUV or truck, it has to be a certain size. The inefficiency isn’t related so much to the look of the R1S as it is to the size and cargo capacity. The Tesla Model X and the Rivian R1S are about the same width but the Rivian is longer and higher especially in the front and back. That’s what gives it its utility. The Model X is very much a compromised SUV.

So if a truck has to be a certain size to be functional, how has Toyota sold so many Tacoma’s over the years? There’s a reason there have been sub compact, compact, full size, 1/2, 3/4, 1 ton trucks etc. The Toyota Hilux is by most measures a compact truck and visit any country in the world outside of North America that needs rugged 4x4 pick up trucks and you’ll find a Hilux. America trucks flat out SUCK in these environments. We had a half a dozen F250’s imported to Afghanistan a few years ago for our work. Brand new HD diesels. They were all dead in six months and we were driving Toyota Prados, Hilux and Land Rover Defenders. Most years old and looked like they had been in a war zone....? But they were as dependable as an old pair of Levi’s.

As for your MX vs R1S comparison, all I can say is if you can design a full size functional SUV on the scale of the R1S with the aerodynamics and drag Cd of the MX, you’ll change the world.

Everything is a trade off.