Long Beach to Scottsdale and Back (in an R1S)

[BS8899]

Maybe Rivian followed Lucid's methdology and switched to a 5 cycle EPA test to achieved 4 mi/kWh on the R2.

It is all smoke and mirrors, right?!

The specs I've seen on the R2 suggest "over 300-mile range with a 105kWh battery". This implies an efficiency of ~3 mi/kWh.

I think Rivian's R2 should be able to achieve that. Gravity's efficiency's as reported by owners in real driving (not Lucid's claims based on EPA), is not much better than that. Cosmo, being a smaller, lighter vehicle, might do better. We shall see!

 

[BS8899]

As we talk about EV efficiency, range, charging speed, etc., I would like to remind the forum readers to (re)look at the Maine (US-Canadian Border) to Key West race organized by Kyle of OoS. I am doing this summary from memory.....


If you don't want to watch OoS Kyle's multi-hour videos (actually multi-day), let me capture a few salient points:

> the race was over 2,600 miles, from Maine to Key West. The idea was to show how several SUV type of EVs perform, covering 2,600 miles, more than33 hours of travel, multiple charging stops etc. etc.
> there were (I don't remember the exact number) like 8 or 9 EVs participated. Two Gravities, a Tesla, Rivian R1S, VW BUZZ, etc.
> naturally, Kyle's Gravity took first place, and another Gravity (confined to only charge at Tesla charging station) took second, the Tesla was 3rd.
> the Rivian R1S came in 5th (if I remember correctly). Before the race, Kyle called the Rivian a "BRICK", well, because it looked like a BRICK when it came to aerodynamics.
> So, how did the Rivian do?
.....it came in 5th (or was it 6th) with a couple of other EVs that were not particularly sleek in aerodynamics. The VW BUZZ came in last.
.....so, on the surface, this is exactly the result and order one would expect vis-a-vis, Gravity, with high efficacy, ultra-fast charging, sleek aerodynamics took first and second place.

if you stop there, you might say: sleek, highly efficient, aerodynamic vehicles won, hands down!! Yes, that's true.

Let's look more closely at the results:

> Yes, the two Gravities won.
> but the winning margin, as measured by the time duration to complete the route (Maine to key West) was only ~6-7% (about1-1/2 hr. of total elapsed time) over 33+ hours of travel! The time includes the driving, stops, charging, etc. etc..

So, the "BRICK", aka Rivian, with its bad efficiency, poor aerodynamics, inferior range, and slow charging (400V vs Gravity's 900V) the margin was 6-7% (between the first 3 EVs (2 Gravities and a Tesla) vs the 2nd group of 3 EVs, including the Rivian)!!

I am not suggesting the Rivian was equivalent or better than the Gravity. It clearly wasn't. But the aggregate performance (efficiency, aerodynamics, # charging stops, charging times, etc.) yielded a smaller time advantage than I would have imagined. Before you remind me, I am sure the Gravity used less kWh of DCFC than the Rivian for this 2,600+ mile race.

Gravity is a great vehicle if you get pass the SW/HW problems. But in real-life driving including road trips, the differences between Gravity and the Brick are not as large as you think!

 

[Macgreiner]

All of this reinforces my skepticism that the R2 will magically reach 4mi/kWh as Rivian claims with that terribly boxy and poor aerodynamic shape. I know the battery chemistry may be different etc etc. but they have never been an innovative battery or efficiency company. It just doesn’t seem plausible that it will beat the Model Y.

Same. My first impression was that they got some figures screwed up. That shape looks hyper inneficient.

 

[BS8899]

Same. My first impression was that they got some figures screwed up. That shape looks hyper inneficient.

Where is this notion that the R2 claims it will do 4mi/kWh? The specs on the launch skew suggests ~3mi/kWh, which I think is well within the Rivian's capability on the R2.

 

[Bus Driver]

When I first got my AirGT in October 2022, I drove from Paradise Valley AZ (near Scottsdale) to Rancho Palos Verdes (near Long Beach), where I had my second home. My son was attending USC at the time. The range of my AGT was rated at 516 miles. The trip from my Paradise Valley home to my Palos Verdes home was almost exactly 400 miles, door-to-door. That was one of the reasons I picked the AGT.

On multiple trips, I was unable to go from door-to-door (400 miles) on 100% charge. Perhaps I was too chicken to run out of charge without stopping to charge. Now, 3 years later, I have solid data on multiple highway trips that my AGT's efficiency is ~3.5mi/kWh. If you did the math, the 112kW battery will give you a 392 mile range, 8 miles short of commuting non-stop!

So, I'd caution you to think that the Air might take you from Long Beach to Scottsdale in one charge.

Now, you might say, "wait a minute, didn't Lucid demo'ed they drove from Fremont to Santa Monica Pier 2 years ago in an Air-Pure? Wasn't that also almost 400 miles?" Yes, but they didn't do that drive on a high-speed interstate like the I-10. They were on slower highways and byways, probably averaging less than 55 mph.

Details! Details!

My Air GT sounds like it’s spec-ed exactly like yours. I took delivery of it just a day earlier than your month, on Septemeber 30th 2022.

I have 73,000 miles on the car now, and my lifetime efficiency sits at right around 3.3 miles per kWh. I drive between 75 to 85 mph on my 140 mile one-way commute to work.

I ran (most unwillingly I’ll add), an experiment the other day. I resolved to drive no faster than 70 mph on my 140 mile drive home. I hit 3.9 miles per kWh, occasionally brushing past 4.2 miles per kWh, getting some range back on the downhill stretches. I was at 3.98 miles per kWh when I set my car to Park on my driveway.

Based on that one drive restricting myself to 70 mph, and no faster, I wager that if you still had to do that drive 400 mile drive today, you’d make it without stopping to charge. Provided you were scrupulous about driving no faster than 70 mph. Believe me, you’ll find it a tedious drudgery.

 

[Cabonzhp]

Little update on this situation.

I work with someone who recently joined my company from Rivian test, and he was on their EPA certification testing. He was floored at our efficiency and agreed it’s on par with towing, recommended we send the car back which we have.

Our loaner is a gen1 Quad which is pretty cool. Yesterday we took it on a 4 hour round trip drive and its range estimation was absolutely spot on to the percent, despite long stretches cruising at…higher speeds plus incline.

My coworker and I are both suspicious of my cars alignment, he said he went through 7 alignments on his early R1T. We’ve been promised the car back tomorrow with no insight, so we’ll see!

 

[The_Don]

As we talk about EV efficiency, range, charging speed, etc., I would like to remind the forum readers to (re)look at the Maine (US-Canadian Border) to Key West race organized by Kyle of OoS. I am doing this summary from memory.....


If you don't want to watch OoS Kyle's multi-hour videos (actually multi-day), let me capture a few salient points:

> the race was over 2,600 miles, from Maine to Key West. The idea was to show how several SUV type of EVs perform, covering 2,600 miles, more than33 hours of travel, multiple charging stops etc. etc.
> there were (I don't remember the exact number) like 8 or 9 EVs participated. Two Gravities, a Tesla, Rivian R1S, VW BUZZ, etc.
> naturally, Kyle's Gravity took first place, and another Gravity (confined to only charge at Tesla charging station) took second, the Tesla was 3rd.
> the Rivian R1S came in 5th (if I remember correctly). Before the race, Kyle called the Rivian a "BRICK", well, because it looked like a BRICK when it came to aerodynamics.
> So, how did the Rivian do?
.....it came in 5th (or was it 6th) with a couple of other EVs that were not particularly sleek in aerodynamics. The VW BUZZ came in last.
.....so, on the surface, this is exactly the result and order one would expect vis-a-vis, Gravity, with high efficacy, ultra-fast charging, sleek aerodynamics took first and second place.

if you stop there, you might say: sleek, highly efficient, aerodynamic vehicles won, hands down!! Yes, that's true.

Let's look more closely at the results:

> Yes, the two Gravities won.
> but the winning margin, as measured by the time duration to complete the route (Maine to key West) was only ~6-7% (about1-1/2 hr. of total elapsed time) over 33+ hours of travel! The time includes the driving, stops, charging, etc. etc..

So, the "BRICK", aka Rivian, with its bad efficiency, poor aerodynamics, inferior range, and slow charging (400V vs Gravity's 900V) the margin was 6-7% (between the first 3 EVs (2 Gravities and a Tesla) vs the 2nd group of 3 EVs, including the Rivian)!!

I am not suggesting the Rivian was equivalent or better than the Gravity. It clearly wasn't. But the aggregate performance (efficiency, aerodynamics, # charging stops, charging times, etc.) yielded a smaller time advantage than I would have imagined. Before you remind me, I am sure the Gravity used less kWh of DCFC than the Rivian for this 2,600+ mile race.

Gravity is a great vehicle if you get pass the SW/HW problems. But in real-life driving including road trips, the differences between Gravity and the Brick are not as large as you think!

This might be true for a long trip, but I'd imagine most are similar to me where the longest you generally drive is between 300 and 400 miles. Having the ability to do that without stopping is worth quite a bit to me!

 

[BS8899]

This might be true for a long trip, but I'd imagine most are similar to me where the longest you generally drive is between 300 and 400 miles. Having the ability to do that without stopping is worth quite a bit to me!

I agree....that was my motivation when I purchased my 2022AGT. At that time, my son was going to USC. I had a house in Rancho-Palos Verses and my main home was in Paradise Valley AZ. The door-to-door distance was exactly 400 miles.

The AGT, with an EPA rated range of 516 miles could not make the trip non-stop. 90% of the trip was on I-10. I drove the posted speed limit (+3 mikes for the speedometer offset) 70mph in CA, 75 mph in AZ. My efficiency was ~3.5mi/kWh. It won't make the 400-mile trip non-stop.

If I drove at the EPA test speed (48 mph average), I'd probably make it! But do you want to drive 400 miles @ 48mph?

 

[Cabonzhp]

Got the R1S back. The only finding was that from the factory, the wheel selection was wrong in UI. Rivian themselves refers to their two 20” wheels in different ways across sources, sometimes using “All-Terrain” for both and sometimes separating All-Season.

We have all season, it was set to all terrain. Since all terrain is worse for efficiency, this theoretically should’ve made the range estimate overly optimistic, not the other way around. Maybe has to do with the different outer diameter. Drove 2 hours, estimate is within 1% and efficiency looks more correct around 2.3 mi/kWh.

We still chose to take my Air Pure to AZ this time around. One 20 minute stop for the trip, average 3.68 mi/kWh with cruise at 80. Estimation correct within 1-2%.

 

[BS8899]

Got the R1S back. The only finding was that from the factory, the wheel selection was wrong in UI. Rivian themselves refers to their two 20” wheels in different ways across sources, sometimes using “All-Terrain” for both and sometimes separating All-Season.

We have all season, it was set to all terrain. Since all terrain is worse for efficiency, this theoretically should’ve made the range estimate overly optimistic, not the other way around. Maybe has to do with the different outer diameter. Drove 2 hours, estimate is within 1% and efficiency looks more correct around 2.3 mi/kWh.

We still chose to take my Air Pure to AZ this time around. One 20 minute stop for the trip, average 3.68 mi/kWh with cruise at 80. Estimation correct within 1-2%.

No question the Air Pure will have better efficiency than the R1S. If you are getting 2.3 mi/kWh on your R1S (which does not have Conserve Mode), that's pretty much Rivian's spec.. Typicaly, I can get ~2.5 mi/kWh on my (Quad) R1S in conserve mode. My 20222 AGT gets ~3.6 mi/kWh.

 

[Cabonzhp]

Dual Standards “All Purpose” looks the same as Conserve on the gen 1 quad we had. Always disconnects rear axle, always lowers on highway

 

[scal_air]

I agree....that was my motivation when I purchased my 2022AGT. At that time, my son was going to USC. I had a house in Rancho-Palos Verses and my main home was in Paradise Valley AZ. The door-to-door distance was exactly 400 miles.

The AGT, with an EPA rated range of 516 miles could not make the trip non-stop. 90% of the trip was on I-10. I drove the posted speed limit (+3 mikes for the speedometer offset) 70mph in CA, 75 mph in AZ. My efficiency was ~3.5mi/kWh. It won't make the 400-mile trip non-stop.

If I drove at the EPA test speed (48 mph average), I'd probably make it! But do you want to drive 400 miles @ 48mph?

Are you driving on 19" wheels? They give the best range but its a crime IMHO

 

[Cabonzhp]

I’m on 19s and threw the hubcaps back on for the long drive. Love how they ride and love the range, but every time I’m next to a nice AGT on the highway with the nice 21s I feel quite inadequate.

 

[BS8899]

Dual Standards “All Purpose” looks the same as Conserve on the gen 1 quad we had. Always disconnects rear axle, always lowers on highway

Yes, to some extent. Recently, Rivian has posted some extensive data on this subject. I don't want to hijack this forum to discuss Rivian's data. You can view them at the following URL:

Are you driving on 19" wheels? They give the best range but its a crime IMHO

Yes 19" wheel.

Unlike most of you, I bought my AGT or its range. At the time I bought it in Oct 2022, I had a second house in Ranch Palos Verdes. My main home is in Phoenix. The door-to-door distance was exactly 400 miles. So, I thought the AirGT, rated at 516 miles range, would be able to do that trip non-stop. It never happened!

Best I did was ~360 miles by the time my SoC drops to 7-8%.

Typically, I drive the speed limit, 70mph in CA, 75 mph in AZ.

I know some of the larger tires might give me better handling, but I don't really need it.

 

[Saksak]

[…] So, I thought the AirGT, rated at 516 miles range, would be able to do that trip non-stop. It never happened!

Best I did was ~360 miles by the time my SoC drops to 7-8%.

Typically, I drive the speed limit, 70mph in CA, 75 mph in AZ. […]

Your real-world stats match the theoretical derating for speed that applies to all EV vehicles. You could make the 400 mile trip by driving 5 mph slower, but it’s faster to do a quick splash-and-dash charge. Over 5.5 hours of straight driving is a long stretch!

Your actual range (let’s say @70 mph): 391 miles (360 / 0.92)

Theoretical range at various speeds:

• 1st order formula: R2/R1≈(v1/v2)^2
• 75 mph: 340 miles
• 70 mph: 391 miles (baseline)
• 65 mph: 453 miles
• 60 mph: 532 miles

You hit the EPA range of 516 miles at 60.9 mph.

It’s too bad the EPA testing specification and the resulting published range number isn’t what we care about as consumers. This is a problem with the EPA and not Lucid nor any other auto manufacturer.

Although it’s disappointing that none of us get EPA range at real-world highway speeds, the derating applies to all EV vehicles and the Lucid Air is still King.

 

[BS8899]

Your real-world stats matches the theoretical derating for speed that applies to all EV vehicles. You could make the 400 mile trip by driving 5 mph slower, but it’s faster to do a quick splash-and-dash charge. Over 5.5 hours of straight driving is a long stretch!

Your range actual range (let’s say @70 mph): 391 miles (360 / 0.92)

Theoretical range at various speeds:

• 1st order formula: R2/R1≈(v1/v2)^2
• 75 mph: 340 miles
• 70 mph: 391 miles (baseline)
• 65 mph: 453 miles
• 60 mph: 532 miles

You hit the EPA range of 516 miles at 60.9 mph.

It’s too bad the EPA testing specification and the resulting published range numbers isn’t what we care about as consumers. This is a problem with the EPA and not Lucid nor any other auto manufacturer.

Although it’s disappointing that none of us get EPA range at real-world highway speeds, the derating applies to all EV vehicles and the Lucid Air is still King.

I agree with your number sin general. And I agree Lucid 's range is amongst the best. But Lucid's 516-mile (AGT) range is based on EPA 5 cycle, which is not realizable when driving 70+ mph on US highways. Tesla's methodology and deviations are apparently similar to Lucid's.

In contrast, on my Rivian R1S (2023), I DO get the mileage/efficiency Rivian suggested (based on EPA 2 cycle plus Rivian's conservative adjustments). Apparently, most of the German EVs also follow EPA 2 cycles plus a conservative derating of their claimed efficiency range. Hence, these EVs typically perform to their claimed efficiencies and ranges when driven at US highway speeds.

As such when one compares Lucid's (Tesla's) claimed range/efficiency vs other manufacturers, it is not a fair comparison.

 

[scal_air]

Yes, to some extent. Recently, Rivian has posted some extensive data on this subject. I don't want to hijack this forum to discuss Rivian's data. You can view them at the following URL:

Yes 19" wheel.

Unlike most of you, I bought my AGT or its range. At the time I bought it in Oct 2022, I had a second house in Ranch Palos Verdes. My main home is in Phoenix. The door-to-door distance was exactly 400 miles. So, I thought the AirGT, rated at 516 miles range, would be able to do that trip non-stop. It never happened!

Best I did was ~360 miles by the time my SoC drops to 7-8%.

Typically, I drive the speed limit, 70mph in CA, 75 mph in AZ.

I know some of the larger tires might give me better handling, but I don't really need it.

Yeah it's disappointing. But the good news is that the EA stations seem to be less crowded as people's free charging expires. A quick 5-10 is minute charge/bathroom break anywhere after Palm Desert should give you more than enough to make it to Rancho Palos Verde. I don't remember if the car tells you how many chargers are occupied at any given station but I know the EA app does. Never have to wait in line now...

 

[BS8899]

Yeah it's disappointing. But the good news is that the EA stations seem to be less crowded as people's free charging expires. A quick 5-10 is minute charge/bathroom break anywhere after Palm Desert should give you more than enough to make it to Rancho Palos Verde. I don't remember if the car tells you how many chargers are occupied at any given station but I know the EA app does. Never have to wait in line now...

Charging along I-10 is not a problem. Mostly, I was surprised and disappointed at the realizable efficiency/range vs Lucid's claims. Lucid is still one of the most efficient EVs. But its lead over the competition is not as much as Lucid would like you to believe because Lucid quotes the 5-cycle EPA tests (mingled with Lucid's own adjustment factor). On a apple-to-apple comparison, I'd think Lucid is still amongst the best (efficiency and range), but the lead over their closest competitor is maybe 5%, not 15+ % as implied.

 

[Adnillien]

Charging along I-10 is not a problem. Mostly, I was surprised and disappointed at the realizable efficiency/range vs Lucid's claims. Lucid is still one of the most efficient EVs. But its lead over the competition is not as much as Lucid would like you to believe because Lucid quotes the 5-cycle EPA tests (mingled with Lucid's own adjustment factor). On a apple-to-apple comparison, I'd think Lucid is still amongst the best (efficiency and range), but the lead over their closest competitor is maybe 5%, not 15+ % as implied.

Have you said this same thing 100 times yet? I lost count after 20.

 

[Saksak]

[…] But Lucid's 516-mile (AGT) range is based on EPA 5 cycle, […] Apparently, most of the German EVs also follow EPA 2 cycles […] As such when one compares Lucid's (Tesla's) claimed range/efficiency vs other manufacturers, it is not a fair comparison.

Agree, trying to directly compare numbers from a 2-cycle test vs. a 5-cycle test is meaningless. It’s comparing apples and oranges. The EPA allowing manufacturers to choose between two different standards causes this problem for consumers.

It’s ironic the EPA created the “modern” 5-cycle test to give more realistic numbers over the “legacy” 2-cycle test. The newer companies adopted the more expensive “modern” standard (Tesla, Rivian, Lucid) while traditional auto companies were already using the cheaper “legacy” standard.

Neither test produces the numbers we care about: range at typical sustained highway speeds. What we need to do as consumers is to ignore the EPA numbers and throw away any expectations that we’ll achieve those ranges - and lobby the EPA to set a single standard reflecting what we care about.