18" vs 20" OEM Wheels for Battery Range

[Yellow Buddy]

This is quad motor, I'm assuming?

Correct, Launch Edition Quad Motor/Large Pack with the powered tonneau cover.

In conserve mode it becomes a dual motor.

Sponsored

 

[simbaesq]

Correct, Launch Edition Quad Motor/Large Pack with the powered tonneau cover.

I would only be considering a dual motor, and potentially a max pack because of my need for highway distance driving.

Ford: 1.8-2.1mi/kWh over the trips depending on weather.
R1T on Conserve, slammed on low suspension settings: On sport wheels I get 2.4-2.6mi/kWh. I can get as high as 2.6-2.8mi/kWh on the ugly comfort wheels.

Even with your quad-motor, though, it seems like the high speed open highway driving is a significant difference. And dual-motor should be moreso, even without max pack.

This is *the* place where I need efficiency to be better. I could stand for more lackluster performance in city driving, or even 50-60mph highways (usually Chicagoland expressways) because all of that is going to stay within 100 miles of home. I need to be able to make my 320-350 mile drive multiple times a month, rain or snow or shine.

 

[simbaesq]

Also last night did the return leg of one of my trips, 30 degrees, charged to 85%. I averaged 1.4m/kwh until I finally slowed down and drafted a semi, at which point I was able to get 1.8m/kwh at 69mph drafting for about 40 miles.

I made it home with 4% SOC. Averaged 1.5m/kwh on the total trip.

That's too precarious. Not being able to do one way of my trip without charging along the way is absolutely a non-starter.

 

[Pioneer74]

Also last night did the return leg of one of my trips, 30 degrees, charged to 85%. I averaged 1.4m/kwh until I finally slowed down and drafted a semi, at which point I was able to get 1.8m/kwh at 69mph drafting for about 40 miles.

I made it home with 4% SOC. Averaged 1.5m/kwh on the total trip.

That's too precarious. Not being able to do one way of my trip without charging along the way is absolutely a non-starter.

Why did you only charge to 85%?

 

[Yellow Buddy]

Even with your quad-motor, though, it seems like the high speed open highway driving is a significant difference. And dual-motor should be moreso, even without max pack.

This is *the* place where I need efficiency to be better. I could stand for more lackluster performance in city driving, or even 50-60mph highways (usually Chicagoland expressways) because all of that is going to stay within 100 miles of home. I need to be able to make my 320-350 mile drive multiple times a month, rain or snow or shine.

Unfortunately, it may not be a direct comparison. I'm hesitant to make that assumption until I test one out. The motors are a completely different design, even the battery pack uses different cells, and the available drive modes are different as well.

With the Quad motor in conserve, there's a mechanical disconnect. The resistance in the rear is reduced significantly when it's disconnected.

The Dual Motor doesn't allow this, it operates very much like the Ford. It doesn't fully disconnect. Rather it's computer controlled to distribute power in the most efficient manner possible. The same as Tesla and Ford; both of which I've found doesn't hit the estimated range estimates. The "Conserve" mode is also not available on the Dual Motor and I hesitate because in All Purpose Mode where the computer adjusts the distribution, my Rivian also falls short of the range estimates, losing about 10% of the range.

That said the Enduro motors are lighter, supposedly more efficient, and hopefully Rivian is keeping conservative with the range estimates; but I would only be speculating with any input on the dual motor configuration.

 

[simbaesq]

Unfortunately, it may not be a direct comparison. I'm hesitant to make that assumption until I test one out. The motors are a completely different design, even the battery pack uses different cells, and the available drive modes are different as well.

With the Quad motor in conserve, there's a mechanical disconnect. The resistance in the rear is reduced significantly when it's disconnected.

The Dual Motor doesn't allow this, it operates very much like the Ford. It doesn't fully disconnect. Rather it's computer controlled to distribute power in the most efficient manner possible. The same as Tesla and Ford; both of which I've found doesn't hit the estimated range estimates. The "Conserve" mode is also not available on the Dual Motor and I hesitate because in All Purpose Mode where the computer adjusts the distribution, my Rivian also falls short of the range estimates, losing about 10% of the range.

That said the Enduro motors are lighter, supposedly more efficient, and hopefully Rivian is keeping conservative with the range estimates; but I would only be speculating with any input on the dual motor configuration.

FWIW I think it uses identical battery cells. The different battery cells comes from the different level battery packs.

(Unless I'm mistaken.)

Anyway, no use in continuing to beat a dead horse. It seems like I need to decide if I'm going to throw more money into different tires to see if that helps at all with range (seems unlikely to help significantly so even if it does help some), or if I'm going to give up and sell the truck come January or February.

Thanks for the help.

 

[simbaesq]

Why did you only charge to 85%?

Because I was at a public charger, charging was significantly slower at higher percentage, and I was already going to get home pretty late on a week night. Was trying to get home before 10pm, I ended up making it back a little after.

For the record, it was estimating I had 200 miles of range, so I thought it would be good enough.

 

[AI_Speed]

I have some real data for you so you don't need to speculate and potentially be disapointed.

My Lightning ER has a lifetime average of 2.1mi/kWh over 15,000 miles. My R1T has a lifetime average of 2.14mi/kWh over 10,000 miles (mix usage of All Terrains, Sport, and Comfort Wheels/Tires). Lifetime, we're talking about a 2% difference over the life of the vehicles. Small enough to account for any usage differences. (EPA rates them 3% apart in efficiency)

The key is how you're using it. Towing a trailer? The Ford is more efficient. Going on a long drive by yourself? Take the Rivian.

Data:
Both trucks have done the 1000 mile round trip a multitude of times.
Ford: 1.8-2.1mi/kWh over the trips depending on weather.
R1T on Conserve, slammed on low suspension settings: On sport wheels I get 2.4-2.6mi/kWh. I can get as high as 2.6-2.8mi/kWh on the ugly comfort wheels.

The usable battery capacity helps as well, I've gone 320 real world miles on the Rivian with miles to spare. Rivian's range projector is also much more accurate, helping with predictability. I usually beat what was displayed. On this one it says full charge is 335, but you can see on my current drive I'm actually projected to have a max range of 347 miles (229 miles dividied by .66 = 347). I ended up stopping after ~340mi actually driven with 12 indicated remaining.

I've never hit 300 real world miles on the Ford on that trip. Range wise, we're looking at a 20% difference in overall range.

Factor in the higher charging rate and it ends up being quite a bit of a difference. How much are we talking about in reality?

~15min in optimal conditions. ~1 hour in suboptimal conditions.

It's situational but there have been times where I've needed a 2nd stop in the Lightning where I made it in the R1T. But if both trucks stop the same amount of time, it's pretty negligible because of the charge curves. The Ford I charge to 80% and go. The R1T I charge to 70% and go. The end result is after the 1st leg it starts evening out.

I've even done the trip in a Tesla Model X 60D with a max charging speed of 120kW and real world range of about 130-150 miles. It requires 6x the amount of stops but because of the availability and consistency of the supercharger it was a total difference of about 30min...over the course of a 8-9 hour drive. Knowing your charge curve is extremely important as well as my first time on that trip took 12 hours. But even at 30min more it FEELS significantly worse due to the high number of stops.

Unfortunately, EVs need to be learned and it's all because of charging infrastructure, not range. Long post, hope it helps.

Thank you - 2.5 - '23 Lariat ER 4,950 miles - 10 months so a cold winter. Range is an issue - 320 is a functional 230 on long drives & less in winter cold/summer heat. Cost/range/infrastructure issues.

 

[Henry Ford]

Thank you - 2.5 - '23 Lariat ER 4,950 miles - 10 months so a cold winter. Range is an issue - 320 is a functional 230 on long drives & less in winter cold/summer heat. Cost/range/infrastructure issues.

Does your truck have Max Tow? I have a theory that Max Tow trucks are less efficient.

 

[AI_Speed]

Does your truck have Max Tow? I have a theory that Max Tow trucks are less efficient.

No

Does your truck have Max Tow? I have a theory that Max Tow trucks are less efficient.

No - that was an option I did not add - so you think 2.1 for others vs. me at 2.5 may be Max Tow related?

 

[simbaesq]

No

No - that was an option I did not add - so you think 2.1 for others vs. me at 2.5 may be Max Tow related?

I guess I'm a counterexample. I do not have max tow, but my range has been abysmal.

 

[AI_Speed]

I guess I'm a counterexample. I do not have max tow, but my range has been abysmal.

Maybe you're in a cold & hot climate - like Chicago tends to be - not to mention windy with elevation changes.

 

[simbaesq]

Maybe you're in a cold & hot climate - like Chicago tends to be - not to mention windy with elevation changes.

You had me until elevation changes.

 

[eRockBoon]

The faster you drive the more wind speed effects you.

 

[Henry Ford]

No

No - that was an option I did not add - so you think 2.1 for others vs. me at 2.5 may be Max Tow related?

Probably not that dramatic but maybe. I laid out my theory in this post on another thread.

Sponsored