All Terrain Tires Barely Slow The Rivian R1T Max Pack - 10% Challenge Road Trip Simulation

[@vhol93]

Kyle, give this man a 1TB iPhone!

[@samatwesu]

Using voice memo was genius. Quick thinking in a pinch. Thanks for the insight. I like Sierra EV Ed 1 for $85k with home back up option.

[@newscoulomb3705]

Thanks, Ryan. One thing I like to do is consider charging to driving times in terms of ratios. I've always considered 3:1 or 4:1 driving time to charging time ratio a bare minimum for consumer acceptance. We don't generally have the option to drive 80 mph (most states west of the Rockies have speed limits of 70 mph or 75 mph with zero tolerance for going over), so that would hurt the ratio. Being able to drive for an hour on a 15-min stop would be within my acceptable range (4:1), and the standard of 100 miles at 85 would be closer to 5:1. For reference, most ICE cars are typically capable of 15:1 or even 20:1, so we still have a ways to go if the goal is matching ICE car driving to fueling time ratios. Of course, that doesn't account for any of the other breaks you might need to take on a trip because all you are doing is driving and fueling.

[@ryankelly5303]

Awesome thank you for sharing.

[@TheNelsonsGo]

Great video!

[@anthonyc8499]

Nice test, bummer about the cameras though. Regardless, the test is valid and the results are somewhat surprising. It's interesting seeing how far ahead the Ultium trucks are over Rivian and how the Lightning is just not even in the same sandbox.

[@newscoulomb3705]

I think GM knew what it was going to take to make full-service EV replacement for a fullsize/half-ton ICE truck. Ford likely knew as well, but they also knew they were too far behind to catch up if they tried to build a ground-up EV truck starting several years after Rivian (and even one or two years after GM). Ford also knew that most "work trucks" aren't actually heavy haulers like we see in the movies, but rather they are commonly driven 200 miles or less per day. So Ford basically did the same thing they did with the Ranger EV, and just fit as much energy as they could under the chassis of their existing truck using current generation, widely available NCM battery cells. With Rivian and Tesla, I think it's actually a battery issue as much as anything else, and they designed their trucks to be smaller and more aerodynamic to compensate for that constraint. Munro and Assc. likes to poo-poo Ultium, but it appears to be demonstrably more energy dense than the cylindrical cell options from Rivian and Tesla. Also, if Mark Reuss was giving the correct numbers (around $100 per kWh), the finished Ultium pack cost is about 50% cheaper than Rivian or Tesla's packs on a per kWh basis. So not only can GM fit more energy in their trucks, they can do so for the same price or cheaper than anyone else. That's a massive advantage in the fullsize truck and SUV market. Also, don't forget that we still haven't seen the Ultium packs tested on chargers that can actually max out their charging curves. We need 400 kW chargers to do that, and even then, it's possible that the 500 A constrain of the CCS1 socket is holding back the peak charging further. It's not likely to add much, but it could be as much as an additional 10% range added in 15 minutes on these 10% challenges.

[@dRadddd]

800v vs 400v. The difference is expected. RJ kept the R1s at 400V for cost control reasons sighting limited 800v charging architecture (reading between the lines, he’s did it so that r1s could have a good experience on Tesla V3s that don’t support 800v).

[@newscoulomb3705]

@ That's not entirely true. Doubling the voltage doesn't necessarily double the charging speed, especially if the battery can't take it. In the case of the R1T, there might be a slight bump, but more than likely, the charging current would be cut almost in half if the voltage was doubled.

[@anthonyc8499]

@@dRadddd Cybertruck is 800v and its charging curve ain't really any better using an 800v charger using NACS than a Rivian. They both onboard about 50kWh of energy in 15 minutes. This is evidence that Tesla's battery tech just isn't that great compared to Ultium.

[@dRadddd]

@@newscoulomb3705 volts x amps / 1000 = kw. If they doubled the voltage of the rivian system, it would see generally double the charge speed on a 500 amp charger (not accounting for losses). That’s why an ultium truck charges at 350 kw on a 500 amp charger while the rivian charges at 200 kw on the same 500 amps. That’s the entire purpose of an 800v class vehicle vs a 400v class vehicle.

[@darinbrazil5496]

Assuming this was not on the new software update 2024.51 which is supposed to improve thermals and charging?

[@d5kenn]

Can you compare this with the Gen2 Dual Max that Kyle tested in November? This Trimax seems to have gone farther, with less calculated efficiency.

[@markfoster2833]

Please do an update on the whole thing with 2024.51

[@davidcottrell570]

A few things. I managed to see the temperature - 41F. That makes a big difference to those numbers, particularly at high speed. You are comparing the Tri motor in conserve mode to the Dual in all-purpose, so yes, using front wheel drive with 20 all-terrains against the Dual on all-seasons will compare well. Finally, while you can drive legally at 70-80mph in Colorado, a lot of us can’t. The EPA tests with zero wind resistance at 30-60mph, so the numbers will be skewed in favour of more aerodynamic vehicles. I’m more interested in what the Tri or Dual would do in all purpose mode at 60mph, so I can work out the truck range towing a small travel trailer. Thanks for a great effort at fair testing, and sorry to hear about your equipment problems.

[@HackSparrow8]

What version was this on? 2024.51 apparently improved charging and efficiency.

[@dRadddd]

This charge curve is far more aligned to my experience than what Kyle has experienced with his truck. I generally keep >185kw to about 45%. In Florida summers, I average 2.43 mi/kw at 80-85mph with a dual performance large sport wheels. So that would put me just over 100 miles in ideal weather conditions.

[@TAWithiam]

So this newer one would probably only get a couple miles better on road tires best case scenario. It's impressive how little difference between the rolling resistance of the road and offroad tires is.

[@sprockkets]

Do you keep heat and cooling on for everyone, or use a driver only option?

[@manuelias86]

Since the trucks are heavier, would a 20in charge make more sense for regular people? This would show an even better result for the GM vehicles

[@GregMcNamer]

Hilarious how all these Rivian results add up to the same thing. Efficiency is absolutely DOMINATED by aerodynamics at 80mph. My 2022 Quad pretty much perfectly matches this - I typically drive 78-82mph and aim for 25 minute charge stops, stretching to 35 as necessary. That typically nets me 140-165mi between stops depending on weather. 10% challenge would say 170mi for a ~30 minute stop assuming the charge curve didn't taper (which it does). IMO, the Rivian curve is such that you should generally always charge to 63-68% depending on how the battery is behaving.

[@nonchalanto]

You move the camera around a lot when filming outside and it makes me dizzy

[@CGGC0202]

Oh god not this guy again, STOP HIM FROM DOING VIDEOS. Not watching his content

[@TheNelsonsGo]

Go away. They are a team.

[@CGGC0202]

@@TheNelsonsGo just because they are a team doesn't mean hes any good making videos on camera... he is horrible

[@verygoodbrother]

What are your complaints?

[@sprockkets]

Then don't watch felicia