Electric RIVIAN R1T 'Truck of the Year'

[Piotrsko]

Yup it does, but all those examples are faster, bigger and heavier than said brick that I own and may not have been operating under my conditions.

[hayden55]

Originally Posted by JSH

Towing 8100lb from 5,000 ft to 11,000 ft elevation, at highway speeds, with temps in the 30's = 0.5 miles per kWh. I'm not sure what that tells me about realistic tow range but I guess we could use that as the absolute worst case scenario.

They say they are going to do another video with a more realistic tow with a more realistic payload vs a ICE truck.

True the first 90 miles of their trip there is relatively normal elevation changes, but after that they get pretty extreme:
Per this they go from 5000 to 12000ft. I thought I-49 was tough with an elevation change from 200 to 1800ft and a 15% grade. Ha
It will be interesting to see a test around 70F

https://www.flattestroute.com/Boulder-CO-to-Dillon-CO

So if you look you can see the get up to a 50% grade.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by hayden55

True the first 90 miles of their trip there is relatively normal elevation changes, but after that they get pretty extreme:
Per this they go from 5000 to 12000ft. I thought I-49 was tough with an elevation change from 200 to 1800ft and a 15% grade. Ha
It will be interesting to see a test around 70F

https://www.flattestroute.com/Boulder-CO-to-Dillon-CO

So if you look you can see the get up to a 50% grade.

It is a grueling route even to just get to the Ike.

I thought the "Ike Gauntlet" was on the East side of the pass but it is actually on the West side. The Ike is Dillion, CO to the top of the Eisenhower tunnel and back.

So just to get to the start they have to go up and over the pass as shown in your link. 5000 to 11,000 to 9000. Now they are in Dillion and ready to start the test.

However, they did their "Ike" different than normal. Instead of Dillion to the tunnel and back to Dillion they keep driving down to Frisco to charge in the middle of the test.

(I'm not sure why your link is showing 12,000 ft. The tunnel is at 11,158 feet. Oversize and hazard loads have to go around the tunnel and over Loveland pass which is 11,992 ft.) Maybe the route planner assumes an oversize RV

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

Yup it does, but all those examples are faster, bigger and heavier than said brick that I own and may not have been operating under my conditions.

Right.
I used their published EPA Combined MPG-e numbers, or EPA COMB MPGs.

[Hersbird]

That Rivian test was a failure. To say that was worst case is wrong too. I say get rid of a car hauler and put a 9000 pound box camper behind it 8' wide and 9' high with awnings and AC units sticking out and run it.

There was a problem with the downhill. They NEVER use cruise control so I don't know why the change. Any of the modern full size pickups will auto brake to maintain speed downhill if the cruise was set and obviously this Rivian was using the friction brakes. Probably why the brake lights kept coming on. It was only regen braking at about 20 kWh where supposedly it's capable of and that hill and weight would have used 150 kWh. Hopefully they will redo at least that part.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

That Rivian test was a failure. To say that was worst case is wrong too. I say get rid of a car hauler and put a 9000 pound box camper behind it 8' wide and 9' high with awnings and AC units sticking out and run it.

There was a problem with the downhill. They NEVER use cruise control so I don't know why the change. Any of the modern full size pickups will auto brake to maintain speed downhill if the cruise was set and obviously this Rivian was using the friction brakes. Probably why the brake lights kept coming on. It was only regen braking at about 20 kWh where supposedly it's capable of and that hill and weight would have used 150 kWh. Hopefully they will redo at least that part.

I guess it is a failure if you bought a Rivian to haul 8,000 lb trucks up mountains. I bet it handles the occasional trip to Home Depot just fine.

I wonder how it would do pulling one of the teardrop trailers that are all the rage right now. This one is 21 foot and 3200 lbs. (Little Guy Max)

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by JSH

I guess it is a failure if you bought a Rivian to haul 8,000 lb trucks up mountains. I bet it handles the occasional trip to Home Depot just fine.

I wonder how it would do pulling one of the teardrop trailers that are all the rage right now. This one is 21 foot and 3200 lbs. (Little Guy Max)

I started on this forum years ago asking about the design of a trailer just like that, and was enlightened about things like how a parachute works, which is exactly how the back of that trailer is designed. People in the real world quickly find no advantages in feul economy towing a trailer like that or the R-pod was the one I was looking at.
Now a real teardrop like I have now does OK but those stand up teardrops are not really teardrops at all, just a standard camper with less room in the back and too fast of a taper to be of any aerodynamic advantage.

Still just using the fast charging price and Rivian range NOT towing makes it cost more per mile than a normal F150 buying gas. 135 kw to go 235 miles? You probably need to buy 150 kw to actually add 135 kw and at $.31 per kw puts you at $46 to go 235 miles. Now a F150 will get 28 mpg and use under 9 gallons to go that far, or gas would have to cost over $5/gallon to equal that. I have a feeling if gas hits $5/gallon, electricity will also go a similar percentage increase higher as well.

[freebeard]

I'd thought of a counter-example, but I went through my albums and couldn't find it. A porpoise-looking thing.

To establish a baseline, I'd compare a U-Haul and an Airstream [Bambi] and take an average. Bowlus Road Chief as an outlier.

[hayden55]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I started on this forum years ago asking about the design of a trailer just like that, and was enlightened about things like how a parachute works, which is exactly how the back of that trailer is designed. People in the real world quickly find no advantages in feul economy towing a trailer like that or the R-pod was the one I was looking at.
Now a real teardrop like I have now does OK but those stand up teardrops are not really teardrops at all, just a standard camper with less room in the back and too fast of a taper to be of any aerodynamic advantage.

Still just using the fast charging price and Rivian range NOT towing makes it cost more per mile than a normal F150 buying gas. 135 kw to go 235 miles? You probably need to buy 150 kw to actually add 135 kw and at $.31 per kw puts you at $46 to go 235 miles. Now a F150 will get 28 mpg and use under 9 gallons to go that far, or gas would have to cost over $5/gallon to equal that. I have a feeling if gas hits $5/gallon, electricity will also go a similar percentage increase higher as well.

Those chargers are no joke. Tesla was charging a $0.28/kWh flat rate back in 2018 when electricity was $0.08/kWh here and gas was $2.00
If you can't charge at home they definitely make it make more sense to drive a gasoline car instead.

https://www.electrifyamerica.com/pricing/

[redpoint5]

EVs don't make sense if you can't charge at home or work.

Those fast charge rates might seem high, but they are on par with gasoline on a cost per mile basis; about 8 cents per mile.

Even at those inflated prices, the chargers lose money because of the demand fees. In fact, the faster the charger, the more money it's likely to lose. A study showed that the slowest of the "fast chargers" are most likely to break even on cost.