Damn, Kyle going all Ralph Nader on Rivian. Excellent work on identifying and describing that the Max pack is not worth the extra $10k price increase, and then laying the analysis in an easy to comprehend manner. I hope in the future you turn your attention on Electrify America and figure out why they can't seem to keep their charging network running as efficiently as Tesla maintains theirs.
Lol. I had to laugh because he has constantly been on EA for their abysmal performance. It is pretty much a showcase of his brand highlighting how terrible they are, and rightfully deserved.
I agree with you, to a point. Kyle has been on EA for subpar availability, however he has not identified the reason for inconsitent charging speeds, and the numerous down charging cabinets. Is it that they try to reduce expenses and don't want to pay for better servicing? What about cabinets that are speed capped to 35kW many times? EA has been challenged for quite a while, so why have we not seen an improvement in availability? Kyle did great investigative work on this Rivian max battery thing, so him getting answers from Electrify America on when we will see service improvement would be great.
They don’t have to publish information to the EPA so there isn’t much to find unless they tell you. There is a lot of published data about the cars due to government regulations, not much on how charging networks are maintained and I’d bet there is an army of lobbyists trying to keep it that way.
@@stevehuthman741Not profitable. EA was punishment to Volkswagen for diesel gate. Inconsistent charging speeds are a lot to do with more than just the infrastructure. It is also people not understanding how a car chooses to charge based on state of charge as well as temperature and also the inability to follow the individual charging standards that will allow max charge rates. They don't take very good care of them either but that also comes from vandalism etc. Tesla is opening up the supercharger network this year for certain manufacturers. Let's see how the network not having total control of billing through one car on one network that can be updated OTA. Just watch how much trouble they have with non Tesla cars on the Tesla network.
Automotive journalism with integrity. Refreshing. Don't change. Thank you. I also appreciate your willingness to make another video with corrections if you find this is needed.
Rivian gave you a vehicle to test. It's on them to give you a vehicle that works ... period. Your job is to test what you're given. You have gone way way way above and beyond to make sure your testing is accurate AND that the vehicle is fine. And you've more than proven everything is spot on. Rivian also decided to ship a Max pack that is not what they originally promised (a physically larger battery). This chemistry bump is NOT a Max pack ... it should just be the latest Large pack. Like you said Tesla would have done that. Rivian also did not live up to having a Max pack on the Quad motor vehicles ... which is what everyone who ordered a Max pack years ago were expecting ... not a dual motor Max pack.
And they absolutely had to know how Kyle would test it. They should have made sure they got him one with the absolute maximum usable capacity at the moment it was handed to him. (One that has zero “wear” at the time he’s testing it.) That said, I am in full agreement on the “Max Quad”. While they never did specifically say “Max Pack will have a physically larger pack that is 25% physically bigger with 25% more energy storage,” it was super-heavily implied. R1S wasn’t going to get the Max Pack, Dual-Motor wasn’t a thing, and picking Large vs. Max increased the range of the only-motor-arrangement available to 400 miles in the configurator. Instead of adding 25% more modules (increasing from 8 modules to 10 modules, filling the empty space in the R1T’s longer wheelbase,) they did Dual-Motor which is 7% more efficient, then combined it with a 16% higher-capacity same-form-factor battery pack. This allowed them to achieve “400 miles” on the R1S, which wasn’t originally going to be offered, but it does mean that “Max Pack” doesn’t even come close to meeting the very original expectations. I agree with Kyle, this should have been just a “silent upgrade” at some point.
Exactly, that’s why I canceled my Rivian order. Rivian changed the rules more than 1/2 way through the race. No power Tonneau, no significant range difference for max pack, no promised charging network locally available. Valiant effort by Rivian, but it truly falls short.
If the only difference between the Large pack and the Max pack is a change from 5Ah cells to 5.3Ah cells, a 6% increase in capacity, then it would be perfectly reasonable the range would increase 6%, assuming of course identical drivetrains, and that appears to be what your real life testing confirmed. It is ridiculous to charge $10K extra for the newer cells which should just be a running change to the Large pack and not marketed as a Max pack. In their desire to pad their profit margins Rivian screwed up big time with this so-called Max pack. They should just make it the new Large pack, charge a bit more for the Large option, and develop a REAL Max pack.
Pad their profit margins? They aren’t even making a profit. The people that are buying these don’t care about the extra 10k. They just care that they are getting more range - and that’s fine.
I would seriously only lease these Trucks don't buy them. The Valuations on the 2nd hand market are tumbling. Don't buy. Truck market both ICE and EV about to avalanche after the New Year. Avoid these marginal battery upgrades at ridiculous costs. Lease it or long term rental.
Just picked up my Rivian R1T with Max pack- today I thought i was getting ~50 miles more than large pack, based on their website. What a bummer- I feel I need some serious explanantion from Rivian! Thank you Kyle for doing this detailed investigative reporting.
I am in the configuration step for my Rivian R1S. Watching videos like yours was beyond helpful in understanding all the tech details when buying. Love this content. I went with the Large pack of course :)
Wow....that was fascinating. You're to be applauded for your research. Thanks for being a part of holding the manufacturers accountable. For most people who buy the truck, however, I doubt that it will matter. They really don't care how the sausage is made. They only care that when they buy sausage....they receive sausage. As a Tesla MY owner, I would simply be happy if the cars were really capable of meeting their EPA listed range. I've never seen it happen.
I believe it should have been marketed as the large plus truck. It should be a 2 to 2.5k up charge, IMO. Then, later becomes the standard large pack when the supply chain could support it @ std pricing.
Outstanding work Kyle ! Many thanks as your original pod cast with Kyler saved us from making a big mistake ... We changed our custom order from max to large pack back in November and very glad we did ...
I am impressed with Kyle's attention to details. To be fair to Rivian and EV car manufacturers, however, I think the EPA testing that Rivian has done is reasonable and comparable to traditional practices of EPA submissions from other manufacturers. There is always limited time and resources -- so manufacturers test for limited number of configurations based on what they had planned for at the time -- concentrating on more testing of the configuration(s) that they thought would be most representative of the final product. Therefore, before people start to question Rivian's integcity, think about how ICE vehicle EPA testing cycles are done, I think one would find similar issues of limited configurations -- but people don't scrutinize ICE car's EPA ratings to this degree of essentially trying to account for a differences in how far you can go on a single tank of gas down to wheel configurations and lack of testing data. Giving Rivian _ENGINEERS_ the benefit of the doubt -- it's possible that marketing saw the same testing data, not fully understanding the nuances of the test data, decided that the up charge was justified....
Looking at the data around 32:50. It appears the data they used to test dual large pack was based on the R1T if you look at the numbers for the weight and Dyno Coeff. They are closer to the numbers you then show for the R1T Max test. The R1S number seem to be higher. So maybe the 352 mile range was right for the R1T and the R1S large pack is lower than advertised. Which sucks if it is for the R1S. Either way great catch on the fact that they only tested one. Love the videos, by the way.
For the ones where 5-cycle was done they have calculated both ways on the forms. The manufacturer can either do 2-cycle and use the EPA default 0.7 adjustment factor to account for aggressive driving and temperature (hot and cold test) or it can run those other tests (5-cycle) and come up with its own more accurate adjustment factor. You can see for the R1S 21” Dual Large, the range calculated as 2-cycle using the default 0.7 factor was 348.49 mi and the actual 5-cycle range was 352.02, so they are only ~1% apart. So for the R1S, anyway, the default 0.7 correction factor to calculate equivalent 5-cycle range is quite close (measured adjustment factor from the 5-cycle was 0.7072). Once they have shown the two methods are that close for one configuration of that vehicle type, I could see them saving cost by just doing 2-cycle for the others. That was a lot of extra work to adjust the results by 1%.
We simply HAVE to start presenting both city and highway efficiency for EVs just as we present city and highway mpg for gas cars. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be obtuse about those figures, and it only leads to frustration and confusion when some cars meet estimates and some don’t.
The more I think about this, the more I think the Max pack is an absolute bait and switch. I'm glad they actually let you test it but it still seems shady. What I mean by bait and switch; they aren't adding any extra batteries. They should have just called this new pack as "Large Pack Plus" or something like that. To it be the Max Pack seems like they are being shady. I have a deposit down for a Rivian and this bait and switch is really making me reconsider because this sort of move breaks my trust of them.
Thanks for making these videos, this all aligned with my suspicions with max pack shuffling that happened at the beginning of the year; ultimately driving my decision to switch to quad/large and take delivery of my R1T. One thing missing in your discussion is the obfuscation that also occurs due to the removal of "conserve mode" on the dual motor trucks. I speculate this is also why they do not offer the max pack with quad motor. As I understand, quad motor/large pack EPA testing was performed using the "default" modes of the truck, so using "All Purpose". The difference is, "All Purpose" for quad motor/large pack remains all-wheel-drive continuously. Conversely, dual motor trucks automatically switch between all-wheel-drive and front-wheel drive, effectively taking credit for the "conserve mode" in their EPA ratings. This is likely why I would expect a similarly configured quad motor/large pack truck in conserve mode to be very comparable to your dual motor results, and similarly marginally lower range than the max pack in practice.
Excellent point. PDM Max Pack EPA numbers are really a combination of almost always conserve mode, a slight battery improvement, and other tweaks. I feel cheated after I locked down my config with Max Pack, after 2 years being on Quad Large. Pissed as hell.
Kyle great job in integrity, even though you say you aren't a journalist, you have demonstrated what people in the media business should be doing! You provided the facts and let us decide what it means and what it could be. Based on your information and some other comments/reviews I would like to see how the Max pack compares in towing to the Large pack in towing. You did say the Silicon-Carbide inverter in the rear motor could be the cause for the difference in range. I myself have been putting off the purchase of my reserved Max Pack. I want it for towing (~9,000lbs of trailer, 4-Series JD tractor, and attachments) and while I don't need 400 miles of towing, I need probably 100+ miles. I originally had a Quad-Motor with Max Pack order, which reverted to a Dual Motor with Max Pack, I live in the Carolinas so that also has been the reason I haven't taken delivery. I have looked at all the "Johnny Come lately" pickups (Ford, Chevy...) and have not been impressed. I like the fact that the Rivian is not a Full Size truck!
Great video and shows your honesty in your review. Feedback from Rivian side should be welcomed. Especially with your comments on this being the best vehicle you’ve ever owned.
As a shareholder, thanks for promoting Rivian and putting Rivian's issues in a positive light. Rivian vehicles may be overpriced and lack lot of features, but it's early. Rivian may have more flaws than other BEV makers, such as Tesla and Ford. But if we don't get investors to stay motivated and buy more shares of Rivian, then Rivian will never get the traction needed to become a mass production BEV seller. So thanks again for not harping on lack of Apple Play, defective interface, defective bed cover and high price and instead focusing on positive things like able to carry passengers and cargo
I love the independent honest factual review. Keep it up Kyle. Love my R1T Quad. Rivian missed the boat on this Max Pack. Not good for us Rivian stock holders.
Tesla is even more scummy than Rivian will ever even hope to be. Kyle's level of sleuthing would almost certainly get him sued by Tesla's thin skinned CEO.
I don’t blame you. I’m supposed to pick up PDM MP in two weeks and rethinking my purchase. My original order was QM LP and I literally locked my new config two weeks ago. I wish I waited.
Multiplying the amp-hr times the voltage is approximate. Voltage and current are changing in a non-linear way. The correct way is to multiply the voltage and current to get the power at each point in time and integrate the power to get the total energy.
I’m expecting Max Pack in 2 weeks! Haven’t paid yet. Going to have a conversation with my guide this week. It’s $7$ extra but still a lot of money for very little.
I think Rivian is playing to their marketing people with what I call marketing wank just a bunch of BS wants to charge more money come on Rivian. Great video keep up the good work.
Oh, man. I love the geek level on this video. I love how you use the official EPA documentation. Do dig down into the details. I hope you can do that on more cars in the future. I also liked that you used the battery design site. It is the best site for battery geek info. You can blame me for them linking to your podcast.
Kyle, at the beginning of the video you stated that Rivian called and asked you no to do your tests 7:30. At the end of the video you said they called and said there was an issue with the truck but never asked you not to do your test, but asked you what you wanted to do 45:00. Can you please clarify what they said because your video is contradicting.
NOT saying that Kyle wasn't justified in posting the test results and this video. But, Kyle's "deadline" for Rivian to respond might be a bit unreasonable. This is Christmas-New-Years week -- many companys are shutdown for the holidays (my company did). Add on to that, some might have taken extended time off. So to have someone with enough seniority and expertise in these 3-4 weeks prior and after might be difficult. As a result, there may not be enough key people around these few weeks for Rivian to respond in time.
After watching this, why didn’t you just calculate 11k * 2 = 22 miles difference - 11k the kilowatts difference between large and max packs. 2 is the average miles per k. You would know before you start it’s not possible to get 58 miles difference unless you are getting 5 miles per k.
Well done Kyle, I was an early pre order Max Pack & held out until mid 2022 before going to large pack. I also wanted the real 200 KW pack, willing to give up some interior space & sub woofer to get the range. I was disappointed when I figured out the max was going to be very delayed. Now I'm glad I did get the large pack because the current version of 'max pack' is a disappointment, a costly disappointment. I do like my truck, I really wish the charging infrastructure was more reliable. Concern over "will the charge I need actually work" because I don't have the range to go to another location. I'm very glad you get "into the weeds" on analysis of the truck. R1T 90xx.
Hey Kyle - Correction for you - @49:30 you said the Max pack was never supposed to be available on R1S. That is not accurate: from announcement in Nov 2018 until November of 2020 there was supposed to be a Max Pack R1S and they were going to use the third row foot wells to add modules above the main pack. This would require the 3rd row seat delete. In November of 2020 just about the time the configurator tool went live they announced the removal of the R1S Max pack stating that 7 seat capacity was a priority to the Max Pack.
I watched over 30 minutes of this video and still didn’t know what’s going on a short summary at the start before launching in would’ve been much better
Kyle might have received the last Rivian provided test vehicle. Hopefully they don't pull your media pass. Thank you Kyle for documentation, education, and real world testing. Information is the key knowledge for consumers to make purchasing decisions. Do not purchase the current version of Max Pack.
As many others commented here, your videos are becoming less and less appealing to me because of the repetition. Please hire an editor and reduce the length of all videos by 3/4
Wow. This might be your best work ever, Kyle. I'm sure there will be a nitpick here and there, but this is a solid research presentation for consumers. Now we just need to see this done with Tesla and the FSD scam along with the 5-cycle results for $$$$.
I was wondering the exact same thing here as surely Rivian wouldn’t sell a bigger battery pack for an additional 10k with less than 50 miles of additional range,Would they ?
As a recent Rivian stock holder, I think Rivian got busted and needs to say the max pack currently doesn’t meet their design intent so customers will not be charged extra for it. The R1T and R1S are all about building the brand, and they need to keep the customers happy to do so, much like back in the day when Tesla was swapping out drive trains on S and X and losing tons of money before the model 3 made the company profitable. Rivian has a good chance of success if they can add features to the R2 that are not in the model Y: optional 3rd row seats for ADULTS, off-road capability like the R1T/R1S.
Pretty sure lending you a car for such in depth testing was not approved by upper management and whoever lent you this truck caught flak for that call and tried to get it back from you before you tested it.
My guess most of the people who buy the max pack as it is probably aren’t going to dig much deeper than the sticker on the window saying 400 miles. I wouldn’t buy the max pack, but if people want to pay them the money and it helps the company survive and get to R2 it’s fine with me. Excellent work on making sure the info is out there as usual Kyle and team.
Wow, nice! Thx for sharing. It only would make sense for Rivian to make the 'max pack' an upgrade to the'large pack'. Selling more of the vehicles rather than an 'upgrade' is more viable I think. Let's wait and see what Rivian says.
Charging $10K for roughly 12 more kWh and labeling it Max Pack is just wrong. Particularly given battery prices on average have come down from the time when Rivian initially marketed the 180 kWh max pack. This almost ranks up there with the price increase that RJ acknowledged broke the trust of buyers. Can’t help but wonder who makes these decisions at Rivian. It’s embarrassing for them.
Ah ha. This explains why my 20” dual motor R1T defaults to 315 mile range at 100% charge. There is actually an 8 mile delta between R1S and R1T that is not always reflected on the website. Also, Kyle came to the same conclusion I did regarding the max pack, except I took the simpler approach of using the MPGe numbers to see that highway range of max pack was marginal and the majority of the range gains were for city driving. Interesting theory as to why though.
Well, now I understand why when I towed with my max pack, I didn’t feel like I got any more range whatsoever compared to when I towed with my large pack that I sold about a year ago. What a shame I definitely feel duke by Rivian it’s not up to their standards at all.
Weight from the Max Pack VS Weight Large Pack with a lower speed testing . Will create a larger gap in miles VS both R1T's . what was the speed tested on the EPA cycle ?
@Kyle. Awesome job on the tests and thorough research. Just to clarify, it seems to me then that for large battery pack w/ usable capacity of ~142kwh and efficiency of 2.37 m/kwh, a range of 400 miles is a stretch; is that assessment accurate? I have been wondering why I'm not getting the promised 400 miles. It's clear that none of us received the marketed 180kwh battery as well.
Is Rivian going to have over the air updates that will allow existing trucks to charge at 300kw? There are non-Rivian articles that make this claim but when you ask Rivian they act like they don’t know what your taking about. Thank you.
There's a lot of information here. Kyle knows his stuff. But there is more data than my small brain can absorb. Make this clear for me, range would be better if range testing was done with city driving included? Would it come close to 400 mile range?
Yep, I almost pulled the trigger till I heard the pack wasn't actually bigger, then I got very concerned that they were playing games. Clearly they games have been played, maybe you can class action and get some of that 10k back?
Klye, The EPA does not test all of the vehicles. If the car does go through the government lab and the numbers are not the same, the EPA results can be used or the manufacturer can pay for another test. You will never know for sure as a consumer. All of this is spelled out with the EPA.
Something interesting is that Rivian laid off a good chunk of their battery dev team not too long ago. I wonder if this fiasco might have anything to do with it.
Kyle, you are clearly a great EV enthusiast, and I really do want to hear what you have to say, but your content tpyically has 1 minute of good info in every 20 minutes of content you put up. I'm sure it is still fine for some people but I would really enjoy some more condensed content.
Rivian has to address the questions raised after OOS latest reviews. EPA test methods, lackluster highway range, Max pack range gains attributed to front drive only, almost no reserve left, etc. - overall, Max Pack looks like a ripoff. $10K for 22 miles highway range. Based on Rivian own website stating ~60 miles gain with Max Pack, I changed my config from R1S QMLP to PDMMP and locked it down 4 weeks ago. Pre 3/22 price so my cost went up $6,500. And I lost the premium QM performance. My R1S is expected to arrive in few days. I’m having serious second thoughts on the purchase especially after seeing the excellent Kia EV9 reviews. I think Rivian misled many people. The brand was iron clad, but not any more.
Is this an engineering or marketing mistake? Shouldn’t Rivian’s testing exposed the problem before delivery instead of waiting for Kyle to do it? 22 more miles for $10K is awful.
So 6 days later no video for charging, can you give us an update as to what is going on? Rivian holding you up on the release, or was there actually something wrong?
I couldn’t watch the whole video but about halfway through I am left wondering if Rivian is trying to hide that the extended range is only a software update. Maybe someone realized they didn’t configure this max pack appropriately before delivering it to you? 🤔
I'll bet the cells are identical. Its already happened to someone. Where they ordered a max and the car delivered said it was a large. They took it to the back and said they opened the underbody to "verify" it was a max battery. Then they flashed software and gave it back. So... I dont know. Someone needs to open a set of packs and see. It'll happen eventually. Now here's the thing. I have a max pack r1s and compared to Teslas claim of range, rivian does much better. The range is more confidence inspiring for sure. Max pack was originally envisioned on the r1s but at the loss of the 3rd row seat.
Huge Rivian fan and early R1T owner with nearly 40K on the clock, but if this test holds water, which it seems to, them my long-standing R1T Max Pack upgrade is cancelled. Thanks for the detailed testing review and honest appraisal.
48:19 Tesla did the 74 to 82kWh at a time when they were charging a whole lot more than they do now, considering they were already in the zone of profitability prior to price increases. They sold 250k to 500k+ volume over a period of 2 to 3 quarters atleast in 2022 when the switch over happened and easily made their money there for the "kWh" increase. They brought the prices down only in 2023 (and not overnight but over several more quarters) after they made for their engineering costs. Besides right now, tesla only has 82kWh in their model 3P, model Y LR/ P. Every other variant of Model 3 (Standard, LR), Model Y (standard rwd) is now using CATL LFP or imported LG cells from china (which is why they don't qualify for IRA credit starting next year). So ultimately fair Criticism, but its very circumstantial, and business driven for road to survivability and profitability with as much possible Rivian could do to offer value to their customers considering their situation.
Model Y transition to 82kWh pack started in March 2021 (when prices were relatively low). You stated that Tesla switched over happened in 2022 and that was definitely not true for Model Y.
If they would have charged another 2 or 3 thousand dollars for it, there would be no complaints. And I see no reason for the regular large pack not being more than sufficient. If driving for 4.5 hours at a constant 70mph is not enough, then what is? You barely get that on an ICE gas truck that doesn't use batteries to help it achieve a longer range.
The only way to force the dual-motor Rivian into all-motor mode is to put it in a different drive mode than All-purpose. If it wasn’t the “Dual performance” version, then that would mean either off-road or snow mode, both of which significantly impact efficiency even outside those actual conditions.
Thank you for the video. I was pondering that it would be fun if the software creators left Out Of Spec an Easter egg warning when it realizes it’s being range tested…gives you a Mortal Kombat notification…. Down, Down, Forward, Circle. To level up the out of spec style…if the test vehicle runs out and the trailer was in position waiting…similar to the excitement of seeing you roll up to the charger….and we roll onto the trailer.
Seems like you jumped the gun...especially since they told you to wait. There is more to life than click bait and popularity. Also, this nearly one hour video could be summarized in less than 2 minutes...holy repetition.
Can you do a off road comparison of dual vs quad motor? Everyone states the quad is better off road but I have not seen any comparison testing videos. I am an early reservation holder but live in Canada so range is important. Obviously the max pack is not a huge difference in range but max pack and dual is quite a bit better range over the quad....if off road testing is similar then might be better for me to do dual max pack?
Seen one of those Beautiful Rivian - Broken down / OUT of Charge *flashing Emergency* lights on the side of the road. Just, 1 Mile from a Charging Station in Salida Colorado last week on U.s. Highway 50. As I Flew By in My 2001 Chevy Silverado ext cab. 2wd V8 range 530 mile's per 26 gal tank w/223,658 miles.
I have enjoyed much of your content. However it appears much of your latest content is excessively long. A bit of editing content could go a long way to progress this and support growing your base.
Excuse me for being simple minded but because you spent so much time qualifying what you were ABOUT to say that i forgot what it was you were going to say in the first place. All the page flipping and r1t, no, i mean r1s, or i meant the other way around. Im close to the end of the video and i hope you summerize at the end. I just ask that you finish your sentences without jumping around so much i forgot whst you were saying in the first place. Oh, wait, you just said in the video a 22 mile difference for 10k.. Thanks for all the work you did and do. You're definately a straight shooter. Keep up the good work.
Do the EPA require battery packs with a certain number of cycles on them to demonstrate representative results. A bit like you would run in a combustion engine to achieve reduced friction losses. 😎😇
@@Dularr Do you mean that wind resistance will lower Kyle’s results? He factors that in by simulating the tonneau, running both ways on the interstate and trying to do the same route wherever possible. My point was that a new truck with less than 1000 miles on it, may only have had a couple of charge cycles and the optimisation software not calibrated fully. Whereas the EPA might say you can’t use a new battery because it will degrade so we need a 50 cycle battery to level the playing field, rather like you can’t have a blueprinted test engine but need to use a production one. Wider tolerances in factory production typically lose 10% over the prototypes.
19:52 You pulled more because you sat stationary to drain it completely. Had you driven them 'til they stopped it would have been closer to the EPA figure.
Lots of speculation here. Won’t be surprised if Rivian ices Kyle. One thing is for sure that every industry which has red tape have similar testing practices of not testing all models, running less samples, using single coefficient of degradation & applying it over various models to reduce testing time & resources. Coming from the commercial & residential HVAC industry you will find similar testing practices followed there with DOE. Again another industry with a lot of red tape. All in all good research work but nothing new compared to other industries. “How the sausage is made” part is always a bit messy.
I am betting that the truck was a show model for marketing, with the old battery. That they weren't supposed to lend out for this kind of test. Because the real ones not ready. Or the cell provider is lying:)
I appreciate the level of dedication and research done to ensure the test results were valid. Kyle is the best.
lol. Scam channel that will do whatever these companies ask. "Just keep us in the news"
Damn, Kyle going all Ralph Nader on Rivian. Excellent work on identifying and describing that the Max pack is not worth the extra $10k price increase, and then laying the analysis in an easy to comprehend manner. I hope in the future you turn your attention on Electrify America and figure out why they can't seem to keep their charging network running as efficiently as Tesla maintains theirs.
Lol. I had to laugh because he has constantly been on EA for their abysmal performance. It is pretty much a showcase of his brand highlighting how terrible they are, and rightfully deserved.
I agree with you, to a point. Kyle has been on EA for subpar availability, however he has not identified the reason for inconsitent charging speeds, and the numerous down charging cabinets. Is it that they try to reduce expenses and don't want to pay for better servicing? What about cabinets that are speed capped to 35kW many times? EA has been challenged for quite a while, so why have we not seen an improvement in availability? Kyle did great investigative work on this Rivian max battery thing, so him getting answers from Electrify America on when we will see service improvement would be great.
Maybe Wal Mart should just buy out EA. There are Wal Mart branded gas stations, why not charging?
They don’t have to publish information to the EPA so there isn’t much to find unless they tell you. There is a lot of published data about the cars due to government regulations, not much on how charging networks are maintained and I’d bet there is an army of lobbyists trying to keep it that way.
@@stevehuthman741Not profitable. EA was punishment to Volkswagen for diesel gate. Inconsistent charging speeds are a lot to do with more than just the infrastructure. It is also people not understanding how a car chooses to charge based on state of charge as well as temperature and also the inability to follow the individual charging standards that will allow max charge rates. They don't take very good care of them either but that also comes from vandalism etc. Tesla is opening up the supercharger network this year for certain manufacturers. Let's see how the network not having total control of billing through one car on one network that can be updated OTA. Just watch how much trouble they have with non Tesla cars on the Tesla network.
Automotive journalism with integrity. Refreshing. Don't change. Thank you. I also appreciate your willingness to make another video with corrections if you find this is needed.
Rivian gave you a vehicle to test. It's on them to give you a vehicle that works ... period. Your job is to test what you're given. You have gone way way way above and beyond to make sure your testing is accurate AND that the vehicle is fine. And you've more than proven everything is spot on.
Rivian also decided to ship a Max pack that is not what they originally promised (a physically larger battery). This chemistry bump is NOT a Max pack ... it should just be the latest Large pack. Like you said Tesla would have done that.
Rivian also did not live up to having a Max pack on the Quad motor vehicles ... which is what everyone who ordered a Max pack years ago were expecting ... not a dual motor Max pack.
And they absolutely had to know how Kyle would test it. They should have made sure they got him one with the absolute maximum usable capacity at the moment it was handed to him. (One that has zero “wear” at the time he’s testing it.)
That said, I am in full agreement on the “Max Quad”. While they never did specifically say “Max Pack will have a physically larger pack that is 25% physically bigger with 25% more energy storage,” it was super-heavily implied. R1S wasn’t going to get the Max Pack, Dual-Motor wasn’t a thing, and picking Large vs. Max increased the range of the only-motor-arrangement available to 400 miles in the configurator.
Instead of adding 25% more modules (increasing from 8 modules to 10 modules, filling the empty space in the R1T’s longer wheelbase,) they did Dual-Motor which is 7% more efficient, then combined it with a 16% higher-capacity same-form-factor battery pack. This allowed them to achieve “400 miles” on the R1S, which wasn’t originally going to be offered, but it does mean that “Max Pack” doesn’t even come close to meeting the very original expectations.
I agree with Kyle, this should have been just a “silent upgrade” at some point.
Exactly, that’s why I canceled my Rivian order. Rivian changed the rules more than 1/2 way through the race. No power Tonneau, no significant range difference for max pack, no promised charging network locally available.
Valiant effort by Rivian, but it truly falls short.
@@wydryfly The power tonneau is coming back, the charge network is being built out. But true on the lacking max pack.
If the only difference between the Large pack and the Max pack is a change from 5Ah cells to 5.3Ah cells, a 6% increase in capacity, then it would be perfectly reasonable the range would increase 6%, assuming of course identical drivetrains, and that appears to be what your real life testing confirmed. It is ridiculous to charge $10K extra for the newer cells which should just be a running change to the Large pack and not marketed as a Max pack. In their desire to pad their profit margins Rivian screwed up big time with this so-called Max pack. They should just make it the new Large pack, charge a bit more for the Large option, and develop a REAL Max pack.
What are they going to do in the future if they finally do make a pack with more cells, they will have to call it Max + pack or something stupid 🤦♂.
Pad their profit margins? They aren’t even making a profit. The people that are buying these don’t care about the extra 10k. They just care that they are getting more range - and that’s fine.
@@wpherigo1negative margin is still margin.
I would seriously only lease these Trucks don't buy them. The Valuations on the 2nd hand market are tumbling. Don't buy. Truck market both ICE and EV about to avalanche after the New Year. Avoid these marginal battery upgrades at ridiculous costs. Lease it or long term rental.
@callumcurtis15 maybe they’ll call it pro max pack?
Just picked up my Rivian R1T with Max pack- today I thought i was getting ~50 miles more than large pack, based on their website. What a bummer- I feel I need some serious explanantion from Rivian! Thank you Kyle for doing this detailed investigative reporting.
I am in the configuration step for my Rivian R1S. Watching videos like yours was beyond helpful in understanding all the tech details when buying. Love this content. I went with the Large pack of course :)
Great work Kyle.
Appreciate your integrity.
Very ethical approach.
Well done-
Kyle, thank you for maintaining your integrity, I genuinely think that is important for all of us to have access to quality reviews like this
Wow....that was fascinating. You're to be applauded for your research. Thanks for being a part of holding the manufacturers accountable. For most people who buy the truck, however, I doubt that it will matter. They really don't care how the sausage is made. They only care that when they buy sausage....they receive sausage. As a Tesla MY owner, I would simply be happy if the cars were really capable of meeting their EPA listed range. I've never seen it happen.
I believe it should have been marketed as the large plus truck. It should be a 2 to 2.5k up charge, IMO. Then, later becomes the standard large pack when the supply chain could support it @ std pricing.
Outstanding work Kyle ! Many thanks as your original pod cast with Kyler saved us from making a big mistake ... We changed our custom order from max to large pack back in November and very glad we did ...
Journalism. Real journalism.
Exceptional reporting, thank you!
I am impressed with Kyle's attention to details. To be fair to Rivian and EV car manufacturers, however, I think the EPA testing that Rivian has done is reasonable and comparable to traditional practices of EPA submissions from other manufacturers. There is always limited time and resources -- so manufacturers test for limited number of configurations based on what they had planned for at the time -- concentrating on more testing of the configuration(s) that they thought would be most representative of the final product.
Therefore, before people start to question Rivian's integcity, think about how ICE vehicle EPA testing cycles are done, I think one would find similar issues of limited configurations -- but people don't scrutinize ICE car's EPA ratings to this degree of essentially trying to account for a differences in how far you can go on a single tank of gas down to wheel configurations and lack of testing data.
Giving Rivian _ENGINEERS_ the benefit of the doubt -- it's possible that marketing saw the same testing data, not fully understanding the nuances of the test data, decided that the up charge was justified....
He shows that the batteries are only 10KW difference. 22 miles.
In EPA reporting it’s more like 60 miles or so.
So no need to cut any slack to Rivian.
So much for people thinking Kyle is a shill for Rivian
🤣yup!🤣
Very thorough ....
Editorial comments comprehensive.
Looking at the data around 32:50. It appears the data they used to test dual large pack was based on the R1T if you look at the numbers for the weight and Dyno Coeff. They are closer to the numbers you then show for the R1T Max test. The R1S number seem to be higher. So maybe the 352 mile range was right for the R1T and the R1S large pack is lower than advertised. Which sucks if it is for the R1S. Either way great catch on the fact that they only tested one. Love the videos, by the way.
For the ones where 5-cycle was done they have calculated both ways on the forms. The manufacturer can either do 2-cycle and use the EPA default 0.7 adjustment factor to account for aggressive driving and temperature (hot and cold test) or it can run those other tests (5-cycle) and come up with its own more accurate adjustment factor. You can see for the R1S 21” Dual Large, the range calculated as 2-cycle using the default 0.7 factor was 348.49 mi and the actual 5-cycle range was 352.02, so they are only ~1% apart. So for the R1S, anyway, the default 0.7 correction factor to calculate equivalent 5-cycle range is quite close (measured adjustment factor from the 5-cycle was 0.7072). Once they have shown the two methods are that close for one configuration of that vehicle type, I could see them saving cost by just doing 2-cycle for the others. That was a lot of extra work to adjust the results by 1%.
We simply HAVE to start presenting both city and highway efficiency for EVs just as we present city and highway mpg for gas cars. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be obtuse about those figures, and it only leads to frustration and confusion when some cars meet estimates and some don’t.
The more I think about this, the more I think the Max pack is an absolute bait and switch. I'm glad they actually let you test it but it still seems shady.
What I mean by bait and switch; they aren't adding any extra batteries. They should have just called this new pack as "Large Pack Plus" or something like that. To it be the Max Pack seems like they are being shady.
I have a deposit down for a Rivian and this bait and switch is really making me reconsider because this sort of move breaks my trust of them.
Thanks for making these videos, this all aligned with my suspicions with max pack shuffling that happened at the beginning of the year; ultimately driving my decision to switch to quad/large and take delivery of my R1T.
One thing missing in your discussion is the obfuscation that also occurs due to the removal of "conserve mode" on the dual motor trucks. I speculate this is also why they do not offer the max pack with quad motor. As I understand, quad motor/large pack EPA testing was performed using the "default" modes of the truck, so using "All Purpose". The difference is, "All Purpose" for quad motor/large pack remains all-wheel-drive continuously. Conversely, dual motor trucks automatically switch between all-wheel-drive and front-wheel drive, effectively taking credit for the "conserve mode" in their EPA ratings. This is likely why I would expect a similarly configured quad motor/large pack truck in conserve mode to be very comparable to your dual motor results, and similarly marginally lower range than the max pack in practice.
Excellent point. PDM Max Pack EPA numbers are really a combination of almost always conserve mode, a slight battery improvement, and other tweaks.
I feel cheated after I locked down my config with Max Pack, after 2 years being on Quad Large. Pissed as hell.
Kyle, your fair assessment is very valuable to future buyers. Thanks!
Kyle great job in integrity, even though you say you aren't a journalist, you have demonstrated what people in the media business should be doing! You provided the facts and let us decide what it means and what it could be.
Based on your information and some other comments/reviews I would like to see how the Max pack compares in towing to the Large pack in towing. You did say the Silicon-Carbide inverter in the rear motor could be the cause for the difference in range. I myself have been putting off the purchase of my reserved Max Pack. I want it for towing (~9,000lbs of trailer, 4-Series JD tractor, and attachments) and while I don't need 400 miles of towing, I need probably 100+ miles.
I originally had a Quad-Motor with Max Pack order, which reverted to a Dual Motor with Max Pack, I live in the Carolinas so that also has been the reason I haven't taken delivery. I have looked at all the "Johnny Come lately" pickups (Ford, Chevy...) and have not been impressed. I like the fact that the Rivian is not a Full Size truck!
Great video and shows your honesty in your review. Feedback from
Rivian side should be welcomed. Especially with your comments on this being the best vehicle you’ve ever owned.
Annnd changing my order back down to a large pack. This was the information I needed to make sense on why to stay with the large
The 400+ miles max pack was supposed to be on the quad motor architecture. Just seems like a cop out in the current design on the dual motor.
As a shareholder, thanks for promoting Rivian and putting Rivian's issues in a positive light. Rivian vehicles may be overpriced and lack lot of features, but it's early. Rivian may have more flaws than other BEV makers, such as Tesla and Ford. But if we don't get investors to stay motivated and buy more shares of Rivian, then Rivian will never get the traction needed to become a mass production BEV seller. So thanks again for not harping on lack of Apple Play, defective interface, defective bed cover and high price and instead focusing on positive things like able to carry passengers and cargo
I love the independent honest factual review. Keep it up Kyle. Love my R1T Quad. Rivian missed the boat on this Max Pack. Not good for us Rivian stock holders.
Cant wait until you test the Cybertruck. Looking forward to your Rivian testing.
Tesla is even more scummy than Rivian will ever even hope to be. Kyle's level of sleuthing would almost certainly get him sued by Tesla's thin skinned CEO.
I just took delivery of my R1S Max pack one week ago… and feel cheated and extremely disappointed in Rivian!
I don’t blame you. I’m supposed to pick up PDM MP in two weeks and rethinking my purchase. My original order was QM LP and I literally locked my new config two weeks ago. I wish I waited.
Multiplying the amp-hr times the voltage is approximate. Voltage and current are changing in a non-linear way. The correct way is to multiply the voltage and current to get the power at each point in time and integrate the power to get the total energy.
Thanks Kyle, I postponed my delivery of max pack 2 weeks. I’m going to re-negotiate with Rivian
I’m expecting Max Pack in 2 weeks! Haven’t paid yet. Going to have a conversation with my guide this week. It’s $7$ extra but still a lot of money for very little.
I think Rivian is playing to their marketing people with what I call marketing wank just a bunch of BS wants to charge more money come on Rivian. Great video keep up the good work.
Oh, man. I love the geek level on this video. I love how you use the official EPA documentation. Do dig down into the details. I hope you can do that on more cars in the future.
I also liked that you used the battery design site. It is the best site for battery geek info. You can blame me for them linking to your podcast.
Kyle, at the beginning of the video you stated that Rivian called and asked you no to do your tests 7:30. At the end of the video you said they called and said there was an issue with the truck but never asked you not to do your test, but asked you what you wanted to do 45:00. Can you please clarify what they said because your video is contradicting.
NOT saying that Kyle wasn't justified in posting the test results and this video. But, Kyle's "deadline" for Rivian to respond might be a bit unreasonable. This is Christmas-New-Years week -- many companys are shutdown for the holidays (my company did). Add on to that, some might have taken extended time off. So to have someone with enough seniority and expertise in these 3-4 weeks prior and after might be difficult. As a result, there may not be enough key people around these few weeks for Rivian to respond in time.
Cliff notes: Max pack is lame.
After watching this, why didn’t you just calculate 11k * 2 = 22 miles difference - 11k the kilowatts difference between large and max packs. 2 is the average miles per k. You would know before you start it’s not possible to get 58 miles difference unless you are getting 5 miles per k.
Well done Kyle, I was an early pre order Max Pack & held out until mid 2022 before going to large pack. I also wanted the real 200 KW pack, willing to give up some interior space & sub woofer to get the range. I was disappointed when I figured out the max was going to be very delayed. Now I'm glad I did get the large pack because the current version of 'max pack' is a disappointment, a costly disappointment. I do like my truck, I really wish the charging infrastructure was more reliable. Concern over "will the charge I need actually work" because I don't have the range to go to another location. I'm very glad you get "into the weeds" on analysis of the truck. R1T 90xx.
Hey Kyle - Correction for you - @49:30 you said the Max pack was never supposed to be available on R1S. That is not accurate: from announcement in Nov 2018 until November of 2020 there was supposed to be a Max Pack R1S and they were going to use the third row foot wells to add modules above the main pack. This would require the 3rd row seat delete. In November of 2020 just about the time the configurator tool went live they announced the removal of the R1S Max pack stating that 7 seat capacity was a priority to the Max Pack.
Rivian is in full panic mode after seeing your test results.
I watched over 30 minutes of this video and still didn’t know what’s going on a short summary at the start before launching in would’ve been much better
Transparency and integrity sure is nice ain’t it folks. I’ll have some more of that thank you.
Kyle might have received the last Rivian provided test vehicle. Hopefully they don't pull your media pass. Thank you Kyle for documentation, education, and real world testing. Information is the key knowledge for consumers to make purchasing decisions. Do not purchase the current version of Max Pack.
As many others commented here, your videos are becoming less and less appealing to me because of the repetition. Please hire an editor and reduce the length of all videos by 3/4
The autism and ADD is strong here.
The Max pack is a huge miss by Rivian. The 180 kWh originally promised pack just feels like a bait and switch. A shame...
Wow. This might be your best work ever, Kyle. I'm sure there will be a nitpick here and there, but this is a solid research presentation for consumers. Now we just need to see this done with Tesla and the FSD scam along with the 5-cycle results for $$$$.
I was wondering the exact same thing here as surely Rivian wouldn’t sell a bigger battery pack for an additional 10k with less than 50 miles of additional range,Would they ?
They would!
@@KyleConnerit’s certainly looking that way fella,thanks for the update👍
As a recent Rivian stock holder, I think Rivian got busted and needs to say the max pack currently doesn’t meet their design intent so customers will not be charged extra for it. The R1T and R1S are all about building the brand, and they need to keep the customers happy to do so, much like back in the day when Tesla was swapping out drive trains on S and X and losing tons of money before the model 3 made the company profitable. Rivian has a good chance of success if they can add features to the R2 that are not in the model Y: optional 3rd row seats for ADULTS, off-road capability like the R1T/R1S.
Can you present a comparison of the R1T Quad motor large pack vs the R1T Dual Max Pack
Pretty sure lending you a car for such in depth testing was not approved by upper management and whoever lent you this truck caught flak for that call and tried to get it back from you before you tested it.
My guess most of the people who buy the max pack as it is probably aren’t going to dig much deeper than the sticker on the window saying 400 miles. I wouldn’t buy the max pack, but if people want to pay them the money and it helps the company survive and get to R2 it’s fine with me. Excellent work on making sure the info is out there as usual Kyle and team.
What if not only your truck but many or all have that issue?
Wow, nice! Thx for sharing. It only would make sense for Rivian to make the 'max pack' an upgrade to the'large pack'. Selling more of the vehicles rather than an 'upgrade' is more viable I think. Let's wait and see what Rivian says.
Charging $10K for roughly 12 more kWh and labeling it Max Pack is just wrong. Particularly given battery prices on average have come down from the time when Rivian initially marketed the 180 kWh max pack. This almost ranks up there with the price increase that RJ acknowledged broke the trust of buyers. Can’t help but wonder who makes these decisions at Rivian. It’s embarrassing for them.
It’s the second time their marketing dept creates a mess. They should be fired. And RJ is approving all those decisions so he is to blame as well.
Ah ha. This explains why my 20” dual motor R1T defaults to 315 mile range at 100% charge. There is actually an 8 mile delta between R1S and R1T that is not always reflected on the website. Also, Kyle came to the same conclusion I did regarding the max pack, except I took the simpler approach of using the MPGe numbers to see that highway range of max pack was marginal and the majority of the range gains were for city driving. Interesting theory as to why though.
Perhaps the pack has more available charge cycles....longer overall life? Maybe?
Well, now I understand why when I towed with my max pack, I didn’t feel like I got any more range whatsoever compared to when I towed with my large pack that I sold about a year ago. What a shame I definitely feel duke by Rivian it’s not up to their standards at all.
Weight from the Max Pack VS Weight Large Pack with a lower speed testing . Will create a larger gap in miles VS both R1T's . what was the speed tested on the EPA cycle ?
@Kyle. Awesome job on the tests and thorough research. Just to clarify, it seems to me then that for large battery pack w/ usable capacity of ~142kwh and efficiency of 2.37 m/kwh, a range of 400 miles is a stretch; is that assessment accurate?
I have been wondering why I'm not getting the promised 400 miles. It's clear that none of us received the marketed 180kwh battery as well.
Is Rivian going to have over the air updates that will allow existing trucks to charge at 300kw? There are non-Rivian articles that make this claim but when you ask Rivian they act like they don’t know what your taking about. Thank you.
There's a lot of information here. Kyle knows his stuff. But there is more data than my small brain can absorb.
Make this clear for me, range would be better if range testing was done with city driving included? Would it come close to 400 mile range?
When you're losing $ on every vehicle sold, any means of justifying a price increase is fair from Rivians desperate perspective.
I look at the max pack. I want the max pack... but... I will have A/T tires... I am assuming I will have barely more miles over my R1T large pack :(
Yep, I almost pulled the trigger till I heard the pack wasn't actually bigger, then I got very concerned that they were playing games. Clearly they games have been played, maybe you can class action and get some of that 10k back?
I think the EPA range is 355 with Max Pack and A/T.
As long as you don’t drive only on highways, you will get close to 355. I assume…
Klye,
The EPA does not test all of the vehicles. If the car does go through the government lab and the numbers are not the same, the EPA results can be used or the manufacturer can pay for another test. You will never know for sure as a consumer. All of this is spelled out with the EPA.
ESR versus current curve of the batteries is where I'd look.
Something interesting is that Rivian laid off a good chunk of their battery dev team not too long ago. I wonder if this fiasco might have anything to do with it.
Kyle, you are clearly a great EV enthusiast, and I really do want to hear what you have to say, but your content tpyically has 1 minute of good info in every 20 minutes of content you put up. I'm sure it is still fine for some people but I would really enjoy some more condensed content.
Rivian has to address the questions raised after OOS latest reviews. EPA test methods, lackluster highway range, Max pack range gains attributed to front drive only, almost no reserve left, etc. - overall, Max Pack looks like a ripoff. $10K for 22 miles highway range.
Based on Rivian own website stating ~60 miles gain with Max Pack, I changed my config from R1S QMLP to PDMMP and locked it down 4 weeks ago.
Pre 3/22 price so my cost went up $6,500. And I lost the premium QM performance.
My R1S is expected to arrive in few days.
I’m having serious second thoughts on the purchase especially after seeing the excellent Kia EV9 reviews.
I think Rivian misled many people. The brand was iron clad, but not any more.
Is this an engineering or marketing mistake? Shouldn’t Rivian’s testing exposed the problem before delivery instead of waiting for Kyle to do it? 22 more miles for $10K is awful.
Rivian silence is deafening.
So 6 days later no video for charging, can you give us an update as to what is going on? Rivian holding you up on the release, or was there actually something wrong?
I couldn’t watch the whole video but about halfway through I am left wondering if Rivian is trying to hide that the extended range is only a software update. Maybe someone realized they didn’t configure this max pack appropriately before delivering it to you? 🤔
I'll bet the cells are identical. Its already happened to someone. Where they ordered a max and the car delivered said it was a large. They took it to the back and said they opened the underbody to "verify" it was a max battery. Then they flashed software and gave it back. So... I dont know. Someone needs to open a set of packs and see. It'll happen eventually.
Now here's the thing. I have a max pack r1s and compared to Teslas claim of range, rivian does much better. The range is more confidence inspiring for sure. Max pack was originally envisioned on the r1s but at the loss of the 3rd row seat.
Huge Rivian fan and early R1T owner with nearly 40K on the clock, but if this test holds water, which it seems to, them my long-standing R1T Max Pack upgrade is cancelled. Thanks for the detailed testing review and honest appraisal.
48:19 Tesla did the 74 to 82kWh at a time when they were charging a whole lot more than they do now, considering they were already in the zone of profitability prior to price increases. They sold 250k to 500k+ volume over a period of 2 to 3 quarters atleast in 2022 when the switch over happened and easily made their money there for the "kWh" increase. They brought the prices down only in 2023 (and not overnight but over several more quarters) after they made for their engineering costs. Besides right now, tesla only has 82kWh in their model 3P, model Y LR/ P. Every other variant of Model 3 (Standard, LR), Model Y (standard rwd) is now using CATL LFP or imported LG cells from china (which is why they don't qualify for IRA credit starting next year). So ultimately fair Criticism, but its very circumstantial, and business driven for road to survivability and profitability with as much possible Rivian could do to offer value to their customers considering their situation.
Model Y transition to 82kWh pack started in March 2021 (when prices were relatively low). You stated that Tesla switched over happened in 2022 and that was definitely not true for Model Y.
@@JK4507 only q1 or till early q2, price increase actually started to happen in H2 2021
If they would have charged another 2 or 3 thousand dollars for it, there would be no complaints.
And I see no reason for the regular large pack not being more than sufficient. If driving for 4.5 hours at a constant 70mph is not enough, then what is? You barely get that on an ICE gas truck that doesn't use batteries to help it achieve a longer range.
$10k is a lot of money. The max pack should have had more cells as well. Max means Max.
Too bad you returned it, you could have run a range test with all motor running. Maybe in the future for other vehicles could be interesting.
The only way to force the dual-motor Rivian into all-motor mode is to put it in a different drive mode than All-purpose. If it wasn’t the “Dual performance” version, then that would mean either off-road or snow mode, both of which significantly impact efficiency even outside those actual conditions.
@@AnonymousFreakYT but the measurements would be the same and the difference could be seen by running both trucks in that mode.
Even if the pack was something more legit, it’s not worth $10k but given how they currently do it, it’s a NO from me dawg
Was the upper and lower buffers the same on both models?
Thank you for the video.
I was pondering that it would be fun if the software creators left Out Of Spec an Easter egg warning when it realizes it’s being range tested…gives you a Mortal Kombat notification…. Down, Down, Forward, Circle.
To level up the out of spec style…if the test vehicle runs out and the trailer was in position waiting…similar to the excitement of seeing you roll up to the charger….and we roll onto the trailer.
Seems like you jumped the gun...especially since they told you to wait. There is more to life than click bait and popularity. Also, this nearly one hour video could be summarized in less than 2 minutes...holy repetition.
Can you do a off road comparison of dual vs quad motor? Everyone states the quad is better off road but I have not seen any comparison testing videos. I am an early reservation holder but live in Canada so range is important. Obviously the max pack is not a huge difference in range but max pack and dual is quite a bit better range over the quad....if off road testing is similar then might be better for me to do dual max pack?
I think the QM Large Pack can do better than EPA estimates if you do conserve mode. It should be not much far off vs PDM Large Pack. But it’s a hunch.
Seen one of those Beautiful Rivian - Broken down / OUT of Charge *flashing Emergency* lights on the side of the road. Just, 1 Mile from a Charging Station in Salida Colorado last week on U.s. Highway 50. As I Flew By in My 2001 Chevy Silverado ext cab. 2wd V8 range 530 mile's per 26 gal tank w/223,658 miles.
I have enjoyed much of your content. However it appears much of your latest content is excessively long. A bit of editing content could go a long way to progress this and support growing your base.
The new cells should have replaced the large pack, and lfp cells should have made a new mid range pack for a cheaper truck. Oh well.
Excuse me for being simple minded but because you spent so much time qualifying what you were ABOUT to say that i forgot what it was you were going to say in the first place. All the page flipping and r1t, no, i mean r1s, or i meant the other way around. Im close to the end of the video and i hope you summerize at the end. I just ask that you finish your sentences without jumping around so much i forgot whst you were saying in the first place. Oh, wait, you just said in the video a 22 mile difference for 10k.. Thanks for all the work you did and do. You're definately a straight shooter. Keep up the good work.
You can tell when someone has adhd, i do the same thing, brains just work differently
Do the EPA require battery packs with a certain number of cycles on them to demonstrate representative results. A bit like you would run in a combustion engine to achieve reduced friction losses. 😎😇
The EPA test the vehicles on a dynamometer.
@@Dularr Do you mean that wind resistance will lower Kyle’s results? He factors that in by simulating the tonneau, running both ways on the interstate and trying to do the same route wherever possible. My point was that a new truck with less than 1000 miles on it, may only have had a couple of charge cycles and the optimisation software not calibrated fully. Whereas the EPA might say you can’t use a new battery because it will degrade so we need a 50 cycle battery to level the playing field, rather like you can’t have a blueprinted test engine but need to use a production one. Wider tolerances in factory production typically lose 10% over the prototypes.
@@gbphil I'm talking the EPA only test in the lab.
Please ask Rivian if rear wheel steering is coming.
So the large pack in a sense on the website is showing 9-10 miles less than actual real life?
It should be a 1k upgrade
19:52 You pulled more because you sat stationary to drain it completely. Had you driven them 'til they stopped it would have been closer to the EPA figure.
It would have been worse... he factored in for the sitting burn at the same rate.
EPA make everyone do the same testing challenge (impossible)
I wonder if the issue is the charging curves. If the curves were set wrong it could make a difference
Time for a class action lawsuit
Lots of speculation here. Won’t be surprised if Rivian ices Kyle. One thing is for sure that every industry which has red tape have similar testing practices of not testing all models, running less samples, using single coefficient of degradation & applying it over various models to reduce testing time & resources. Coming from the commercial & residential HVAC industry you will find similar testing practices followed there with DOE. Again another industry with a lot of red tape. All in all good research work but nothing new compared to other industries. “How the sausage is made” part is always a bit messy.
Can you please for the love of God learn to summarize your thoughts
Rivian’s are way too expensive for what you get.
I am betting that the truck was a show model for marketing, with the old battery. That they weren't supposed to lend out for this kind of test. Because the real ones not ready. Or the cell provider is lying:)