so who's ordering a Rivian?

[DaveInDenver]

My tank is around 17 gal but I was in 2high most of the time and only dropping down to 4low when I need to ascend with control or control my speed on decent.

If my maths are right you used around 8 to 9 gallons for roughly 150 miles? That's slightly better (~16.5 MPG) than I get on pavement, never mind dirt! I can almost touch 18ish driving real casual around 55 MPHish on 2-lane.

 

[On the RX]

Called my copilot (dad) and asked him to look back in that pocket calendar he journals every detail of every day in. He had to dig back a few years but, we used 9.32 gallons of gas on the white rim trip. That was from fillup to fillup and included the pavement time from the petro station.

 

[Corbet]

Got back last night. The Rivian completed the trail with approx 25% battery remaining. I used 23.5 gallons from Moab and back to Moab again. We ran it clockwise. We did run the Lathrop Canyon spur.

Ben ran his fridge off a separate battery and solar setup. Didn’t use the AC a ton. Was in a max battery conserve mode until we hit our 3rd (last) campsite. We spent the night at Dead Horse State Park going in so he could charge off the RV post. 3rd vehicle a Tacoma did carry a Honda generator just in case we had to charge on the White Rim.

The Rivian did everything great. I know there is no way I’d buy a 300 series over a Rivian.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Good data Corbet. Do you have the total miles you did between charges?

From Dead Horse campground to the UT313/WRT turn off is about 14 miles. From that junction to the point you hit UT313/BLM129 (the north point near Gemini Bridges) 92 miles (so going anti-clockwise on WRT). When I walked Lathrop out-and-back I had it at 8 miles round trip non-ideal GPS measured (thus accuracy unknown).

So the WRT part I have as 14 + 92 + 8 = 114 miles. Wondering your route after that, how much of the ~75% battery consumption includes a trip back to Moab.

 

[Corbet]

I didn’t track total miles but I bet Ben did. Will have to ask him.

 

[Corbet]

Waiting on total miles but he messaged me 20% battery when he hit pavement. Gained 2% going back to Moab on HWY.

I’m assuming I witness the first Rivian around White Rim? Edit: looks like one has gone before on the Rivian owners forum.

 

[Corbet]

Here is the detailed report from my friend Ben:

“About 132 miles including side trips used 80% of the battery. We averaged 1.17 miles per kWh in off road mode and with the 100+ degree temps we were totally impressed with the performance in extreme climates. We saw 4-5% battery loss overnight but now with camp mode that should be much reduced.”

 

[DaveInDenver]

Just to normalize what Ben experienced to something a driver of a regular vehicle will understand.

1 kW-hr of electrical energy is 3412.142 BTU. A gallon of 10% ethanol gasoline is 120,238 BTU.

Assuming his Rivian has the 125 kW-hr usable capacity battery and consuming about 80% of it means it took roughly 100 kW-hr or 341,214.2 BTU. The equivalent of 2.84 gallons of (standard) gasoline or about 132 miles / 2.84 gallons = 46.48 MPG.

Since an internal combustion engine is perhaps 30% efficient whilst electrical is essentially 100% he would have used ~9.46 gallons had he been driving Corbet's truck. So 15.49 MPG.

So the maths work out from the 50,000 foot view. Seems to favor the Rivian's efficiency 'cause I'm guessing Corbet didn't get 15.46 MPG with A/C running and everything.

The rub really comes in when dealing with trips that aren't sidecountry-ish like this (meaning WRT isn't really that far off grid anymore) and you have to figure out a way to refuel.

The Rivian's 125 kW-hr battery pack contain 7,776 type 21700 cells and so must weigh at least 536.5 kg (a 21700 cell is typically ~69 grams). So call it at least 600 kg with wire harness and cage, about 1,300 lbs for 426,517.75 BTU. That's about the same energy as 3.55 gallons of gasoline, which would weigh about 21.3 lbs.

It appears the practical issue with a Rivian is only that you can never be further than 73.125 miles from a place to charge.

Or carry a generator. A Honda EU2200 + 5 gallons of fuel for it would add 47 + 30 = 77 lbs, which is something like 1.28% of the total weight of a Rivian, so inconsequential.

A Honda EU2200 will generate rated capacity for 3.2 hours on a full tank, 0.95 gallons, or about 7.41 kW-hr/gallon. That 5 gallons would get you 37.05 kW-hr. That would get you an additional 43.4 miles per jerry can (equivalent to 8.7 MPG).

This seems to be the penalty, generators suffering scale in the wrong way compared to a truck (e.g. work done per unit fuel). If you can charge the Rivian from the grid the scale works in your favor. So that ~47 MPG equivalent cost a bit less in fuel consumed at the power plant in the total energy loop.

Plus the speed of refueling. Running the genset for roughly 16.84 hours to convert 5 gallons into useful battery fuel. In a truck it would take about 30 seconds to put that jerry can energy into the tank.

 

[krice118]

Just to normalize what Ben experienced to something a driver of a regular vehicle will understand.

1 kW-hr of electrical energy is 3412.142 BTU. A gallon of 10% ethanol gasoline is 120,238 BTU.

Assuming his Rivian has the 125 kW-hr usable capacity battery and consuming about 80% of it means it took roughly 100 kW-hr or 341,214.2 BTU. The equivalent of 2.84 gallons of (standard) gasoline or about 132 miles / 2.84 gallons = 46.48 MPG.

Since an internal combustion engine is perhaps 30% efficient whilst electrical is essentially 100% he would have used ~9.46 gallons had he been driving Corbet's truck. So 15.49 MPG.

So the maths work out from the 50,000 foot view. Seems to favor the Rivian's efficiency 'cause I'm guessing Corbet didn't get 15.46 MPG with A/C running and everything.

The rub really comes in when dealing with trips that aren't sidecountry-ish like this (meaning WRT isn't really that far off grid anymore) and you have to figure out a way to refuel.

The Rivian's 125 kW-hr battery pack contain 7,776 type 21700 cells and so must weigh at least 536.5 kg (a 21700 cell is typically ~69 grams). So call it at least 600 kg with wire harness and cage, about 1,300 lbs for 426,517.75 BTU. That's about the same energy as 3.55 gallons of gasoline, which would weigh about 21.3 lbs.

It appears the practical issue with a Rivian is only that you can never be further than 73.125 miles from a place to charge.

Or carry a generator. A Honda EU2200 + 5 gallons of fuel for it would add 47 + 30 = 77 lbs, which is something like 1.28% of the total weight of a Rivian, so inconsequential.

A Honda EU2200 will generate rated capacity for 3.2 hours on a full tank, 0.95 gallons, or about 7.41 kW-hr/gallon. That 5 gallons would get you 37.05 kW-hr. That would get you an additional 43.4 miles per jerry can (equivalent to 8.7 MPG).

This seems to be the penalty, generators suffering scale in the wrong way compared to a truck (e.g. work done per unit fuel). If you can charge the Rivian from the grid the scale works in your favor. So that ~47 MPG equivalent cost a bit less in fuel consumed at the power plant in the total energy loop.

Plus the speed of refueling. Running the genset for roughly 16.84 hours to convert 5 gallons into useful battery fuel. In a truck it would take about 30 seconds to put that jerry can energy into the tank.

thanks for the detailed answer and making it a bit easier for a novice like myself to understand.

Given the Entry price on these for sale 100k+ at the moment, I think my 98 100 series is more efficient, $ wise. I am really interested to see how these rivians hold up and hope to add the Truck to my fleet one day.

 

[Corbet]

@DaveInDenver, As mentioned before I used 23.5 gallons of fuel from Moab to Moab, I did not hit the trip meter.

I was idling a lot to keep the cabin cool and to charge my battery. I was having some issues with electrical that I'm yet to determine is a bad battery (brand new) or something going on with my alternator. Or maybe just the excessive heat, intake air temps were reading 175. I struggled to keep my system showing more than 12.4 volts even with the truck running.

We had 3rd vehicle a stock Tacoma TRD Pro which was the slowest vehicle in the group. It had a bike rack hanging off the receiver in back that really effected departure. The Rivian could cover ground as fast as me if Ben wanted. Sometimes I didn't want to rally as fast as him and listen to all my gear shift around behind me.

Distance is its only drawback. But in NA how many of us wheel routes where a charger is not available for days? That is the only advantage a 300 series offers IMHO. Daily driving a Rivian is way more practical than fueling an ICE. I use a 300 series in comparison as they are roughly the same price. I built out a Rivian online last night the way I'd want it and arrived at $95K. Not something I can afford and keep my 80 series. Based on what BAT is bringing on old Cruisers its in the back of my mind.

 

[bassguyry]

Excellent info @Corbet and @DaveInDenver.

I put my deposit down in April - I probably won't see my Rivian SUV until late 2023 at the earliest, and most likely at some point in 2024. I don't really plan to wheel it all that often, as the plan is to sell the 100 (trail rig) and build the 200 (current DD) into the new trail rig. BUT, I can't help but want to take it on at least a few trails, and it's nice to know that it'll have enough battery capacity to at least hit some close-to-the-front-range options.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Distance is its only drawback. But in NA how many of us wheel routes where a charger is not available for days?

Charging IS the point. Availability of course but capacity and time. With gas or diesel the inherent density of being a base fuel gets you orders of magnitude faster refueling. The fastest of fast charging at the moment is 250 kW, which means it takes 30 minutes per gallon of gasoline equivalent (e.g returning 120,000 kW-hr in 30 minutes).

So having access to a charger is one thing but if you require more range than you can put in overnight your time grows quickly. A trip from here to Moab, wheeling for the day and going home takes me two 15 minute fill-ups for about 38 gallons of fuel. That's 4,560,044 BTUs of energy put back in maybe 30 minutes. In a Rivian this would be 19 hours of charging (ETA: I assumed total energy, of course it's less since a Rivian gets 47 MPG so it's more like 9 hours, 8 at home at slow, 1 hour in Moab to get home) and only one of them can be done pre-trip, one will have to happen at fast charge unless I plan to get a hotel instead of driving the hour back home to GJ. And that's if you can find a 250 kW charger.

I'm not suggesting it can't be done. Just pointing out that if you're one person coming along on a pre-planned trip with two supporting ICEs and can do a refuel close to town it's one thing.

It's another, really a massive charlie-foxtrot, if it's everyone in Moab trying to do this. If there's 1,000 vehicles in-and-around Moab on any given day and everyone is trying to get a full charge that's 120 MW of power, which is 10% of the Craig power plant output (1,427 MW total output for all three units) just for that. So it's time question, how long everyone wants to wait for that capacity.

Keeping in mind a plant like Craig supplies five western area grid suppliers (Xcel, PacifiCorp, Platte River, Tri-State and Salt River) with about a million consumers across several states (AZ, WY, CO, UT, NV and CA). So if everyone in Moab in this hypothetical want to charge in a hour around 100,000 regular residential and commercial customers get a blackout. If the vehicles in Moab want to wait around 8 hours each to charge it's less demanding on the grid but then the total carry capacity of Moab has to be cut to 12.5% of the supposed users (which is the point when you look at the BLM travel management plans that propose to remove hundreds of miles of OHV access, hint, hint).

The point I'm making is right now California has the highest number of EVs and even at less than 1% total cars they have rolling blackouts already with an average of 15,000 customers per day having their power off over the last month. The grid can't handle the demand right now and we're actively closing all the base load plants. There seems to be a disconnect from hopium and reality here.

 

[Corbet]

you're spot on Dave with respect to charging. The world is long from ready for everyone to have an EV. Hotels should be motivated to install chargers so should restaurants. That is an easy way to attract potential clients. Just not sure the cost of install can bring a ROI yet. We used the fast charger in Monticello on the way to Moab. Walked across the street for ice cream while waiting. It was not an efficient use of time. But we were on vacation and in no hurry.

For now local daily commuting with nightly charging at home is the most logical EV use from most. I just wish there was an affordable AWD EV on the market for me to DD personally. Hoping in 3 years when I'm in need of a new car there is one. But I'll probably just buy another Subaru as the total cost of ownership at least currently can't be beat for what I need out of a daily driver.

 

[krice118]

Its really eye opening that less 1% of cars in CA are electric and they're already having issues. I am speculating that the amount of EVs on the road will incrase quicker than they can get the power grid able to handle it.

All in the name of zEro EmisSiOnS.......

 

[Firetacoma]

FYI, Boulder Toyota (or Corwin or whatever) had 2 sitting on their used lot the other day that were basically new. One was ~$120k and the other ~$125k.

 

[DaveInDenver]

All in the name of zEro EmisSiOnS.......

It's displaced, not zero. The cars aren't making tailpipe emissions but the power plants have emissions. Or the mines for solar panels. Or factories making turbines. No one speaks about the total system.

you're spot on Dave with respect to charging. The world is long from ready for everyone to have an EV. Hotels should be motivated to install chargers so should restaurants. That is an easy way to attract potential clients. Just not sure the cost of install can bring a ROI yet. We used the fast charger in Monticello on the way to Moab. Walked across the street for ice cream while waiting. It was not an efficient use of time. But we were on vacation and in no hurry.

For now local daily commuting with nightly charging at home is the most logical EV use from most. I just wish there was an affordable AWD EV on the market for me to DD personally. Hoping in 3 years when I'm in need of a new car there is one. But I'll probably just buy another Subaru as the total cost of ownership at least currently can't be beat for what I need out of a daily driver.

I completely agree the use case is there for a commuter or work fleets. I have no issue with EVs as such only that they be sold based on rational and full information. It does not make sense to drag around a ICE car just to get our butts to and fro in town. A lot of people recognize that with daily driver Civics or motorcycles. Economic decisions are based in reality and cost/benefit/efficiency work towards that for the most part. Not to mention EV when you're in traffic is really better, you're not making pollution unnecessarily. It's the argument about buses and subways, of course that's a better option over driving yourself for the same reasons.

The flaw in your thinking here is electricity just doesn't come from plug holes. A hotel could install a pedestal but each hour of a fast charger (125 kW, say) is equivalent to the average weekly household use (the average American household consumes 11,000 kW-hr per year or around 30 kW-hr per day). In fact, if you want another analogy to gauge the scale, a 6-pack ski lift requires the same power as two 250 kW charging stations, so their per hour impact is the same. The difference is that the car moves one person 200 miles while the lift moves 600 people two miles each hour. Total work done is the same, in effect.

It's all working now because there's not many of them yet. If Telsa, Rivian, etc were up front they should be charging to build new power sources but there isn't any magic bullets that can ignore the laws of physics. It's blinders on, kicking the can down the road. Base energy use can't be replaced with solar or wind based on our current centralized power grid paradigm. We're replacing distributed energy consumption (e.g. all the cars doing a little work) and putting it on a system never expected to handle moving it all to large sources.

We've literally put the cart before the horse. Before pushing EVs on everyone we need to get the distributed part substituted, e.g. putting ways to generate electricity on everyone's house and business, so that current grid uses (lights, HVAC, factories, computers) is not impacted, either in capacity or cost (that's the current path, electricity cost will go way up). Or at least think of it as energy neutrality, that you've figured out a way to provide your own equivalent charging (if not actual) so you don't tax the already fully utilized grid with a new, very large, consumption.

And I should mention, if you have a Nest thermostat and signed up for Xcel's program here in Colorado you already know how the rolling blackouts work. Perhaps each EV buyer using the grid to charge should be required to have a Nest and be the first to have their AC turned off in the summer?

 

[krice118]

It's displaced, not zero. The cars aren't making tailpipe emissions but the power plants have emissions. Or the mines for solar panels. Or factories making turbines. No one speaks about the total system.

My sarcasm didnt travel well via interwebs. My biggest pet peave is people calling EV's zero emissions as if the car appeared out of thin air. I completely agree with the above and explain to anyone who will listen.

Edit here is a great ted talk (libs seem to love these)

 

[WVU fan]

SEV

Rivian R1S​

As a follow-up to the well-received R1T truck, the R1S is Rivian’s SUV, featuring much of the same styling and innovative tech. A zero-to-60 time of 3 seconds, and a towing capacity of 7,700 pounds are intriguing, as is 3 rows of seating and 316 miles of range.

 

[SteveH]

It's another, really a massive charlie-foxtrot, if it's everyone in Moab trying to do this. If there's 1,000 vehicles in-and-around Moab on any given day and everyone is trying to get a full charge that's 120 MW of power, which is 10% of the Craig power plant output (1,427 MW total output for all three units) just for that. So it's time question, how long everyone wants to wait for that capacity.

One of my co-workers pointed out that there's already a pile of RVs in Moab, plugged into 50a outlets, running rooftop A/C (or multiples). This only adds to the electric load in Moab. He told me that his Tesla draws 32a at 220v on a fast charger (just for reference). When you add your theoretical '1000 Rivians' to the existing RV load on a summer day, it would seem to get ugly very fast.

 

[DouglasVB]

This is an excellent time to invest in companies building power plants, transmission lines, all the hardware involved, and charging networks!