Range Extender Battery Pack increases range to 470+ miles and costs $16K 🔋

[SSonnentag]

Are you thinking the input or the calculation is incorrect?

The calculation is correct, so either the battery capacity or the range has to be wrong. I don't see any other explanation for additional weight causing increased efficiency.

Sponsored

 

[Tinker71]

I suspect that the battery-in-the-bed range extender makes it DOA for most due to losing so much of the bed function.

@JBee

This is my thought to delete the hard tonneau to open up all that space the rolled hard cover occupies for battery and replace it with a fabric one, shown rolled up. It would use the same track as the stainless steel tonneau and could still be automated. It should fit under the overhang from the roof.

I bet you could fit 30kWhrs in there. (matching to the battery might be harder)

The tonneau is expensive to boot and probably weights 150 lbs. You might even be able to make it solar collecting.

 

[cvalue13]

The calculation is correct, so either the battery capacity or the range has to be wrong. I don't see any other explanation for additional weight causing increased efficiency.

I’m not sure I’m following the conversation

but the Rivian is both heavier but also more efficient, owing to the Rivian having both a significantly better Cd and a smaller frontal plain

as speeds increase, Rivian will be come more efficient, relative to CT


but probably I’m misunderstanding the convo

 

[SSonnentag]

I’m not sure I’m following the conversation

but the Rivian is both heavier but also more efficient, owing to the Rivian having both a significantly better Cd and a smaller frontal plain

as speeds increase, Rivian will be come more efficient, relative to CT


but probably I’m misunderstanding the convo

The numbers in the chart show that the Rivian quad motor with the standard pack is less efficient than the quad motor with the large pack. As far as I know, the only difference between the two is the size of the battery pack. I don’t see any way that physics allows a heavier vehicle of the same specs otherwise to be more efficient than the lighter vehicle with the smaller battery pack.

 

[cvalue13]

The numbers in the chart show that the Rivian quad motor with the standard pack is less efficient than the quad motor with the large pack. As far as I know, the only difference between the two is the size of the battery pack. I don’t see any way that physics allows a heavier vehicle of the same specs otherwise to be more efficient than the lighter vehicle with the smaller battery pack.

ah, in that case, maybe I’m just confused

but I’m also more confused now

I don’t see two quad motor variants represented in the chart?

maybe you meant the standard DM vs the large DM?

otherwise, as I understand it, the “standard” pack is their baby pack that has a different cell chem from their “large” pack. Meanwhile, the max pack is an ancillary pack installed under the rear truck seats. Perhaps this aux pack has a different cell chem or otherwise is itself contributes more efficiency (in its combo with the main pack arch) than the contributing to a blended efficiency that is higher?

 

[JBee]

The numbers in the chart show that the Rivian quad motor with the standard pack is less efficient than the quad motor with the large pack. As far as I know, the only difference between the two is the size of the battery pack. I don’t see any way that physics allows a heavier vehicle of the same specs otherwise to be more efficient than the lighter vehicle with the smaller battery pack.

Aero is more dominant that rolling resistance from mass.

The Rivian has a better Cd.

 

[AustroTom]

Only by using a 5th wheel dolly.

I could never get myself to get one of these. Just one more thing to deal with, oh well, can't have it all

 

[SSonnentag]

I could never get myself to get one of these. Just one more thing to deal with, oh well, can't have it all

I agree. It would be fine for moving RVs around in a park in a pinch, but I'd never want to use one as my regular method of towing. Just get a bumper-pull RV and be done with it.

 

[scottf200]

That Rivian Max miles/kWh doesn't make sense.

Are you thinking the input or the calculation is incorrect?
<snip> Gsheet with calcs

The calculation is correct, so either the battery capacity or the range has to be wrong. I don't see any other explanation for additional weight causing increased efficiency.

FYI, Thanks to @GhostAndSkater for providing the answer in this X/Tweet.
I've updated my Gsheet and it is more in-line.

Rivian R1T Dual 21" Large Pack - 130 kWh usable energy and 352 miles - 369 Wh/mi

But we need to discuss what all that means for a bit. The EPA allows manufacturers some margin to tweak the adjustment factors, for example

Rivian R1T Dual 21" Max Pack - 141 kWh usable and 410 miles - 343 Wh/mi

Both Rivian are the same truck, weight practically the same, same motors, same number of cells, just using cells with more energy

How does it is so much more efficient? It isn't, Rivian tweaked the adjustment factor so it would get over 400 miles of EPA range, if they used the same as the Large Pack it would be 382 miles of range

Is it wrong? No, Tesla does the same

 

[Pulaski]

Only the plates a bolted down. Hitch comes off.
BTW: the 5er issue with the angled bed rails still hasn't been solved, has it?

I do a lot of fifth wheel towing and as it stands, I don't see the angled bed rails being an issue. Given you can also lower suspension and increase neck height on most trailers, it should work out fine.

If there is no surprise factory option for a gooseneck, I will be modifying mine to haul a skid steer.

 

[RandyS]

Maybe not the best thread, but has anyone seen or heard about what sort of safety features the tonneau cover has? Will it reverse direction if it hits an obstacle in the bed? Any other sensors?

 

[AustroTom]

I do a lot of fifth wheel towing and as it stands, I don't see the angled bed rails being an issue. Given you can also lower suspension and increase neck height on most trailers, it should work out fine.

If there is no surprise factory option for a gooseneck, I will be modifying mine to haul a skid steer.

Wow, are you confident this will work? How about some of those campgrounds that have a "Grand Canyon" style entry, or sloped sites? you sure the 5er wont touch the rails in turns?

 

[Scott Beall]

Asking with the perfect confidence of complete ignorance.

What if they offered a 1/2 pack extender? That would take up 1 foot of bed space (1/6 of the bed) which would allow a 4X8 plywood sheet hanging over the tailgate by 1'. Maybe add 60 miles to the range so 400 miles on the AWD and 380 on the Beast. Costing maybe $8K - $9K.

Would that be an attractive solution? I'd go for that.

 

[scottf200]

I do a lot of fifth wheel towing and as it stands, I don't see the angled bed rails being an issue. Given you can also lower suspension and increase neck height on most trailers, it should work out fine.

If there is no surprise factory option for a gooseneck, I will be modifying mine to haul a skid steer.

I thought that was ruled out anyway with the sails.
See images here:
https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...e-lowering-in-action.8623/page-11#post-158238

 

[scottf200]

Asking with the perfect confidence of complete ignorance.

What if they offered a 1/2 pack extender? That would take up 1'' of bed space (1/6 of the bed) which would allow a 4X8 plywood sheet hanging over the tailgate by 1'. Maybe add 60 miles to the range so 400 miles on the AWD and 380 on the Beast. Costing maybe $8K - $9K.

Would that be an attractive solution? I'd go for that.

FYI, these range extender likely have their own BMS, liquid cool, and other electronics in them.
The "penthouse" can be somewhat larger (Related to your 1" tall remark across it all)

Sponsored