TFL First EV Truck Tow Test (Rivian)

[adoublee]

See it here:

Truck went 153 miles using 91% (123kWh) of charge, 1.25 miles/kWh claimed. Load was only 2,000lbs but was an overlanding teardrop with huge tires. This was a COLD WEATHER test, they talked about using heat but I don't think stated outdoor temperature. I think it is safe to say it was below freezing with snow appearing to fall. He didn't say if cruise control was used, but he put in regen mode (why slow unnecessarily at all and not coast on the highway???).

They used a Tundra to do the same loop the same day (more into evening when temps dropping). That used 10.3 gallons. I think that is around 370kWh of embodied energy in the gas. That would make the Rivian 3X more efficient, even though it is more range limited.

Sponsored

 

[Maquis]

3 X efficiency is pretty typical for equivalent EV vs ICE.

 

[Gros Ventre]

See it here:

Truck went 153 miles using 91% (123kWh) of charge, 1.25 miles/kWh claimed. Load was only 2,000lbs but was an overlanding teardrop with huge tires. This was a COLD WEATHER test, they talked about using heat but I don't think stated outdoor temperature. I think it is safe to say it was below freezing with snow appearing to fall. He didn't say if cruise control was used, but he put in regen mode (why slow unnecessarily at all and not coast on the highway???).

They used a Tundra to do the same loop the same day (more into evening when temps dropping). That used 10.3 gallons. I think that is around 370kWh of embodied energy in the gas. That would make the Rivian 3X more efficient, even though it is more range limited.

As to the kW-Hrs consumed by the Rivian, it is misleading. The 123 kW-Hr should be corrected to reflect the energy consumed to generate that electricity. Such a correction for the prime mover that produced the electricity. Then you need to correct that 123kW-Hrs to reflect the actual energy in that charged the battery to that 123 kW-Hrs expended. In all likelihood the grid level generator was ~40% efficient so it consumed another 60% of energy to produce that electricity. 123/.4=307. Then that battery is likely ~80% efficient in charging so another add-on: 307/.8=384 kW-hrs were actually consumed to drive that Rivian truck that distance.

 

[TF1000]

As to the kW-Hrs consumed by the Rivian, it is misleading. The 123 kW-Hr should be corrected to reflect the energy consumed to generate that electricity.

If you're including the energy to generate the electricity wouldn't you also have to include the energy to extract, refine and transport the gasoline?

 

[Gros Ventre]

If you're including the energy to generate the electricity wouldn't you also have to include the energy to extract, refine and transport the gasoline?

Well, you could, but then there would be a similar calculation for the energy that drives the prime mover powering the grid.

 

[TF1000]

Well, you coud, but then there would be a similar calculation for the energy that drives the prime mover powering the grid.

I thought that was what you were including in your "correction for the prime mover that produced the electricity" statement. Of course it will depend on the source of the electricity. I have a PV system that satisfies my electrical use.

 

[Gros Ventre]

Isaac Asimov once wrote a short paper: In the world of Energy and and Power You Can't Even Break Even. Hence the energy consumed to deliver that electricity into the battery should be allocated to that 123kW-Hrs. Since most grid delivered power comes from a Heat Engine, the Carnot Efficiency should be added in. Of course you might think of Hyro Power and wind or Solar power, they'd be lower. If you have a solar system at your home, you probably are not even close to the capacity that would be needed to charge that Rivian Battery. Run the numbers as you will the key is 123 kW-Hrs consumed in that truck is not the whole picture by a good factor.

 

[adoublee]

As to the kW-Hrs consumed by the Rivian, it is misleading. The 123 kW-Hr should be corrected to reflect the energy consumed to generate that electricity. Such a correction for the prime mover that produced the electricity. Then you need to correct that 123kW-Hrs to reflect the actual energy in that charged the battery to that 123 kW-Hrs expended. In all likelihood the grid level generator was ~40% efficient so it consumed another 60% of energy to produce that electricity. 123/.4=307. Then that battery is likely ~80% efficient in charging so another add-on: 307/.8=384 kW-hrs were actually consumed to drive that Rivian truck that distance.

It's not misleading. It just is.

Comparisons always depend on the vorder of where the comparison ends. For example, I say the Lightning is not offering bidirectional power flow but that is at the truck level. It is sounding like it will have bidirectional characteristics at the system level, but even then might not be continously bidirectional (home can draw from or supply energy to battery on the fly) and instead require being only in supply or fraw modes only.

I have every reason to not emit products of combustion in my garage and within my community. The centralized power generation and distribution can change and improve over time without me having to buy a new truck. A diesel will always burn diesel and make me naucious on the road.

To each their own - it depends on what you value. I believe the healthy will want to avoid products of combustion in the future.

 

[Gros Ventre]

At the end of the day run the numbers as you are moved. It is not so simple... As to the emissions, all you do with an electric vehicle is move the tailpipe. Don't interpret these posts as criticizing electric vehices... I've had a hybrid since about 2006... Good vehicle and I've done my part by keeping up. It now has nearly 200 months in its life. Not replacing a vehice every few years saves emissions also.

 

[Arthur]

Using the same analogy above, one should also include the energy consumed to explore, dig, refine crude oil, and distribute gasoline to the gas tank. It is all about where you set the boundary for comparison.

 

[adoublee]

Using the same analogy above, one should also include the energy consumed to explore, dig, refine crude oil, and distribute gasoline to the gas tank. It is all about where you set the boundary for comparison.

And of course, oil motivated military actions...

 

[SteffanG]

Refining gasoline is a massive energy consumer. Not to mention the cost of moving the gasoline around to where it needs to go. The stuff that power plants use is pretty close to crude oil so it does not have a huge energy consumption there. Also, power plants are A LOT more efficient than a gas engine as they are literally tuned to run the best at one RPM (it does not change at all due to also changing the frequency if it does change). An ICE engine is tuned to be efficient within a very large range, so it doesn't even come close to a power plant.

There are also many places that are almost all renewable power (here in BC, Canada it is pretty much all hydro-electric plants and we also export a lot of power as well) so your calculation only works in the worst areas.

 

[adoublee]

It's not misleading. It just is.

Comparisons always depend on the vorder of where the comparison ends. For example, I say the Lightning is not offering bidirectional power flow but that is at the truck level. It is sounding like it will have bidirectional characteristics at the system level, but even then might not be continously bidirectional (home can draw from or supply energy to battery on the fly) and instead require being only in supply or fraw modes only.

I have every reason to not emit products of combustion in my garage and within my community. The centralized power generation and distribution can change and improve over time without me having to buy a new truck. A diesel will always burn diesel and make me naucious on the road.

To each their own - it depends on what you value. I believe the healthy will want to avoid products of combustion in the future.

Efficiency of energy at the vehicle is efficiency at the vehicle, and is what has the biggest impact on me individually (happy to kwep emissions remote from me while stil necessary). I'm sure there are other threads that want to hash out everything that goes into fueling. Not the purpose of this thread, which references some of the first real word towing experience. Overall, I'm pleased with what I saw relative to what I thought it could be in winter.

 

[LightningShow]

Let's not let the thread get sidetracked by silly nonsequiturs about how much energy is required to produce a kW of electricity.

See it here:

Truck went 153 miles using 91% (123kWh) of charge, 1.25 miles/kWh claimed. Load was only 2,000lbs but was an overlanding teardrop with huge tires. This was a COLD WEATHER test, they talked about using heat but I don't think stated outdoor temperature. I think it is safe to say it was below freezing with snow appearing to fall. He didn't say if cruise control was used, but he put in regen mode (why slow unnecessarily at all and not coast on the highway???).

They used a Tundra to do the same loop the same day (more into evening when temps dropping). That used 10.3 gallons. I think that is around 370kWh of embodied energy in the gas. That would make the Rivian 3X more efficient, even though it is more range limited.

He did say it was 35F outside. He also said that that he had the Adventure version of the R1T with A/T tires which has only ~280mi of range (Rivian says A/T tires reduce range 10-15% from 314mi). Considering the temp and estimated range, 1.25mi/kWh isn't too bad. With a total usable battery of 133 kWh and 280mi range, the projected efficiency under ideal conditions is 2.1 mi/kWh (this is multi-cycle, not highway. Highway is actually a little less.). If you assume a 20% loss in efficiency for weather and HVAC you're under 1.7mi/kWh expected range already. That means the towing only cost about 0.40-0.45 mi/kWh. Also, consider he was traveling at 70mph. He'd get a considerable bump in efficiency by dropping to 65 or 60mph. With warmer temperatures and more moderate speed he should get considerably over 200 miles out of a full charge, perhaps as high as 250.

 

[Just Me]

For my driving needs I need someone to calculate this. If I pull a larger trailer 1500-2000 miles or more, without having to worry about my speed or creature comforts because of the motor,, for a one week vacation trip, how many days would it be before the electric truck showed up at the campground?

Sponsored