To watch for: results of the testing done for EPA cert for CyberTruck

[scottf200]

Maybe this was discussed but I don't recall -- results of the testing done for EPA cert.
It doesn't appear the CyberTruck is there yet (date of thread) but other Teslas are.
Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY

Source: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ty-confirmed-149kwh.19784/page-13#post-431095

Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY

1) you can see the results of the testing done for EPA cert. It's in the EPA DIS database here: Basic Search | Document Index System | US EPA search for "applications" and "[Tesla Motors Inc]" as the manufacturer and you'll see all the results to date. Look for "usable battery energy" and that's the measured energy taken from the battery during the test from 100% to 0%, it's great because that is what is available to you as the driver and doesn't consider any losses from chargers or charging or accessories-- unfortunately it's not always in the application. Often but not always, the manufacturer also includes the CA details, which show the breakdown of city/highway Wh/mi. This is also useful because it is "unadjusted", i.e. the raw data from the test.

2) The window sticker values are "adjusted" meaning that the raw measured range is reduced by an adjustment factor, that is usually 0.7. There are other possible ways to adjust, but most BEVs are just using the EPA guidance of 0.7. So if the window sticker says 400 miles, it really drove 570 miles or so on the test.

3) the Wh/mi values are calculated using AC watt-hours, that is, using the energy measured at the wall (between the wall and the EVSE). Which ends up making it look like the vehicle has slightly higher energy consumption while driving because it includes charger efficiencies, battery losses, accessories running during charging, even the several hundred Wh of having the EVSE awake for the 12 hour minimum time.

4) No measurement can be 100% accurate. The test procedure has allowed tolerances that total up to around 3% or so-- best case. Some OEMs spend an awful lot of time trying to get it as accurate and repeatable and perfect as possible, but most are fine just being in the allowable tolerances. 3% is alot of Wh.

Hoping this information finds you all well and can help feed your interest in the subject and get you closer to trying to decode all the numbers and how they fit together. Here's some more details and links to deeper paths (the CFR, i.e. the federal law) https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fuel-economy-and-ev-range-testing

Short criteria:

Documents showed up but getting this:

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Maybe this was discussed but I don't recall -- results of the testing done for EPA cert.
It doesn't appear the CyberTruck is there yet (date of thread) but other Teslas are.
Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY

Source: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ty-confirmed-149kwh.19784/page-13#post-431095

Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY


Short criteria:

Documents showed up but getting this:

Yep, this is where to look for detailed results. (I use “iaspub lookup” google search but maybe I should start using this page.)

However, these results can be substantially delayed; the final results sometimes show up on the fueleconomy.gov normal website and within the EPA datafile FIRST. But these early results do not explicitly provide the pack size - only give the AC results and some info on what wheel diameter was used to test, and how many variants were tested. (Right now datafile is release dates prior to 11-13-23.)

It could be a month or two before anything happens. Depends.

I think I am like 25% sure on my ~129kWh number. A lot of people seem set on the 123kWh number (which would imply excellent driving efficiency (however, have to back out the all-important scalar to compare to other vehicles!), but terrible charging efficiency (84%)).

BTW: The absolutely critical scalar can be derived from the datafile by dividing adjusted kWh/100mi by unadjusted quantity. Two different columns in the spreadsheet; three columns difference.

 

[jebinc]

Maybe this was discussed but I don't recall -- results of the testing done for EPA cert.
It doesn't appear the CyberTruck is there yet (date of thread) but other Teslas are.
Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY

Source: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ty-confirmed-149kwh.19784/page-13#post-431095

Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY


Short criteria:

Documents showed up but getting this:

I believe Tesla even stated the range of each of the three CT variants was, "an estimate" at this early point in the CT's development. Given the accuracy of Tesla's range estimates in the past (that tend to be more optimistic EPA), we best watch this closely. We all know that even "EPA" on Tesla vehicles is overstated (mores than most) - meaning actual not "optimal" real world use usually results in actuals being ~70% of EPA, and something even less than that when compared to early Tesla provided, "Estimates"... And this is average driving, not lead footing it. Buyer's beware....

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

We all know that even "EPA" on Tesla vehicles is overstated (mores than most)

To be clear, these results can easily be normalized with publicly available information. Not that a normal consumer will do that. But it IS easy to do.

Even Rivian inflates their numbers (but not as much as Tesla, and the amount of inflation depends on exactly which Rivian).

We’ll know from the datafile what the inflation is (it’s the scalar).

Everything else should be equal between manufacturers. The only question I have is the exact behavior of different manufacturer vehicles at 0% SOC. For Tesla, if you’re lucky, you have 4.5% more.

I don’t know how Rivian works. Does it shutdown? Disable to a mode where it can no longer run the EPA test, but would work on the street for a little longer?

My assumption is all manufacturers run the test until the vehicle stops moving (I think that is required). But not sure. I know Tesla does.

If EPA is 340, I expect about 270 miles at 70mph. About 250-260 at 80mph. But this is assuming only a modest scalar is used, 0.73 or so, no higher. We’ll see. Need to know the actual pack size!

 

[jebinc]

To be clear, these results can easily be normalized with publicly available information. Not that a normal consumer will do that. But it IS easy to do.

Even Rivian inflates their numbers (but not as much as Tesla, and the amount of inflation depends on exactly which Rivian).

We’ll know from the datafile what the inflation is (it’s the scalar).

Everything else should be equal between manufacturers. The only question I have is the exact behavior of different manufacturer vehicles at 0% SOC. For Tesla, if you’re lucky, you have 4.5% more.

I don’t know how Rivian works. Does it shutdown? Disable to a mode where it can no longer run the EPA test, but would work on the street for a little longer?

My assumption is all manufacturers run the test until the vehicle stops moving (I think that is required). But not sure. I know Tesla does.

No idea. All I can say is that my three Tesla's never get EPA level performance, but my R1T often does - same/similar routes and conditions.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

No idea. All I can say is that my three Tesla's never get EPA level performance, but my R1T often does - same/similar routes and conditions.

It’ll be interesting to see if this pattern persists. I think CT could be a bit better than what we’re used to in this regard - but I could be wrong. What is the lowest SOC on Rivian you have gone to? Do you have any useful data on your actual real-world efficiency and exhaustive details on how the SOC changed on that specific trip? Anyway, kind of a side topic - could point me to another thread if you have posted anywhere.

I’m curious about Rivian efficiency in real-world conditions.

And which exact variant and wheel/tire combo are you running?

Side topic as I said. Will be good to compare eventually, for sure.

 

[jebinc]

It’ll be interesting to see if this pattern persists. I think CT could be a bit better than what we’re used to in this regard - but I could be wrong. What is the lowest SOC on Rivian you have gone to? Do you have any useful data on your actual efficiency and how the SOC changed on that specific trip? Anyway, kind of a side topic - could point me to another thread if you have posted anywhere.

We typically drive between 30% SoC and 90% (all four EVs). Efficiency wise, the Tesla's are superior to Rivian, per mile - even the Plaid. The Rivian also has a 135 kWh useable battery, vs. 100 kWh (Plaid) or less in the MY/3. Range wise, I can count on what the Rivian tells me/gives. Can't say that with any of the three Teslas - The Plaid being the worst. Even in ideal weather/road conditions, I struggle to get 70% of EPA - not an issue with my car, per Telsa SC ("Normal"). And that's not because of launches/lead footing. Okay, back on topic....

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The Rivian also has a 135 kWh useable battery

To be clear, it is ~131kWh when new. No more. No idea if they build in any capacity loss protection buffer (this is possible but Tesla does not do it). I saw 130.6kWh to 131.6kWh or so on the site referenced by the OP. Rivian’s documents still make it super easy to see because they the include colorful spreadsheet (Tesla has started to not include this which is annoying).

Anyway, does not sound like useful data exists on efficiency or on shutdown behavior at low SOC.

Can start another thread if situation changes.

 

[jebinc]

We typically drive between 30% SoC and 90% (all four EVs). Efficiency wise, the Tesla's are superior to Rivian, per mile - even the Plaid. The Rivian also has a 135 kWh useable battery, vs. 100 kWh (Plaid) or less in the MY/3. Range wise, I can count on what the Rivian tells me/gives. Can't say that with any of the three Teslas - The Plaid being the worst. Even in ideal weather/road conditions, I struggle to get 70% of EPA - not an issue with my car, per Telsa SC ("Normal"). And that's not because of launches/lead footing. Okay, back on topic....

Edit: Forgot to answer the tire question - All Seasons on all four EV's. I also have a set of light forged summers for the Plaid (that I use in the summer).
Prior to EVs, I had for years a fleet of Subaru's, equipped with L2 Eyesight. Always could count on predictable "Eyesight" performance - for what it offered.
@AlanSubie4Life

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Forgot to answer the tire question - All Seasons on all four EV's

Yes, it’ll be interesting to see what CT is tested with as I have said multiple times elsewhere. (Something to look for at the website posted by the OP and also the data file website.) Sounds like you are running 21” or 22” street stock tires on the Rivian. The 20” Rivian wheels with AT tires take the range to 307 miles from 352. (They also add 500 pounds to the truck for that test which makes interpretation difficult).

The Plaid being the worst

Vibration takes a lot of energy.

 

[jebinc]

Yes, it’ll be interesting to see what CT is tested with as I have said multiple times elsewhere. (Something to look for at the website posted by the OP and also the data file website.) Sounds like you are running 21” or 22” street stock tires on the Rivian. The 20” Rivian wheels with AT tires take the range to 307 miles from 352. (They also add 500 pounds to the truck for that test which makes interpretation difficult).


Vibration takes a lot of energy.

Truck came with 20” ATs, dark. Loved them. Sold those for $3600 and picked up a set of 21” stock take offs for $1600. Winning.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Truck came with 20” ATs, dark. Loved them. Sold those for $3600 and picked up a set of 21” stock take offs for $1600. Winning.

Ok, so your truck is/was rated for 307 miles (if R1T Dual Large) Not sure if you can reconfigure display in cabin in Rivian?

Anyway seems like hitting 307 miles with street tires rated for 352 miles should definitely help. But not clear if you are talking about 352 or 307. Also no idea what efficiency you are getting.

 

[jebinc]

Ok, so your truck is/was rated for 307 miles (if R1T Dual Large) Not sure if you can reconfigure display in cabin in Rivian?

Anyway seems like hitting 307 miles with street tires rated for 352 miles should definitely help. But not clear if you are talking about 352 or 307. Also no idea what efficiency you are getting.

First, I had to take the Rivian to the SC to have the system reconfigured for the 21”, unlike Tesla where you can “self serve” via the UI. My EPA vs Actual (307 and 352) - the 20” setup exceeded the 307 EPA more than the 21” exceeds the 352 EPA. So, the 307 (was 296, originally, I think) was more of a sand bag than the 352.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I had to take the Rivian to the SC to have the system reconfigured for the 21”,

Ok, that’s funny.

Thanks; back on topic!

was more of a sand bag than the 352.

It’s just a test under specific conditions with the correct rolling resistance parameters programmed in to the dyno. So not really any sand bagging unless they voluntarily reduce the result. (Does not look that way, based on website posted by OP.)

The only “anti-“ sand bagging is the 5-cycle scalar which can be used to inflate ranges by accounting for 5-cycle performance. But this is dumb, because not all manufacturers use it, so that makes the results (range and MPGe) not comparable! Blame the EPA! So: This scalar factor used is a key thing to look for when CT results are posted. (To be clear: Rivian uses it. For Rivian, the result of the calc is 0.707 to 0.73 or something depending on the vehicle (easy to look up). These values are generally smaller than what Tesla uses so will make ranges smaller (less optimistic). It’s a reflection of the test not doing quite as well at cold/hot conditions, etc. (really very small differences). )

 

[jebinc]

Ok, that’s funny.

Thanks; back on topic!

It is, but Telsa took years to implement this “self serve,” I suspect Rivian will as well - eventually.

 

[scottf200]

The documents appear to be there now!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The documents appear to be there now!

Sadly look like dummy submissions for now.

These are random numbers, but it says:
816V pack (so that suggests maybe 224 cells in series, 941V, per Tesla norms…but looking at some other documents, not so sure…)

So could well be 2x112s6p + 11s2p

Guess we’ll see.

They have the coefficients too which could be useful to compare.

EDIT:
96s - “360V”
110s - “410V”

So, “816V” would be…220s?
Not sure.
That would be 2x 110s6p + ???

Can’t make the stated 1366 work out with that. Anyway, whatever.

 

[scottf200]

Sadly look like dummy submissions for now.

These are random numbers, but it says:
816V pack (so that suggests maybe 224 cells in series, 941V, per Tesla norms…but looking at some other documents, not so sure…)

So could well be 2x112s6p + 11s2p

Guess we’ll see.

They have the coefficients too which could be useful to compare.

EDIT:
96s - “360V”
110s - “410V”

So, “816V” would be…220s?
Not sure.

The battery numbers of 170 and 150 didn't seem right either.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The battery numbers of 170 and 150 didn't seem right either.

View attachment 996423

Yeah these particular unmeasured numbers tend to be random numbers in any case, but even more so when a placeholder…

Also says permanent magnet all around. So .

 

[scottf200]

The battery numbers of 170 and 150 didn't seem right either.

View attachment 996423

Yeah these particular unmeasured numbers tend to be random numbers in any case, but even more so when a placeholder…

Also says permanent magnet all around. So .

170ah = 138.72 kWh
150ah = 123.00 kWh