Thank you Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund for sponsoring today’s video. Your chance to win a Rivian R1T Launch Edition or your dream Tesla is just a click away! For just $200 a ticket you too can enter for a chance to win! Tickets are limited, so act fast and get yours today by visiting the link below: bit.ly/EVraffleOutofSpec
So they're taking $1,100,000 in ticket sales, and 'giving' a Rivian to one punter. How much does an R1T cost, again? Sounds like a big earner for CCANAF. 🤔
@@RWBHere just another climate scam. Paid for by the taxpayers, enriching the rich friends of democrat politicians. Just like the Clinton global initiative. Pretend to fix world hunger, enrich the Clinton’s and use us soldiers lives to destabilize countries like lybia.
Did I really just make a video and not include the payload max weight? I’m sorry! The clip of us calculating did not make it into this video - with some luggage in the front truck plus the water tote and myself we maxed out the available payload at 1610lbs
Is 1610 lbs what your door jamb sticker says? Thanks! Just confirming that compared to any online listing, which as you say, can vary so much by options.
As a long-term firefighter with an engineering background, It is very dangerous to drive around with the water container in the back of your truck unless it is completely empty or completely full because of the water hammer effect and what it can do to you in an emergency situation.
Should just put a pallet of stone or bricks.and strap it down. He hasn’t experienced a load shift with a high speed evasive maneuver. That strap is not hold the load down to the bed its only trying to keep it from shifting back to tail gate imo.
No one ever said Kyle was the sharpest knife in the drawer . Guess he didn’t get the message about sloshing water. Those containers aren’t even baffled to reduce the seiche effect. A simple 20 bags of tube sand ( 70 lbs each) would’ve given him 1400 lbs and safely too. Oh, and no worries about aerodynamic drag too.
Very dangerous is over stating the case. It's not a smooth bore food tanker. This isn't any worse that towing a high surface area max GCWR trailer in terms of a double lane change avoidance and with the air ride probably better than non-adaptive suspension with a static load.
If someone mentioned this already, my apologies. You should take the Rivian with an empty water tank to determine if the wind resistance of the tank above the cab has an impact.
In a perfect world it's possible, but in reality, each drive is unique. You NEVER have the same weather, traffic, acceleration and so on. Just 1 degrees difference and your test is ruined. And I am not even speaking of the temp differences that occur on the drive itself. You can of course run this test, but it wont be 100% accurate. It can only give you an "idea". Same with the range test btw. If Kyle says this car can run about 300 mi max, then it is still possible that on the next day the same car would only do 295 mi. So there is ALWAYS a variance.
I think it was Edmunds or one of the other auto groups uses horse stall mats. Thick rubber mats that weigh close to 100lbs each. Stack several to get whatever payload you want with less chance of having any kind of aero issues.
If it is all about the aero, then having the Lightning cab higher and exposing less of the payload to the wind should mean that the loss % will be less. So, I will guess an additional 4% range loss, compared to baseline for the Ford.
I mostly agree with Paul W. As you both said is about aerodynamics. With the higher F150 Lighting cab less aerodynamic loss. However there is still a bit of water tank over the cab so I would say 5% loss.
The weight would matter if your speed is not consistent or if your elevation changed significantly. At a constant highway speed on a flat highway weight won’t affect range significantly.
I think the Lightning will have a lower % loss since I don’t think it will have as much of an aero impact (I’m assuming the water container sits lower and doesn’t extend as high above the roofline)
Once you accelerate, there really is no penalty for the additional weight. If you had a stop and go range test, the drop would be much more significant.
Yes and at 70mph wind resistance acounts for more than 80% of energy consumption while it would be almost negligible in a city driving test where the effect of increased mass would show much more.
@@mt2nv1 going up in elevation and back down is almost 100% efficient for recovering the extra energy required to climb. Unless you mean stop at the top.
That really is a major new understanding that it's the arrow that cuts down the range, not the weight of the payload. People have just been parroting that towing cut your range in half, but it's really what you tow.
Great video. In all the tests I’ve done in my portuguese EV TH-cam channel I’ve always defended that weight in EV cars doesn’t make that much difference in consumption,nor the different driving modes. To explain the slightly higher consumption I would put my money on the fact that the water compartment is a bit higher than the car and that makes drag resistance increase. I’m a fan of your channel. Thank you for the excellent work.
I missed when your Drivers side gear tunnel panel got damaged or is it dirty? Looked like some trail or shopping cart rash.... Great test idea and results
14:30 I would add that this is true over flat land only. If you were going up a mountain with that load you would see a significant difference versus empty.
... but you can regen on the way down the mountain. That regen helps you to get back most of that energy spend to go up. The only downside is that it regenerates only around 80%, so there will be some impact in mountainous terrain but less than one would expect. For ICE cars the impact of terrain is way bigger since they can't regenerate any energy and just heat up their brakes.
You should do a city driving payload test also. On the highway your speed is steady so it's aero only. In start and stop city driving it's all about weight. Work trucks mostly do local driving so the city efficiency is what will determine costs.
This! Would really like to see a city loop. Sure more variables, but I think it would still be useful, particularly with these fully laden truck reviews.
That's still a nearly a 10% difference in efficiency, which is notable when you convert it to driving range. Losing 20 miles of range per fill up adds up for high-mileage drivers who are often carrying cargo.
Difference of efficiency between the two trucks could be closer than expected. the Rivian levels out its load with air suspension (which enables similar drive angle) vs the lightning with a possible negative rake angle. The tires would be another factor, rolling resistance at max capacity. but just a thought...
Some mountain testing at full payload would be fun. Can the truck do Denver to Breck with that load? Obviously you’ll regen the energy coming back down but the max range between charging stops might start to become an issue. For extra fun: drive up into the mountains, fill up the tank, drive back and see if you can end up with more energy at the end. Lol.
Kyle, At 14:40 you say “the weight does not matter”, that is true because you are on a flat road. Take it over a mountain and tell me the result. I know regen will be higher but it will not compensate.
In a perfect world that might be true, but in reality, each drive is unique. You NEVER have the same weather, traffic, acceleration and so on. Just 1 degrees difference and your test is ruined. And I am not even speaking of the temp differences that occur on the drive itself. You can of course run this test, but it wont be 100% accurate. It can only give you an "idea". Same with the range test btw. If Kyle says this car can run about 300 mi max, then it is still possible that on the next day the same car would only do 295 mi. So there is ALWAYS a variance.
what about repeating the test with the tank but without the water? that’ll closer capture the aero reduction amount vs weight. also, you should totally make an aero shell for the bed….
You could use the tote as a form and fill the equivalent weight in concrete. The height could be cut off of the tote because the density would be largely different reducing your drag.
how is the bed coping with the added weight? I noticed the gear tunnel cover seems horribly misaligned on the right side of the truck, perhaps indicating the bed and roof rails are experiencing some flex
Would love to see max payload capacity, but under a Tonneau cover. This could be fairly easy to test by borrowing free weights from a local gym. This would be helpful for folks delivering boxes of books or all kinds of landscaping/construction materials. Thanks for this video. Hope you can do another that does not conflate the payload effect and aerodynamic effect. Thanks for all you do to educate the public!
Great work as always. What I’m dying to see are range numbers for the RT1 and Lightning towing a 2-3000 pound fishing boat. I routinely make 170 mile round trips towing my 2050 lbs (fully rigged) LUND 1650 tiller aluminum boat over terrain with minimal elevation change and am curious to know if I could get by with either of these potential tow vehicles. I think it would be close.
sounds like OOSR needs to find a safer way to test performance with load. Agree with everyone's comment about safety. other than that, keep up the work and trying to establish a good testing methodology
This has probably been considered but since max payload is such a negligible diff on range… Would it be possible to add a charging port/docking station in the bed of the R1T? The idea is that a person could “rent” an extended battery pack for long distance trips. Drop it off at the destination for charging while visiting and then load it back on for the return. (Like a UHaul battery without all the trailer drag/range loss since weight is less of an issue)
Kyle it would be an intering test to see how much efficiency loss is caused by the 2 aerodynamic drag losses caused by 1. the cargo above the cab, and 2. the tailgate vertical surface in place of the tonneau cover? What if you had the maximum weight in the bed and a closed tonneau cover?
With the Ford having a higher cab it should have less impact on areodynamics. My guess is the Fords efficiency decreases by only 5%. Your result matches Bjørn Nylands result testing a Kia Soul with maximum load by the way and it makes perfect sense, because any object accelerated to a certain speed will always keep its speed without energy added to the system. That means, that you don't need extra energy to maintain speed. In situations with more acceleration and deceleration the weight has an impact though, because the regen only works with about 80% efficiency. Would be nice to see some city driving comparison with and without weight added to the car. Greetings from Germany Felix
@@b2dmastersniper Yes but clearly it is not significant. As for city driving that's not really a concern, EV's do well in that scenario so increased consumption is not a big deal.
@@b2dmastersniper That's true, but the extra consumption resulting from it is too low to be measured. When Bjørn did his test with the electric Kia Soul he even had one round with maximum load and lower consumption than with an empty car. The reason for that is that you can not avoid all measurement errors. Even minor changes in driving conditions such as higher/lower temperatures, more/less wind, wind changing direction, more/less traffic on the road, etc. will impact consumption more than the increased rolling resistance. Check Bjørn Nylands video "How much range is lost with 400 KG weight in the car?" for more info.
I wonder what happens to efficiency on a climb. While a closed loop on a downhill will recover range lost going up, I am wondering if the hard shoulder of I70 ascending to Loveland Pass might be littered with loaded Rivians because the drivers all thought that load would not effect range much. It would be good to break out the climb from descent figures.
If we extrapolate (...okay guess) using these test results, the Max Pack version of the R1T with the heavier battery should not be much less efficient than the Large Battery version. That is encouraging. - Waiting For a Max Pack
Could you all do a low speed range test... Something like 35mph vs 45 mph vs 55mph vs 65mph vs 75mph? This would help explain the effects of wind/drag on efficiency numbers.
Super test and absolutely wildly delicious car. Maybe you should fill the big tank up with sand instead, then the contents will not move around in the same way as water.
Interesting video. My guess is that the F150 will show a similar 7% loss. The efficiency killer when towing is the wind resistance. That is why just towing at a lower speed makes a significant difference. I have an Airstream and if I tow at 70mph in my 2017 Ford f150 eco boost 10spd on flat ground I get between 11 and 12 mpg. If I slow down to 65 I get a strong 12 sometimes 13mpg. If I slow to 60mph then I go up about 2mpg. That is quite a change in my opinion.
You need to find a means to have a static load that does not add any aero component. I'm lovin' the Forest Edge interior, especially the way the wood finish looks. Not a fan of the white exterior. What colors go well with the green interior?
Please try the range with the tailgate down and without a tonneau cover. Could be very interesting to see the tailgate making the car longer and separating the airflow from above and below the car for longer.
Biggest aero drag will be the air sucked into the void behind the truck. So not nearly as bad as you might think. Because the tank is almost the same height as the cab. Nearly the same suckage
I think the Ford will have about the same efficiency loss in the full payload test because it does not appear that the tank in the bed extends over the roof as much reducing the aero drag but overall I don't think the base efficiency of the Ford is quite as good as the Rivian. Hence, they will end up equal. Excellent test but could be better with a static load and lower height of the load.
I would love to see how one of those aerodynamic wedges that you mount on top of a truck would affect the aerodynamics of towing. The reason that I am so curious about it is that the Rivian has a spoiler on the back of the cab that directs air downward. I can't help but wonder if the Rivian's spoiler actually makes towing less efficient for that reason.
On the Lightning doest seem to be as much tote exposed above the cab & my guess would be Lightning loss will be less than the R1T. If the R1T is 7%, I'd guess the Lightning at 5%? I have been watching all of your reviews of EV's & some of your "Mortoring" & "Overlanding" videos. I particularly like the "nerdy" aspects! Keep up the good work!
First my guess is the F-150 loss less of a percentage towing since it’s closer to the roof line of the cab, less sail effect. How much weight did the water weight? You said there was about 160 gallons but not the weight.
If you need to do water totes frequently...look into something called baffle balls to reduce sloshing. I looked into them a few years ago on a 3,000 gallon tank for commercial truck use and they weren't very cost effective in that scenario. Not going to lie at 12:40 you suckered me in pulling into the gas station with the Cummins idiling,
My guess is the Ford Lighting lost 5% KWh difference compared to the R1T's 7%. I feel the aero affected the Rivian more than the Lighting because the roof height on the ford is taller and shields more of the water tote. My assumptions are also based on your comment at 14:37. You said that weight doesn't matter (even though the lighting has a higher payload capacity) aero is what matters. and you mentioned at 14:55 a 5% to 7% difference. But I may be reading too much into it... FYI: It would also be good to highlight the exact payload each truck has, most vehicles have a GVWR sticker on the inside drive side door based on that specific vehicle. It would be beneficial to show that sticker and talk about how much specific weight you were hauling. Overall, fantastic videos! I love the content and hard work that you guys are putting into your videos !
I know it'd be a pain to load and unload, but you could do the test with a bunch of 50 lb bags of gravel in the back up to max capacity, then it won't be slushing around and won't stick up above the roof.
Just a complete guess but I’m guessing the ford will do better and only lose 4% of its range. Based off the set up of the load in the truck. Seems like it matches up better with the roof line. As you said this won’t be a big deal. Towing will be fun to see…even though I never tow.
I'm curious if similar tongue weight and with a trailer with similar aerodynamics would produce the similar results. This begs the question for me then if the aerodynamic impact of a top mounted tent vs a light pop up camper are similar.
Kyle, I guess I missed it, what is your Payload rating of your R1T? Especially since you have 22's and no off-road which seems somewhat rare in these early builds.
I'm guessing the aero loss on the F-150 will be lower as it appears that the tank is not sticking up above the roof line as much. My guess is 5 % range loss.
@14:10 - Yeah, that is what I was thinking, it is more the aero than the weight. Once you are up to speed, only thing the weight is going to matter is additional rolling resistance it might add to the tires.. BUUUUTT, your route seemed to be pretty flat. How would weight affect it if you had hills/mountain pass you were climbing with weight vs not?
Kyle, really enjoy the work you and the team do! Have you tested the R1T towing a 4-seat side x side? I am curious on the range the R1T will get with about 4k lbs (trailer and machine) towing. I am on the fence to possibly upgrade my reservation on the R1T to the max pack, but don't really want to for quite a few reasons :) Would greatly appreciate your consideration to making a video along these lines as I know a lot of people have machines and this would be a nice real usage situation. Keep up the great work! btw...also waiting on model Y (should be this fall) and R1S...lol
Thank you Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action Fund for sponsoring today’s video. Your chance to win a Rivian R1T Launch Edition or your dream Tesla is just a click away! For just $200 a ticket you too can enter for a chance to win! Tickets are limited, so act fast and get yours today by visiting the link below:
bit.ly/EVraffleOutofSpec
Are these the people shutting down working power plants and replacing with wind and solar that doesn’t even work overnight? Hmmmm. I sense corruption.
Can you find any aerodynamic campers or trailers to test with? As you are proving range is highly aero dependent.
So they're taking $1,100,000 in ticket sales, and 'giving' a Rivian to one punter. How much does an R1T cost, again? Sounds like a big earner for CCANAF. 🤔
@@RWBHere just another climate scam. Paid for by the taxpayers, enriching the rich friends of democrat politicians. Just like the Clinton global initiative. Pretend to fix world hunger, enrich the Clinton’s and use us soldiers lives to destabilize countries like lybia.
Did I really just make a video and not include the payload max weight? I’m sorry! The clip of us calculating did not make it into this video - with some luggage in the front truck plus the water tote and myself we maxed out the available payload at 1610lbs
Please explain how max payload varies by battery size and trim level. This is a new variable for the consumer.
Pin your comment !
@@PD-we8vf Actually this is the same for Normal trucks. Even with the conventional engines, the max payload varies with the options chosen.
Is 1610 lbs what your door jamb sticker says? Thanks! Just confirming that compared to any online listing, which as you say, can vary so much by options.
As a long-term firefighter with an engineering background, It is very dangerous to drive around with the water container in the back of your truck unless it is completely empty or completely full because of the water hammer effect and what it can do to you in an emergency situation.
Should just put a pallet of stone or bricks.and strap it down. He hasn’t experienced a load shift with a high speed evasive maneuver. That strap is not hold the load down to the bed its only trying to keep it from shifting back to tail gate imo.
No one ever said Kyle was the sharpest knife in the drawer . Guess he didn’t get the message about sloshing water. Those containers aren’t even baffled to reduce the seiche effect.
A simple 20 bags of tube sand ( 70 lbs each) would’ve given him 1400 lbs and safely too. Oh, and no worries about aerodynamic drag too.
Not to mention incredibly poor strap job. (Former trucker). Yikes.
Very dangerous is over stating the case. It's not a smooth bore food tanker. This isn't any worse that towing a high surface area max GCWR trailer in terms of a double lane change avoidance and with the air ride probably better than non-adaptive suspension with a static load.
I assume it can shake the tail during the lane change in high speed and flip the truck
If someone mentioned this already, my apologies. You should take the Rivian with an empty water tank to determine if the wind resistance of the tank above the cab has an impact.
Any qualified engineer should use this as the true baseline… 🤣
Great idea for another test & a good way to get a baseline. The problem is the number of hours in a day! 😉
In a perfect world it's possible, but in reality, each drive is unique. You NEVER have the same weather, traffic, acceleration and so on. Just 1 degrees difference and your test is ruined. And I am not even speaking of the temp differences that occur on the drive itself. You can of course run this test, but it wont be 100% accurate. It can only give you an "idea". Same with the range test btw. If Kyle says this car can run about 300 mi max, then it is still possible that on the next day the same car would only do 295 mi. So there is ALWAYS a variance.
Good idea. Ideally you'd also strip out weight equal to the weight of the empty tank.
listen to the first 40 seconds of the video. lol He mentioned it hat they already did that days earlier
I think it was Edmunds or one of the other auto groups uses horse stall mats. Thick rubber mats that weigh close to 100lbs each. Stack several to get whatever payload you want with less chance of having any kind of aero issues.
If it is all about the aero, then having the Lightning cab higher and exposing less of the payload to the wind should mean that the loss % will be less. So, I will guess an additional 4% range loss, compared to baseline for the Ford.
I agree Paul W.
I mostly agree with Paul W. As you both said is about aerodynamics. With the higher F150 Lighting cab less aerodynamic loss. However there is still a bit of water tank over the cab so I would say 5% loss.
Solid logic & estimate, Paul! Stay tuned!
The weight would matter if your speed is not consistent or if your elevation changed significantly. At a constant highway speed on a flat highway weight won’t affect range significantly.
I think the Lightning will have a lower % loss since I don’t think it will have as much of an aero impact (I’m assuming the water container sits lower and doesn’t extend as high above the roofline)
You are correct about the aero. What is your % guess?
Probably. Will be interesting to see though. There should be a smaller aero impact but more weight too. See how good Kyles assumption is. LOL
yea
Once you accelerate, there really is no penalty for the additional weight. If you had a stop and go range test, the drop would be much more significant.
Or mountain passes…. Can’t escape Newton’s Laws of motion.
This is a best case scenario range test. In the Rockies, this would not be the case.
Weight/Normal force counts for something
Yes and at 70mph wind resistance acounts for more than 80% of energy consumption while it would be almost negligible in a city driving test where the effect of increased mass would show much more.
The regen braking should somewhat mitigate stop and go driving or driving up and down elevations.
@@mt2nv1 going up in elevation and back down is almost 100% efficient for recovering the extra energy required to climb. Unless you mean stop at the top.
Kyle, flicks the ratchet strap holding down the water tote: “That’s not going anywhere.”
The ratchet strap: 😬😬
If you only knew how many times ratchet straps were checked those 2 days...
That really is a major new understanding that it's the arrow that cuts down the range, not the weight of the payload. People have just been parroting that towing cut your range in half, but it's really what you tow.
Great video. In all the tests I’ve done in my portuguese EV TH-cam channel I’ve always defended that weight in EV cars doesn’t make that much difference in consumption,nor the different driving modes. To explain the slightly higher consumption I would put my money on the fact that the water compartment is a bit higher than the car and that makes drag resistance increase. I’m a fan of your channel. Thank you for the excellent work.
If you drive slow it should be proportional to the % weight increase at most?
I missed when your Drivers side gear tunnel panel got damaged or is it dirty? Looked like some trail or shopping cart rash....
Great test idea and results
Dirt, as it should be. 😉
14:30 I would add that this is true over flat land only. If you were going up a mountain with that load you would see a significant difference versus empty.
... but you can regen on the way down the mountain. That regen helps you to get back most of that energy spend to go up. The only downside is that it regenerates only around 80%, so there will be some impact in mountainous terrain but less than one would expect. For ICE cars the impact of terrain is way bigger since they can't regenerate any energy and just heat up their brakes.
Do you already have a scuff on the driver side tunnel door? Or am I just seeing things?
I got sick when I noticed that. 😬
Did you leave the lightning blocking a charger for that whole loop?
Can you do an efficiency test with the tonneau cover open v. closed? Does the aero change or did rivian magically engineer around the cover?
You should do a city driving payload test also. On the highway your speed is steady so it's aero only. In start and stop city driving it's all about weight. Work trucks mostly do local driving so the city efficiency is what will determine costs.
This! Would really like to see a city loop. Sure more variables, but I think it would still be useful, particularly with these fully laden truck reviews.
That's still a nearly a 10% difference in efficiency, which is notable when you convert it to driving range. Losing 20 miles of range per fill up adds up for high-mileage drivers who are often carrying cargo.
7%
You may want to look into IBC Tote Bladders (which gets placed inside the tote body) and it should help keep the sloshing of the water to a minimum.
Can’t wait to see this same test with the Lightning!
10:33 You can see the F150 Lightning hauling the tote going the other way! What an Easter Egg!
Good eye. Lightning reached 85% & left a bit before the Rivian.
Difference of efficiency between the two trucks could be closer than expected. the Rivian levels out its load with air suspension (which enables similar drive angle) vs the lightning with a possible negative rake angle. The tires would be another factor, rolling resistance at max capacity. but just a thought...
Some mountain testing at full payload would be fun. Can the truck do Denver to Breck with that load?
Obviously you’ll regen the energy coming back down but the max range between charging stops might start to become an issue.
For extra fun: drive up into the mountains, fill up the tank, drive back and see if you can end up with more energy at the end. Lol.
Nice test, came in handy today as I am about to load up my R1T as I'm taking my daughter's things to her place.
but you did not have the totes in the first test!! that thing is going to add quite a bit of air drag.
Practically no change is very cool. Great video.
Air resistance increases quadratic.
Roll resistance increases linear.
Quadratic (ie with square of the speed), not exponential (with speed in the exponent).
@@petrkubena Cheers,, 🍻😎👍
Kyle, At 14:40 you say “the weight does not matter”, that is true because you are on a flat road. Take it over a mountain and tell me the result. I know regen will be higher but it will not compensate.
It's a loop test with the first half increasing elevation, and the second half coming back down.
Hi Kyle, can you please make a video on how order a Rivian truck or suv avoiding unnecessary extra charges. Please.
I love your content lately. Can't wait for the lightning ones
You should run the test with an empty container. That way you can tell how much the aerodynamic drag is.
In a perfect world that might be true, but in reality, each drive is unique. You NEVER have the same weather, traffic, acceleration and so on. Just 1 degrees difference and your test is ruined. And I am not even speaking of the temp differences that occur on the drive itself. You can of course run this test, but it wont be 100% accurate. It can only give you an "idea". Same with the range test btw. If Kyle says this car can run about 300 mi max, then it is still possible that on the next day the same car would only do 295 mi. So there is ALWAYS a variance.
I got mine 3 days ago. Drove it home to Ohio from Florida. It's wonderful
How did you make out with the charging? Florida to Ohio is quite a haul
what about repeating the test with the tank but without the water? that’ll closer capture the aero reduction amount vs weight. also, you should totally make an aero shell for the bed….
You could use the tote as a form and fill the equivalent weight in concrete. The height could be cut off of the tote because the density would be largely different reducing your drag.
how is the bed coping with the added weight? I noticed the gear tunnel cover seems horribly misaligned on the right side of the truck, perhaps indicating the bed and roof rails are experiencing some flex
Would love to see max payload capacity, but under a Tonneau cover. This could be fairly easy to test by borrowing free weights from a local gym.
This would be helpful for folks delivering boxes of books or all kinds of landscaping/construction materials.
Thanks for this video. Hope you can do another that does not conflate the payload effect and aerodynamic effect. Thanks for all you do to educate the public!
What is the payload weight for the Rivian and the Lightning?
Convenient how with all the blabbering this soyboy does he still leaves that info out.
F150 2,235 lbs
Rivian 1,419 lbs
@@PD-we8vf only the base pro or none er xlt is that high, the er lariat and platinum trims are 1600-1800# for payload capacity.
Great work as always. What I’m dying to see are range numbers for the RT1 and Lightning towing a 2-3000 pound fishing boat.
I routinely make 170 mile round trips towing my 2050 lbs (fully rigged) LUND 1650 tiller aluminum boat over terrain with minimal elevation change and am curious to know if I could get by with either of these potential tow vehicles.
I think it would be close.
sounds like OOSR needs to find a safer way to test performance with load. Agree with everyone's comment about safety. other than that, keep up the work and trying to establish a good testing methodology
He’s too cheap and rich to do a proper and safe test.
This has probably been considered but since max payload is such a negligible diff on range…
Would it be possible to add a charging port/docking station in the bed of the R1T?
The idea is that a person could “rent” an extended battery pack for long distance trips. Drop it off at the destination for charging while visiting and then load it back on for the return.
(Like a UHaul battery without all the trailer drag/range loss since weight is less of an issue)
The Ford should loose less because the cab is higher so less penalty with aero! Great videos !
Lose*
Kyle it would be an intering test to see how much efficiency loss is caused by the 2 aerodynamic drag losses caused by 1. the cargo above the cab, and 2. the tailgate vertical surface in place of the tonneau cover? What if you had the maximum weight in the bed and a closed tonneau cover?
The Lightning would lose less energy since the roofline is almost leveled to the load. I'd say it would lose about 3-4% instead of the 7 from the R1T
10:32, is that the F-150 Lighting?
Yep and the water is in the back of it already
With the Ford having a higher cab it should have less impact on areodynamics. My guess is the Fords efficiency decreases by only 5%.
Your result matches Bjørn Nylands result testing a Kia Soul with maximum load by the way and it makes perfect sense, because any object accelerated to a certain speed will always keep its speed without energy added to the system. That means, that you don't need extra energy to maintain speed. In situations with more acceleration and deceleration the weight has an impact though, because the regen only works with about 80% efficiency.
Would be nice to see some city driving comparison with and without weight added to the car.
Greetings from Germany
Felix
There is loss in the way of the tires being more compressed into the road.
@@b2dmastersniper Yes but clearly it is not significant. As for city driving that's not really a concern, EV's do well in that scenario so increased consumption is not a big deal.
@@b2dmastersniper That's true, but the extra consumption resulting from it is too low to be measured. When Bjørn did his test with the electric Kia Soul he even had one round with maximum load and lower consumption than with an empty car. The reason for that is that you can not avoid all measurement errors. Even minor changes in driving conditions such as higher/lower temperatures, more/less wind, wind changing direction, more/less traffic on the road, etc. will impact consumption more than the increased rolling resistance. Check Bjørn Nylands video "How much range is lost with 400 KG weight in the car?" for more info.
An air bladder also inside the tank would help with the water sloshing/movement.
What do you think of the AAA F-150 Lighning test where they found a 25% reduction when fully loaded. Did they do a real world test?
I wonder what happens to efficiency on a climb. While a closed loop on a downhill will recover range lost going up, I am wondering if the hard shoulder of I70 ascending to Loveland Pass might be littered with loaded Rivians because the drivers all thought that load would not effect range much. It would be good to break out the climb from descent figures.
What’s the security system like? Camp mode available?
If we extrapolate (...okay guess) using these test results, the Max Pack version of the R1T with the heavier battery should not be much less efficient than the Large Battery version. That is encouraging. - Waiting For a Max Pack
💯. Stop & go will affect it more, but city driving is normally more efficient than highway in EV. Highway road trip with Max Pack is golden though.
I seen one video a guy tested the Rivian on a full charge under a full tow load and the best he could get was 91 miles from a full charge to empty.
Could you all do a low speed range test... Something like 35mph vs 45 mph vs 55mph vs 65mph vs 75mph? This would help explain the effects of wind/drag on efficiency numbers.
Theoretically, the air resistance at 35mph should be approx. one-fourth it is at 70mph. It would be an interesting test.
Do you think the same results would happen with a slide in pop up camper?
Super test and absolutely wildly delicious car. Maybe you should fill the big tank up with sand instead, then the contents will not move around in the same way as water.
I was wondering if you are planning on doing other vehicle towing tests for example for the Hummer SUT?
Interesting video. My guess is that the F150 will show a similar 7% loss. The efficiency killer when towing is the wind resistance. That is why just towing at a lower speed makes a significant difference. I have an Airstream and if I tow at 70mph in my 2017 Ford f150 eco boost 10spd on flat ground I get between 11 and 12 mpg. If I slow down to 65 I get a strong 12 sometimes 13mpg. If I slow to 60mph then I go up about 2mpg. That is quite a change in my opinion.
You need to find a means to have a static load that does not add any aero component.
I'm lovin' the Forest Edge interior, especially the way the wood finish looks. Not a fan of the white exterior. What colors go well with the green interior?
Please try the range with the tailgate down and without a tonneau cover. Could be very interesting to see the tailgate making the car longer and separating the airflow from above and below the car for longer.
At highway speed, aero is the biggest factor, but at stop and go, weight will take over as the main factor.
The top of the water tank rises above the top of the cab, so I would expect an aero penalty.
Biggest aero drag will be the air sucked into the void behind the truck. So not nearly as bad as you might think. Because the tank is almost the same height as the cab. Nearly the same suckage
I am concerned about wind resistance. Why didn't you load bags of cement?
Same with trailers, it's all about the aero. There's a slight drag on the axle, but by and large, it's all aero.
1:20 stupid question, how much is the water container vs cinder blocks to the weight?
how rough are the comments on your for driving around with a half full tote that is not tied down correctly?
With this info, SUPER excited for the Silverado with the midgate. You could put a TON of payload in there.
95% of the efficiency loss here is just from it sticking over the cab. Weight does not matter at all hardly... its all about aero.
at 70mph you are absolutely true.
East to do when max payload is only 1,419 lbs
I think the Ford will have about the same efficiency loss in the full payload test because it does not appear that the tank in the bed extends over the roof as much reducing the aero drag but overall I don't think the base efficiency of the Ford is quite as good as the Rivian. Hence, they will end up equal. Excellent test but could be better with a static load and lower height of the load.
Underrated feature of the Rivian: it doesn't have a giant vertical tablet like all the manufacturers are trying to steal from Tesla.
You guys are actually doing the work automotive channels should be doing.
I would love to see how one of those aerodynamic wedges that you mount on top of a truck would affect the aerodynamics of towing. The reason that I am so curious about it is that the Rivian has a spoiler on the back of the cab that directs air downward. I can't help but wonder if the Rivian's spoiler actually makes towing less efficient for that reason.
Looks like the Rivian has already been dinged up. Does it have a poor paint job?
On the Lightning doest seem to be as much tote exposed above the cab & my guess would be Lightning loss will be less than the R1T. If the R1T is 7%, I'd guess the Lightning at 5%?
I have been watching all of your reviews of EV's & some of your "Mortoring" & "Overlanding" videos. I particularly like the "nerdy" aspects! Keep up the good work!
First my guess is the F-150 loss less of a percentage towing since it’s closer to the roof line of the cab, less sail effect. How much weight did the water weight? You said there was about 160 gallons but not the weight.
If you need to do water totes frequently...look into something called baffle balls to reduce sloshing. I looked into them a few years ago on a 3,000 gallon tank for commercial truck use and they weren't very cost effective in that scenario.
Not going to lie at 12:40 you suckered me in pulling into the gas station with the Cummins idiling,
My guess is the Ford Lighting lost 5% KWh difference compared to the R1T's 7%. I feel the aero affected the Rivian more than the Lighting because the roof height on the ford is taller and shields more of the water tote.
My assumptions are also based on your comment at 14:37. You said that weight doesn't matter (even though the lighting has a higher payload capacity) aero is what matters. and you mentioned at 14:55 a 5% to 7% difference. But I may be reading too much into it...
FYI: It would also be good to highlight the exact payload each truck has, most vehicles have a GVWR sticker on the inside drive side door based on that specific vehicle. It would be beneficial to show that sticker and talk about how much specific weight you were hauling.
Overall, fantastic videos! I love the content and hard work that you guys are putting into your videos !
The Platinum Lightning actually has less payload than the Rivian.
Solid guess though...less aero penalty in the Lightning.
Where is the video that shows the comparison with weight vs aero penalties?
I know it'd be a pain to load and unload, but you could do the test with a bunch of 50 lb bags of gravel in the back up to max capacity, then it won't be slushing around and won't stick up above the roof.
Just a complete guess but I’m guessing the ford will do better and only lose 4% of its range. Based off the set up of the load in the truck. Seems like it matches up better with the roof line. As you said this won’t be a big deal. Towing will be fun to see…even though I never tow.
I'm curious if similar tongue weight and with a trailer with similar aerodynamics would produce the similar results. This begs the question for me then if the aerodynamic impact of a top mounted tent vs a light pop up camper are similar.
5% for the f150. Looks like aero less impacted bc cab is higher
Kyle, I guess I missed it, what is your Payload rating of your R1T? Especially since you have 22's and no off-road which seems somewhat rare in these early builds.
The dynamic water is a real headache especially if it’s poor weather, so why not fill a tub with sand or dirt
Cool truck. Only problem is how do you get parts when the company goes under?
$16b
I'm guessing the aero loss on the F-150 will be lower as it appears that the tank is not sticking up above the roof line as much. My guess is 5 % range loss.
3:28 is that damage on the rear quarter in front of the rear wheel? Fess up. What did you do? ;)
No, I think I already noticed that in the delivery video...
If you ran the same route with the water tank empty, would you get the same loss?
Excellent test, can't wait to see results of the Lightning
Thank you
@14:10 - Yeah, that is what I was thinking, it is more the aero than the weight. Once you are up to speed, only thing the weight is going to matter is additional rolling resistance it might add to the tires.. BUUUUTT, your route seemed to be pretty flat. How would weight affect it if you had hills/mountain pass you were climbing with weight vs not?
Kyle, really enjoy the work you and the team do! Have you tested the R1T towing a 4-seat side x side? I am curious on the range the R1T will get with about 4k lbs (trailer and machine) towing. I am on the fence to possibly upgrade my reservation on the R1T to the max pack, but don't really want to for quite a few reasons :) Would greatly appreciate your consideration to making a video along these lines as I know a lot of people have machines and this would be a nice real usage situation. Keep up the great work! btw...also waiting on model Y (should be this fall) and R1S...lol
I think if you filled the water container it would've been a stable load plus a good test over the maximum load
It's not really possible to know whether that aero is worse or better than unladen without actually aero testing it.
My guess is 5% for the Lightning.
Great video! Very informative.
will there be a city payload test?
What about using sand or pallet of bricks, etc
So which do you like best - Lightning or Rivian from overall aspect vs cost?
Can you switch it to the proper Whs/mile? Miles/kWh is horrible.
I believe that the F150 lost 5, I will be surprised if it is more. Good video