On most new cars, spending more money on wheels usually gets you bigger rims. For example, it costs at least $1800 to opt for 24-inch wheels over the base 22-inch wheels on a 2027 Cadillac Escalade. For an Audi Q5, it is $800 to go from the base 18-inch wheels to 19-inch ones or $1600 to get 20-inch wheels. This is not the case with the Rivian R2. The optional $1,000 wheels are 20-inch, instead of the standard free 21-inch wheels. However, here’s why you might be better off spending more upfront for the smaller wheels.
Does Upgrading Wheels Get You More Range?
You might be thinking about range. For many EVs, the larger wheel yields a significant reduction in range. [Ed Note: Resident suspension engineer Huibert Mees wrote an excellent deep dive on this very subject! – MS] The Lexus RZ 450e, for example, loses between 7 and 36 miles of range when sizing up from its base 18-inch to its two 20-inch wheel options. It is a similar story for the Tesla Model Y Standard RWD, which loses 18 miles of range going from 18-inch to 19-inch wheels. Impressively, the BMW iX xDrive60 is available with wheels ranging from 20-inch to 23-inch, at every integer in between. The smallest 20-inch wheels deliver an impressive 364 miles of range, while the largest 23-inch wheels only manage 318 miles of range. The 21-inch and 22-inch options perform as expected and provide less range as size increases.
Counterintuitively, the smaller Rivian R2 wheels aren’t more expensive because of range; in fact, the all-terrain tires that come on the smaller wheels deliver 23 miles less range, per the EPA. [Ed Note: That translates to 330 miles of range with 21-inch wheels and all-season tires, but 307 miles of range with 20-inch wheels and all-terrain tires. -MS]
[Ed note: Everyone welcome Benton Kalani, a new freelancer and EV nut who will be writing about the electric car world. -DT]
As explained by BMW, here’s how wheel sizes typically work in relation to range:
Bigger Wheels Mean Lower Range:
- Larger diameter wheels require more energy to accelerate and maintain speed.
- Bigger wheels also have a greater rolling resistance, which means the electric motor has to work harder to overcome the resistance and move the vehicle forward.
- Larger wheels and tires are typically heavier, which increases the overall vehicle weight. This additional weight requires more energy consumption to move the vehicle.
Smaller Wheels Mean Higher Range:
-
Smaller diameter wheels require less energy to accelerate and maintain speed.
-
Smaller wheels and tires generally have lower rolling resistance, reducing the energy required to move the vehicle.
-
Lighter wheels and tires also contribute to a lower overall vehicle weight, improving energy efficiency and increasing the vehicle’s range.
Why Would Anyone Pay More For Smaller Wheels That Are Less Efficient?
Besides the obvious advantage the all-terrain tires would have when traversing different terrains? Replacement cost. Currently, there is only one tire available in the 255/55R21 XL size that fits R2’s 21-inch wheels. The Original Equipment (OE) Pirelli Scorpion MS tire (below) is what Rivian specs from the factory. And, at least for now, those tires are rather pricey.
Compare that to the OE 255/60R20 XL BFGoodrich Trail-Terrain T/A+ tires (below) on the 20-inch wheels, and the larger tires are over $650 more for a set of four (not taking into account any promotional pricing).
If that price delta persists, the more expensive tire/wheel option could pay for itself after two sets of tire changes. Furthermore, the 20-inch size shows at least twelve other tires to choose from, including highway all-seasons, off-road all-terrain, and proper snow tires. With the smaller tire, there is at least the option to tailor the tire choice to one’s driving needs. Here are more options:
This issue is so significant that Jason Fenske of Engineering Explained calls out wheel choice and tire options as his top two concerns with the Rivian R2 in his video review.
One user over on Rivian Forums chose the 20-inch wheels to preserve optionality in tire choice:
“I went with the 20″ AT, despite the reduced range. Having only a single option, poorly reviewed tire with no M+S designation was a nonstarter for Colorado winters.”
What Are The Downsides To The Upgraded Wheels?
Besides range, there could be concern that the knobbier tread pattern of the smaller all-terrain tires might have other sacrifices in on-road performance. However, in Car and Driver’s instrumented testing, the 20-inch all-terrains surprised by outbraking, outaccelerating, and outgripping (on the skidpad) the stock 21-inch all-seasons. Subjectively, Car and Driver even found the smaller “magic tires” to ride better too, which makes sense given the taller sidewall. Motor Trend also tested the R2 on both sets of tires and had similar results. They explain the all-terrains’ unexpectedly strong on-road performance to its softer tread compound.
Additionally, I live in the Northeast, where we have this annual event called winter. While the 20-inch BFGoodrich tires are not three-peak mountain snowflake (3PMSF) rated, other non-Rivian spec replacement versions of the Trail-Terrain T/A+ tire do carry the 3PMSF label. So there is some basis to believe the all-terrain tire option will perform better in the snow. The Rivian-specific tires have a lower starting tread depth and higher speed rating, among potentially other differences in rubber formulation.
It may seem counterintuitive to spend an extra $1000 for smaller wheels that deliver worse range, but for future R2 owners who plan on driving their car for a while, they may come out ahead in the long run. Buyers who choose to save their cash and stick with the stock 21-inch should not be too verklempt, though. Motor Trend reports that the larger tires deliver more responsive steering feel and less road noise. The added range and efficiency may be nice on road trips where those attributes translate to potentially fewer and faster charging stops, too.
Top Graphic Image: Rivian
I like my tires thick and meaty and my wheels small.
What’s going on with the servers? I keep getting 503 errors.
It was happening to me for at least 18 hours now. I think it’s fixed now.
Most Rivian buyers need highway tires. My C10 has highway tires because I’m not pretending it does anything other than drive on paved roads to the hardware store/nursery/dump.
But in this case the stock “highway” tires are worse in performance on highway, in bad weather and off-road, while costing more to replace. Get the 20” wheels and put touring A/S tires on it and keep the A/T for harsh weather.
They can still get the 20″ wheel and swap highway tires on it.
With the 21″ they can’t switch to AT even if they wanted to.
Big wheels are dumb for nearly all applications. Sufficient to clear the brakes is all you need. With smaller wheels with more sidewall, the ride is better, weight is less, tires are cheaper, and are more resistant to damage from potholes. People fail to realize the main reason racecars have big wheels is the giant brakes. Rubber is lighter than metal and lower unsprung weight is good.
I’ve purposely gotten the smaller wheels on the last two cars I’ve purchased. For the first I had to wait to get one without the optional larger wheels from another dealership. For the second I had the dealer swap in the wheels from a lower trim (bonus: I liked the design of the 18s more than the 20s too).
Yayyy, an EV-specific writer! That’s awesome!
I watched Jason’s video on this. I wonder how many R2 owners who just opted for the stock 21” wheels will be caught flat footed when it comes time to replace their tires.
Great article! Nice to see some positive and informative content about EVs.
Seems like the best deal would be to take the free wheels and use them in good weather, but also buy the smaller ones and put whatever tires you want on them, and then you can swap them for bad weather or off road.
Didn’t need this article to convince me. I’m a performance guy from way back. We do not add unsprung weight. That is like the first commandment of car modding. In regards to EVs (or even gas), why would you want to do something that reduces your efficiency and costs you more money at the end of the day? And that is without even discussing the exorbitant pricing on larger diameter replacement tires, when that time comes.
The rule of thumb between unsprung weight and rotational mass is every pound you can take off each wheel is like 8 to 10 pounds off of the car.
People who spend money on carbon fiber and lightened flywheels, then slap big rims on their car are idiots.
Well maybe some of them are looking ridiculous on purpose as a fashion statement, nothing wrong with that.
I painted my car to look like a banana once.
George Orwell pricing. Smaller wheels? Pay more. Manual transmission? Pay more. POS touch screens that cost less than true knobs, buttons, levers? Pay more. Heated seats & steering wheel, remote start that cost extra? Pay more one to three years later every month thereafter.
Who is Benton Kalani?
A new EV freelancer! (and a brilliant person)
Gregory Arkadin‘s alias.
Isn’t SEMA this week? They should have Donk’d one out
Will 18’s fit? 😛
Someone on the R2 forum put 18’s on and posted pics. It looks great IMO.
You just need to clear the brake calipers.
I’ll never need the capability, but I chose the most off-road oriented trim for my Grand Cherokee because it comes with 18s and tires with real sidewall
Between the sidewall and the air ride, our Trailhawk rides really nice. We normally air down regularly (loose sand beach driving) and the extra sidewall definitely comes in handy. If the transfer case control module hadn’t crapped out this summer, I’d have actually been able to use it. It’s built like shit but it is comfy and capable.
Or just use up the 21″ and then you can just buy 19″ wheels with tires that suit your driving conditions instead.
Hard to do so as cheap as the 20” option.
It should have even better tire selection, and range, on 18s. Or especially 17s, If brake and other considerations work out.
I’ll buck the trend here.
I think the 21s look far better, and match the car’s proportions more than the 20s.
In fact, as a general rule, I’d argue that the biggest available wheel offered by a manufacturer usually looks best. The car will have been designed around that wheel option first, and then the “cheap” options added later for base models.
That’s why smaller wheels usually look off – they don’t match the proportions of the rest of the car that was designed to accommodate a larger wheel option.
I’d be totally unconcerned about tire choice. The R2 will be successful enough that options will pop up. This is very common around new models and usually works itself out by the time you need new tires anyway.
That seems a bigger gamble then gambling on Rivian being around that long.
Sounds like a fault of the design, then, that it needs bigger (worse) wheels to look “correct”.
Lots of reasons for this, mostly safety regulations. Cars now have higher beltlines for better side impact protection.
That’s why a modern car on vintage wheel sizes looks totally ridiculous.
EVs make this worse with a battery below the floor.
Smaller wheels, please. Smaller wheel size, smaller overall diameter. Literally just make cars cheaper, more robust, more comfortable, more efficient…
There’s obviously some advantages to larger wheels, or the optimal car would look like a shopping cart. But surely, we’re FAR past the point of diminishing returns.
More efficient. And cheaper. Way cheaper.
Preach! I completely agree. Big and heavy wheels have ruined the ride of many vehicles along with tiny sidewalls.
Hopefully automakers take note of all the comments, but we all know they won’t. I’ll just add that a base Civic comes with 16″, but a majority of Civic models come with 18″. Imagine telling someone 15 years ago that most Honda Civics would have 18″ wheels, and many family vehicles would come standard with 22s. It’s insanity and expensive, and it needs to stop.
My 1977 Accord had 13 inch wheels. But it was also the size of the last Honda Fit we had here.
Perhaps that’s why they do. $$$. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch your’s.
I’m so tired of the rubber-bands on giant-wheels trend. Gimme some sidewall dammit!
I’ll say this, those smaller wheels look terrific.
Bigger question is why aren’t the 20in wheels w/ regular all-seasons not the default?
Because fashion victims.
The picture labeling at the top is wrong, it should be “excessively too big” vs “still too big”
This needs way more likes. Wheel sizes went plaid a long time ago. Just so stupid and completely fashion driven. Any wheel much bigger than needed to clear the brakes is too big. A fashion that came about because of the wheels needed to clear the monster brakes on BTCC cars back in the day, but serve no purpose on street cars at all.
And IMHO, most egregious of all is fitting giant wheels with rubber band tires on classic cars. Timely, because I was just watching Overhaulin’ earlier today where Chip Foose ruined a perfectly lovely Barracuda restoration with giant chrome bullshit and rubber bands. Looked completely stupid, and I can only imagine how badly that thing rides on those completely inappropriate wheels and tires.
Agreed. Unless you need big chunky wheels because you’ve lifted your Land Cruiser for rock crawling, then “just big enough to clear the brake calipers” should be the default standard. Anything else is just wasting money.
And even then, you want big chunky flexy sidewalls, not f’ing rubber bands! I doubt very much even a ten-ton tubby electric Rivian needs more than 18s to clear the brakes.
My cousin rented a camper van on a trip recently, a 10,000 lb gvwr dually, and it had 16″ wheels. If those can clear the brakes for a class 3 vehicle, then they should be enough for any passenger vehicle that isn’t some high performance track special.
No doubt about that at all. For that matter, look how small the wheels have been historically on about the highest performance cars of all – Formula One. Though they did finally relax the wheel size rules as a cost-cutting measure – the exotic brakes needed to fit in those tiny wheels just got stupidly expensive. Still relatively small compared to what gets put on Soccer Mom Mobiles.
One of the most pathetic looking things in the automotive world is super big wheels with relatively tiny brake rotors, in my opinion. Doesn’t matter if it’s on a civic, a pickup, or a sports car.
Agreed! Even worse – all the CUVs that had huge wagon wheels and tiny little DRUM brakes on the back.
As explained by BMW, here’s how wheel sizes typically work in relation to range
Does any of that actually apply there though? I’m not sure the total diameter of the wheel does not change appreciably* between these choices since the 21″ OEM is a 255/55 and the 20″ options are 255/60.
If so how much does replacing 1/2″ of rim metal with 1/2″of sidewall rubber really change the rotational mass of the tire? If anything, all else being equal I think you should get a reduced range from the additional rolling resistance due to the extra sidewall flex of the higher profile tire.
*If it does change the overall diameter you’ll also need to recalibrate the speedometer.
Lower profile tires and larger wheels tend to be disproportionately heavier – especially if they are cheap cast aluminum wheels like OEMs like to use. There is a VERY notable difference between the weight of the 16IN wheels and tires I have for my BMWs vs. the 17IN, and that’s merely an inch difference as well. Yes, rolling circumference is the same to within a percent or two. 205/55-16 vs 225/45-17, so the tires are wider, as are the wheels, adding to the mass of them.
And as any bicyclist knows, an ounce of rotating mass is worth about four in stationary mass when it comes to accelerating and decelerating that mass. And the further out from the center the mass is, the worse the effect becomes so bigger and bigger gets worse and worse. You end up with four flywheels bolted to the car. The 21IN wheels and tires on my buddy’s KIA EV6 are so stupidly heavy I couldn’t even believe it when I helped him rotate them. He’s a decently in-shape but skinny little older gent, and it was all he could do to lift the damned things on and off.
Maybe racing on a track I’d notice a change in tire mass. And, I should since I have been able to compare directly the effect of extra weight after adding a set of Thornbusters to my tires. I can’t say I noticed much difference except I get far fewer flats now.
The issue isn’t just mass of the wheel (goes with radius squared), but rotational inertia, which increases with radius^4 for a scaled shape with the same density, and is going to affect things like acceleration and braking similarly to vehicle weight/mass. So going from 20-21″ gives ~20% increase in inertia, depending on if the shapes stay the same. 17 – 21″ gives a ~2.3x increase in rotating inertia, so is certainly a big deal.
There’s a reason why when F1 went from 13″ to 18″ wheels, the teams were saying it would slow the cars down substantially, to a similar level of subtracting over 100HP from the engines if I remember correctly.
When I go shopping for tires, I sometimes check the pricetag for a 195/65/R15 and cry a little inside when I have to go up to modern sizes.
I’ll be swapping the snow tires onto the Bolt soon, 205/65/r15 on steel wheels, that were $900 for the entire set, wheels and tires. The thought of spending double that for a set of mediocre oem tires is terrible. I also find it humorous that the upsized mud tires I have on an old lifted Jeep are slightly smaller in diameter that what comes on the R2 and cheaper, hopefully the R3 will come with an option for something like 215/70/r16 tires from the factory, but I certainly won’t bet on it.
I use the OEM wheels for winter purposes, it makes replacement rubber more palatable. Stupidly, I upsized my summer wheels and regret replacing the tires every time.
In modern vehicles: I get that some of the upsize is to handle clearances for suspension/brakes (being that the R3 both weighs a good deal more than a base wrangler, and will stop a lot better) – but it feels there’s such a race to go big for bigness-sake.
I have 185/65R15 Blizzak tires on factory Sonic wheels. They work great. The slightly smaller diameter helps fender clearance.
That combo weighs 34 lbs vs 47 lbs vs the Bolt’s 17 inch factory wheel / tire combo.
I put a set of 13s on a car earlier this year, it was like going back in time on pricing
Except GOOD 13IN tires have actually gotten REALLY expensive if you want something more than budget rim protectors, and very, very little choice. Was very frustrating when I bought new tires for my Spitfire a couple years ago. Ended up with some OK but nothing special Kumhos for almost $100ea. Which was as much as I paid for much better 16IN Continentals for my BMW – because THOSE tires you can get good deals on.
I only found like two brands for 175/80/13, aside from trailer tires and they were both discount off-brands, figure there’s no difference between them at that point. Of course, there is the option of going back to vintage repro bias plies, but that just seems asinine
175/70-13s still have a couple OK options for reasonable money, but if you want something sticky, you are looking at getting “reproductions” of Michelins or Pirellis from Coker Tire at “bend over and grab ’em” prices. IF they happen to have them in stock when you need them. Made in very small batches sporadically at this point. I wish when I had bought the alloys for it back in the day I had gone for 14INn. Better choices there. But who knew 30 years ago?
I will say that the Kumhos are a huge improvement over the nearly 20yo Coopers that were on it – yeah, I kind of lost track of how old the tires got. Oops. They don’t dry rot when kept in a cold dark garage in Maine, and of course I certainly never drove it enough to wear them out. But they got to be about the consistency of cast iron, and about as grippy.
Now try and find a good 185/60-13 or 205/60-13, as would be fitted to various Alfas, MG, Triumphs, BMW, Fiats, Datsuns, Toyotas, and others. Yokohama still makes the A008RS2 overseas. I don’t think it has a DOT stamp on it. And if you try to import certain rubber products into the country, they will get confiscated because a tariff has not been paid on it. This is not from recent tariffs, but from old rubber products importation tariff requirements. Then there’s the insurance issue with no DOT stamp. What happens if I get into an accident? Will they cover me?
There are no good 13 inch tires available anymore. None of them are made by any name brands that we recognize. If you have a sports car or hot coupe/sedan from the 60s or 70s, you’re out of luck.
Another aspect to cry over, especially if you own vintage cars with smaller diameter wheels. The industry’s overall move to larger diameter wheels has stripped the tire market of decent tires in smaller diameters.
I saw an R2 in my neighborhood today and the 21’s look too big on it. Otherwise it’s very nice, and I would totally consider one.
One note – you mention the range penalty and the total range for a lot of example cars, but you never say the actual range for the R2. A 23 mile range penalty may not be a big deal depending on the starting number.
Looks like it’s 330 vs 307. My in-laws are exactly 307 miles away, which means either configuration would necessitate a stop to charge, since they’re fairly rural and I wouldn’t want to roll in without ~100 miles of charge anyway. I think there are very few trips where the 23 mile difference would matter to me.
Ope, I’ll take responsibility for that one. First day as an editor, and I missed that there wasn’t a range figure noted in the copy! It should be in there now.
Edit: Don’t worry, I’m not a full-time editor. Amusingly, every actual editor is out today, which means I’m on conn. Is this like what happens when a Starfleet bridge crew goes on an away mission, leaving some random person from lower decks to run the whole thing? lol
Hah! I get a little more like Beckett Mariner energy from your articles than Brad Boimler though. 🙂
I saw a video on YT about a month ago where someone got Ronal Turbo-style wheels that were I think 19s for their Ioniq 5 N to step down from the standard 21s and they noted it added something like 25-ish miles of range.