Why is the R1S so cramped?

[strykerwsu]

Overall if Rivian was a mature company with + cash flow, they would have an SXL based on R1T chasis. They are not and most people prefer smaller so thats what we got.

Sponsored

 

[derekk4]

So, have some questions someone here might be able to answer. Last weekend, I had the chance to really check out a Gen 1 R1S Loaner while my '26 R1T was in service.

I was really surprised at how little leg room there was in the back of vehicle, especially in the third row. Now, of course many such 3-row SUVs have very little leg room in the last row, but the R1S was really in budget Airline territory. The second row was about the same as my R1T, which is to say, tight. And, as I get older, getting in and out of the 3rd row took some effort.

Now, all of this is a bit baffling because the R1S has a shorter wheel base than the R1T, which leads to the obvious question: why not build the R1S on the same platform as the R1T? The result would be a better ride and more room all around. In addition, I would also think it would simplify things for Rivian in both manufacturing and servicing.

Now the rear cargo area is adequate, and having owned a 3-row SUV for 10 years, I know the 3rd row is down most of the time for even more cargo space. Rivian could have provided more passenger space if they compromised on the cargo area, but if they instead used the larger truck chassis, they could have it all.

Last year, when choosing to buy a Rivian, I considered the R1S, but for a number of reasons, I eventually decided in favor of the truck, and boy, am I glad I did. For my case, it was the better fit, and, it seems, the better vehicle. But if Rivian had used the truck platform for the SUV, would that not have been a better vehicle? What am I missing, besides the fit in parking spaces and garages? Thanks!

Spot on about the wheelbase. Making the SUV on the longer truck platform would probably solve the legroom issue, but it would also make it a nightmare to park in standard garages. It’s always a trade-off between cabin space and daily maneuverability.

 

[runwithscissors]

Spot on about the wheelbase. Making the SUV on the longer truck platform would probably solve the legroom issue, but it would also make it a nightmare to park in standard garages. It’s always a trade-off between cabin space and daily maneuverability.

Never drove the Gen 2 but the Gen 1 R1S suspension is hot garbage. Had a Gen 1 R1T loaner the other week and it was so much better because of the wheelbase.

 

[Zoidz]

This is what led to my main question about why they simply didn’t use the same chassis for the R1S — they could’ve had it all, especially if they tweaked the seat mechanisms.

"they could have had it all".

Producing a larger vehicle that would never sell in quantities to be profitable is not "having it all".

It's highly likely that they did market research to arrive at the proper size for the R1S. Yes, it handles the Rubicon but that's not why they chose the size. They chose this size because market research told them that's what might sell the highest volume. They designed the front and rear takeoff angles, thereby affecting the appearance, for offroading.

Look at SUV sizes you see on the road every day. How many Suburbans and Expeditions compared to all the others? It's like 20 or 30 to 1.

Sponsored