Sponsored

yarmatey

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Location
michigan
Vehicles
Tesla model 3 long range dual motor
Now consider the impact to the BPA. If rivian was under no obligation to deliver a vehicle, is it an illusory promise? Sounds like a good reason to render the BPA as unenforceable as far as a binding agreement, or that rivian bait and switched under the BPA. Considering their tonneau, I'm not sure which way rivian should argue to limit their total liability. They still haven't shown the manual replacement either yet still charge for them.

Makes sense why they got rid of Neil though. Either argument could hurt rivian.
Sponsored

 

ebarke

Well-Known Member
First Name
Eric
Joined
Sep 10, 2022
Threads
2
Messages
51
Reaction score
44
Location
MN
Vehicles
why does this matter?
Occupation
software engineer
I originally configured a Explorer trim with Max Pack. In June of 2022 from reading the tea leaves it seemed that would be very late in arriving, if ever. I changed to Adventure trim with standard battery pack and in 6 weeks was driving my R1T. The range of the standard pack as greatly exceeded my expectation and can easily handle my Minnesota winter trips. Changing configurations was a good move for me.
I'm in MN too, but I've been holding out for a max pack because I want to be able to tow an atv/snowmobile/boat from my house to my cabin (about 150 miles). I want to know I can make there without having to drive 50 mph the whole way and make it up with 0 miles. I think with a 400 mile range, I can do that without worry, and go 70mph with the traffic on 169. I don't even think there is anywhere for me to stop along the way.
 

chase

Member
First Name
Chase
Joined
Feb 1, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
11
Reaction score
21
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
Chevy Volt, Chevy Bolt EUV
I'm not actually upset and I don't think Rivian is being intentionally deceitful (promising a product they knew at the time they couldn't deliver). I do think it's odd to make this sound like a configurator issue, because it really can't be that complicated to update the website. They did more dramatic updates in at most a few weeks at the time of the price increases.

But I could see it being the case that they can't update the configurator AND get new estimates to people by the end of February. Like, maybe the configurator could be ready by next Fri. Feb 24, but then that's not enough time for reservation holders to notice and tweak their configurations in time to get new estimates by end of February, so they needed to push it, and as long as they were pushing it they decided to push it by two months instead of two weeks just to give themselves buffer, because they know at this point that there's going to be a lot of gripes any time there's any sort of delay.

I think the more interesting question might be the market positioning around Max Pack. What they originally announced was 314 mi for Large pack and 400+ mi for Max Pack. Now Large pack is 328 mi but they're still promising "400+" for Max Pack. They've also now said that Dual Motor will have better range than Quad Motor when all else is equal. So the Max Pack upgrade now pays for fewer incremental miles of range (400-328 = 72+, was 86+), and with Dual Motor it takes fewer battery cells to get that range. So how much bigger will the Max Pack battery really be? And will it still feel like it's worth it ($10k or $16k, depending on your preorder date)?

I'm happy the range is being achieved this way. As somebody who wants as many EVs on the road as quickly as possible for environmental reasons, there's a lot of reason to favor smaller batteries paired with aggressive investment in charging infrastructure (Superchargers opening up will help a lot, eventually!). So if Rivian can give me 400 mi with a 160 kWh battery instead of a 180 kWh battery, that's better. But it doesn't feel right for Rivian to pocket those savings instead of passing them along.

Then again, they're a startup losing millions of dollars and they have more interested customers than they can handle, and we're the early adopters who are subsidizing the development of an eventual Rivian Model 3. So as somebody who cares about Rivian's success and the effect that will have on the world — and not just about my truck — maybe I'm also okay paying too much for my Max Pack.
 

ironpig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2021
Threads
7
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Vehicles
2022 R1T LE, 2015 4Runner, 1975 FJ55 Land Cruiser
It's not bait and switch, it's the pain of trying to launch a brand new electric car company and having a hundred new problems every day. And particularly terrible communication.

Ford just had to shut down their Lightning production for 3 weeks for issues. And you can't get a Bronco with a hard top anymore, let alone one with a Sasquatch pack.

Today, Tesla sold out all their model Ys for the quarter so people are going to be waiting even longer for their Model Ys and that car and it's configurations have been out for years.

It sucks, but get used to it OR modify your expectations to meet the reality that you could be driving a brand new Rivian with standard pack right now if you weren't stuck on a configuration that they can't deliver.
 

elfordon

Well-Known Member
First Name
Elfordon
Joined
Sep 1, 2021
Threads
8
Messages
89
Reaction score
126
Location
IL
Vehicles
Chevy Bolt, Large Charge Marge (Max Pack R1T)
Occupation
retired
Clubs
 
Received same email and had to laugh.......really it's going to take another two months to update the configurator? It continues to feel like the plan is to continuously test the patience of max pack pre-order holders to get them to either cancel or switch to a large pack.
Exactly. If the configurator were the actual roadblock, they could just write the names and configs of the remaining five Max pack preorder holders on post-it notes, and tack them on a wall outside RJ’s office. There can’t be that many of us left that would prevent manual handling.
 

Sponsored

shrink

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Threads
67
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
1,868
Location
Phoenix, AZ and Kailua-Kona, HI
Vehicles
'23 R1S (x2); '22 R1T; '14 Jeep Cherokee
Clubs
 
It sucks, but get used to it OR modify your expectations to meet the reality that you could be driving a brand new Rivian with standard pack right now if you weren't stuck on a configuration that they can't deliver.
I think you meant Large Pack, not Standard Pack.
 

paariv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
669
Reaction score
1,621
Location
Cali
Vehicles
Died of old age during the wait
Let's look at it from another perspective. Let's assume, for the moment, that Rivian intended to bait and switch. They were desperate to raise funds and have a large order book ahead of their IPO. What the heck, let's tell everyone it's on the menu and generate a ton of buzz, and leads.

How would their observed behavior be different from what we see today? It would not, it would be exactly the same as what we see. That's why the FTC regulates behavior, and doesn't care what the CYA lawyers at Rivian decide to put in their own documents. Let's say 1000 potential buyers were lied to. 10 signed the document agreeing that, while Rivian advertised to them, they didn't actually promise anything. Is Rivian off the hook for the other 990 that said, "you've got to be kidding me, F this" and didn't sign? Or the ones that were intrigued but took a wait-and-see approach? They were all lead down the garden path, just the same. And some of the ten were harmed as well, because the product never existed, but they placed a bet that it would and lost. The product specs were soooo good! They'd sign anything just on the hope it pans out. For sure, Rivian benefited by advertising a Max Pack quad motor configuration. Look at their IPO numbers.

Is this not a bait and switch simply because, out of a thousand people, Rivian found ten people willing to sign on the dotted line of a CYA document? That's the entire point of a bait-and-switch: to find those ten people by lying to a thousand (and then switch them to a higher profit product later, of course). Like I said, the this is why laws which govern false advertising look at the behavior of the company towards the general public, not at what a few potential customers signed or didn't sign: because the general public was harmed.

Even further, I'd argue that the the loss of Max Pack + Quad Motor isn't a spec. change; it's an entire class of product which no longer exists. You can't claim a 32" TV is the same product as a 60" TV.

Since Rivian's behavior is indistinguishable from a bait and switch, there should be an investigation to determine whether, in fact, it was.
I have long thought that Rivian's comms are at best terrible and are more likely intentionally dishonest, usually through lies by omission and half-truths. I will not defend their practices as good or even acceptable. But this has no resemblance to a bait-and-switch.

There's been no false advertising that can be addressed by a consumer class action. The misrepresentations that pumped up their order book that inflated their overhyped IPO didn't harm consumers. They harmed people who bought stock - not cars - based on the hype and those misrepresentations are therefore properly addressed by the already-filed securities fraud suit, not a consumer suit.

A consumer suit is inappropriate because people are getting the cars they've paid for. Max Pack orders haven't paid for cars that have a lower range or worse capabilities than they were promised, they just haven't gotten cars as fast as they would have liked (or as fast as Rivian would have liked).

We all acknowledged at the outset that specs and timing were uncertain, and are living with that uncertainty. So I have no idea what your "signed agreement" hypothetical is supposed to establish. 100% of us signed the same agreement, not 0.1%, and it says delays and changes can happen.
 

Ripped

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2020
Threads
22
Messages
287
Reaction score
251
Location
Somewhere
Vehicles
R1T Dual Max
Occupation
-
Last time the post covid delay, with the earmarked funds, my wife got a complete kitchen reno. I can only imagine what she's getting next time if there are no EV trucks soon ;-)
 

NineElectrics

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2022
Threads
49
Messages
915
Reaction score
1,114
Location
US
Vehicles
R1S
I have long thought that Rivian's comms are at best terrible and are more likely intentionally dishonest, usually through lies by omission and half-truths. I will not defend their practices as good or even acceptable. But this has no resemblance to a bait-and-switch.




We all acknowledged at the outset that specs and timing were uncertain, and are living with that uncertainty. So I have no idea what your "signed agreement" hypothetical is supposed to establish. 100% of us signed the same agreement, not 0.1%, and it says delays and changes can happen.
I believe FTC bait and switch decisions come from administrative action on the part of the FTC. I don’t believe someone with standing has to (or even can) bring a suit. The FTC just has to determine that the behavior violates the FTC Act and it’s in the interests of the public to bring action.

What a subset of potential customers may or may not have signed is irrelevant, here, because the rules don’t talk about individuals or agreements at all: only advertising to the public and the behavior of the company. A small subgroup can’t undo false advertising sins to the public because they think that’s it’s not false advertising “to them”, or because new facts were given to them later. Or so I interpret it.

A company could advertise a pound of platinum for one dollar to a hundred million people during the Super Bowl, and if I’m the only person who took them up on the offer, it’s still a bait and switch—even if my “order” process involved me willingly signing something which said that I might get three ounces of copper instead. And that would be the case even if I didn’t personally believe (or admit) I was lied to. It’s a deceptive trade practice if the advertiser never intended to follow through, or tried to switch me to a more profitable product.
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

paariv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
669
Reaction score
1,621
Location
Cali
Vehicles
Died of old age during the wait
A company could advertise a pound of platinum for one dollar to a hundred million people during the Super Bowl, and if I’m the only person who took them up on the offer, it’s still a bait and switch—even if my “order” process involved me willingly signing something which said that I might get three ounces of copper instead. And that would be the case even if I didn’t personally believe (or admit) I was lied to. It’s a deceptive trade practice if the advertiser never intended to follow through, or tried to switch me to a more profitable product.
That hypothetical is:
1) not analogous to what Rivian has done here; and
2) not false advertising or a bait and switch (not sure what you think b+s is other than making false promises in an ad).

Nobody would win a suit based on an agreement that clearly allowed the seller to deliver either platinum or garbage at their discretion. And nobody sues on behalf of people who saw an ad and then didn’t buy from a company. They’re just not relevant; they didn’t rely on any Rivian statement in any way.

And again, Rivian has not delivered vehicles with worse specs than its customers configured. It has delivered large packs to large pack customers. And it has never taken anything other than a deposit (which 100% of people agreed was subject to delays and changes) for a max pack order.
 

NineElectrics

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2022
Threads
49
Messages
915
Reaction score
1,114
Location
US
Vehicles
R1S
That hypothetical is:
1) not analogous to what Rivian has done here; and
2) not false advertising or a bait and switch (not sure what you think b+s is other than making false promises in an ad).
I don’t think I can go any further with you here. You’re referring to trial law, but the FTC is not a court, and you’re repeatedly making comparisons outside of the clear criteria which defines bait and switch as stated in the FTC rules (which I’ve linked to above). It’s pretty simple and there isn’t really anything else to it. You’re confusing the issue with statements that don’t apply. Just look up the rules.
 

mtnras

Member
First Name
Mark
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
24
Reaction score
13
Location
Boise, ID USA
Vehicles
RAM 3500, Subaru Ascent, Rivian R1T
As a 2018 pre-order holder, this is like the millionth time Rivian has sent me a delay email. Honestly I don't even care anymore. At this point the odds of me ever owning and driving a Rivian seem pretty slim....I'm kind of just hanging on to see how it all plays out.
I'm in the same boat... put in a deposit for a RAM EV after I got this email... I'm betting I get the RAM first!

m
 

moosehead

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2021
Threads
63
Messages
2,058
Reaction score
4,483
Location
Denver, CO
Vehicles
‘22 Ioniq 5, ‘78 Jeep Wagoneer
Does Tony have naked pics of RJ or something?

Cause his job security seems bulletproof.

I somehow have developed this image of Tony being Mr. Bill.

“Oh nooooo, another email from Mr. Bill! Carnage is sure to follow.

Rivian R1T R1S Email From Rivian: Updates for Max Pack Preorder Holders -- Delivery Window Update Postponed Until April B971E734-1F73-4108-9E8C-61BB403AB54C
 
Last edited:

paariv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
669
Reaction score
1,621
Location
Cali
Vehicles
Died of old age during the wait
I don’t think I can go any further with you here. You’re referring to trial law, but the FTC is not a court, and you’re repeatedly making comparisons outside of the clear criteria which defines bait and switch as stated in the FTC rules (which I’ve linked to above). It’s pretty simple and there isn’t really anything else to it. You’re confusing the issue with statements that don’t apply. Just look up the rules.
I don't think I saw any links in your posts. And I'm definitely not confused about these issues.

But regardless, there's zero risk to Rivian here. Any max pack statements need to be evaluated based on what Rivian knew and intended *at the time they were made,* so won't be the basis for a private suit or an enforcement action. There wasn't a "bait" scheme to trick consumers into buying a more expensive product by dangling the max pack in front of them to get them in the door. The max pack was the more expensive product, and still is, given that pricing was raised across the board for all products.

Rivian didn't change prices until they'd taken orders and started production, and those price increases impacted the Max Pack as well as the large pack. You're not going to get the FTC interested in this, where a startup company with no manufacturing experience raised prices on new orders only (while holding pricing constant for those old orders you claim are "bait" orders), and is having trouble producing what remains a premium model in a supply-constrained environment.
Sponsored

 
  • Like
Reactions: Jac
 




Top