Gen 1 Quad vs Gen 2 Tri Range Difference

[Great Gatsby]

If range is the thing for you, feels like a Dual Max Performance would hit the sweet spot.

Almost as quick as the Tri (probably as quick if the Tri is not in launch mode based on videos I've seen), similar range of drive modes and power for street purposes is quite similar outside of launch mode. Dual Performance will still squeak the tires on full throttle from a standing start so the issue is more available traction than power and both have the same wheel/tire options in terms of contact patch available.

With one less motor on the rear, rated range of 410 miles under ideal temps/conditions is about 10% higher than the tri-motor.

I have a Dual Large Performance. Thought about the Max but reality is I'd normally stop every 200-250 miles on a road trip anyway for food and bathrooms so the extra range of the Max pack really only makes a difference in the dead of winter.

Thought about this when I was first looking but specially now, you can definitely feel the cost cutting that Rivian has done on the dual versions of the R1S. Nothing earth shattering, but the Gen 1 Quad was so well made and with so many minor touches that are gone (aluminum pedals, microfiber headliner, third row cubbies, speaker and storage bin included, etc) that the only true upgrade would be at least the tri. Hard to describe it too but I feel like the quad and tri felt a lot more nimble and responsive than the dual. Still a great option, but I think the tri would make more sense for me coming from the Gen 1 Quad.

Sponsored

 

[2kwik4u]

I've seen several forums cover this issue and can only imagine the frustration. I test drove the new dual before settling on the old quad, and that was one of the reasons. While the dual could have given me more range, the inability to have a dedicated conserve button really bothered me. And glad I went with my gut. Even on long trips and highways, I just stay on all purpose. Haven't tested the converse mode on the new tri, but if the engagement of the rear motors feels as jerky, I'd probably just drive it in all purpose mode but at least it would give me the option. In my mind it seems like the tri marries the best of all worlds as far as range and performance.

It got worse after one of the recent updates. I suspect it's a software tuning and calibration issue to get the "feel" of the engagement to go away. I would care a lot less about it if I didn't feel the engagement when the truck pulls even minor hills on the interstate. Cruise set, Driver+ engaged, as the truck transitions to more throttle to maintain speed on an uphill, you can feel that engagement, almost every time. Second most often is when navigating heavy freeway traffic where acceleration and deceleration are often and heavy. Slow lane moving 55 and fast lane moving 70+ and you have to "punch it" to get around the slow traffic and not be a splat on the grill of the upcoming vehicle. It's not quite as bad as waiting for an automatic downshift, but that's the closest thing I can describe to it.

Rivian has had it for service twice. First time they "recalibrated" the rear drive unit. Second time said "nope, this is just how it is". Kind of frustrating.

I've been getting around it with either "Snow" mode, or driving with Stability set to "reduced". Depends on if people are in the truck with me or not.

The dual motor trucks could really stand to have the "All Purpose" recalibrated to keep it AWD all the time, and "Conserve" mode that allowed the rear disengagement. Just need the powers that be at Rivian to make it happen, however I doubt us lowly non-performance dual motor owners will get much of that kind of OTA love.

 

[Great Gatsby]

We found the Gen 2 extra range (we have 1 Dual motor & 1 Tri motor) was just enough to make the difference for us: our Gen1 Quad couldn’t make a trip we do routinely without charging part way, now in either vehicle, we comfortably make it.

When we put the tri in conserve, on the highway, with cruise and/or highway assist (or whatever it’s called?) - it has almost same left in batt as dual (as it should) maybe 1% diff?

Not that you asked, but you are also aware of the others niceties in the Gen 2 vehicles, I’m sure?

Yeah that is where I'm at. We do a 500 mile trip often, and we can either do one long stop, which my wife does not have the patience for, or two 20 minute stops, which I'd prefer to avoid since I can easily get there with just one. I think the tri would allow us to just have one decent stop and make it there. Also for the longer trip we do once or twice a year, it would cut out the time by over an hour/two stops - which on a 18-20 hour roadtrip, would make a huge difference.

We looked at the Lucid Gravity, which my wife loved, and the faster charging speeds and range on that would realistically make more sense...but the ride height and personality of the R1S is something I'm sure will miss so I'm trying to nudge her into a tri if we were to do an upgrade at all.

And ascend interior, better cameras, dynamic glass roof are the ones that stick out to me. Any other niceties that I'm missing? If so, please do tell - the more that I can add to the pro column, the better.

 

[Seano]

Thought about this when I was first looking but specially now, you can definitely feel the cost cutting that Rivian has done on the dual versions of the R1S. Nothing earth shattering, but the Gen 1 Quad was so well made and with so many minor touches that are gone (aluminum pedals, microfiber headliner, third row cubbies, speaker and storage bin included, etc) that the only true upgrade would be at least the tri. Hard to describe it too but I feel like the quad and tri felt a lot more nimble and responsive than the dual. Still a great option, but I think the tri would make more sense for me coming from the Gen 1 Quad.

Having both at home, I agree on all of these points. I think the diff in how they feel driving is in regards to front wheel drive vs all wheel drive when both in All Purpose modes. Less of an issue with steady driving on the highway / longer trips, unless you are stomping on it a lot.

I agree completely with @2kwik4u about wishing they'd just give Dual a standard AWD All Purpose mode + conserve mode.

 

[Great Gatsby]

It got worse after one of the recent updates. I suspect it's a software tuning and calibration issue to get the "feel" of the engagement to go away. I would care a lot less about it if I didn't feel the engagement when the truck pulls even minor hills on the interstate. Cruise set, Driver+ engaged, as the truck transitions to more throttle to maintain speed on an uphill, you can feel that engagement, almost every time. Second most often is when navigating heavy freeway traffic where acceleration and deceleration are often and heavy. Slow lane moving 55 and fast lane moving 70+ and you have to "punch it" to get around the slow traffic and not be a splat on the grill of the upcoming vehicle. It's not quite as bad as waiting for an automatic downshift, but that's the closest thing I can describe to it.

Rivian has had it for service twice. First time they "recalibrated" the rear drive unit. Second time said "nope, this is just how it is". Kind of frustrating.

I've been getting around it with either "Snow" mode, or driving with Stability set to "reduced". Depends on if people are in the truck with me or not.

The dual motor trucks could really stand to have the "All Purpose" recalibrated to keep it AWD all the time, and "Conserve" mode that allowed the rear disengagement. Just need the powers that be at Rivian to make it happen, however I doubt us lowly non-performance dual motor owners will get much of that kind of OTA love.

Yikes. That is exactly how I was picturing the situation playing out too. Sounds like they can't fix it via software updates and its something they can maybe address on the next refresh for the R1S...whenever that may be. The last thing I want while driving an EV is being reminded of an ICE vehicle downshifting to give the immediate power that I need, so thanks for the heads up. Wasn't really considering the dual, but am now certain I will skip altogether.

 

[Seano]

Yeah that is where I'm at. We do a 500 mile trip often, and we can either do one long stop, which my wife does not have the patience for, or two 20 minute stops, which I'd prefer to avoid since I can easily get there with just one. I think the tri would allow us to just have one decent stop and make it there. Also for the longer trip we do once or twice a year, it would cut out the time by over an hour/two stops - which on a 18-20 hour roadtrip, would make a huge difference.

We looked at the Lucid Gravity, which my wife loved, and the faster charging speeds and range on that would realistically make more sense...but the ride height and personality of the R1S is something I'm sure will miss so I'm trying to nudge her into a tri if we were to do an upgrade at all.

And ascend interior, better cameras, dynamic glass roof are the ones that stick out to me. Any other niceties that I'm missing? If so, please do tell - the more that I can add to the pro column, the better.

Others have panned it, but to me (in CA sunshine) the dynamic glass is enough and works great. yes, not perfectly clear when off (or on?), but certainly fine for a sun/moon roof in my opinion.

The interior is nice, cameras are great and I have really come to like the Highway Assist. At this point, I'm not super clear on additional differences between the Gens beyond those things, but I feel as though the whole vehicle is a nice iteration forward from the Gen1 quad. We are one of the owners who bought and owned a Gen1 Quad for 13 months, then bought a dual motor then added a tri motor.

Yes, I really wanted a Gen 2 Quad, but glad I've had the Tri for the last 7 months. Others may be able to speak to why, but the Gen 2 suspension seems better: better balanced, the selections from Sport to All Purpose seem to be what you'd expect. Obviously you can put 22's on the Gen 1, but they seem to be the right size - maybe the slightly smaller sidewall is working nicer with the suspension?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

If range is the thing for you, feels like a Dual Max Performance would hit the sweet spot.

Almost as quick as the Tri (probably as quick if the Tri is not in launch mode based on videos I've seen), similar range of drive modes and power for street purposes is quite similar outside of launch mode. Dual Performance will still squeak the tires on full throttle from a standing start so the issue is more available traction than power and both have the same wheel/tire options in terms of contact patch available.

With one less motor on the rear, rated range of 410 miles under ideal temps/conditions is about 10% higher than the tri-motor.

I have a Dual Large Performance. Thought about the Max but reality is I'd normally stop every 200-250 miles on a road trip anyway for food and bathrooms so the extra range of the Max pack really only makes a difference in the dead of winter.

No way it's as quick as the tri. Even not in launch mode the tri is nasty in sport.

 

[carsly]

No way it's as quick as the tri. Even not in launch mode the tri is nasty in sport.

From CarBuzz "Even without using launch control, the R1S is remarkably quick in a straight line. In Sport Mode, we registered a 3.04-second 0-60 time, which is quicker than a McLaren Artura Spider (3.06 seconds) and BMW M5 Sedan (3.25 seconds), even using their built-in launch control functions. We also tested the R1S in its standard All-Purpose mode, where it hit 60 mph in a still-impressive 3.58 seconds. That's quicker than an Audi SQ7 (3.79 seconds), a Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing (3.8 seconds), and the GMC Hummer EV SUV 3X (3.98 seconds) with its Watts to Freedom Mode."

Source: https://carbuzz.com/electric-suv-that-is-quicker-than-most-supercars/

So yes, the Tri is quicker than the Dual Performance in sport mode, no launch mode, as the Dual Performance will do closer to 3.4 seconds 0-60. Lined up at a stop light, would come down to reaction times and who was in sport mode low ride height vs all purpose mode with a slight edge to the Tri. Not that people should launch from traffic lights on public roads.

 

[iansriv]

From CarBuzz "Even without using launch control, the R1S is remarkably quick in a straight line. In Sport Mode, we registered a 3.04-second 0-60 time, which is quicker than a McLaren Artura Spider (3.06 seconds) and BMW M5 Sedan (3.25 seconds), even using their built-in launch control functions. We also tested the R1S in its standard All-Purpose mode, where it hit 60 mph in a still-impressive 3.58 seconds. That's quicker than an Audi SQ7 (3.79 seconds), a Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing (3.8 seconds), and the GMC Hummer EV SUV 3X (3.98 seconds) with its Watts to Freedom Mode."

Source: https://carbuzz.com/electric-suv-that-is-quicker-than-most-supercars/

So yes, the Tri is quicker than the Dual Performance in sport mode, no launch mode, as the Dual Performance will do closer to 3.4 seconds 0-60. Lined up at a stop light, would come down to reaction times and who was in sport mode low ride height vs all purpose mode with a slight edge to the Tri. Not that people should launch from traffic lights on public roads.

Anything around 3sec is very fast. Most of the R1s will get those numbers. As much as I love my R1, I dont view it as a performance track car like a McLaren. It just feels (to me) different. Also, most people will not have the skills to manage such a fast and large vehicle. Just ask Alan Ruck.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

From CarBuzz "Even without using launch control, the R1S is remarkably quick in a straight line. In Sport Mode, we registered a 3.04-second 0-60 time, which is quicker than a McLaren Artura Spider (3.06 seconds) and BMW M5 Sedan (3.25 seconds), even using their built-in launch control functions. We also tested the R1S in its standard All-Purpose mode, where it hit 60 mph in a still-impressive 3.58 seconds. That's quicker than an Audi SQ7 (3.79 seconds), a Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing (3.8 seconds), and the GMC Hummer EV SUV 3X (3.98 seconds) with its Watts to Freedom Mode."

Source: https://carbuzz.com/electric-suv-that-is-quicker-than-most-supercars/

So yes, the Tri is quicker than the Dual Performance in sport mode, no launch mode, as the Dual Performance will do closer to 3.4 seconds 0-60. Lined up at a stop light, would come down to reaction times and who was in sport mode low ride height vs all purpose mode with a slight edge to the Tri. Not that people should launch from traffic lights on public roads.

So 3.04 vs 3.4, those don't seem like big numbers, but in 0-60 time, that's a pretty big difference. The dual performance would suffer significantly so long as the tri is in sport mode. Ultimately, both vehicles are way more than anyone needs out of a daily driver, and the dual performance is still putting up 0-60 numbers that best my wife's i4M50, so it's nothing to sneeze at.

As someone who had a Gen 1 quad, and now a tri, I can say that even comparing those two, the tri feels substantially faster. I think the rear power bias makes a fast car much more fun to drive and that's the primary reason.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Anything around 3sec is very fast. Most of the R1s will get those numbers. As much as I love my R1, I dont view it as a performance track car like a McLaren. It just feels (to me) different. Also, most people will not have the skills to manage such a fast and large vehicle. Just ask Alan Ruck.

Agreed, the difference between the R1 and a track car is handling. If I had to race on a road course and I had to pick between my wife's i4M50 or my Rivian trimax I would take her car as that out handles my Rivian. The BMW isn't even close to the best handling, and I wouldn't call that a track car, but even still, the difference is stark. The thing is, there is no real use for the excellent handling on the street if you don't want to endanger others.

A car that can take a 30MPH curve at 80 is fun on the road, but you don't want to actually do that outside of a track or closed road course. People are out walking their dogs or cars are stopped or people are working and if you exit that corner and someone is standing there you're going too fast to do anything about it. The acceleration can be used in little spurts though, and you can still have fun without becoming a road hazard.

You are also correct that lots of people do not have enough experience or skill to utilize something that quick and the R1S has supercar acceleration in a family truckster packaging so that has gotten people in trouble.

 

[Great Gatsby]

Others have panned it, but to me (in CA sunshine) the dynamic glass is enough and works great. yes, not perfectly clear when off (or on?), but certainly fine for a sun/moon roof in my opinion.

The interior is nice, cameras are great and I have really come to like the Highway Assist. At this point, I'm not super clear on additional differences between the Gens beyond those things, but I feel as though the whole vehicle is a nice iteration forward from the Gen1 quad. We are one of the owners who bought and owned a Gen1 Quad for 13 months, then bought a dual motor then added a tri motor.

Yes, I really wanted a Gen 2 Quad, but glad I've had the Tri for the last 7 months. Others may be able to speak to why, but the Gen 2 suspension seems better: better balanced, the selections from Sport to All Purpose seem to be what you'd expect. Obviously you can put 22's on the Gen 1, but they seem to be the right size - maybe the slightly smaller sidewall is working nicer with the suspension?

Yeah the dynamic glass seems gimmicky, but it's something. My R1S was constantly shooting up to 130 degrees just baking out in the sun so the fans kept running to cool the interior. I love the glass roof overall, but man, it does not favors in the summer.

But thank you for providing your experience with the tri. It seems like a pretty good all around vehicle, and with the dual max capping out over $100k and the new Quad starting at $120k, a well equipped Tri at $110k is not seeming like a bad deal. Specially with slightly better performance, better range and better quality of life improvements than the Gen 1 Quad, I feel like I may actually consider the upgrade.

 

[2kwik4u]

Yikes. That is exactly how I was picturing the situation playing out too. Sounds like they can't fix it via software updates and its something they can maybe address on the next refresh for the R1S...whenever that may be. The last thing I want while driving an EV is being reminded of an ICE vehicle downshifting to give the immediate power that I need, so thanks for the heads up. Wasn't really considering the dual, but am now certain I will skip altogether.

Please......test drive one first......There is a VERY real possibility that either I'm exceptionally sensitive to it, or there is something wrong with my truck. MANY people will respond here and say they can't tell, or don't notice. Just wanted to put it on your radar.

 

[carsly]

So 3.04 vs 3.4, those don't seem like big numbers, but in 0-60 time, that's a pretty big difference.

I'd offer that except on a dragstrip it's an inconsequential difference and the driver, road surface in each lane, etc. will make most of the difference.

My context is my Model S Plaid. On launch there is no rearing of the front end as there is on the R1, no lateral movement (torque steer), not even tire squeal. Just brutal acceleration, and brutal is probably the right word for it - it's not entirely comfortable. That's 2.0-2.1 seconds 0-60 real-world or a full second faster than the Tri. If you launch a Hummer EV you have even more sensation due to the fact it feels like you'll almost flip over on launch, but it's just too much mass.

Despite the fact that I'm a performance nut, when I was deciding on a Cybertruck I went with the AWD vs. the Cyberbeast as neither is a performance vehicle or track weapon - they are pickup trucks. Mechanical lockers and default RWD won the day, I couldn't be happier a year+ later. At some point, and we're at that point, we've gone from 80+% to 90+% to 99% of the capabilities not being useful in everyday driving - they are just numbers on a spec sheet. Put the average driver in a 3 second 0-60 car and a 4 second 0-60 car and they'd have a hard time telling the difference - and finding out where to use the added acceleration safely on public roads.

i'm glad Rivian is able to sell Tri's and Quad's, they certainly need the margin to keep the business going long enough to start the R2 ramp.

 

[Great Gatsby]

Please......test drive one first......There is a VERY real possibility that either I'm exceptionally sensitive to it, or there is something wrong with my truck. MANY people will respond here and say they can't tell, or don't notice. Just wanted to put it on your radar.

Appreciate it. I can be a bit dramatic. I can already tell that even if not that bad, it will be a deal breaker for me lol

Sponsored