Gen 2 quad release date.

[dleepnw]

Pretty sure they were planning a 2025 Q2 release date but with the new tariffs and other BS going on with the US gov't right now, it might be worthwhile to pause and see how things evolve. No sense in releasing a vehicle they may have a hard time producing or having to raise prices due to the volatility of supply chains and prices.

Sponsored

 

[sub]

Where is Never??

How well is try-motor selling? What's the take rate for R1S at $120K+ our the door?

I don't think that how many they expect to sell is as important as important to Rivian as you think it is.

Just the fact that the quad exists will help Rivian sell duals.

If they discontinue a version I predict it will be the tri-motor.

 

[DayTripping]

Check out the pikes peak video. The G2 quad seems to be extremely lively in the upper end...



I think the acceleration difference at higher speeds on the G2 quad will be significant. As for 0-60, they're pushing the limits of traction.

Thanks for sharing. I was trying to time some 60-90 sprints on the video and they aren't exactly amazing. Obviously there is a grade involved. It has been a while since I made the run up Pike's Peak so I don't recall exactly where they were at for each section. I also don't know if they were full throttle either.

Having said that, some of the times were slower than what I"ve seen with my truck (but on level ground). Check about 5:27 and 10:42. I think there are some decent 60-90 runs where I timed them. There is one at the start as well. I thought they'd be in the 2 second range but they aren't. Most are mid 3 to upper 3's. I assume at the end everything is de-rating do to temps.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

The Tri motor, by having that single motor in front allows for a great blend of performance and efficiency. To me that’s the big sell for Tri. Quad will likely be all out performance and with two front motors will have less range than Tri.

my guess is between April and June. Quad is going to be a monster. While I didn’t measure Tri motor feels a lot quicker in the 30-70 range than gen1 quad.

 

[mkg3]

...For a daily driver, I am pretty happy with the G1 quad's 0-60 times. I would definitely like more pull in the 60-130 range. Somewhere in the low 7's to high 6's would keep it entertaining to me.

...more fun for me. I'd love to see some 60-90 times on the G2 quad.

I cannot imagine wanting to drive an aerodynamic pig that weighs 7K lbs at 130mph!

From a daily driver perspective, 60~90 is very important as passing other vehicles quickly does matter in all kinds of situations, other than on a lazy freeways.

As for the Pikes Peak quad video, the vehicle is not a production spec gen 2 quad. I'm sure its drive modes and power band is mapped to hill climb course. Since the vehicle was used as a publicity piece, one would expect to optimize for the course.

 

[bmedfo1]

I cannot imagine wanting to drive an aerodynamic pig that weighs 7K lbs at 130mph!

From a daily driver perspective, 60~90 is very important as passing other vehicles quickly does matter in all kinds of situations, other than on a lazy freeways.

As for the Pikes Peak quad video, the vehicle is not a production spec gen 2 quad. I'm sure its drive modes and power band is mapped to hill climb course. Since the vehicle was used as a publicity piece, one would expect to optimize for the course.

I 100% agree with the importance of 60-90. Unfortunately this is where the Gen 1 quad kind of falls off a bit (in relation to its other performance specs). But… in case anyone who cares about this did not see my other thread. Put the Gen 1 quad in all purpose for 60-90 and it is some quicker than in sport. Best explanation I have for this is that they programmed it for more rear bias in sport and since the gen 1 has just as much motor at the front the only way to do that is to limit the amps to the front. They should no longer need to do this in the tri and the new quad.

 

[DayTripping]

I can't say I'd drive my R1T often at 130 but if I were to track it, it would help since the limiter kicks in so low.

I do use the 60-90 range a lot. Though if you follow Motor Trend they like to quote the 45-65 sprint.. I detailed a lot of my runs in another thread and referenced specs for other EVs. The G2 quad at this range was quicker than my G1 quad, but slower than the Cyberbeast and vastly slower than a Plaid. The G2 quad was slower than I thought it would be. It was about .3 seconds quicker 45-65 than my truck which remotely close to a full charge or not even close ideal traction conditions.

I don't recall the exact numbers but it was something like (45-65):

CT - 1.1
G2 quad - 1.2
G1 quad - 1.5 (I wasn't anywhere close to a full charge and had wheel spin). I think 1.4 is very doable
S Plaid - .9 just for comparison - not a full charge and had massive wheelspin

I hope they'll continue to tune this as currently it doesn't look that great for the G2 quad (and by inference) the tri. All that extra power and it can't be the Cybertuck Cyberbeast 45-65. It was also running pretty stick sport tires vs. the all seasons of the CT if someone wants to talk about traction being an issue.

Realistically traction is an issue with my G1 quad on the street. So I assume it will be for the others tested but they were likely tested at the track so had much better traction than my Plaid or my R1T did.

As much as I am a fan of Rivian, the G2 quad isn't exactly blowing me away by its acceleration. I hope they uncork some more performance from it before it hits production. The numbers are a bit of a let down when I compare it to the CT. There is some metric where it will beat it, but with the power it has, and the tires it is running, there isn't an acceleration metric that the CT should beat it.

 

[DayTripping]

I 100% agree with the importance of 60-90. Unfortunately this is where the Gen 1 quad kind of falls off a bit (in relation to its other performance specs). But… in case anyone who cares about this did not see my other thread. Put the Gen 1 quad in all purpose for 60-90 and it is some quicker than in sport. Best explanation I have for this is that they programmed it for more rear bias in sport and since the gen 1 has just as much motor at the front the only way to do that is to limit the amps to the front. They should no longer need to do this in the tri and the new quad.

This has been my thought all along. It is like the Gen1 Tesla Model 3 Performance. Impressive 0-60 but falls off after.

I can't say I'd drive my R1T often at 130 but if I were to track it, it would help since the limiter kicks in so low.

I do use the 60-90 range a lot. Though if you follow Motor Trend they like to quote the 45-65 sprint.. I detailed a lot of my runs in another thread and referenced specs for other EVs. The G2 quad at this range was quicker than my G1 quad, but slower than the Cyberbeast and vastly slower than a Plaid. The G2 quad was slower than I thought it would be. It was about .3 seconds quicker 45-65 than my truck which remotely close to a full charge or not even close ideal traction conditions.

I don't recall the exact numbers but it was something like (45-65):

CT - 1.1
G2 quad - 1.2
G1 quad - 1.5 (I wasn't anywhere close to a full charge and had wheel spin). I think 1.4 is very doable
S Plaid - .9 just for comparison - not a full charge and had massive wheelspin

I hope they'll continue to tune this as currently it doesn't look that great for the G2 quad (and by inference) the tri. All that extra power and it can't be the Cybertuck Cyberbeast 45-65. It was also running pretty stick sport tires vs. the all seasons of the CT if someone wants to talk about traction being an issue.

Realistically traction is an issue with my G1 quad on the street. So I assume it will be for the others tested but they were likely tested at the track so had much better traction than my Plaid or my R1T did.

As much as I am a fan of Rivian, the G2 quad isn't exactly blowing me away by its acceleration. I hope they uncork some more performance from it before it hits production. The numbers are a bit of a let down when I compare it to the CT. There is some metric where it will beat it, but with the power it has, and the tires it is running, there isn't an acceleration metric that the CT should beat it.

 

[bmedfo1]

This has been my thought all along. It is like the Gen1 Tesla Model 3 Performance. Impressive 0-60 but falls off after.

I think as cars continue to get quicker we need to start using longer sample sizes speed. What I mean by this is that 0-60 has always been the go to stat but now that we are down under 3 seconds its just silly to using this. No on wants to take time out to the 100th of a second (x.xx) but a tenth is too much rounding at sub 3 seconds. so many little things outside of the preformance of the car can skew this too much. same for 45-65. I think if you want to include launch 1/4 should be the go to stat. Personally I prefer a measure of acceleration that takes out the initial launch as it would make things more repeatable and consistant for comparisons. I think the sweet spot for measuring acceleration on vehicles of this level would be something like 20mph - 100mph

Sorry for the huge digression from the initial subject.

 

[DayTripping]

I time to the hundredth (check my Dragy thread) but I can only go by what they publish. I think you have to look at multiple metrics.

I think 0-60 is useful, but I also like at 60-130, and 50-90 or 60-90. I'd suggest also having 1/8th mile over 1/4mile solely for the reason that many newer trucks are artificially speed limited so their 1/4 mile times don't show the entire story.

Most pickups, including the Gen1's are limited to about 105-115 mph. My truck will easily hits its speed limiter far enough before the end of the 1/4 to have a significant adverse impact. So if you compare the G2 quad vs G1 quad and it looks like it is just crushing the G1 because it traps 18 mph faster (128 vs 110) but it isn't as bad as it looks since the G1 quad hit the speed limiter a bit after the 1/8th mile. I'd estimate unrestricted, it would probably run closer to 118 in the 1/4. The ET obviously would be quicker as well.

So then the G2, while faster, doesn't look quite as impressive when it is only 10 mph faster in the 1/4. So if we had 1/8th mile times for both, you could do an apples to apples comparison. Also no launch mode. This is probably worth at least a tenth. Heck, on my Plaid which is running low 9's it is typically more than a tenth.

So add in the advantage of launch mode, no speed limiter and little by little, the G1 quad doesn't look as bad vs the G2 when you make compare them as easily as possible. You have 10.5@128 vs 11.6@110. Trying to even it up, add launch mode to the G1 quad and up its speed limiter and it would likely be more like 10.5@128 vs 11.3@118. Heck, even the performance dual motor likely hits the speed limiter before the end of the quarter. It runs 12.1@110.

I posted a lot of my Dragy runs for reference in the link below. Times are to the hundredth.

https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/dragy-and-timed-runs-post-your-data-here.37922/

 

[ElGuano]

So then the G2, while faster, doesn't look quite as impressive when it is only 10 mph faster in the 1/4.

I think you're probably right about this. I assume the advertised hp/torque numbers are probably accurate, but drag times are a very specific use case. I didn't get my Trimax because it was "faster than a Gen1 quad" but I suspect in quite a few settings that it is. I have to think the Gen2 quad will be even moreso than that, but when and how it comes into play will be very interesting to see.

 

[thrill]

I think as cars continue to get quicker we need to start using longer sample sizes speed. What I mean by this is that 0-60 has always been the go to stat but now that we are down under 3 seconds its just silly to using this. ...

The BMW HP-4 could go 0-180-0 in 21 seconds. This is the benchmark.

 

[Dark-Fx]

I can't answer this poll because it's insider info

 

[bmedfo1]

I can't answer this poll because it's insider info

obviously you could be joking around but on the of chance that you are not even this tid bit is helpful as it would indicate that internally there is an answer to the question AKA a date set. So I will take that as a good sign that it is going to be sooner rather than later. I also was re re reading the MT review and this time noticed they listed the release date as "Early 2025"

 

[Dark-Fx]

obviously you could be joking around but on the of chance that you are not even this tid bit is helpful as it would indicate that internally there is an answer to the question AKA a date set. So I will take that as a good sign that it is going to be sooner rather than later. I also was re re reading the MT review and this time noticed they listed the release date as "Early 2025"

I have it on good authority that we still have nearly 4 months left before "early 2025" becomes "late 2025"

Sponsored