Guide Contacts & Counting by Thanksgiving?? Can they do it??

cc84

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
183
Reaction score
329
Location
USA
Vehicles
2000 GMC Sierra
.....Whether the motivation is nefarious or not, and I'm not suggesting that it is, I just feel like a single public statement could provide sufficient clarity for everyone and make the whole issue go away.....
Your post was excellent. Your above quote sums up what I've been trying to convey.

RJ made his statement in an August update, that deliveries would begin in September to preorder holders. In my mind, I feel he knew the deliveries were going to employees. If not, he should've. All he had to say is, the first deliveries will be going to our Employee Preorder Holders. That's why I find it misleading.

He didn't deceive anyone, nor was it malicious, but the fact he left employee out is my concern. It carried my mind in the direction that the deliveries were going to be made to the General Public. There is a difference between an employee preorder holder and the General Public preorder holder. One has a potential substantial discount and the other doesn't.
Advertisement

 

Dbeglor

Active Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
66
Location
TX
Vehicles
Audi
Your post was excellent. Your above quote sums up what I've been trying to convey.

RJ made his statement in an August update, that deliveries would begin in September to preorder holders. In my mind, I feel he knew the deliveries were going to employees. If not, he should've. All he had to say is, the first deliveries will be going to our Employee Preorder Holders. That's why I find it misleading.

He didn't deceive anyone, nor was it malicious, but the fact he left employee out is my concern. It carried my mind in the direction that the deliveries were going to be made to the General Public. There is a difference between an employee preorder holder and the General Public preorder holder. One has a potential substantial discount and the other doesn't.
I still don't get this perspective personally. He didn't qualify his statement because it doesn't really matter to the intent of the message/information. The takeaway from the statement, and since delivered on, is that the company was crossing the threshold into production vehicles. That's it. No more, no less.

Now, everyone will have their own opinion about whether producing one vehicle for a customer constitutes being "in production", or if it needs to be some other arbitrary measure (whether it be in number/frequency or in the nature of the customer), but these are only that, opinions. They are minutia to be debated by people on here while Rivian stays focused on making progress every day. Delivering a titled vehicle to a customer using it for personal use is a milestone, plain and simple. The only other milestone anyone should care about is their own personal delivery (or perhaps I'll allow for delivery to their local market, or opening of the local/regional service center).

I suspect if everyone is being honest with themselves, what they are really saying when qualifying employee deliveries vs. "real customers" is that they are internally then trying to extrapolate into an expected delivery timeline for themselves (that's all they really care about, it's not about the greater mission), and they perceive the latter to signify being farther along (it does, but so would having delivered 1,000 vehicles, or 10,000). So, even if deliveries had been made to "real customers", there would still be that extrapolation/guess and you haven't taken away the uncertainty. The uncertainty has to be embraced as a given, and not find blame for why it exists. There is only one singular time when you can begin to expect to shed that uncertainty, and that is when you have a completed order and a specific delivery date (which still could have some reasonable variability but less so).
 

CommodoreAmiga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
2,774
Location
USA
Vehicles
N/A
The lack of communication is partially due to the IPO.
I don't buy this. Rivian was not forthcoming with information well before they filed the S1. The IPO is being used as an excuse, at this point. But the behavior was established long ago. At this point, the IPO is being used as a convenient excuse/cover. It is NOT the actual cause of the lack of information.
 

SlaterGS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
148
Reaction score
203
Location
Ohio
Vehicles
Nissan Leaf
But the behavior was established long ago.
Amen

And as far as the distinction between employee and non-employee delivery is crucial for me.
We NEVER in over 50 years of manufacturing sold the first production units to employees, ownership or board members.
Protos? Maybe
Pilots? Sometimes but never production units
That would indicate to me that they are not production ready or are working out kinks. I don’t have a problem with that at all but I do have a problem with the silence.
 

stynes

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
37
Reaction score
47
Location
Atlanta, GA
Vehicles
12/3/2018 R1S LE Pre-Order
He didn't qualify his statement because it doesn't really matter to the intent of the message/information.
I suspect if everyone is being honest with themselves, what they are really saying when qualifying employee deliveries vs. "real customers" is that they are internally then trying to extrapolate into an expected delivery timeline for themselves.
I have no issue admitting that I'm looking at many of RJ's statements to help gauge my delivery timeline. That's the same reason I'm looking and listening to other people's experience - I'd like more of an idea than what I'm getting from Rivian right now.

I will disagree on the first statement, though. The audience of his statement was the preorder holders. So to direct a message to the general preorder holders saying we're going to start delivering and not qualifying the statement that it's only to a subset of you - I'm not suggesting that it's nefarious (since I think that's the word a lot of others have used) but it is, intentionally or not, misleading to many of us that do want an update on when we're likely to take delivery.

My $.02.
 

Dbeglor

Active Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
43
Reaction score
66
Location
TX
Vehicles
Audi
I will disagree on the first statement, though. The audience of his statement was the preorder holders. So to direct a message to the general preorder holders saying we're going to start delivering and not qualifying the statement that it's only to a subset of you - I'm not suggesting that it's nefarious (since I think that's the word a lot of others have used) but it is, intentionally or not, misleading to many of us that do want an update on when we're likely to take delivery.

My $.02.
But by definition, starting deliveries has to be to a subset, right? The only alternative was for them to manufacture all 48,000 vehicles and arrange for simultaneous delivery (so that it was "fair").

There is a difference between something not turning out the way you hoped/expected and something being misleading. They did exactly what he said they were doing, period. That is indisputable. You can't have what you want (personal delivery timeline), and it's nobody's fault.

My main point is that while everyone is entitled to their feelings of disappointment, blame isn't always deserving to be laid at someone's feet for it. It's ok to just say, "man I was really hoping someone I know was going to take delivery this month, but oh well I guess not".
 

cc84

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
183
Reaction score
329
Location
USA
Vehicles
2000 GMC Sierra
I still don't get this perspective personally. He didn't qualify his statement because it doesn't really matter to the intent of the message/information. The takeaway from the statement, and since delivered on, is that the company was crossing the threshold into production vehicles. That's it. No more, no less.
It's not necessary to understand my perspective. We disagree. Nothing more to it than that. You say RJ didn't qualify his statement because it didn't matter to the intent of the message/information. That may be true for you, but not for me. It did/does matter to me.

I have a hard time believing everyone on this forum knew specifically that the first deliveries were going to employees, without any to the General Public. Why would I even want to know when Rivian's employees are getting their vehicles? I prefer not to know. Why send me the August email update, when it doesn't pertain to me, as far as September deliveries are concerned? When a person doesn't clarify their message, then this type conversation is what follows. The simple fact is, this all could have been avoided by stating specifically where the deliveries were going......employees.

If Rivian's employees get/got their vehicles first, I do not care to know about it. I am a firm believer in customer first and I have yet to see this displayed. Call it selfish or self-centered, but I treat others the way I expect to be treated. I always placed the customer first and I expect the same in return. What Rivian does for their employees needs to be between them.
 

stynes

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
37
Reaction score
47
Location
Atlanta, GA
Vehicles
12/3/2018 R1S LE Pre-Order
But by definition, starting deliveries has to be to a subset, right? The only alternative was for them to manufacture all 48,000 vehicles and arrange for simultaneous delivery (so that it was "fair").

There is a difference between something not turning out the way you hoped/expected and something being misleading.
Agree to disagree on both of these accounts. Sure, we all know they can't magically produce 48K vehicles at once, but we've also been led to believe that LE is exclusive, it's coming earlier, etc. So, hey, it's only for employees, its a pretty big caveat, imo. And you see things differently and that's ok.

I would agree that just because things didn't turn out the way I hoped doesn't mean someone was misleading. But in this case I think a lot of people see the word "misleading" and assume some measure of intent that I'm not assigning here. I think I've been very clear that I'm not sure anyone has intended to be misleading. But the communication, and sometimes lack thereof, has been misleading. If you prefer other words that don't carry the same connotation, misinformed, miscommunicated, whatever word, then that's fine. But the plans / intent were not clear to me. And I'd guess that when RJ first made those statements back in July, he wasn't thinking the rollout would be this slow. He's been adamant about under promise and over deliver from day one and largely, not entirely, but largely, had succeeded in that model until 6 or so months ago, imo.

Again, you see things differently, and that's ok. I see this in light of several recent misses on the Rivian side. When I went to the Atlanta preorder event in late 2019, I was told by RJ personally that he expected the configurator would be launched if not by the end of 2019 then by early 2020. I was told an online merch shop would be launched by the end of 2020. After the COVID delays, I was told I could expect R1Ss to start shipping "a couple of months" (iirc) after the R1T in June. Obviously that June date was "shifted to September, with the R1S shortly thereafter in the fall." We all get how complicated what they're doing is - starting a new company, setting up manufacturing of many of their own components, IPO, expanding into Europe, another manufacturing base here it the US, license to sell in the different states, federal mileage and safety and everything certified. There's a lot to it. So just tell us where you're at. It shouldn't be that hard.
 

paariv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
159
Reaction score
416
Location
SF Bay
Vehicles
bimmer wagon
Occupation
tech shithead
I don't buy this. Rivian was not forthcoming with information well before they filed the S1. The IPO is being used as an excuse, at this point. But the behavior was established long ago. At this point, the IPO is being used as a convenient excuse/cover. It is NOT the actual cause of the lack of information.
They're not using it as an excuse - at least publicly. It's just a reason that I and others have offered for their baffling silence after a week of great publicity when all the reviews came out. It's very plausible to me that they are terrified of imperiling their IPO and are being cautious about the quiet period. Couple this with little to no internal pushback given their general reluctance to make statements in general and we are where we are.
 

CommodoreAmiga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
2,774
Location
USA
Vehicles
N/A
They're not using it as an excuse - at least publicly. It's just a reason that I and others have offered for their baffling silence after a week of great publicity when all the reviews came out. It's very plausible to me that they are terrified of imperiling their IPO and are being cautious about the quiet period. Couple this with little to no internal pushback given their general reluctance to make statements in general and we are where we are.
But you’re not addressing my point: the refusal to share information pre-dates the S1.

The cause/justification can’t come after the fact. It can’t be more than a coincidence or convenient cover.
 

paariv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
159
Reaction score
416
Location
SF Bay
Vehicles
bimmer wagon
Occupation
tech shithead
But you’re not addressing my point: the refusal to share information pre-dates the S1.

The cause/justification can’t come after the fact. It can’t be more than a coincidence or convenient cover.
I agree with that point and agree it’s convenient for them.

But it’s also true that this is - for the first time - a good reason for nondisclosure. Which makes it something more than just a convenient cover.
 

St Bernard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
107
Reaction score
106
Location
Ca
Vehicles
Porsche Cross Turismo, Prius
I agree with that point and agree it’s convenient for them.

But it’s also true that this is - for the first time - a good reason for nondisclosure. Which makes it something more than just a convenient cover.
An S1 has nothing to do with telling customers when they might get their cars. Some people on this Forum continue to defend RIVIAN but the bottom line is the Company has never hit any of their own timelines and continues to be terrible with communicating with the Customer. Is there any reason they could not tell all of the 2018 Reservation Holders that their cars are coming between Jan and May 2022? If they cannot hit those targets then there is no chance anyone will see a car in the next 6 months. They obviously have a weekly production plan and they have the demand on the books. Why they cannot match the two and inform customers is the $64,000 question.
 

buddha2lotus

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
17
Reaction score
34
Location
atlanta
Vehicles
model s
Occupation
physician
I am not quite as worried about the lack of communication because they have been consistently thoughtful and deliberate in their announcements. Contrast this with Tesla/Musk where announcements are made often and loudly but then usually amount to nothing more than pure hype. For me, I feel a lot better getting a car that is going to be well designed and put together and thoroughly tested rather than something that is cobbled together. My 2016 Model S, though it runs well, the interior design and materials used and craftsmanship overall leave a lot to be desired. Plus the extra time means I can save more for a bigger down payment:)
 

RWerksman

Well-Known Member
First Name
Rob
Joined
Nov 13, 2020
Messages
228
Reaction score
633
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
First Name
Rob
Vehicles
Jeep TJ
I don't buy this. Rivian was not forthcoming with information well before they filed the S1. The IPO is being used as an excuse, at this point. But the behavior was established long ago. At this point, the IPO is being used as a convenient excuse/cover. It is NOT the actual cause of the lack of information.
For the record, the exact quote from RJ's email on July 16th was:

I have spoken with a number of you and know we need to do a better job at communicating specifics around deliveries. Our Guides will continue reaching out to schedule deliveries and will be there for any questions throughout the process. We are also preparing for a multi-city, multi-format drive program set to roll out in September. You’ll start to see Rivian charging sites and service centers being built in your local communities; and as we head into the end of the year, you’ll also start to see events, programs and spaces where we’ll be able to bring our Rivian community together
He committed to nothing beyond what was mentioned in there. There was absolutely nothing about how they were going to be better or provide additional information. Most of us assumed, you know, that with them realizing their communication was shit they would actually pivot a bit to make it better. This has not happened. Not at all. We were foolish, and it's safe to say that at this point it will never change. Us stupid peons should just get used to it.

In regard to the IPO - I don't buy this as a reason for a single second. The IPO plans didn't come out of the ether suddenly. It's planned for months or years in advance. The S1 alone likely took months of prep. RJ (and/or the comms team) knew the timeline when they put together his email and sent it out.

Consternation about why this is happening is nothing more than mental masturbation. We already know why, and we don't want to admit it.

This is how they roll.

Welcome to the suck. We've been in it the whole time.
 

paariv

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
159
Reaction score
416
Location
SF Bay
Vehicles
bimmer wagon
Occupation
tech shithead
An S1 has nothing to do with telling customers when they might get their cars. Some people on this Forum continue to defend RIVIAN but the bottom line is the Company has never hit any of their own timelines and continues to be terrible with communicating with the Customer.
1) You’re wrong on the law. A material update on production status could very well impact their IPO. The chance is high enough - all logical counterarguments you can think of aside - that they won’t want to risk it. Nobody wants to be the guy that green lights an announcement that tanks an 80b IPO.

2) I have not defended Rivian’s abysmal comms strategy at all. This is just the only time they have a valid reason to say nothing.

3) They could and should have planned for this. They could and should have made one final update before filing the S-1. But they didn’t and now we are stuck. I’d be willing to ditch them over this if there were anything else out there that met my criteria. Sadly, there isn’t.

But do we really need an announcement to know what’s going on? No. Every day makes it clearer that they aren’t ready for external customer sales. So sit back and wait until they are, and if you need a new car in the next 6 months, go buy one now.
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top