Quad Gen 2 Range / Release Date

[DayTripping]

I think I was one of those earlier adopters too. I had the GMC Syclone but then our kid came along and spoiled it so we bought the GMC Typhoon. I can't tell you how many Corvettes those trucks embarrassed.

Now most any Rivian will beat the times those trucks were capable of stock. When modified mine were considerably quicker. I have to say though I miss the ability of building the ICE motors to get more performance. We aren't quite there yet with EVs, but I hope we will be there someday.

It is incredible what off the shelf performance the higher end EVs have. About 10-20 years ago, I would have done cartwheels for the performance of my G1 quad. Now I view it as slow compared to my other cars.

It is pretty quick but it isn't OMG quick and neither is the Tri. It is sort of satisfyingly quick but not any sort of heart pounding quick. Obviously, everyone's level in those areas is subjective. I've always wanted daily drivers that were as quick as my sportbikes. Now we are close enough that I don't ride as much as I would have before.

Pretty amazing times we live in.

Sponsored

 

[TeslaToRivian]

Back in the day, while Tesla was building their "refreshed" long range and plaid variants, we had a thread on another forum that brought the level of speculation to insane levels. Dudes flew drones over parking lots to see evidence of activity at the factory in Fremont!

I am really glad those days are over (just sold my Model X Plaid), but we need to up our speculation game here! I am trying to hold out for the quad, solely because of potential unannounced features that may be a big deal. I don't care about a little extra performance, but I'd really hate to see some game changing features that make me regret jumping in too early on a tri.

So...., does anyone want to throw their opinions, thoughts or imagination on any potential upgrades a quad may see? Anything from a wish list to legitimate rumor can help keep us entertained for a while!

 

[bmedfo1]

Back in the day, while Tesla was building their "refreshed" long range and plaid variants, we had a thread on another forum that brought the level of speculation to insane levels. Dudes flew drones over parking lots to see evidence of activity at the factory in Fremont!

I am really glad those days are over (just sold my Model X Plaid), but we need to up our speculation game here! I am trying to hold out for the quad, solely because of potential unannounced features that may be a big deal. I don't care about a little extra performance, but I'd really hate to see some game changing features that make me regret jumping in too early on a tri.

So...., does anyone want to throw their opinions, thoughts or imagination on any potential upgrades a quad may see? Anything from a wish list to legitimate rumor can help keep us entertained for a while!

You and me both.

my Speculation
What if they make a quad like what the Raptor is to the f150 or what the TRX is to the 1500.

Why
This would be my dream truck. The biggest downside to the R1 (especially for the quad) for me is that it that it just dosent look as special as it is. after beating the TRX, Raptor offraod and then spanking a Lambo Urus / 0-60 and then being as coftorabl as a full size Range Rover. but then parked next to the offoraders it looks small happy and wimpy. Next to the preformance SUVs it looks bland and boring. next to LUX SUVs it looks cheap. They need to Spice it up a bit for the 1000 HP record setter.

Agreed, we need someone to fly a drone and get us some leakage. !

 

[Jivian]

Anyone care to speculate on why the Quad will have 1025 HP and not 1310 HP, double the DMP (655x2=1310)?

 

[Newtonrj]

Anyone care to speculate on why the Quad will have 1025 HP and not 1310 HP, double the DMP (655x2=1310)?

To make space for the release of the R1X?

 

[mpshizzle]

Anyone care to speculate on why the Quad will have 1025 HP and not 1310 HP, double the DMP (655x2=1310)?

I'm assuming power output limitations from the battery, and/or something related to thermals

 

[Jivian]

I'm assuming power output limitations from the battery, and/or something related to thermals

Yeah, I would assume the same but then you could argue that the Tri should be 1.5 x DMP or 983 instead of 850.

If for some reason you could give a boost to the Tri but the Quad is battery output limited, then you would have an awkward value prop for the Quad.

 

[mpshizzle]

Yeah, I would assume the same but then you could argue that the Tri should be 1.5 x DMP or 983 instead of 850.

If for some reason you could give a boost to the Tri but the Quad is battery output limited, then you would have an awkward value prop for the Quad.

It might also be that the dual motor (from the rear of the tri) unit is not exactly double the output of the single motor.

 

[bmedfo1]

Anyone care to speculate on why the Quad will have 1025 HP and not 1310 HP, double the DMP (655x2=1310)?

I Obsess on this and unfortunately the answer is not what a performance enthusiast want to hear.
The Gen 2 quad is getting the exact rear powertrain from the Tri. (this is significantly more powerfull than the rear of the Gen 1 quad. Were things get less cool is that the gen 2 quad will be getting 2 motors less powerfull (or set to be) than any of the previous motors we have seen from Rivian at about 250hp & 250ftlb each. So the total output of the system will only be about 17% more HP than the Tri not 25% and only 8% more Tq. Even worse for on road preformance is that its all getting added to the front making the gen 2 quad about 57% rear power bias vs the Tri that is 62% rear bias. Now compared to the old gen 1 quad the new gen 2 quad stacks up much better by adding the majarity of the power to the rear. The Gen 1 quad had to much motor in the front anyway and there was almost no scenerio where all 4 were fully powere at the same time.

As I am writing this I am talking myself into a Tri motor and relizing what Rivian should be doing. IMO they should be pushing the quad as the off road king and possibly rebranding the Tri as a performance SUV/truck. maybe lighten it a bit, give it some better wheels brakes and tires, maybe see if they can skweek a bit more power out of the rear unit and give it a higher top speed.

 

[Jivian]

As I am writing this I am talking myself into a Tri motor and relizing what Rivian should be doing. IMO they should be pushing the quad as the off road king and possibly rebranding the Tri as a performance SUV/truck. maybe lighten it a bit, give it some better wheels brakes and tires, maybe see if they can skweek a bit more power out of the rear unit and give it a higher top speed.

This is the kind of speculation I was looking for. Now you've got me hoping for a secret 2025.06 Tri Performance upgrade in line with the rebranding.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I think I was one of those earlier adopters too. I had the GMC Syclone but then our kid came along and spoiled it so we bought the GMC Typhoon. I can't tell you how many Corvettes those trucks embarrassed.

Now most any Rivian will beat the times those trucks were capable of stock. When modified mine were considerably quicker. I have to say though I miss the ability of building the ICE motors to get more performance. We aren't quite there yet with EVs, but I hope we will be there someday.

It is incredible what off the shelf performance the higher end EVs have. About 10-20 years ago, I would have done cartwheels for the performance of my G1 quad. Now I view it as slow compared to my other cars.

It is pretty quick but it isn't OMG quick and neither is the Tri. It is sort of satisfyingly quick but not any sort of heart pounding quick. Obviously, everyone's level in those areas is subjective. I've always wanted daily drivers that were as quick as my sportbikes. Now we are close enough that I don't ride as much as I would have before.

Pretty amazing times we live in.

I'm selling my bike this year for precisely this reason. My tri is quicker than my Harley and comfortable and quiet. Not to mention, I won't get pancaked by someone who is not paying attention.

 

[DayTripping]

I'm selling my bike this year for precisely this reason. My tri is quicker than my Harley and comfortable and quiet. Not to mention, I won't get pancaked by someone who is not paying attention.

I've got too many and it would be like selling off some of my children. It doesn't help, it takes at least 40 minutes to get somewhere nicer to ride.

 

[TeslaToRivian]

In the spirit of speculation, doesn’t it feel like they are trying to clear out existing inventory with the current leasing offers, electric upgrade offer, and recent drop in leasing price for the R1S?

I’m guessing that there may be new manufacturing processes for the quad motor and possibly-upgraded other variants, and they are going to push existing inventory out before the end of the quarter.

This is based on pure fantasy and not fact!

 

[Electricnewbie]

The entire EPA highway cycle doesn't even remotely match highway driving for a lot of the US. The average speed is 48 mph and the max is 61. We have neighborhoods where people drive faster than that, let alone the freeway.

Drop tynr

Over the years I have seen two things with EPA range numbers.

1) The manufacturer games the system to obtain the highest possible range number
2) The manufacturer takes the most conservative and repeatable number and aims for that as the range number.

That's why some EVs can easily outdo their own range numbers when you test them while others ...cough.....Tesla...cough....very rarely live up to their range numbers in the real world.

The thing that bothers me about the overly optimistic range numbers is that customers get turned off and feel deceived when the vehicle fails to get close to those numbers.

Around here, in the Baltimore & DC Metro areas, folks drive fast and hard. Most folks who want long range plan to road trip the vehicle. Highway driving is least efficient...most here already know that...but...you combine that with high speeds like 80-85 mph...and your looking much much lower range. Add onto the fact that most consumers don't realize that after your first stop its only worthwhile to use 70% of the battery.

IMO its better to under promise and over deliver (or not) than to over promise and under deliver.

Drop the mic my friend. There’s truth in advertising then there’s BS. I recently took delivery of a Tri Motor Performance R1T “advertised at 371” no average stated in the advertising. I agree with your statement “under promise and over deliver, all day”

 

[Space Cowboy]

According to Rivian’s own testing and submissions to the EPA:

* All-Purpose (AP) Mode: ~346 miles
* Conserve Mode: ~395 miles

Yet, Rivian promotes a 371-mile “EPA” range figure. Despite this, Rivian submitted the 371-mile figure to Fuel Economy for inclusion on the Monroney label. This number appears to result from mixing data from different drive modes: applying AP mode efficiency for highway driving and Conserve mode efficiency for city driving. This methodology is entirely backward and not standard practice for EPA ratings.

By blending results from two distinct modes, Rivian achieves a more appealing—but less transparent—range estimate. However, this figure cannot be directly compared to any other EV on the U.S. market, as no other automaker takes this approach.

Don’t fall into the trap, and think/promote/imply this is what AP mode is capable of under the EPA test cycle.

Getting back on track, there is no way the quad will get 360 miles in AP mode on an EPA cycle, it’s not going to be more efficient than the Tri motor. I suspect it will be around 320 miles - a tiny bit less efficient that the gen1 quad, but ending up having a tiny bit more range under EPA style testing thanks to the extra ~9kWh in the battery. This will go out the window with the super sport staggered tyre setup, where the range estimate will likely be sub 300, but they won’t use that number for marketing (I wouldn’t either).

This is based on some bad assumptions. The quad has FOUR NEW MOTORS and half shafts instead of a hybrid system with one old enduro motor and two ascent motors. The new motors are more efficient with better thermals.

Sponsored