R1S rear seat legroom vs. R1T comparison

[electruck]

If I recall, Doug DeMuro described the rear legroom as acceptable, but not great. That's a disappointment for a 200" SUV claiming to have packaging advantages.

Some of those "packaging advantages" are the sizeable frunk and generous cargo space behind the 3rd row. So packaging for people and their cargo but a Tahoe or Suburban it is not.

Sponsored

 

[Tall_Rider]

Some of those "packaging advantages" are the sizeable frunk and generous cargo space behind the 3rd row. So packaging for people and their cargo but a Tahoe or Suburban it is not.

Frunk I will give you, but a Hyundai Palisade / Kia Telluride (195") and Volkswagen Atlas (200") manage to pack more than the Rivian's 17 cu ft behind the third row (all over 20 cu ft). The all also have more space in the 2nd and 3rd rows for passengers. So maybe it's not an allocation issue, eh?

 

[SoCal Rob]

Frunk I will give you, but a Hyundai Palisade / Kia Telluride (195") and Volkswagen Atlas (200") manage to pack more than the Rivian's 17 cu ft behind the third row (all over 20 cu ft). The all also have more space in the 2nd and 3rd rows for passengers. So maybe it's not an allocation issue, eh?

What do you think should have been done differently to utilize the space better?

 

[Tall_Rider]

What do you think should have been done differently to utilize the space better?

Difficult to say, as I am not an auto engineer and haven't even been able to physically see the vehicle. It's fairly obvious that some of the space inefficiency is because they built a very tall and robust frame, one that's likely sufficient for extreme off-roading but unnecessary for a majority of the customers. This is a fair trade off if that was the goal. But people need to stop defending it. It IS a trade-off that is to the detriment of a great majority of the users. That all being said, they could have scalloped the battery pack for rear seat footwells like Porsche does with the Taycan. The more obvious solution is that they need to make a long-wheelbase mode like other large SUV makers do.

 

[mkg3]

I didn't read SoCal Rob's comment as "defending it", as you say... He simply asked how it can be done better.

It clear that you have not been inside the back seat. I have and I also have been inside the Atlas and quite frankly, Rivian feels bit more roomier than that. No I have not been inside the other two you've mentioned so cannot compare.

Its quite hard how anyone interpret roominess in general. As your name suggest, if you are a tall person, and not knowing the body proportions, you may find the leg position, or headroom to be a challenge in any vehicle. I can assure you that it is definitely smaller than the Suburban you own.

As for your interpretation of Rivian being compromised for the majority of the owners because of its ruggedness/outdoor focus, perhaps a little but not entirely. Their target is essentially the Jeep market and not just SUV/MPV. As such, tradeoff made by Rivian does come through in some of their key features.

The hype of Rivian has brought lots of people into the preorder without seeing the vehicle at all. If they had seen it, perhaps their decision may be different. But as a new EV, the buzz and deposit have made many defenders of the brand and their products. You can read some of mixed emotions for those that have taken delivery already as well as resale market quantities. Its not just for a quick buck money grab. Most people, I would argue that, would keep the vehicle that they've waited years, if they loved it.

 

[SoCal Rob]

Difficult to say, as I am not an auto engineer and haven't even been able to physically see the vehicle. It's fairly obvious that some of the space inefficiency is because they built a very tall and robust frame, one that's likely sufficient for extreme off-roading but unnecessary for a majority of the customers. This is a fair trade off if that was the goal. But people need to stop defending it. It IS a trade-off that is to the detriment of a great majority of the users. That all being said, they could have scalloped the battery pack for rear seat footwells like Porsche does with the Taycan. The more obvious solution is that they need to make a long-wheelbase mode like other large SUV makers do.

A long wheelbase model on the R1T frame would make for a spacious R1Sxl or whatever they’d call it. But that doesn’t really address space efficiency with the current R1S which you compared to the Telluride/Palisade and Atlas.

I think you’re onto something with the height in terms of rear seat legroom comfort. I’m just not sure that’s captured in rear seat legroom metrics which I don’t think take knee height or thigh angle into account.

Our LR3 is really comfortable in all 3 rows for hours at a time, at least for someone like me (6’ with 33” inseam for an idea of leg size) but it has the stepped roof to accommodate the stadium seating. I suspect Rivian prioritized the aerodynamics which meant keeping the roof height down.

The other thing which may be leading to interior space losses are the seats themselves. I’d have to measure the R1S seat back thickness for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd row and bottom cushion thickness for 2nd and 3d then compare to our Rover’s seats. My recollection is that the Rover seats are thinner, but they’re really comfortable and sturdy so I don’t know why. But if the Rivian seat backs are even 1” thicker I think that comes off the legroom for rows 2 & 3 and off the cargo volume behind the 3rd row.

We do a lot of off-road driving compared to normal people (and probably people in Normal) so the R1S is a great compromise for us, especially since the cargo area floor behind the 3rd is probably at least double what we have in our LR3. The big let-down for off-roading is lack of a full-size spare which we do have in our Rover.

 

[Tall_Rider]

A long wheelbase model on the R1T frame would make for a spacious R1Sxl or whatever they’d call it. But that doesn’t really address space efficiency with the current R1S which you compared to the Telluride/Palisade and Atlas.

I think you’re onto something with the height in terms of rear seat legroom comfort. I’m just not sure that’s captured in rear seat legroom metrics which I don’t think take knee height or thigh angle into account.

Our LR3 is really comfortable in all 3 rows for hours at a time, at least for someone like me (6’ with 33” inseam for an idea of leg size) but it has the stepped roof to accommodate the stadium seating. I suspect Rivian prioritized the aerodynamics which meant keeping the roof height down.

The other thing which may be leading to interior space losses are the seats themselves. I’d have to measure the R1S seat back thickness for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd row and bottom cushion thickness for 2nd and 3d then compare to our Rover’s seats. My recollection is that the Rover seats are thinner, but they’re really comfortable and sturdy so I don’t know why. But if the Rivian seat backs are even 1” thicker I think that comes off the legroom for rows 2 & 3 and off the cargo volume behind the 3rd row.

We do a lot of off-road driving compared to normal people (and probably people in Normal) so the R1S is a great compromise for us, especially since the cargo area floor behind the 3rd is probably at least double what we have in our LR3. The big let-down for off-roading is lack of a full-size spare which we do have in our Rover.

I think you're completely right. I didn't mean to say YOU were "defending" the R1S (addressing mkg3's post), I've just seen others doing so. There's some weird brand loyalty with this thing, which I always find odd, particularly for a new product.

 

[SoCal Rob]

I didn't read SoCal Rob's comment as "defending it", as you say... He simply asked how it can be done better.

It clear that you have not been inside the back seat. I have and I also have been inside the Atlas and quite frankly, Rivian feels bit more roomier than that. No I have not been inside the other two you've mentioned so cannot compare.

Its quite hard how anyone interpret roominess in general. As your name suggest, if you are a tall person, and not knowing the body proportions, you may find the leg position, or headroom to be a challenge in any vehicle. I can assure you that it is definitely smaller than the Suburban you own.

As for your interpretation of Rivian being compromised for the majority of the owners because of its ruggedness/outdoor focus, perhaps a little but not entirely. Their target is essentially the Jeep market and not just SUV/MPV. As such, tradeoff made by Rivian does come through in some of their key features.

The hype of Rivian has brought lots of people into the preorder without seeing the vehicle at all. If they had seen it, perhaps their decision may be different. But as a new EV, the buzz and deposit have made many defenders of the brand and their products. You can read some of mixed emotions for those that have taken delivery already as well as resale market quantities. Its not just for a quick buck money grab. Most people, I would argue that, would keep the vehicle that they've waited years, if they loved it.

Yeah, I really like the Rivian products from what I’ve experienced, but @Tall_Rider I’m not a fanboy who will defend what Rivian does or builds, no matter what.

However, if someone criticizes a product without at least one way of addressing their own issue then I tend to interpret it as whining versus constructive criticism.

I’m not an engineer and I have no insight into the myriad of constraints that dictated the final design of Rivian products. Even my best guesses at improvements could very well be met with, “You can’t do that because…” by a Rivian employee familiar with the constraints.

All I know is that we saw the R1S prototype at the L.A. Auto Show in 2018 and we thought that if they could bring this to market without making radical changes to the dimensions and capabilities that we’d probably get one to replace our Rover. Of course it seemed ridiculous at the time since most automotive manufacturers don’t release a volume product without making a bunch of significant changes when translating a prototype to reality. Even then, what are the odds that a new EV maker could launch 2 products within a year of one another during their first year selling to the public? Oh, and it wasn’t like we were considering the effects of a global pandemic in November of 2018 because that’s preposterous.

So, yeah, I’m impressed with what Rivian has done and the circumstances in which they have done it. Is the product a pinnacle of efficiency and manufacturing perfection? No. But we’re still buying one unless something goes very wrong.

 

[SoCal Rob]

I think you're completely right. I didn't mean to say YOU were "defending" the R1S (addressing mkg3's post), I've just seen others doing so. There's some weird brand loyalty with this thing, which I always find odd, particularly for a new product.

Yeah, depending on the topic here you can tell I’m not a brand loyalist. I have no problem pointing out where Rivian can do better with product, communication, etc.

I’ve owned GM, Ford, Dodge, Volvo, Mazda, Jaguar, and Land Rover vehicles. But I bought a specific product which met our needs; I didn’t buy INTO a brand. None of them do things perfectly and no one vehicle has ever included every single feature I’ve appreciated as an owner up to that point. Everything is a compromise so far in my experience.

 

[Prime]

Rivian Official instagram post. Legroom posted as same for both vehicles. Headroom goes for the R1S by a bit.

Sponsored