Zoidz
Well-Known Member
The R1T and R1S are reportedly being built on the same production line, but the wheel base is different between the R1T and R1S. On an automated production line, whether it's sled assembly, body welding, or final assembly, this means there will need to be at least two line configurations, including unique "programs" for many robots/machines. Here's a simple example of the devil in the details - we have been told (in a video as I recall) that every fastener is being torque monitored during assembly. Tonneau assembly applies to the R1T, but not to the R1S. Rear liftgate assembly applies to the R1S, but not the R1T. All this has to be configured as MES parameters and instructions, that's just one of hundreds/thousands.If Rivian was an ICE maker, I would agree to delay the R1S. I still do if there are quality issues.
However, the platform is the same as the R1T. I am sure this is over simplified…but is it really?
It's also not clear whether they will build R1T and R1S in batches (perhaps daily or weekly runs) or if they are flexible enough to run either vehicle at any time without a "line changeover". This is the world of MES (Manufacturing Execution Systems), the professional world I have lived in for the past 30 years, as a plant floor systems integration electrical engineer.
It makes perfect sense that Rivian is only building the R1T at this time so they can fine tune everything. By solving 100% of the assembly challenges on the R1T, they can focus on solving R1S problems later, knowing that any new problems are a function of the R1S asembly process. Same platform, sort of, but from a manufacturing execution viewpoint, it's a completely different product with a new set of challenges to solve.
Sponsored