Jmiller929
Well-Known Member
Sorry just easier to type. I saw it last night, but cannot find now. Where are they at.Why are you yelling at me?
Haha and I just looked and still see the colors.
Sponsored
Announcing our new "CLUBS" section where you can join or create a Rivian club or group! You can use this new feature to conveniently plan and discuss local events, gatherings or other club/group related topics.
So we encourage you to join (or start) special-interest and regional-based Rivian clubs at: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/group-categories/clubs-groups.1/
Sorry just easier to type. I saw it last night, but cannot find now. Where are they at.Why are you yelling at me?
Haha and I just looked and still see the colors.
Found it, thanksWhy are you yelling at me?
Haha and I just looked and still see the colors.
I am curious about A Better Routeplanner and the assumptions made on the site. For one thing as mentioned above, they have two very different consumption numbers listed for the R1S and R1T: The R1S has an assumed reference consumption of 459 WH/MI and the R1T has an assumed reference consumption of 516 WH/Mi @ 65MPH.Ah, same here, not sure why the abrp numbers are so far off when the specs are similar. They'll prob vary once we get epa
This mindset baffles me.Until now, we thought that the 135KW was the longest range available with 7 seats, while the 180KW wasn't really an option. So we pre-ordered, expecting a wait in line like everyone else. Now, it seems that the 180KW MIGHT be available with 7-seats, so the disappointment sets in.
Previously they stated they were going to use Lidar AND Radar. Im pretty disappointed about this development.From my extremely limited, and possibly incorrect knowledge of the RADAR vs. LIDAR topic, LIDAR is much more expensive to implement and has limitations at night and during inclement weather. Possibly a reason for going the RADAR route? Toss up guess!
EDIT: My quote response didn't capture the original quote....haha...which was a comment about Rivian's decision about going the RADAR route instead of LIDAR.
I don't see any weight specs on the Rivian site...I am curious about A Better Routeplanner and the assumptions made on the site. For one thing as mentioned above, they have two very different consumption numbers listed for the R1S and R1T: The R1S has an assumed reference consumption of 459 WH/MI and the R1T has an assumed reference consumption of 516 WH/Mi @ 65MPH.
ajdelange, you mentioned in the Rivian Navigation thread " Assuming the efficiency of the charger to be about 90% these numbers say that consumption is going to be around 420 Wh/mi. "
Do you really think this is the case?
When I ran numbers comparing a long trip using 459 WH/MI & 420 WH/MI, the difference was significant.
How accurate are the ABRP numbers and calculations typically? I know that no one outside of Rivian really knows the consumption numbers but which reference consumption do you think is more accurate?
Why is this so upsetting to people? Is it because Lidar is sexy and unique? It seems like it's unique because nobody is using it because everyone is realizing they can meet the actual user requirement without it. Lidar isn't a requirement. Being able to reliably perceive the world in order to drive the truck is the requirement. If they can deliver on that, I don't really care which final suite of sensors they landed on.Previously they stated they were going to use Lidar AND Radar. Im pretty disappointed about this development.
The Rivian R1T has a power trunk. It's just in the front.No power/multifunction tailgate : Seems odd, my 2011 Saab 9-4x Has a Power Trunk....
Yes it felt really good at the time, now I am venting my frustration and disappointment.Because it felt good at the time?
I think you misunderstand our concern. It has nothing to do with Lidar vs Radar (or 135kw vs 180kw).Why is this so upsetting to people? Is it because Lidar is sexy and unique? It seems like it's unique because nobody is using it because everyone is realizing they can meet the actual user requirement without it. Lidar isn't a requirement. Being able to reliably perceive the world in order to drive the truck is the requirement. If they can deliver on that, I don't really care which final suite of sensors they landed on.
I suspect the issue is that the battery production capability is not there for them to support the bigger packs, rather than "scaling back". They will be marking up the price of the batteries to make a profit, the more they sell the more the profit, so I cannot believe they would reduce production of the batteries intentionally.Just was thinking maybe rivian went with the 135 kilowatt pack because they saw that roughly a third of pre-order holders wanted the mid-size pack, and as opposed to scaling production to meet the demands of the larger 180 kilowatt pack they could really reduce their overall workload by only now having to build one third of the cars that are 66% of the battery packs needed. This would have actually drop their pack production down by over 50% needed to meet pre-orders?
Again just thinking for an explanation on why they would go with the less expensive models when they openly stated from beginning largest pack size and most expensive model orders would be met first.
That's why everything they talked about was preliminary specs (and much of what we are seeing still holds this classification). Testing and development along with preproduction units should impact the final product. Sometimes with good results, sometimes it means cutting or changing something they hoped to include. Sometimes it is a cost issue. Sometimes a production or supply issue. Sometimes a performance issue. Often striking a balance between all of those factors. If you are not going to incorporate what you learn from testing, why do it?I think you misunderstand our concern. It has nothing to do with Lidar vs Radar (or 135kw vs 180kw).
It is simply that Rivian said one thing and delivered another.
How can we trust anything they tell us now? What else will they say and then do differently?
We are talking about a preproduction vehicle that was in testing. Their intentions might not have met reality. That doesnāt mean they shouldnāt be trusted. For all we know they are doing this in ours and their best interest.I think you misunderstand our concern. It has nothing to do with Lidar vs Radar (or 135kw vs 180kw).
It is simply that Rivian said one thing and delivered another.
How can we trust anything they tell us now? What else will they say and then do differently?
So, honestly now, you would not mind if they switched to a dual motor instead of a quad motor design? That is exactly what you are saying here.We are talking about a preproduction vehicle that was in testing. Their intentions might not have met reality. That doesnāt mean they shouldnāt be trusted. For all we know they are doing this in ours and their best interest.