Rivian R1S vs BMW iX comparison review by Car and Driver

[mkg3]

At what point do I automatically start calling this article stupid? Right here -

"Even more absurd, the Rivian can go no faster than 111 mph, "

NO WHERE in the entire US - which is the only place they are currently available - do you need to be able to go 111 MPH. No where....

R1S - 3.1 seconds 0-60 beats BMW's paultry 3.7 seconds any day, AND this is what matters in the real world - ie getting on the highway.....

....any vehicle that looks like a pregnant pig - giant snout nostrils and all- isn't attractive, no matter how comfortable it is.

I do feel that software limitation of 111 mph is silly. Why not 120, or 90. Since it's all marketing for the most part, as long as it is within the tire speed rating (H<130mph), what difference does it make? I do not believe any tire exists with V or Z rated that can withstand Rivian loads.

That said, what matters the most, I would argue, isn't the acceleration. While being too slow to accelerate is a problem and a safety hazard, do you really feel that 0.7 second difference to 60 makes an any difference getting onto the freeway between the two? I think not.

C&D statement of:

"... But perhaps most distracting is a quickness to the steering that's out of step with the chassis. Turn the wheel and the body responds a beat later, as if Rivian set it up to be flicked sideways into corners."

is what bothers me the most. This is with the 22" tires. The delay in response affects everyday driving in all conditions - not just on twisting roads. Simple gradual lane changes may not be affected but just about all other steering inputs.

In a low cg vehicle, like Rivian, I expect the steering input to be met with directional change before the body roll is noticed with responsive tires, as Pirelli P-Zeros are. So if R1S is lethargic as stated, then hope Rivian address the issue.

It really does seem like the drive mode SW was developed for the truck with a longer wheelbase and tack-to-wheelbase ratio, since both are the same track. This ratio affects the vehicle dynamics enough that what works for the truck many not work for the SUV...

The Xi is a 6th gen electric motor/battery vehicle for BMW with history of great handling vehicles so its no surprise that Xi is more refined vehicle than R1S (1st gen) regardless of how any may feels about the outer skin.

Sponsored

 

[BourboNole]

Sadly I fear the 111 limiter is for drivetrain safety, not driver safety, and if so will never be raised even for track use. Given the power of the vehicle and the existing tires being rated for 130, its absurd to limit it otherwise. If we want to play safety nannies, no one needs to be able to accelerate to 60 in 3 seconds, but Rivian isn't capping launch power. Unfortunately given how poorly the half shafts are currently holding up, I could see an OTA that does precisely that.

 

[Dark-Fx]

is what bothers me the most. This is with the 22" tires. The delay in response affects everyday driving in all conditions - not just on twisting roads. Simple gradual lane changes may not be affected but just about all other steering inputs.

The snappiness of my truck has definitely gone down with having the snow tires mounted on it. I still wouldn't consider it a safety hazard since it's still more responsive than some other vehicles I've driven are. All-purpose soft is definitely slower to react than sport stiff.

 

[jffkm]

Update - here's a link to a good BMW iX forum:
https://bmwi.bimmerpost.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=923


Car and Driver Review:
https://www.caranddriver.com/review...0-vs-2022-rivian-r1s-launch-edition-compared/

Car and Driver really doesn't seem to like how the R1S handles. I've previously only seen positive comments about R1S handling, such as Doug DeMuro's review.




For those who have driven the R1S, do you agree with C&D's handling description of float, porpoising, and steering quickness out of proportion with the chassis?

I've had my R1S Launch Edition preordered for a couple years now and (other than C&D's review) eagerly await its arrival !!!

Definitely experienced porpoising a lot on highways. suspension clearly just mapped directly from the truck without tuning much. the steering response is great imo, really tight turning circle. yes, it has a slight lag compared to my model 3, but the r1s is not a sports car competitor. the response can also be tuned with software. I think they need to tune the suspension for highway speeds to lessen damping, it feels like a bouncy house on some stretches of i80 in the bay area. kids love it but it's unsettling because it doesn't stop unless i slow down. (i.e. i've played around and can keep it "bouncing" for several minutes until I start to get car sick. lol. this should be fixed easily once they have bandwith to focus on suspension tuning for the r1s via software.

 

[Jay565]

Sadly I fear the 111 limiter is for drivetrain safety, not driver safety, and if so will never be raised even for track use. Given the power of the vehicle and the existing tires being rated for 130, its absurd to limit it otherwise. If we want to play safety nannies, no one needs to be able to accelerate to 60 in 3 seconds, but Rivian isn't capping launch power. Unfortunately given how poorly the half shafts are currently holding up, I could see an OTA that does precisely that.

It's not illegal to accelerate 0-60 in 3 seconds flat, but 130 on a freeway is. Not sure why everyone is worried about this limiter, but maybe in the future a geo-fenced option would be good.

 

[Jay565]

I do feel that software limitation of 111 mph is silly. Why not 120, or 90. Since it's all marketing for the most part, as long as it is within the tire speed rating (H<130mph), what difference does it make? I do not believe any tire exists with V or Z rated that can withstand Rivian loads.

That said, what matters the most, I would argue, isn't the acceleration. While being too slow to accelerate is a problem and a safety hazard, do you really feel that 0.7 second difference to 60 makes an any difference getting onto the freeway between the two? I think not.

C&D statement of:

"... But perhaps most distracting is a quickness to the steering that's out of step with the chassis. Turn the wheel and the body responds a beat later, as if Rivian set it up to be flicked sideways into corners."

is what bothers me the most. This is with the 22" tires. The delay in response affects everyday driving in all conditions - not just on twisting roads. Simple gradual lane changes may not be affected but just about all other steering inputs.

In a low cg vehicle, like Rivian, I expect the steering input to be met with directional change before the body roll is noticed with responsive tires, as Pirelli P-Zeros are. So if R1S is lethargic as stated, then hope Rivian address the issue.

It really does seem like the drive mode SW was developed for the truck with a longer wheelbase and tack-to-wheelbase ratio, since both are the same track. This ratio affects the vehicle dynamics enough that what works for the truck many not work for the SUV...

The Xi is a 6th gen electric motor/battery vehicle for BMW with history of great handling vehicles so its no surprise that Xi is more refined vehicle than R1S (1st gen) regardless of how any may feels about the outer skin.

So wait a 0.5 second acceleration difference doesn't matter? But the 110 limiter does? Hmmm..now that sounds silly. I use the acceleration on my R1S everyday, and yes it matters, not for safety reasons, for fun reasons.

 

[Dark-Fx]

C&D is going to have to re-review the R1S with the 2022.47 update that addresses some of their handling concerns.

 

[BourboNole]

It's not illegal to accelerate 0-60 in 3 seconds flat, but 130 on a freeway is. Not sure why everyone is worried about this limiter, but maybe in the future a geo-fenced option would be good.

The simple act of accelerating is not illegal, but street racing is, and depending on your location you could easily be stopped for various other violations like reckless driving or state specific laws like excessive display of speed or excessive acceleration. You're going to kill a lot more people by ripping off 3 second to 60 runs in a crowded city than by cruising at 130 on an empty highway. Its all about time and place.

 

[mkg3]

So wait a 0.5 second acceleration difference doesn't matter? But the 110 limiter does? Hmmm..now that sounds silly. I use the acceleration on my R1S everyday, and yes it matters, not for safety reasons, for fun reasons.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. What I said silly was that top speed is a marketing thing anyway so why limit by SW. Very few people actually see the top speed of any vehicle.

Since the post, BourboNole said its to protect the drivetrain so it may be more than just SW. Don't know how he knows but claim was made.

 

[BourboNole]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. What I said silly was that top speed is a marketing thing anyway so why limit by SW. Very few people actually see the top speed of any vehicle.

Since the post, BourboNole said its to protect the drivetrain so it may be more than just SW. Don't know how he knows but claim was made.

Was something I had read on the forums, but don't recall the source. As I recall it was actually hard on the motors to spin that fast.

 

[RBR1S]

Sadly I fear the 111 limiter is for drivetrain safety, not driver safety, and if so will never be raised even for track use. Given the power of the vehicle and the existing tires being rated for 130, its absurd to limit it otherwise. If we want to play safety nannies, no one needs to be able to accelerate to 60 in 3 seconds, but Rivian isn't capping launch power. Unfortunately given how poorly the half shafts are currently holding up, I could see an OTA that does precisely that.

This is likely a heat issue as much as anything. Certainly engineers found that the motors could go 120 as someone previously stated, but they also found that battery, capacitor, something?? couldn't sustain the heat needed to have 120 be the top speed. It's simply a what can it handle long term vs short term like any electrical system (the same extension cord that can handle 20amp for 1 minute without catching fire is not the same that can handle 20amp day in and day out).

Tires also have ratings, I believe the AT are S rated, so maximum speed of 112. Setting max speed of 111 removes Rivian legally by saying "our vehicle can't go as fast as the tires are rated for" if a tire explodes.

As for can it go that fast on a track sure, but I'll bet you buried somewhere in the warranty and legal nonsense is a "hey if you do this on the track and it breaks or crashes, it's your fault not ours" statement.

 

[Greg614]

C&D is going to have to re-review the R1S with the 2022.47 update that addresses some of their handling concerns.

what changed with the update?

 

[Dark-Fx]

what changed with the update?

Additional Improvements

• Improved ride quality with updated suspension settings and refined the Drive Modes > Ride settings as follows:
  • Soft: Active dampening improvements to ride quality.
  • Stiff: Improved handling capabilities.
• Improved battery longevity, battery durability, and regenerative braking performance. Also enhanced regen availability, and you can use regen for longer durations.

 

[BourboNole]

This is likely a heat issue as much as anything. Certainly engineers found that the motors could go 120 as someone previously stated, but they also found that battery, capacitor, something?? couldn't sustain the heat needed to have 120 be the top speed. It's simply a what can it handle long term vs short term like any electrical system (the same extension cord that can handle 20amp for 1 minute without catching fire is not the same that can handle 20amp day in and day out).

Tires also have ratings, I believe the AT are S rated, so maximum speed of 112. Setting max speed of 111 removes Rivian legally by saying "our vehicle can't go as fast as the tires are rated for" if a tire explodes.

As for can it go that fast on a track sure, but I'll bet you buried somewhere in the warranty and legal nonsense is a "hey if you do this on the track and it breaks or crashes, it's your fault not ours" statement.

Even the 20s are H rated, which is 130.

 

[Jay565]

The simple act of accelerating is not illegal, but street racing is, and depending on your location you could easily be stopped for various other violations like reckless driving or state specific laws like excessive display of speed or excessive acceleration. You're going to kill a lot more people by ripping off 3 second to 60 runs in a crowded city than by cruising at 130 on an empty highway. Its all about time and place.

130 on any empty highway remains illegal and reckless driving, not just speeding. 0-60 acceleration in 3.0 is not illegal, obviously you have to do it safely and not be racing, cutting people off, etc. Weird you would compare 0-60 in a crowded city vs 130 on an empty highway, neither should be done period, but since there are times you can legally and safely accelerate to 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, yes it matters more than limiting speed to 111mph.

Sponsored