Why VW is Investing $5.8 Billion Into Rivian: For Internal Organs

[Donald Stanfield]

First, using a LLM is NOT to compile a summary of information you know you've read before but don't remember where you read it is a HUGE time saver especially when you're on your phone, so get over it, seriously. It's a tool like a better search engine.

Second, I corrected my*billions* statement where I should have said more than a billion per quarter or perhaps billions per year. When I misspeak, I have no problem admitting it.

Finally, I included the last 3 years when Rivian was producing and selling vehicles and like if you take away the BS $300 carbon credit sales which mostly likely will be gone soon, they would have still lost more than a billion in Q4 as well.

AI is an extremely effective time saving RESEARCH tool to summarize information that you know you've read before and provide the sources from which it derived the answer especially if you're on a phone. If you know how to ask it specifically what you seek, no need to ask it over and over to game it.

Based upon the $100 refundable deposits for the CT and Ford Lightning, we know thet only a small fraction of those deposits translated into actual sales. Like I said, Scout has had 50K $100 deposits 70% being EREVs so AT BEST we're talking about 35K real sales. I personally put down a deposit for each BEV model since I'm sure if I'll want the truck or SUV in 2+ years when they are finally delivered. Why not? It's only $100.

Again, Rivian R2 preorders are 100K+ . Makes no sense to spend R&D on EREVs at this time until you deliver the R2 when you are still losing $$$: per vehicle delivered with the EREV demand yet to be determined based upon actual sales.

If you're not going to type your own responses why should anyone engage you in conversation? AI is cheating in an academic context, and debating with someone is an academic exercise. I don't have a dog in this fight otherwise, but the comments about using AI to craft a response just hit me in the wrong way.

Sponsored

 

[Steve A.]

No, I won't get over it.

I *much* prefer posts from people being people, including yours when you're arguing and a bit off-kilter! If you chat GPT why don't I just ChatGPT back, and then we can just have a ChatGPT back and forth where we don't need to do any work nor have any opinions we can just let a robot argue with itself over and over.

I couldn't care less what you prefer. I prefer not wasting time finding, compiling, summarizing ,and formatting information that I'VE ALREADY READ over the last several years.

That's one of many valid use cases of a LLM.

That saud, they are not 100% so if there was any inaccurate information then correct it. Otherwise,, moving on.
#WorkSmartNotHard

 

[Steve A.]

If you're not going to type your own responses why should anyone engage you in conversation? AI is cheating in an academic context, and debating with someone is an academic exercise. I don't have a dog in this fight otherwise, but the comments about using AI to craft a response just hit me in the wrong way.

Seriously? It's a tool that's becoming as ubiquitous as the search engine.

It's got a lot of use cases but one of the most effective is a better search engine that doesn't just give you a bunch of documents that have nuggets of relevant information to answer your question but can actually summarize it for you.

e.g. So knowing Rivian has lost money EVERY quarter, you could spend an hour or more retrieving the last 3 years of Rivian financial results especially on your phone and then formatting the response in an easily readable format, OR you can ask a LLM to show you the last three years of Rivian losses in tabular format and get your answer in SECONDS.

You consider that cheating?

Wait! Do you use a search engine!? Well, if you're not willing to go to the library and do look up information via the card catalog, then why should any one engage with you cheater!??

Do you also churn your own butter? If not, then that's cheating!? ?

Regardless, feel free to not engage or even read any of my responses. I couldn't care less. It's a free country,,, once again.?

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Seriously? It's a tool that's becoming as ubiquitous as the search engine.

It's got a lot of use cases but one of the most effective is a better search engine that doesn't just give you a bunch of documents that have nuggets of relevant information to answer your question but can actually summarize it for you.

e.g. So knowing Rivian has lost money EVERY quarter, you could spend an hour or more retrieving the last 3 years of Rivian financial results especially on your phone and then formatting the response in an easily readable format, OR you can ask a LLM to show you the last three years of Rivian losses in tabular format and get your answer in SECONDS.

You consider that cheating?

Wait! Do you use a search engine!? Well, if you're not willing to go to the library and do look up information via the card catalog, then why should any one engage with you cheater!??

Do you also churn your own butter? If not, then that's cheating!? ?

Regardless, feel free to not engage or even read any of my responses. I couldn't care less. It's a free country,,, once again.?

Reading something to formulate a response and letting an AI write your response for you are two very different things.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Reading something to formulate a response and letting an AI write your response for you are two very different things.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Regardless, feel free to not engage or even read any of my responses. I couldn't care less. It's a free country,,, once again.?

The idea of "freedom" in the U.S. is complex, and while the country promotes itself as a beacon of liberty, there are several ways in which it falls short of being a truly "free" nation. Here are five examples:

1. Mass Incarceration & Prison System – The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, disproportionately imprisoning people of color and those from lower-income backgrounds. Many prisoners are subjected to forced labor, solitary confinement, and harsh sentencing laws, limiting their freedom even after serving their time.
2. Surveillance & Privacy Violations – The government, through agencies like the NSA, engages in mass surveillance of citizens, tracking phone calls, emails, and online activity without proper transparency or accountability. Whistleblowers like Edward Snowden exposed these violations, showing how personal freedoms are compromised.
3. Restricted Freedom of Press & Whistleblower Persecution – While the U.S. claims to have a free press, journalists covering government misconduct, such as Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, have been heavily prosecuted. Independent journalists also face intimidation, censorship, and suppression from both the government and corporate entities.
4. Economic Barriers & Wage Slavery – Unlike countries with strong social safety nets, many Americans are forced to work multiple jobs just to afford healthcare, housing, and education. The lack of universal healthcare, expensive college tuition, and stagnant wages trap millions in financial dependency, limiting their actual freedom to live fulfilling lives.
5. Voter Suppression & Political Manipulation – Gerrymandering, strict voter ID laws, and purging voter rolls disproportionately affect minority communities, making it harder for them to participate in democracy. Additionally, corporate lobbying and the influence of big money in politics (like Citizens United) mean that the political system often serves the wealthy elite rather than the general population.

While the U.S. has many freedoms on paper, these issues highlight how structural inequalities and government overreach limit true liberty for many of its citizens.

 

[Dark-Fx]

“Also the complexity in our group, it has to work for at least 10 brands. It's not simple. So we decided the best way to do it is this way.”

I have to wonder if I'm alone in not wanting vehicles from different manufacturers all have the same "feel" to them. Of course I say that while I'm considering a third Rivian.

 

[Steve A.]

Reading something to formulate a response and letting an AI write your response for you are two very different things.

Yes, which in one case I've been reading about Rivian's quarterly losses for the past 3 years which is why I knew the information but for the sake of time had AI retirve it and format it in an easy to read format in seconds instead of wasting time with a search engine and manually compiling and formatting it on my phone.

Again, a MAJOR time saver from an information retrieval, summarization, and formatting perspective without all the Google ads and promoted results.

 

[SASSquatch]

AI is an extremely effective time saving RESEARCH tool to summarize information that you know you've read before and provide the sources from which it derived the answer especially if you're on a phone. If you know how to ask it specifically what you seek, no need to ask it over and over to game it.

Based upon the $100 refundable deposits for the CT and Ford Lightning, we know thet only a small fraction of those deposits translated into actual sales. Like I said, Scout has had 50K $100 deposits 70% being EREVs so AT BEST we're talking about 35K real sales. I personally put down a deposit for each BEV model since I'm sure if I'll want the truck or SUV in 2+ years when they are finally delivered. Why not? It's only $100.

Again, Rivian R2 preorders are 100K+ . Makes no sense to spend R&D on EREVs at this time until you deliver the R2 when you are still losing $$$: per vehicle delivered with the EREV demand yet to be determined based upon actual sales.

You are arguing against yourself. 70% of consumers who were introduced to the concept of the Scout preferred the EREV. One of the ways VW, I mean Scout, is going to base their production volumes is on consumer preference and by giving people the opportunity to express that preference with a low bar of entry, gives Scout precious data. 70%, when given the opportunity to pick BEV vs EREV chose EREV.

The data speak for itself.

You chose to provide a summary from AI on the history of past EREVs without any important context - you'd appreciate that if you took the time to understand the environment those EREVs were built for and marketed in before you spouted off that EREVs are a failure.

Saturn introduced the first production electric car called the EV1. Since GM only leased those, then wouldn't let anyone renew their lease - and then took them out to the desert and promptly crushed them, that must mean that EVs were a failure, right?

Context matters. Otherwise you're just an extension of a clueless Chatbot.

 

[SASSquatch]

As for your EREV argument - again you need to stop using AI to generate replies *BUT* your overall point is 100% correct. EREVs are regressive and are worse than a traditional HEV.

Your post had so much potential, until you decided to tank it with this statement. There is no universe where an EREV is worse than a traditional Hybrid Electric Vehicle. HEV's have 2 drivetrains with redundancy that isn't efficient. An EREV has only one drivetrain - electric, with an ICE that has been relegated to an electric generator. An EREV depending on how it is implemented is much more efficient than a HEV.

That's point number one. Point number two is that you are living in a fantasy world where you snap your fingers and everyone goes out and buys an EV. Here is some cold reality:

The public sentiment, the politics, and the charging infrastructure are nowhere near where they need to be for the kind of adoption we need for EVs to overtake pure ICE vehicles. Not even close. An EREV is a bridge to full EV ownership because it introduces the best of the EV experience which can be used for 90% of driving use cases and pairs it with the advantages of ICE to reduce anxiety for long road trips, or towing for the 10% of use cases where the charging infrastructure and experience isn't there yet.

This clown show of an administration has set the EV movement back a decade. EREVs will provide a bridge for battery technology, charging infrastructure, and consumer sentiment to catch up. Once someone drives an EREV and understands the benefits of an EV, they will be much more motivated to by a BEV as their next purchase, especially if battery technology has closed the gap in terms of range and charging infrastructure is ubiquitous, easy to use, and reliable.

Hybrids were a poor bridge to EREVs. I have one of the first EREV's ever made - the BMW i3s and I get over 50mpg when I need to burn carbon and am at a low enough point on my battery. That is with an ICE that BMW threw in from a motorcycle and didn't even bother to design something from the ground up that was more efficient since it was only acting as a generator and operating in a very narrow RPM range. Combine that with 113 mpge of the BEV for combined city/highway and that is somehow worse than an HEV?

Not buying your math.

 

[Steve A.]

You are arguing against yourself. 70% of consumers who were introduced to the concept of the Scout preferred the EREV. One of the ways VW, I mean Scout, is going to base their production volumes is on consumer preference and by giving people the opportunity to express that preference with a low bar of entry, gives Scout precious data. 70%, when given the opportunity to pick BEV vs EREV chose EREV.

The data speak for itself.

You chose to provide a summary from AI on the history of past EREVs without any important context - you'd appreciate that if you took the time to understand the environment those EREVs were built for and marketed in before you spouted off that EREVs are a failure.

Saturn introduced the first production electric car called the EV1. Since GM only leased those, then wouldn't let anyone renew their lease - and then took them out to the desert and promptly crushed them, that must mean that EVs were a failure, right?

Context matters. Otherwise you're just an extension of a clueless Chatbot.

Way to cherry pick one of my data points that fit your narrative and ignore all the other ones that don't. You have a future in politics.?

Let me recap the all the data points that I provided ones that don't fit your narrative that Rivian should invest R&D money in EREVs since you either willfully disregarded them or reading comprehension isn't your strong suit in which case AI isn't going to be much help for you.

1. Scout has 50K preorders based upon $100 deposits yet Rivian already has well over 100K $100 deposits for the R2. This point alone proves Rivian invested in the MUCH BETTER success strategy for low cost BEVs.

2. Given that out 2M CT $100 preorders only resulted in ~5-10% of actual sales and 200K Lightning $100 preorders only resulted in ~25-35% of actual sales, the Scout EREV demand will most likely translate into ~10k-20K sales which is being generous especially if they can't deliver on the low starting price much like Tesla failed to do.

3. Several BEVs have a max range of well over 450 miles and by the time Scout delivers their first EREV in 2.5 years, 500+ miles max range for BEVs will be here and getting better with new chemistries, energy densities, and solid state.

For these reasons, EREVs are NOT worth the Rivian R&D investment until they deliver the R2 and R3 and stop losing money.

 

[Thedude]

I agree that EREVs are not in Rivian’s best interest to develop right now. They have a pretty decent product line forming with their BEVs and not a lot of money or time to make the company truly successful. There’s a definite use case and desire for EREVs but I don’t think it’s something Rivian can or should capitalize on right now.

 

[SASSquatch]

Way to cherry pick one of my data points that fit your narrative and ignore all the other ones that don't. You have a future in politics.?

Let me recap the all the data points that I provided ones that don't fit your narrative that Rivian should invest R&D money in EREVs since you either willfully disregarded them or reading comprehension isn't your strong suit in which case AI isn't going to be much help for you.

1. Scout has 50K preorders based upon $100 deposits yet Rivian already has well over 100K $100 deposits for the R2. This point alone proves Rivian invested in the MUCH BETTER success strategy for low cost BEVs.

2. Given that out 2M CT $100 preorders only resulted in ~5-10% of actual sales and 200K Lightning $100 preorders only resulted in ~25-35% of actual sales, the Scout EREV demand will most likely translate into ~10k-20K sales which is being generous especially if they can't deliver on the low starting price much like Tesla failed to do.

3. Several BEVs have a max range of well over 450 miles and by the time Scout delivers their first EREV in 2.5 years, 500+ miles max range for BEVs will be here and getting better with new chemistries, energy densities, and solid state.

For these reasons, EREVs are NOT worth the Rivian R&D investment until they deliver the R2 and R3 and stop losing money.

You are exhausting and I'm done wasting my time. You seem to reinvent new goalposts every time you post. Where did I say Rivian should exclusively be building EREV's? They have an opportunity through their partnership with VW to contribute to an EREV design and for all we know, they already are. That partnership is just getting started and if you look back at my posts I made the assertion that Rivian needed to form strategic partnership with an existing OEM well before Rivian announced their deal with VW.

Your posts are nothing but noise and cut and paste responses from chatbots. Have fun with that.

 

[Steve A.]

You are exhausting and I'm done wasting my time. You seem to reinvent new goalposts every time you post. Where did I say Rivian should exclusively be building EREV's? They have an opportunity through their partnership with VW to contribute to an EREV design and for all we know, they already are. That partnership is just getting started and if you look back at my posts I made the assertion that Rivian needed to form strategic partnership with an existing OEM well before Rivian announced their deal with VW.

Your posts are nothing but noise and cut and paste responses from chatbots. Have fun with that.

And your posts are filled with misquotes and half quotes of my responses. I said Rivian shouldn't waste any time or money on EREV R&D. They are already contributing their zonal hardware architecture and software to the VW JV which will be used by Scout for both BEVs and EREVs but instead of Rivian, thanks Doc Obvious.

And they formed that JV for the money since they were burning more than a $1B per quarter.

And mark my word again, that I predict that VW Group will eventually buy Rivian like they've done with every other company that they operate as an independent subsidiary.

So feel free not to waste any more time.

Sponsored