Don't forget they have an R3 and an R3X coming. The three of those grouped at a cumulative volume of around 200k would be enough to lift Rivian over the threshold.
Pretty impressive IMO for something with nearly 10" of ground chance and "average" EV tech.
If it sells it sells. I know quite a few Rivian owners and none of them strike me as someone who only bought the vehicle based on marketing and image. And the reliability of the Air and Gravity are also less than stellar per CR reports. And we know that people aren't buying Lucid's based on marketing.
Don’t forget, 30% of those sales are Amazon trucks….so they only expect to sell 40-45k consumer vehicles and that too with R2 selling for half the year. If you look at it that way, not really hitting it out of the park, though much better than Lucid, but Lucid doesn’t have a midsize yet.
People aren’t buying lucid at all. And I am saying that is in part because they have very poor marketing. Nobody knows who Lucid is. Still.
You should see more reviews then. R2 range at 70mph is way lower. You’re quoting the absolute highest measured one from atom M at State of Charge. See 253 from out of Spec on a warm day then 220 from a colder day run David Vaught also got a 213! . Projected cold weather range is sub-200. It’s a bigger issue than people realize because it’s still not cold.
I'm not at all certain that low range will really be a problem for them. How many people actually drive their Rivian to Moab for some off-road fun? And even those who do, how many do it more than once or twice a year? Most people will just be driving around town, running errands, commuting to work, and will not have that much of a problem with range. Sure, for the occasional road trip they'll probably have to charge more often then they'd hoped, but that won't be the every day experience of owning the car.
This has always been the pitch of EVs. The average commute is 40 miles a day round trip. Most owners can live with daily overnight charging 90% of the time. I take my Air on 2-3 roadtrips a year and while I appreciate the range it means very little on a day to day basis. I suspect that Rivian buyers are prioritizing soccer practices and Home Depot runs over road trips. And sure they’ll lose range in the winter but the trade off is a very capable vehicle to get to school and work in a snowstorm.
And cheap interior. I test drove one awhile back. I wasn’t impressed. I’m also 6’3 and I felt like I had to fold myself into the driver seat.
I agree... Mostly urban driving, plus it has access to the Tesla Super Chargers, so finding charging (even for those 2 trips to Moab) wouldn't be a problem.
I think winter will bring LOTS of complaints.
Well, living up here at Lake Tahoe, I certainly see your argument. The range that a GGT offers is a huge part of Lucid's appeal for me, especially since I drive to the bay area at least once a month, and there have been times when I've been doing the round trip weekly. But half or more of that drive is in the central valley and the bay area, and not at high elevation where the temperature drops way off. So people will make the trip just fine with a single charging stop the vast majority of the time. The person who will really feel the cold weather range hit is someone who has to drive from Lansing to Chicago in the winter, or Buffalo to Albany, where the whole trip is at cold temperatures.
Yup. I made this point earlier in the thread as wel
Yup. I made this point earlier in the thread as well. I live in the NYC metro and drive to Vermont frequently in the winter to ski. I can make it there without stopping. Just need to plug in when I get there. I would 100% need two stops in the R2. I usually drive over at night after work on a Thursday or Friday, and stopping twice to charge is not something I'm interested in.
Au contraire mon frère... I've taken input from several YouTubers who own R2 and their driving experiences. I quote Tom M because he and Out of Spec are the only ones who've done 70 mph 100 to 0 tests. Tom has done two with similar results. But there are others who have logged long real world trips and tracked their efficiency. They were not doing 100 to 0 at a steady speed. They were real world driving. In the case of Duke of Middleville it was a family trip. Two adults, a pre-teen, an older teen, and lots of luggage. In the case Gjeebs, he drove solo but with significant elevation changes. Gjeebs also measured 10 - 80% recharge time in minutes and also miles added per minute and compared that to other EVs where he has measured that. Turns out R2 charges pretty fast.
You’re showing data where the journey was 65mph (?) not 70mph. Also these weren’t 100-0 tests. of course the range and efficiency will be higher if speed was lower. The 70mph range test needs to be constant 70mph. I have no idea how to gauge how some one else’s ‘real world’ driving related to mine. I don’t think there’s any way to replicate that. Standard methods are used for that reason.
If winter road trips are important to buyers they are either asking these questions or spending their money elsewhere. Your reasons for not wanting an R2 are absolutely valid for you. But your needs may have little or no resemblance to the folks who are actually buying the R2. And if your assumptions on their ownership experience are correct we’ll be hearing so soon enough as winter will soon be upon us.
@RajD I SPECIFICALLY SAID that I did not include them in my first post BECAUSE they were not 70 mph tests. And then I said that they are real world examples. To me that means they are more representative of what owners are likely to see in their everyday use. Because these are owners. Using them the way they intend to use them.
Duke of Middleville picture...267 miles traveled. 38 miles left. 267 + 38 =305. That seems pretty close to me. Even if he gets 28 miles instead of 38 he would be at 295. With a full car.
The amount of time to go from 10-80% is as much a factor of battery size as it is charge speed. That's why mile added per minute is a better gauge of how fast it charges. The R2 adds more miles per minute than the Model Y. If the R2 had a smaller battery it would reach 80% even faster.
You’re showing data where the journey was 65mph (?) not 70mph. Also these weren’t 100-0 tests. of course the range and efficiency will be higher if speed was lower. The 70mph range test needs to be constant 70mph. I have no idea how to gauge how some one else’s ‘real world’ driving related to mine. I don’t think there’s any way to replicate that. Standard methods are used for that reason.
Have you noticed that even in the 100 - 0 70 mph tests that their average speed is also lower than 70 mph? Tom M. explained this in detail in his R2 70 mph range test. Because the cars are traveling from the charger to the expressway at speeds under 70 and because they have to slow down and sometimes stop at lights in traffic for the turn around their average speeds will be, as was the case with DoM below 70 mph. Personally, I'm surprised that DoM's average was as high as 65. That actually tells me that some of his highway driving was ABOVE 70 mph. But I cannot prove or demonstrate that so I will not state that as a fact, just a logical conclusion.
I’m now seeing the temp on your first screenshot was 87F!! If r2 can’t get 270 in very warm temperatures, at less than 70mph, and not draining the battery dead, just 0%, then I have no idea what we are debating. That’s pathetic and false advertising. And the real world ranges really don’t mean anything to me unless it’s me who did them myself. Kyle on OOS has a good video explaining why we should be extra wary of these weekend warrior YouTubers posting real world ranges.
