Gravity; SUV or Minivan

[RandomDesign]

I agree, the short nose makes a big part of the difference. And I think the short nose is also what causes some to say they don't like the Gravity because it looks too much like a minivan. While I personally think the Gravity looks fine, I'd also have to say that the design really serves the engineering. For most car companies, it's the other way around. And catering to a design aesthetic set by front-engine ICE vehicles then limits the engineering team's ability to achieve the brilliant packaging that Lucid managed.

This is something that I always thought was pretty cool about the design of the Canoo EV. A real shame how badly their CEO killed that company though.

 

[AnthonySF]

I own an R1S. One of the first quad motors. So I am speaking from experience. Rivian is a great brand and it’s cars meet many needs.

No doubt Rivian was focused on off roading. Ironically, where I live, the R1S has become the main mom-mobile.

I bought the R1S because it was closer to the family SUV I really wanted my X to be. I’ve off roaded in it plenty, camped a bit, but ultimately, I need more every day utility (kind of like a minivan but I drove a minivan for a decade and am EV only at this point), so will add a Gravity to the family.

Agreed, I had an R1S too. But to claim the gravity is wayyyyy better because it has 8 more cubic ft of storage space is ludicrous. Both vehicles are good in their own right. The Rivian would crush a gravity off road. And that’s okay. The gravity crushes the Rivian in range and charging speed. Both vehicles can exist at the same time and be cool.

 

[Ron_Burgundy]

This is something that I always thought was pretty cool about the design of the Canoo EV. A real shame how badly their CEO killed that company though.

Yes, but…I think the front area for an EV really serves two purposes now (with no ICE):

1) Safety - providing some form of barrier and rigidity/compression for crash safety

2) Convenience - front trunk area

So doing away with it, like Canoo, probably would be really tough.

 

[Need4Sleep]

Exactly. It’s comical how in depth people in forums get with comparing what they have against the “other” “lesser” brands they’re not buying. The R1S has 8 less cubic feet of interior storage than the 7 seater gravity. Which again, people love to say “of what I have is the BEST. Funny, the R1S is already leading in its segment and I would really really like to know what you are going to put in your car with that extra 8 cubic feet of space. Oh wait, we’re all Americans and prepare for things we don’t actually need but just want to say we have.

Perfectly said. Both vehicles can exist, and that is exactly fine. They serve different needs.

If I lived the kind of life where I would regularly do hiking trails during the warmer months and back country skiing / snowshoeing / snowboarding during the colder months, I'd pick the R1S quad motor without a second thought.

But I live in a dense city that's surrounded mostly by highways. The nearest mountain for skiing and the good hiking trails are hours away from me. I'd need something smaller and more usable for the tight spaces while still being practical. And that's where the Gravity shines for my use case.

In a more realistic sense though, as much as the Gravity is nice, I don't need all its fancy features. And that's where midsize comes in, but I'll stop it there to avoid derailing the thread.

 

[dbsb3233]

Exactly. It’s comical how in depth people in forums get with comparing what they have against the “other” “lesser” brands they’re not buying. The R1S has 8 less cubic feet of interior storage than the 7 seater gravity. Which again, people love to say “of what I have is the BEST. Funny, the R1S is already leading in its segment and I would really really like to know what you are going to put in your car with that extra 8 cubic feet of space. Oh wait, we’re all Americans and prepare for things we don’t actually need but just want to say we have.

I dunno, I don't really see people thinking of it that way. Not sure anyone gets wrapped up "8 cubic feet", but rather expressing surprise at how they get better legroom in a vehicle that appears to be smaller (and shorter height-wise) than the R1S. It's more of a "Wow, that's surprisingly impressive!" than it is "In your face R1S, 8 cubic feet!".

The Gravity just looks like it would have the smaller interior when seeing it from the outside. Significantly smaller. I don't think the comments about the Gravity actually being bigger inside are meant as a knock on the R1S, but rather a surprise about the Gravity. R1S is just the closest EV to compare to.

 

[Bobby]

Agreed, I had an R1S too. But to claim the gravity is wayyyyy better because it has 8 more cubic ft of storage space is ludicrous. Both vehicles are good in their own right. The Rivian would crush a gravity off road. And that’s okay. The gravity crushes the Rivian in range and charging speed. Both vehicles can exist at the same time and be cool.

I’m willing to bet a tiny percentage of Rivians actually go “off road.” Same for a Range Rovers.

 

[dbsb3233]

I’m willing to bet a tiny percentage of Rivians actually go “off road.” Same for a Range Rovers.

I agree. I'm always a little puzzled at how many vehicles are touted for "off-road" prowess, as though it's a huge segment of buyers. Our Bronco Sport was the same way. I don't think it ever touched foot on a dirt road, let alone did a rock crawl.

I get that people want their SUVs to be good at the "U", but to me that means hauling stuff and handling winter weather and dirt roads. Climbing boulders, not so much. Even though we always get dozens of rock crawl videos.