The Max Pack Will Most Likely Be Canceled - IMO

[manitou202]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Tesla charged around $10,000 to upgrade to the 85 kwh pack in the beginning and MOST went with it over a 60 kwh battery pack. Once they improved efficiency of the vehicles, that allowed them to get more range out of the same size battery, and they started offering the 75 kwh battery, which had more range than the original 85 kwh battery, it was an attractive offering. Despite that, MOST people still chose the "long range" or 100 kwh battery optioned car.

300 miles in range is not something most people need on a daily basis. But, for EV's to replace ICE vehicles, they need to be capable of all things. They don't put 5 gallon gas tanks in cars just because people don't need more than that on a regular daily basis. It's not about the daily needs, it's about the occasions that come up when you do need that extra range. Likely, for some sort of long distance travel. That's when people use more of their 20 gallon gas tanks and will use more of their larger battery packs. Most people don't want to have to go rent a car to travel.

Plus, having the extra range is just nice to have, simply for those that don't want to charge every single day. Many, that don't have chargers at home, can't charge every single day. Or at least it's not practical for them to do so. I personally rarely ever need 300 miles in range, but wouldn't have bought the vehicle if it didn't have it, because, occasionally, I do need 300 miles in range.

And remember, 300 miles is EPA rated range. For most people, that don't want to "think about it", they just want to drive normally at "keep up with traffic" speeds, the 300 mile EPA range ends up closer to 225 miles in real world highway travel (75-85 MPH). Furthermore, for those in cold weather climates, range takes a HUGE hit in the winter. 300 miles is then probably closer to 175. And, as noted previously, for those that want to tow, realistic towing range is probably just 130 miles.

For many, 300 miles is just fine and they'll sell plenty of them. But, there will probably be at least as many people that will choose the $10,000 option for a larger battery and more range. I was one of them, until I changed my configuration to get my truck sooner.

I understand all of the arguments for the extra range. I would love to have it as well. I'm simply trying to point out the majority didn't spec the max pack and it probably has a very low order rate. In my personal opinion Rivian should still offer the max pack as an option because I can see the value in it. However if they choose to cancel it, the low demand was probably a big contributor.

Sponsored

 

[Jac]

Rivian announced months ago they were scrapping the five passenger version of the R1S (to my great disappointment) —- and with that decision they also scrapped the longer range battery option (bigger than the Large Pack) for the R1S.

Certainly, other manufacturers will introduce E-SUVs with longer range batteries than Rivian’s Large Pack (as others have argued Rivian will face among batteries offered by competitors’ E-pick ups), but that didn’t deter Rivian from eliminating the greater range battery option for the R1S. Many of the use cases mentioned by others to argue why Rivian will ultimately build the 400+ mile range battery option for the R1T would equally have justified the scrapped bigger R1S battery option for R1S’s built with the same passenger capacity as the R1T.

 

[mini2nut]

The Max Pack would make the R1T weigh in around 4-tons. Yikes.

 

[COdogman]

I'm with you. I'm a Rivian shareholder who is currently sitting on a ton of losses but I'm looking towards the future.

With that in mind, I have a conflict of interest. As a shareholder I want Rivian to focus on improving their margins, which means they need to sell as many post-March 1 vehicles as possible.

As a future owner, I want my R1T!

I'm in a situation where I can afford to wait, as long as it isn't past 1H of 2023 (my original Max Pack estimate) and "take one for the team."

Rivian has the advantage of being very well capitalized and so they aren't starving for capital like Tesla was at this stage of their production ramp. That means Rivian can afford to deliver pre and post March 1 vehicles at a pace that won't piss off early reservation holders which Rivian needs to make sure that they don't do. They need to preserve and grow their brand loyalty if they are going to survive in an increasingly crowded EV segment.

A lot of folks think Rivian is competing against Tesla, GM, and Ford - and to an extent, I think that is true. But I think yo also have to lump Jeep in there as well since it is the best selling ICE adventure vehicle currently and has an enthusiastic and loyal customer base.

Rivian is trying to take the impractical and environmentally unsustainable adventure vehicle model that Jeep represents and replace it with a practical, environmentally conscious, and even sport-car fast and fun, model that is reflected in the R1T. That is a lot of use-cases rolled into one vehicle so there is massive potential for Rivian to attract buyers who otherwise would need to purchase separate vehicles - but at the same time there is competition coming (Jeep has an EV on the way) so they can't afford to poison the well by pissing off their most loyal customers who are enduring years of waiting.

Agree on all points. I'm not a shareholder but I still want Rivian to succeed as a company. If one just read the market news it makes Rivian sound like they are about to fall apart. I agree with you and feel they are actually in a decent position as long as they don't make a bunch of dumb mistakes. I don't envy them trying to build a new truck company in these times. Not for those with weak stomachs.

I see the struggles even the legacy manufacturers are going through with their EVs, like Ford with the Mach-E and GM with the Hummer and it reminds me this is hard stuff for everyone.

 

[crashmtb]

Rivian announced months ago they were scrapping the five passenger version of the R1S (to my great disappointment) —- and with that decision they also scrapped the longer range battery option (bigger than the Large Pack) for the R1S.

Certainly, other manufacturers will introduce E-SUVs with longer range batteries than Rivian’s Large Pack (as others have argued Rivian will face among batteries offered by competitors’ E-pick ups), but that didn’t deter Rivian from eliminating the greater range battery option for the R1S. Many of the use cases mentioned by others to argue why Rivian will ultimately build the 400+ mile range battery option for the R1T would equally have justified the scrapped bigger R1S battery option for R1S’s built with the same passenger capacity as the R1T.

When did Rivian ever have a larger than 135kwh battery available as a configurable option on R1S?

 

[Nermal]

I was talking to a guy this weekend who told me he was waiting on his R1T while admiring mine. He said he'd switched from Max Pack to large, hopefully, to get one sooner. I mentioned I thought the Max Pack would be cancelled and he quickly agreed.

Since Max Pack future is all speculation anyway, I'll add my $.02.

My thinking is that we won't see a Max Pack that's just a Large on steroids - more cells crammed together. I'm thinking more along lines of those who've mentioned work for R2s battery in that there may be a longer range R1 but without the weight and other hits a mega-Large would have. That may push it even further out than they could have done with higher density of existing cells but worth it.

Along with some of the increasingly challenging business cases mentioned to support cancelling argument, while probably not fair to call current R1 battery tech "old", it's not necessarily very novel anymore and will not be any more so the longer a Max pack takes to deliver. At that point it will also be harder to demand what would seem to need to be a big (and probably getting bigger) premium for not a ton more range+performance, utility and charge-time hit, especially when the market may be seeing Max pack type of range through newer approaches than cell density.

That was worth everything you paid for it, I hope

 

[Jac]

When did Rivian ever have a larger than 135kwh battery available as a configurable option on R1S?

I don’t remember if the largest battery option was configurable when I made my preorder in October 2021, but I did find this 2021 KBB description of the R1S:

“The Rivian R1S, like its R1T truck sibling, is an all-wheel-drive electric vehicle. Three battery packs are to be available: 105 kWh, 135 kWh, or 180 kWh. The first Rivians to enter production will be the 135- and 180-kWh units, followed 12 months later by the 105-kWh battery.”

 

[nfrank]

Rivian is also behind on the voltage side of things. I could see that if the max pack comes out it’ll be a 800v battery with significantly faster charge rates than the large pack. Maybe both packs go to higher voltages at some point.

along with longer range, faster charging would be an important selling feature of the max pack.

porsche, Kia, and GM can all charge at 800V. Rivian needs to get there soon to be competitive.

 

[LeoH]

They are starting to build motors and other components inhouse, which means they could potentially increase efficiency thus mileage and not need a max pack, couple that with the 2 motor model and near 400miles can be achieved without a max pack.

 

[crashmtb]

They are starting to build motors and other components inhouse, which means they could potentially increase efficiency thus mileage and not need a max pack, couple that with the 2 motor model and near 400miles can be achieved without a max pack.

so why not combine more efficient drivetrain with bigger battery for yet more range? Max pack plus dual motor is an option on the configurator today. 400 miles isn’t some absolute maximum range.

 

[zipzag]

Why would Rivian in-house motors be more efficient? Weight and wind resistance doesn't change much.

Within the context of an "adventure vehicle" battery size is what determines range well away from fast charging. Near the interstate range doesn't matter much. Most people want to stop every two or three hours anyways.

Wrangler efficiency is terrible. Rivian is only relatively inefficient compared to other EVs.

The "efficency" I'm looking for with max pack is Rivian adding 800V charging

 

[SANZC02]

Rivian is also behind on the voltage side of things. I could see that if the max pack comes out it’ll be a 800v battery with significantly faster charge rates than the large pack. Maybe both packs go to higher voltages at some point.

along with longer range, faster charging would be an important selling feature of the max pack.

porsche, Kia, and GM can all charge at 800V. Rivian needs to get there soon to be competitive.

The Rivian designed motors are supposed to be 800 volts.

 

[SASSquatch]

Agree on all points. I'm not a shareholder but I still want Rivian to succeed as a company. If one just read the market news it makes Rivian sound like they are about to fall apart. I agree with you and feel they are actually in a decent position as long as they don't make a bunch of dumb mistakes. I don't envy them trying to build a new truck company in these times. Not for those with weak stomachs.

I see the struggles even the legacy manufacturers are going through with their EVs, like Ford with the Mach-E and GM with the Hummer and it reminds me this is hard stuff for everyone.

I keep using Tesla as a reference because they were the last US company to attempt mass production of a new vehicle and prior to them it had been 100 years since another US company had done the same.

Add to that that they are also building out an EV charging infrastructure - something that ICE manufacturers never had to do, and you have a really, really heavy lift. That heavy lift nearly bankrupt Tesla. Musk sunk his wealth into the company and heavily leveraged himself to make sure Tesla survived.

I think that Rivian has been both lucky and unlucky. They have benefited, greatly, from the interest in EVs that Tesla and Musk shepherded with the success of the Model S, X, Y and 3. They made EVs mainstream, desirable, and a viable, practical alternative to an ICE.

They are not facing most of the headwinds that TESLA faced where the OEMs were looking for Tesla to fail because success for Tesla was a serious threat to their market share. Nobody was reaching out to help Tesla stay afloat.

Rivian on the other hand has had massive investment - even from OEMS like Ford - and has seen numerous partnerships like the Amazon deal which will keep them afloat for years to come. Their issue now is supply chain and inflationary forces and a young company trying to establish themselves can be very vulnerable under these conditions.

This is where RIvian needs exceptional and experienced leadership in order to navigate these economic forces that are largely out of their control. I think they will be OK - to your point - as long as they don't shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[sacramentoelectric]

The Max Pack would make the R1T weigh in around 4-tons. Yikes.

She's not heavy, just big boned.

 

[SASSquatch]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Tesla charged around $10,000 to upgrade to the 85 kwh pack in the beginning and MOST went with it over a 60 kwh battery pack. Once they improved efficiency of the vehicles, that allowed them to get more range out of the same size battery, and they started offering the 75 kwh battery, which had more range than the original 85 kwh battery, it was an attractive offering. Despite that, MOST people still chose the "long range" or 100 kwh battery optioned car.

300 miles in range is not something most people need on a daily basis. But, for EV's to replace ICE vehicles, they need to be capable of all things. They don't put 5 gallon gas tanks in cars just because people don't need more than that on a regular daily basis. It's not about the daily needs, it's about the occasions that come up when you do need that extra range. Likely, for some sort of long distance travel. That's when people use more of their 20 gallon gas tanks and will use more of their larger battery packs. Most people don't want to have to go rent a car to travel.

Plus, having the extra range is just nice to have, simply for those that don't want to charge every single day. Many, that don't have chargers at home, can't charge every single day. Or at least it's not practical for them to do so. I personally rarely ever need 300 miles in range, but wouldn't have bought the vehicle if it didn't have it, because, occasionally, I do need 300 miles in range.

And remember, 300 miles is EPA rated range. For most people, that don't want to "think about it", they just want to drive normally at "keep up with traffic" speeds, the 300 mile EPA range ends up closer to 225 miles in real world highway travel (75-85 MPH). Furthermore, for those in cold weather climates, range takes a HUGE hit in the winter. 300 miles is then probably closer to 175. And, as noted previously, for those that want to tow, realistic towing range is probably just 130 miles.

For many, 300 miles is just fine and they'll sell plenty of them. But, there will probably be at least as many people that will choose the $10,000 option for a larger battery and more range. I was one of them, until I changed my configuration to get my truck sooner.

I couldn't agree with you more. I think that the case for having more than 300 miles of range in an EV is largely overstated. The exception, is if you need to do any significant towing which crushes range (but also crushes gas mileage).

EVs are already too heavy. Adding additional battery cells and weight - further reducing overall efficiency - isn't a winning strategy long term. I think one thing Tesla is doing very smartly is integrating the battery cells into the structure of the vehicle. That allows you to reduce weight, increase structural strength, and significantly improve efficiency. That means you can achieve the same range with FEWER cells. This should be the goal as there will be downstream advantages, including reducing material costs and improving margins.

The idea that EVs need to achieve the same range as ICE vehicles is deeply flawed and is driven by the lack of ubiquitous charging infrastructure rather than actual need.

ICE OEMs have enjoyed the benefit of the federal government subsidizing the infrastructure needed to build fossil fuel stations at $0 cost to them. We need that same level of infrastructure investment on the EV side so that charging is ubiquitous, reliable, and efficient.

The average time people spend at a rest stop varies from 14-24 minutes. The general rule of thumb is to stop to rest for at least 15 minutes for every 2 hours of driving. Charging rates vary from provider to provider, but I think achieving 150 miles of range in 14-24 minutes is very doable right now which would let you drive 2 hours at a speed of 75 mph before stopping again. A vehicle that can achieve 300 miles of highway range can easily let you stay within the standard recommendations/averages for highway driving.

Sponsored