The Truth About Reliability

[Donald Stanfield]

Every day, we have many people posting threads on various issues. Lately, we've had at least three threads on the same consumer reports article ranking Rivian dead last in reliability. The last one is from someone who isn't even a Rivian owner, who talks about how Rivian needs to do better before they consider purchasing one. Setting aside the utility, or lack thereof, of making such a post, everyone speaking to Rivian's reliability forgets one thing.

There is a strong inverse correlation between a machine's complexity and reliability. The simpler a machine, the less likely it will experience a malfunction, everything else being equal. Rivian is at the cutting edge of vehicle design. I have a 7k-pound SUV that accelerates to 60 in 2.9 seconds and runs an almost 10-second quarter mile. Who else is getting that kind of performance out of ANY vehicle, let alone such an atypical sized and weight vehicle? You can count the cars in the same class on one hand.

People need to understand that being first or being best at something is an arduous task. Rivian could make their vehicles Toyota-level reliable if they used Toyota-level parts. That would give you the reliability you want, but your car would function like the cutting-edge vehicle from 30 years ago. If that's what you want, go ahead and buy it. Those cars all say Toyota or Lexus on them and are available everywhere.

To expect your vehicle to push the boundaries of what's possible while having the same reliability as a vehicle with proven technology that's been refined for many years is asinine. Those buying performance vehicles for a while are used to their fickle nature. If you're mad about Rivian's backlog or vehicle reliability, you should purchase a Ferarri. Tell the Ferarri dealer you're sick of how long the service is taking, and they will tell you that you should feel fortunate you have the privilege of owning a Ferarri. A Bugatti Veyron's oil change is in the five figures; tires are 20K minimum on one of those.

A rocket launch takes a crew of thousands and months of preparation. Those are two examples of machines of increasing complexity requiring increasing technical support. I have a pressure washer that I've had for years and haven't ever changed the oil in it or done any other maintenance, yet every year I go to fire it up with its stale gas and crappy oil, and it fires right up and washes off what I need to be cleaned. Not a very complex machine but it handles heaps of abuse.

Rivian's level of performance and complexity explains why the same consumer report that rated Rivian last in reliability rated it first in customer satisfaction. I know I looked at everything when I looked for an SUV to replace my R1T. Only a few choices excited me; ultimately, I bought a Gen 2 R1S. Despite its flaws, Rivian gives me the most vehicle possible. If I have an issue with it, that's the price I pay for buying a car on the bleeding edge of commercially available technology.

Can Rivian get better at service? Of course, they can, but they aren't going to win in reliability ever. Rivian can have fewer flaws, and they have over time, but there will still be flaws. Everyone must ask themselves what they want from a vehicle because all manufacturers have trade-offs. If you want the most extraordinary possible vehicle, Rivian is a good place to look; if prioritizing incredible bites you in reliability, you willingly made that trade. Don't be one of those owners who expects their state-of-the-art vehicle to get new features added to the software monthly but have all those updates work flawlessly. Who wants to be able to run an 11-second 1/4 mile on their way to the Rubicon trail yet have all the mechanicals function like the dogshit slow Toyota with potato cameras and a software interface that looks like it was coded by a HS student for his science fair project.

Sponsored

 

[COdogman]

Well said.

 

[kurtlikevonnegut]

A great point, and on the "complexity" front, which is that Rivian is just learning how to do this. RJ has been clear about the thousands of decisions that go into making a car and designing the parts, which Rivian largely done from scratch. With so many parts, some are going to fail and a company will learn lessons about durability and design from customer feedback and service. Rivian may be full of industry veterans who have worked on components or projects, but the R1 represents the first time that they worked as part of the same team together.

It doesn't matter how experienced their team is, or how rigorously they tested prior to release, there were still going to be design issues that weren't identified or components that were going to fail because they simply don't have enough data. What has impressed me most about Rivian so far is how well they've adapted their designs and components based on the data that they've collected and it's clear from listening to RJ and team that those tough lessons will be implemented on the R2/R3 platform.

I have a lot more patience when it comes to reliability for a company that's been making cars for 3 years than one that's been making them for 100.

 

[Marchin_MTB]

Good points. Can QC at the factory be improved? Sure. As you say, you can not buy a McLaren and expect Corolla dependability. To add to this, our 2.5 yr R1T has never had a critical failure (one that would have prevented driving). Also the mean time between service visits increased dramatically since the first 8 months or so. Our last service visit was 6mo ago for the PTC replacement, and that’s worked well ever since.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

A great point, and on the "complexity" front, which is that Rivian is just learning how to do this. RJ has been clear about the thousands of decisions that go into making a car and designing the parts, which Rivian largely done from scratch. With so many parts, some are going to fail and a company will learn lessons about durability and design from customer feedback and service. Rivian may be full of industry veterans who have worked on components or projects, but the R1 represents the first time that they worked as part of the same team together.

It doesn't matter how experienced their team is, or how rigorously they tested prior to release, there were still going to be design issues that weren't identified or components that were going to fail because they simply don't have enough data. What has impressed me most about Rivian so far is how well they've adapted their designs and components based on the data that they've collected and it's clear from listening to RJ and team that those tough lessons will be implemented on the R2/R3 platform.

I have a lot more patience when it comes to reliability for a company that's been making cars for 3 years than one that's been making them for 100.

Exactly. Rivian is doing something that's never been done before and as a company that hasn't built any vehicles before these. The fact that they are as good as they are is awe-inspiring. Tesla is the only other legitimate software-defined manufacturer. They still have many issues, but they've had years to learn to build vehicles and are further along. Even legacy autos constantly have significant recalls, and many cars have known problems.

If we want access to cutting-edge performance stuff, we must be realistic about the drawbacks of choosing that vehicle.

 

[Marchin_MTB]

There is probably also an inverse relationship between reliability and the rate of energy moving through the system as well as dynamic loads, which scale non linearly with mass. Which is to say that those things are related to the rate of component wear.

 

[R1Tom]

I am not sure what CR uses criteria for reliability but to me it is a simple definition.

Does the vehicle unlock, start, get me to me destination, and then get me home after. And can I count it to do so.

My Rivian has never stranded me....so it is 100% reliable.

 

[sacramentoelectric]

There is probably also an inverse relationship between reliability and the rate of energy moving through the system as well as dynamic loads, which scale non linearly with mass. Which is to say that those things are related to the rate of component wear.

Nothing that has broken on my R1T since delivery wasn't also present on my i3, X, or iX and none of the QC problems at delivery would have passed any other manufacturer. Well, maybe Tesla would have let them slide but that's a really low bar. Maybe there are edge cases where your theory holds but a simpler explanation is that Rivian is new at making cars and just aren't very good at it yet. Sure, the more complicated the vehicle is, the more things there are to break. I'm not disagreeing with you there. But EVs have fewer parts than ICE vehicles and EVs aren't exactly new. My i3 is from 2014 and has had less problems over its life than my Rivian had within a month of ownership. I'm just one data point but my experience isn't unique. Rivians aren't Ferraris, they're fancy EV Jeeps and that's the comparison we should be making. Surely it's not too much to expect a Rivian to be as reliable as a Stellantis vehicle and as easy to get serviced.

The "truth" about Rivian reliability is that they aren't. It's not because they're inherently complicated. It's because they're made by a new manufacturer who isn't great at making reliable vehicles. I would expect a new R1 to be more reliable than one of the first off the line. If they aren't, were going to get stuck in a vicious cycle of expensive and frequent post warranty repairs crushing resale values which will then make new leases really expensive which will ultimately depress sales leading to you know what.

I sure hope the R2 has less growing pains than the R1 but it probably won't. Early Model 3s were awful. Unless a miracle happens, things will get worse for service availability when the R2 launches before or if they get better. I preordered one for my wife but there's no way she'd put up with the problems I've had with my R1. I'll probably hold off a year or two to see how things settle out. It will be interesting to see if the reliability ratings go up over the next year and a half as more people have recent R1s. That should be a pretty good indicator as to how things are going to go with the R2 and if we're going to be stuck in a Land Rover situation with lovely vehicles that you'd be crazy to own out of the warranty period.

 

[jwanderson88]

When my Rivian died because of a 12-volt battery failure, it was a real eye-opener. It was electrically inert. You couldn't open the doors or put it in neutral. They had to drag it onto a tow truck with the rear wheels locked and dragging. In my opinion, having experienced it myself, that shouldn't ever happen ever to any EV. It was one event, but it was so bad that it made all other assessments mostly irrelevant. And it happened without any warning. That is why I agree with CR's results.

 

[ThirteenElectrics]

I don’t expect Rivian to be first in reliability. I do expect it not to be dead last after working on these cars for at least seven years and charging a premium price. EVs are actually simpler than ICEs. Look at the great job the Korean manufacturers have done with their first EVs. Volvo as well. Any manufacturer which makes quality ICEs generally make quality EVs.

I also expect service center wait times which aren’t ridiculous, and real loaners.

Your post reads like stockholder fan fiction and you really should disclose how much you own, in the name of transparency. I don’t have any position in Rivian and so I can tell it like it is, without bias.

The truth is that Rivian cars are not reliable, but because they are somewhat niche, they have high satisfaction, like a lot of unreliable cars from other manufacturers, like Range Rover and Jeep. If you want your car to be your hobby, buy a Rivian. If you have other uses for your time, wait for something else.

 

[MikeWilliams_R1T]

I’ve had 3 critical failures in the first 7 months of ownership of a brand new R1T. 2 were bad enough the car could not be driven to the SC.

All 3 were attributed to defects that made it out of the factory. The latest was the knuckle bolt / bearing failure. A dab of loctite on the knuckle bolt when it was assembled would have probably prevented it.

I’m critical because I *have* been stranded by my vehicle too many times for being such a new owner. I get the low reliability score.

With that, I want Rivian to succeed! I own stock and I love my truck. It’s the funnest vehicle I’ve ever owned. I’m willing to give it a little longer before I give up and sell/trade it in. Maybe I’ve worked out the remaining gremlins.

My point is this: Rivian is competing with legacy OEMs at this point that have much better service options. Comparing it to a Maclaran shop queen is not going to cut it. With the GM and Ford EV truck options being competitive we are past that.

They need to invest in and improve their quality control and service infrastructure if they want to improve reliability and keep their raving fans.

if they keep the perception of worst reliabilityit will kill the company.

Even just having a proper pre-delivery inspection could help. Dumb things like misaligned door panels and other fit and finish issue no doubt are adding to the service center backlog.

They need to do better while they still can.

 

[River Ghost]

I spend a lot of time in very remote places. I feel much more confident when I get back to my R1S that it is going to get me back where there are other people and help if I need it. At my age my life depends on this. This is true of just about any EV. There are very few moving parts to fail. Younger people I met in a remote place mentioned their battery failed and they needed to find someone to jump their car on a recent trip. There are no U-bolts, spark plugs, fuel injectors, radiators, pistons, rings, hoses, belts or many other things that can fail and leave one stranded.

That is not to say I have not had a problem. My 12 volt system failed because of a squirrel. Another squirrel attacked my neighbors ICE car. Neither was the fault of Rivian or Ford.

Is a panel gap a reliability issue? I would say no. It may be a quality issue although it seems like Rivian owners are a bit more picky than the average car owner. With the cost of the vehicle that may be justified. So maybe it is a measure of how picky the owners are.

 

[usulio]

There is a strong inverse correlation between a machine's complexity and reliability. The simpler a machine, the less likely it will experience a malfunction, everything else being equal. Rivian is at the cutting edge of vehicle design. I have a 7k-pound SUV that accelerates to 60 in 2.9 seconds and runs an almost 10-second quarter mile. Who else is getting that kind of performance out of ANY vehicle, let alone such an atypical sized and weight vehicle? You can count the cars in the same class on one hand.

Rivian scores a bunch of own goals that are unrelated to innovation in performance. Lots of unnecessary complexity. Combine that with poorly designed failure modes (e.g. difficulty of putting a dead vehicle into neutral), making small things hard to repair by yourself or third parties, and service center backlogs and you have lots of preventable problems. Now as a whole, I would expect any new company to make some mistakes, and Rivian has done great overall, but it doesn't mean its mistakes aren't mistakes.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Nothing that has broken on my R1T since delivery wasn't also present on my i3, X, or iX and none of the QC problems at delivery would have passed any other manufacturer. Well, maybe Tesla would have let them slide but that's a really low bar. Maybe there are edge cases where your theory holds but a simpler explanation is that Rivian is new at making cars and just aren't very good at it yet. Sure, the more complicated the vehicle is, the more things there are to break. I'm not disagreeing with you there. But EVs have fewer parts than ICE vehicles and EVs aren't exactly new. My i3 is from 2014 and has had less problems over its life than my Rivian had within a month of ownership. I'm just one data point but my experience isn't unique. Rivians aren't Ferraris, they're fancy EV Jeeps and that's the comparison we should be making. Surely it's not too much to expect a Rivian to be as reliable as a Stellantis vehicle and as easy to get serviced.

The "truth" about Rivian reliability is that they aren't. It's not because they're inherently complicated. It's because they're made by a new manufacturer who isn't great at making reliable vehicles. I would expect a new R1 to be more reliable than one of the first off the line. If they aren't, were going to get stuck in a vicious cycle of expensive and frequent post warranty repairs crushing resale values which will then make new leases really expensive which will ultimately depress sales leading to you know what.

I sure hope the R2 has less growing pains than the R1 but it probably won't. Early Model 3s were awful. Unless a miracle happens, things will get worse for service availability when the R2 launches before or if they get better. I preordered one for my wife but there's no way she'd put up with the problems I've had with my R1. I'll probably hold off a year or two to see how things settle out. It will be interesting to see if the reliability ratings go up over the next year and a half as more people have recent R1s. That should be a pretty good indicator as to how things are going to go with the R2 and if we're going to be stuck in a Land Rover situation with lovely vehicles that you'd be crazy to own out of the warranty period.

Your i3 was signifcantly less complicated than your Rivian. It was not capable of the sort of acceleration and torque figures, the size and cargo carrying capacity or the off-roading prowess. Did I miss the i3 running low 11's in the 1/4 or crossing the Rubicon trail with only some sliders and a winch added? The only other company in the same league with performance is Tesla, and as you said their reliability also isn't great.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

Rivian scores a bunch of own goals that are unrelated to innovation in performance. Lots of unnecessary complexity. Combine that with poorly designed failure modes (e.g. difficulty of putting a dead vehicle into neutral) and service center backlogs and you have lots of preventable problems. Now as a whole, I would expect any new company to make some mistakes, and Rivian has done great overall, but it doesn't mean its mistakes aren't mistakes.

Of course Rivian has made mistakes and they should correct those mistakes. When you're making something new you might not always know where the failure points are and you cannot fix them without retooling. So you hope there isn't anything too major, because each retool costs money. You seen Rivian do a retool from gen 1 to 2, and they reduced lots of complexity and made the cars cheaper to build which shows they ARE improving.

Sponsored