Quad Motor Rivian R1 with NACS Gen 2 Teaser (MKBHD)

[narmstrong79]

Why does there always have to be someone who attributes negativity to the motivation of someone just because they spent money? I'm not going to buy a quad, but that doesn't mean those who do have "a void in their ego". Firstly, costs are relative, and 120K means more to some people than others. Second, people are allowed to like things you don't.

That's a dick attitude to take, and just because someone spends money on something you don't see the value in it doesn't make them lacking in some way. This post reeks of sour grapes. Grow up.

It's actually couple sperate points i made, But i can see how you lump them together based on how i presented them.

The First point. was a reply to the cost of the staggered tires, Saying that if you're buying a car of this price, the cost of tires isn't going to deter your decision.

The second point is that there's no need for general public to have access to cars with this much power, there is no real world practical use case for this much power, except to flex, this is true for all cars... Maybe on Taycan and Corvette ZR1 because those are sports car that you might actually take to the track, but even still crazy.

and my last point was Rivian has too many options, no need for both a Tri and a Quad streamline that portfolio.

Spend your money however you want! These cars in this price range are only accessible to a small portion of the public.

Sponsored

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

Well the real issue is most people can't fit a CCS connector up their bums.

The uncomfortable truth

 

[captainjp]

It's just a much more elegant design. The smaller port enables a few things

• it can be hidden it more inconspicuous places on vehicle designs
• it's easier to insert (even if it's on an AWFUL heavy EA cable, the smaller port sill makes for easier insertion)
• the stupid cover flap for DC charging pins is gone
• electronic latch built in for both AC and DC charging

The cable/connector is far less cumbersome as well.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

It's actually couple sperate points i made, But i can see how you lump them together based on how i presented them.

The First point. was a reply to the cost of the staggered tires, Saying that if you're buying a car of this price, the cost of tires isn't going to deter your decision.

The second point is that there's no need for general public to have access to cars with this much power, there is no real world practical use case for this much power, except to flex, this is true for all cars... Maybe on Taycan and Corvette ZR1 because those are sports car that you might actually take to the track, but even still crazy.

and my last point was Rivian has too many options, no need for both a Tri and a Quad streamline that portfolio.

Spend your money however you want! These cars in this price range are only accessible to a small portion of the public.

Although I can afford the quad, the staggered tires were one of the primary reasons I decided against it. I already run through tires too quickly and having to replace them 2-3 times a year at 3K a set is a big recurring expense. Couple that with the R1S being our family's road trip vehicle and the reduced range of the quad got me to trade my Gen 1 in for the Tri.


To the second point, we would have to define what a real-world use would be of the power. I agree that past a certain point, power no longer has any utility. I disagree that the only use is a flex, though. I don't need to use the acceleration of my Tri motor to navigate traffic safely, but I like doing so when conditions allow. I like the fact that the R1S doesn't look incredibly quick, but is incredibly quick. I look like a soccer mom driving around in my suburban cruiser, but I can smoke pretty much everything else on the road. So fun is a use that is entirely separate from ego stroking.

I don't think you're flexing on anyone buying a Rivian, except maybe other Rivian owners. These cars originated in the 1970s, and most people are unfamiliar with the Rivian brand, let alone its various trim levels. That's one of the things I like about my Rivian; to the general public I look like Soccer Mom Suzie in the family truckster. The reality is I have a car that has a sub 3 second 0-60.

The one thing I do agree with is that vehicles in this price range are only accessible to a small portion of the public. Those who can afford one are fortunate to be in that position, or foolish to extend themselves that far for something that offers only marginal additional utility compared to lower-cost options. I'd say that holds for ALL Rivian buyers. Even at 70K, you aren't Joe Everyman when the median HOUSEHOLD income in this country is something like 65 K.

That's why I don't like attributing "flexing" to people's motivation automatically. Whether or not something appears to be a flex depends on your own individual perspective. There are people who spend money just to rub in the fact that they have money to others. I won't dispute that fact, but simply spending the money doesn't automatically put people in that category.

 

[2kwik4u]

It's just a much more elegant design. The smaller port enables a few things

• it can be hidden it more inconspicuous places on vehicle designs
• it's easier to insert (even if it's on an AWFUL heavy EA cable, the smaller port sill makes for easier insertion)
• the stupid cover flap for DC charging pins is gone
• electronic latch built in for both AC and DC charging

1 - maybe, why does this matter? We haven't hidden gas flaps since the 60's.
2 - subjective at best
3 - meh, again why does it matter?
4 - Rivian already has this with the CCS, I don't see a change here.

What else ya got to work towards "far superior"? I'm all ears.

 

[mpshizzle]

1 - maybe, why does this matter? We haven't hidden gas flaps since the 60's.
2 - subjective at best
3 - meh, again why does it matter?
4 - Rivian already has this with the CCS, I don't see a change here.

What else ya got to work towards "far superior"? I'm all ears.

Sounds like your mind is made up, so better buy up CCS equipped cars while they're still around!

In my mind NACS is a more elegant engineering solution. It is better than CCS for sure. BUT - it's also not a big enough difference for me to buy a vehicle purely based on that. The reality is that no matter which port you have, you WILL have to use adapters for the next 10 or so years until everything is transitioned

 

[2kwik4u]

Sounds like your mind is made up, so better buy up CCS equipped cars while they're still around!

In my mind NACS is a more elegant engineering solution. It is better than CCS for sure. BUT - it's also not a big enough difference for me to buy a vehicle purely based on that. The reality is that no matter which port you have, you WILL have to use adapters for the next 10 or so years until everything is transitioned

Mind isn't made up. I'm looking for reasons to think one is better than the other. I really give zero craps what connector is on the vehicle. Lots of people make a really big fuss over moving to NACS over CCS, and I just don't get it. So I'm trying to learn something. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, or there is a use case that doesn't apply to me so I haven't seen it.

Much to your point, we'll be using adapters for the foreseeable future anyway, so I just don't see any reason to get excited about it.

 

[ja_kub_sz]

I'd like some upgraded interior materials, seats and steering wheel if I could get anything different in the Quad.

Would probably trade mine for one if Rivian offered that.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

NACS is easier and more intuitive the first time. But with familiarity and the muscle memory one gains, CCS1 isn’t exactly brain surgery. Ok, someone with physical challenges might still struggle a bit more with the bulkier CCS1 plug and cable, but still not as hard the 10th time as the very first.

All this moot arguing… the facts remain the same. The US market is moving towards NACS whether you hate or love it. Feelings don’t matter. It will and is happening slowly—even slower than predicted due to regressive politics. And while that conversion/transition is taking place over several years, one will have to live with adapters either way if they want access to all DCFC opportunities. So strange, this attachment to an inanimate object. Electrical outlet fetish?? Bad for your health.

Guess what would be a more meaningful development for everyone's charging experience? Longer cables at V3 Supercharger sites. This way Superchargers are better utilized, and take strain off of other networks that have too much demand and too few dispensers.

 

[Dark-Fx]

In my mind NACS is a more elegant engineering solution.

Engineering isn't supposed to be elegant when you are trying to combine the general public and lethal voltages.

 

[tps5352]

And now you will need 2 adapters ... one for J1772 (AC charging) and one for CCS (DCFC).

With continued focus on profitability, I doubt there will be any more free adapters.

...Having the plug partly self align for you on plug in is much nicer...

It’ll suck slightly in the short run...

How is NACS " far superior" as compared to CCS?

It's just a much more elegant design. The smaller port enables a few things

• it can be hidden it more inconspicuous places on vehicle designs
• it's easier to insert (even if it's on an AWFUL heavy EA cable, the smaller port sill makes for easier insertion)
• the stupid cover flap for DC charging pins is gone
• electronic latch built in for both AC and DC charging

The cable/connector is far less cumbersome as well.

Interesting and informative conversation/debate.

I tried to foresee (for people new to EVs, Rivian, or the issue) what might be in store here:

• The Possible Future of Charging Adapters?, . . . plus
• The New Rivian NACS Port--Where Should It Be Located?

The issue of whether the J3400 charging standard is better/worse than CCS1 is to all intents and purposes moot, since it is a done deal for Rivian and pretty much every other North American EV (in the future). However, I am annoyed to see that Rivian has apparently continued to place the charge port for the new Quad Max in the front-left location, rather than using the opportunity (of a new/refreshed R1 with new charge port) to make things more convenient for those using Superchargers.

I was informed earlier this year that EVSE Adapters once again is offering a heavy-duty NACS-to-NACS Supercharger extension cable (unfortunately, currently sold out, but hopefully will be available again--EVSE will contact prospective customers if they provide an email address)*. And I believe that A2Z is planning to offer one, also. Something like that may be convenient for R1 owners planning to use Superchargers (and wishing to avoid parking stall conflicts at busy SC locations).
_____
* EVSE also offer various other lengths of NACS-to-NACS extension cables (for Level 2 charging), but only the 15-foot model is rated to also handle charging at a (Level 3) Supercharger, I believe. If you do purchase an extension cable, be sure to get one rated for Supercharger power levels.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

Interesting and informative conversation/debate.

I tried to foresee (for people new to EVs, Rivian, or the issue) what might be in store here:

• The Possible Future of Charging Adapters?, . . . plus
• The New Rivian NACS Port--Where Should It Be Located?

The issue of whether the J3400 charging standard is better/worse than CCS1 is to all intents and purposes moot, since it is a done deal for Rivian and pretty much every other North American EV (in the future). However, I am annoyed to see that Rivian has apparently continued to place the charge port for the new Quad Max in the front-left location, rather than using the opportunity (of a new/refreshed R1 with new charge port) to make things more convenient for those using Superchargers.

I was informed earlier this year that EVSE Adapters once again is offering a heavy-duty NACS-to-NACS Supercharger extension cable (unfortunately, currently sold out, but hopefully will be available again--EVSE will contact prospective customers if they provide an email address)*. And I believe that A2Z is planning to offer one, also. Something like that may be convenient for R1 owners planning to use Superchargers (and wishing to avoid parking stall conflicts at busy SC locations).
_____
* EVSE also offer various other lengths of NACS-to-NACS extension cables (for Level 2 charging), but only the 15-foot model is rated to also handle charging at a (Level 3) Supercharger, I believe. If you do purchase and extension cable, be sure to get one rated for Supercharger power levels.

IMO Supercharger extension cables are not cost effective nor user-friendly. They're bulky, as shown in State Of Charge's video on A2Z's prototype. They're not cheap and they're obsolete once Tesla gets around to upgrading their sites. With these negatives, I'll take my chances pissing off that less than 1% of Tesla owners.

 

[Dark-Fx]

They're not cheap and they're obsolete once Tesla gets around to upgrading their sites

I was arguing in Tesla's favor here in the past (you don't need an extension because Tesla has a path forward), but their movement on upgrading existing sites has been slower than even I expected.

 

[theonetruestripes]

The issue of whether the J3400 charging standard is better/worse than CCS1 is to all intents and purposes moot, since it is a done deal for Rivian and pretty much every other North American EV (in the future).

100% agreed (I also think NACS is as a physical standard slightly better in the long run).

However, I am annoyed to see that Rivian has apparently continued to place the charge port for the new Quad Max in the front-left location, rather than using the opportunity (of a new/refreshed R1 with new charge port) to make things more convenient for those using Superchargers.

100% disagree! (One of us has gone from totally reasonable to unreasonable in the space of one sentence!)

Front is far better for towing then rear. Left is better when in a dedicated charging area, and right is better for charging at a street parking area.

Front is far easier to block a minimal number of EV charge spots by letting you pull in on the last EV charger of a row (my preferred way to charge at a not-charger friendly charge site) and block only one EV charger and maybe 3 or 4 EV chargers. Or once recently two EV chargers but NOT the entrance to the parking lot.

I mean I could park across 4 Tesla chargers to get me trailer in if I had a rear charge port. I have done that, but really only at a almost entirely empty charge location... I did that with my model Y while hauling 2 freezers stacked on a utility trailer. I much preferred to just block the one or two chargers in the R1S when towing my actually larger TT because I could pull in across a few non charger spaces and only one charger (or as stated above, once I had to block two chargers because the other choice was blocking the entrance to the parking lot!).

 

[2kwik4u]

I was arguing in Tesla's favor here in the past (you don't need an extension because Tesla has a path forward), but their movement on upgrading existing sites has been slower than even I expected.

Goofball in charge fired the staff at one point. Then almost immediately realized that was a bad idea. Most of the existing staff had moved along to other positions (as high performers with good resumes do), and they had to rebuild the teams. I'm guessing that slowed it down considerably.

https://glassalmanac.com/elon-musk-...eam-after-halting-development-by-firing-them/

Sponsored