Search results

I've used them to pull out a friend already, hopefully not to costly to upgrade. It has always looked chubby, it's the one detail I don't like about the design.

The stadium lights aren't going away, may have been about the signal or maybe even aerodynamic efficiencies.

At some point the aftermarket will come up with a removable roof or camp top replacement for the glass roof. I am somewhat surprised it hasn't happened yet, after all it is an adventure vehicle.

My guess is the smaller Ascent motors could be used in the R2/3.

Ok, not one image of a headlight change from stadium lights. It looks like just a change to the light bar to me, what am I missing? Signal light below the light bar?

As others have mentioned the R1T would be better suited even though you may be within limits with the R1S. It sounds like the refreshed version has lost some weight which may give you some additional payload, that is if the reduced weight applies to the larger battery packs.

Yes the reduced weight will certainly make a difference especially under acceleration & with climbing efficiency. It is however well documented that aerodynamics is more important than weight when it comes to efficiency. Airstream, Lightship, Pebble, Bowlus, Earhbound, Evergreen Element to name...

It would probably get another .1-.2m/kwh if it had rounded edges. I've seen reports of rounded edge flat front cargo trailers being more efficient than square edged V-nose cargo trailers.

The R1S tows like a champ, maybe do a test run with a long trailer. I accidentally went way over on weight (dump trailer) & no ill effects, length may be a different story.

Having three wheel sizes was a complete waste of production efficiency especially considering the goofy wheel size. The 21" was a poor business decision.

The overall reviews of the CT compared to the R1T tend to favour the Rivian. It seems that the more people that test the CT the more they like the Rivian. I am curious to see these numbers in a year or two.

Nope! I hate the huge (full size) tail lights on the Ranger. It has less performance, less ground clearance, far less towing ability, higher operating cost, more fail points, far less storage. No thanks

The R1T was likely closer to the CT # closer to its introduction. Rivian need's a lower price point model. I wonder what the Tacoma sales # are compared to an ICE F150. This would likely be a similar comparison. 600 units does sound somewhat low however.

The EV9 is more of a station wagon/CUV & the R1S is actually an SUV which explains the price disparity. What sold me on the R1 line is the versatility & I absolutely love the frunk . My R1S pro's: -Driving economy vs ICE @ $2L -Towing capabilities -Off Road/Winter driving capabilities...

I still hate the cyberdiaper & it takes away from the departure angle.

Rivian should have ditched the 21" wheel idea for simplicity & production efficiency. i just don't see the benefit of It over the 20 with 275/60 AS or 22.

Will be checking that out, hard to believe 67miles out of 7kwh(70% of 10kwh) . 149kwh vs 135kwh, it was never 185 initial claim was 180I can't believe how many media outlets are still getting it wrong.

I received the email yesterday 58xx but in Canada. Still don't understand why they are giving them away, missed opportunity for a profit.

That is Interesting I am an early Ca reservation holder (reserved both) & the gap is 15K between the cheapest QM & MP in shop both with PTC & 21". I purchased a R1S since the MP was not available when my original truck died. Still 10k upgrade to MP on 533hp model so it appears the MP deal does...

So more range, power, & charging speed with 4WS in a lighter truck at more affordable price & turn a profit at the same time?