R1S Production Speed

[Perry24r]

I know there are many here that have a lot of knowledge on manufacturing/ramps/etc.

Question I have is - when they start real R1S production and delivery, shouldn't it be much faster than the T?
In my mind, being that they are the same line and same parts they could theoretically switch to primarily making R1S and they'd be flying off the line. How wrong is that thought?

All this to say, I don't understand why everyone is pushed back so far, because there are less Ss reserved and they should be spitting them out much faster. Are they being safe/conservative?

Sponsored

 

[electruck]

You seem to be overlooking supply chain constraints which appears to be, by far, the limiting factor at the moment.

 

[Perry24r]

You seem to be overlooking supply chain constraints which appears to be, by far, the limiting factor at the moment.

Not really. I'm saying we all see they are ramping. What my lack of knowledge wants to understand is why they can't hypothetically go "OK, we are producing 2000 R1T a month and have an abundance of them, let's switch to 1500 S and 500 T"

 

[Zoidz]

Not really. I'm saying we all see they are ramping. What my lack of knowledge wants to understand is why they can't hypothetically go "OK, we are producing 2000 R1T a month and have an abundance of them, let's switch to 1500 S and 500 T"

On the ideal, fully debugged, proven in, optimized and completely staffed/trained JIT (Just In Time) production line, this could in theory be done. Other manufacturers do it, and it's certainly where Rivian wants to be. But they are almost certainly not there yet, and won't be for a while. Evidence - the fact that they are batching vehicles right now to optimize production tells us alot. They are not optimized for production line flexibility yet. It sounds simple but it's a huge task. The devil is in the details.

 

[AdamsFan1983]

Not really. I'm saying we all see they are ramping. What my lack of knowledge wants to understand is why they can't hypothetically go "OK, we are producing 2000 R1T a month and have an abundance of them, let's switch to 1500 S and 500 T"

Liability for one. Diving in head first on a brand new product is not a small risk. ...and Rivian has time and again, demonstrated that they are institutionally risk averse.

 

[electruck]

Simply shifting the product split is of minimal benefit to Rivian and would just lead to problems with their suppliers. What Rivian is ultimately looking to accomplish as they ramp the R1S is additive production so that they are continuing to deliver more and more vehicles to drive increased revenue. Reducing the quantity of R1T delivered to focus on delivering more R1S introduces supply chain variability. For example, they have agreements with the suppliers of the tonneau cover panels and drive motor to deliver a certain volume of parts. Those suppliers depend on having a predictable and stable demand for those parts. If Rivian suddenly says they only need 1/4 the quantity for the next several quarters because those parts aren't used in the R1S build, it puts the supplier in bind. Steady, predictable production rates are key to managing supply chain. And Rivian's production rate and ramp have to be carefully coordinated with their suppliers.

 

[RBR1S]

"OK, we are producing 2000 R1T a month and have an abundance of them, let's switch to 1500 S and 500 T"

Think of it this way. If you have a target goal of net zero backlog by EoY 2023 and in theory, you can produce 50k each calendar year (realistically 25k this year and IF constraints are gone, 75k in 2023), then you look at where your order backlog is at. Currently about 90k vehicles if you have no cancels, but let's round it to 100k so that we match that 100k production rate.

Do you suddenly shift to making mostly the R1S which has a backlog of only 25k and burn through that in a few months leaving R1T buyers out to dry --- or do you churn through both at roughly the same rate, say 3k R1T per month and 1k R1S so that in 24 months you have zero backlog and can then produce on demand?

I see it as supply and demand. Plus they have to go through the same bug cycle with R1S that they went through with R1T, make a few, check issues, slowly ramp up. Simple manufacturing rules.

 

[Perry24r]

Simply shifting the product split is of minimal benefit to Rivian and would just lead to problems with their suppliers. What Rivian is ultimately looking to accomplish as they ramp the R1S is additive production so that they are continuing to deliver more and more vehicles to drive increased revenue. Reducing the quantity of R1T delivered to focus on delivering more R1S introduces supply chain variability. For example, they have agreements with the suppliers of the tonneau cover panels and drive motor to deliver a certain volume of parts. Those suppliers depend on having a predictable and stable demand for those parts. If Rivian suddenly says they only need 1/4 the quantity for the next several quarters because those parts aren't used in the R1S build, it puts the supplier in bind. Steady, predictable production rates are key to managing supply chain. And Rivian's production rate and ramp have to be carefully coordinated with their suppliers.

Thank you! This is the stuff these forums are actually good for. I am a data systems analyst, so understanding the complexities in producing a 2nd vehicle as a new company is, well, new.

 

[mkg3]

I believe you are partially correct. There are much more though...

Question I have is - when they start real R1S production and delivery, shouldn't it be much faster than the T?

If you look at the rate of "S" ramp up, there are significant lessons learned from "T" to S and results in production of common build to be much faster rate than T, at the same point in the production life cycle.

The rub is that S and T are common to probably 60%. I know it just looks like the same vehicle, except there is an extended roof and another row of seats. It is that sort of and is not. You know the cliche... the devil is in the details.

From assembly and build stand point, the 40% difference is all new and a steep learning curve to keep up with the rest of the production.

The other unknown is the pace of S parts from the suppliers. While the sources may be the same (most likely), they still have to produce them and get them to Rivian.

So your right that the time Rivian will take to get S up to the similar production rate is T will be significantly shorter, but it doesn't mean that they are there now.

 

[Batman]

What is the updated new window for the 1st batch of R1S deliveries? (Not including employees)

 

[Taycanfrank]

What is the updated new window for the 1st batch of R1S deliveries? (Not including employees)

August-September was the earliest window they sent. In Rivian speak that means hopefully a few dozen customer deliveries before the end of the year.

 

[skyote]

It's safe to assume they can produce R1T faster than R1S at the moment. R1S production should ramp quicker due to the experience with R1T & shared components, but R1S will have its own intricacies.

Since R1S & R1T are on the same production line, I wouldn't want Rivian to significantly slow overall production due to R1S slowing the entire line. Of course, supply constraints might be limiting production anyway, so it might not be a huge issue.

I have an August-September R1S ETA, and recently prodded to see if I was in a production queue...doesn't seem so, and no additional details were available on actual ETA.

Sponsored