R1S XL?

[sevengroove]

They should make a regular sized crossover that is substantially smaller than the current R1S, maintain 2 rows, and have a lot of cargo space still. This would check all of the boxes of the majority, no?
Or is the 3rd row a "nice to have in case" feature for the striking majority?

I think the answer is yes to both those questions. My 2-row RX350 is about 192" (10" shorter than the R1S) and the cargo space just about suffices for me, my wife, and our dog on a week-long trip. A vehicle of that size would probably still suit the majority of folks, especially with the added bonus of frunk space.

That being said, the extra 10" of the R1S plus the added bonus of a third row to use on an as-needed basis gives folks in the "striking majority" some breathing room and flexibility.

Sponsored

 

[SlaterGS]

I think the answer is yes to both those questions. My 2-row RX350 is about 192" (10" shorter than the R1S) and the cargo space just about suffices for me, my wife, and our dog on a week-long trip. A vehicle of that size would probably still suit the majority of folks, especially with the added bonus of frunk space.

That being said, the extra 10" of the R1S plus the added bonus of a third row to use on an as-needed basis gives folks in the "striking majority" some breathing room and flexibility.

Interesting.
So you'd consider yourself in the "striking majority" as a family of 2 with a dog?

It would seem to me a vehicle the size of an R1S would be WAY overkill at that point considering we are a family of 6 and think the R1S (assuming they get 3rd row access right with car seats installed) may be just about perfect for a week long getaway for our family. This is of course assuming we have a destination like a hotel or friends house to stay at and aren't needing supplies for tenting/camping. If we planned to camp then we would tow the camper for the extra needs.

I would imagine an R1S that is the size of a Forrester but with the added space of a frunk would definitely make more sense for the striking majority. It would miss out on those that want the "nice to have in case" 3rd row but it would tick a lot more boxes without being excessive in size.

 

[sevengroove]

Interesting.
So you'd consider yourself in the "striking majority" as a family of 2 with a dog?

It would seem to me a vehicle the size of an R1S would be WAY overkill at that point considering we are a family of 6 and think the R1S (assuming they get 3rd row access right with car seats installed) may be just about perfect for a week long getaway for our family. This is of course assuming we have a destination like a hotel or friends house to stay at and aren't needing supplies for tenting/camping. If we planned to camp then we would tow the camper for the extra needs.

I would imagine an R1S that is the size of a Forrester but with the added space of a frunk would definitely make more sense for the striking majority. It would miss out on those that want the "nice to have in case" 3rd row but it would tick a lot more boxes without being excessive in size.

The doggo takes an entire row by herself, so we have to work around that ?.

I'm not saying I'm in the striking majority, but the point I'm making is that even for a family of 2 with a dog, if we're finding a 192" SUV between above average and adequate for our needs, then I can fully imagine a larger family with more feet and paws needing the space of a 202" 3-row R1S.

We can all make do with much less, of course, as I'm sure is the case especially in countries not in North America.

 

[SlaterGS]

The doggo takes an entire row by herself, so we have to work around that ?.

I'm not saying I'm in the striking majority, but the point I'm making is that even for a family of 2 with a dog, if we're finding a 192" SUV between above average and adequate for our needs, then I can fully imagine a larger family with more feet and paws needing the space of a 202" 3-row R1S.

We can all make do with much less, of course, as I'm sure is the case especially in countries not in North America.

I'm probably not a great measure of what the expectation from an American consumer is having spent much of my life abroad in developing countries, but I hear ya.

Loved my Land Cruiser Prado and that was about 187". We had no problems fitting a pile of people in there but then again, child car seats weren't a requirement

I do wonder why there aren't some more unique/creative methods for including a basic 3rd row like you see in other countries. My Prado had the 3rd row fold down from the sides. They may not be the most comfortable, but they still work in a pinch. Guessing this is a safety thing?

 

[sevengroove]

I'm probably not a great measure of what the expectation from an American consumer is having spent much of my life abroad in developing countries, but I hear ya.

Loved my Land Cruiser Prado and that was about 187". We had no problems fitting a pile of people in there but then again, child car seats weren't a requirement

I do wonder why there aren't some more unique/creative methods for including a basic 3rd row like you see in other countries. My Prado had the 3rd row fold down from the sides. They may not be the most comfortable, but they still work in a pinch. Guessing this is a safety thing?

I grew up in a modest family and have been that child in the bitch's bitch's bitch seat on a cousin's lap with 7 other kids in the back of a corolla. Anything with 4WD or an extra row of seating was considered a luxury. Times have changed for sure .

Back to your point about the majority, it touches upon one of the bigger challenges with EVs in general. They are just more expensive than their ICE counterparts, so even a hypothetical Forrester-sized R2S would cost around 60k and would be more than what most families would want to spend on a vehicle anyway.

 

[Babbuino]

 

[SlaterGS]

Can someone explain to me how to read these dimensions? I'm used to reading it in straight up inches or mm, but not sure what this is supposed to mean. TIA
Effective Leg Room - Third L51-3 mm 832

 

[crashmtb]

Can someone explain to me how to read these dimensions? I'm used to reading it in straight up inches or mm, but not sure what this is supposed to mean. TIA
Effective Leg Room - Third L51-3 mm 832

L51-EFFECTIVE SGRP LEG ROOM-SECOND—The dimension measured along a line from the Ankle Pivot Center to the SgRP-second plus 254 mm (10 in). The foot may be placed on the floor pan with the centerline of the leg segment up to 127 mm either side of the Y plane occupant centerline.

Like all standards, this one is incredibly dry. Probably an out of date version since it’s from 2001, but this is the first free copy dr. Google served up:

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/005/sae.j1100.2001.html

 

[Autolycus]

Can someone explain to me how to read these dimensions? I'm used to reading it in straight up inches or mm, but not sure what this is supposed to mean. TIA
Effective Leg Room - Third L51-3 mm 832

Read that line as:

Measurement description	SAE Measurement Code	Unit of Measurement	Measurement
Effective Leg Room - Third Row	L51-3	mm	832

So the Effective Leg Room for the Third Row, as measured according to the SAE standard L51-3, is 832mm.

 

[SlaterGS]

Read that line as:

Measurement description	SAE Measurement Code	Unit of Measurement	Measurement
Effective Leg Room - Third Row	L51-3	mm	832

So the Effective Leg Room for the Third Row, as measured according to the SAE standard L51-3, is 832mm.

Thank You!
For those who might be used to viewing these dimensions in inches, here is a comparison with the pre 2021 Tahoe (204") on a few dimensions (Edited with a few more to compare):

	R1S (202" L)	Tahoe (204" L)	Mercedes GLS (pre 2020-202" L)	BMW X7 (203.3" L)	Tesla MX
Effective Leg Room - Driver	41.4	45.3	40.3	39.8	41.2
Effective Leg Room - Second	36.7	39.0	38.5	37.6	38.4
Effective Leg Room - Third	32.8	24.8	35	33.3	NA
Shoulder Room - Driver	60.6	64.8	58.5	60	60.7
Shoulder Room - Second	58.9	65.1	58.3	58.1	56.8
Shoulder Room - Third	51.1	62.6	50.5	47.9	NA
Hip Room - Driver	54.9	60.8	NA	NA	55.6
Hip Room - Second	54.2	60.3	NA	NA	59
Hip Room - Third	42.8	49.3	NA	NA	NA
Head Room - Driver	41.1	42.8	41.2	41.9	41.7
Head Room - Second	39.7	38.7	40	39.9	40.9
Head Room - Third	38.6	38.1	38.9	36.6	NA

No idea what standard the Tahoe is measured at so these are likely not apples to apples, but it helps me to get an idea. As with everything else, I think it will be important to to reserve judgement until you actually get to sit in it.

 

[Tall_Rider]

I'm not sure why so many on this forum seem to think there's no market for an XL R1S. I live in an upper middle class Northeast suburb, and my town along with all of the neighboring towns are littered with Suburbans, 2021 Tahoes, Expeditions, etc. This is a sizable and lucrative market, not the hardcore (or poseur hardcore) off-roader.

 

[SANZC02]

I'm not sure why so many on this forum seem to think there's no market for an XL R1S. I live in an upper middle class Northeast suburb, and my town along with all of the neighboring towns are littered with Suburbans, 2021 Tahoes, Expeditions, etc. This is a sizable and lucrative market, not the hardcore (or poseur hardcore) off-roader.

Not sure anyone is saying there is no market for the vehicle. I think what they are saying is that is not the vehicle Rivian is making right now.

You can't boil the ocean, you have to start somewhere, the midsize Truck and SUV seems like the sweet spot, especially for the targeted use that Rivian is going after.

Some of the other players (GM and Ford) are starting with the full-size pickups where they feel is a good the most lucrative for them to start with.

I'm sure in the near future someone will be building the full-size/oversize SUVs as well.

I would certainly look at a Tahoe if GM made an EV version of that.

 

[SlaterGS]

Not sure anyone is saying there is no market for the vehicle. I think what they are saying is that is not the vehicle Rivian is making right now.

You can't boil the ocean, you have to start somewhere, the midsize Truck and SUV seems like the sweet spot, especially for the targeted use that Rivian is going after.

Some of the other players (GM and Ford) are starting with the full-size pickups where they feel is a good the most lucrative for them to start with.

I'm sure in the near future someone will be building the full-size/oversize SUVs as well.

I would certainly look at a Tahoe if GM made an EV version of that.

Obviously an R1S XL is not the vehicle they are making right now and probably for good reason.
I think his statement of "why so many" vs your statement of "not sure anyone is saying" is a bit more accurate as there ARE plenty on this forum that have been saying that it is a dying market that has no money in it.
However I would say your are along the right lines with your general assessment and most people around here do not typically straight up discount something like that.

Side note: It was interesting as I was going through many of the vehicles I had originally on my ICE comparison list, that many of them have been changed in the last 1-2 years to actually be larger than they previously were.
What does that mean? I don't know exactly, but if most of the major manufacturers of 3 row vehicles have bumped their dimensions up by 4 to 8" in the past 2 years it doesn't seem like the market is dying as some seem to keep saying.

 

[SANZC02]

Obviously an R1S XL is not the vehicle they are making right now and probably for good reason.
I think his statement of "why so many" vs your statement of "not sure anyone is saying" is a bit more accurate as there ARE plenty on this forum that have been saying that it is a dying market that has no money in it.
However I would say your are along the right lines with your general assessment and most people around here do not typically straight up discount something like that.

Side note: It was interesting as I was going through many of the vehicles I had originally on my ICE comparison list, that many of them have been changed in the last 1-2 years to actually be larger than they previously were.
What does that mean? I don't know exactly, but if most of the major manufacturers of 3 row vehicles have bumped their dimensions up by 4 to 8" in the past 2 years it doesn't seem like the market is dying as some seem to keep saying.

I think the problem with a lot of comments on the forum is they are egocentric.... maybe not just the forum.....

Over time, I think everyone will be able to get something that fits their use case.

 

[Tall_Rider]

I think the problem with a lot of comments on the forum is they are egocentric.... maybe not just the forum.....

Over time, I think everyone will be able to get something that fits their use case.

There are definitely quite a few egocentric / ideology based comments (big = bad). There's no doubt in my mind that eventually someone is going to make a large 3-row SUV. Once Ford and GM start rolling out their full-size EV pickups, a spinoff into Tahoe / Suburban / Expedition will be easy.

As it stands, the Rivian's interior dimensions are looking too small for my active family of 4 and dog. Given that virtually all of my friends / kids' friends families drive either a minivan or large three-row SUV, I'd say it's not just my unique needs. Rivian passing up the lucrative upper-middle-class suburban market is silly, especially given that the R1T is already being built on a stretch platform.

Actually, I think Rivian also made a mistake going to 202". Internationally, and especially in Europe, the "5 meter car" is kind of the standard for what a "large" car should be to fit their streets and parking lots. That's 197", and makes for a decent 2-row SUV. It would have made more sense to create a 5 meter R1S for international markets and a stretch XL version for the US on the R1T's wheelbase.

Sponsored