When will R1S Quad be available for ordering???? Getting irritated with Rivian...

[bmedfo1]

@Donald Stanfield I appreciate the suggestion and I truly like the Tri but I just cant trade in my gen 1 quad for basically 50% of a gen 2 quad to get what I would estimate at a 25% all around improved truck knowing that the gen 2 quad is right around the corner and for another (hopefully 10-15k) we might get something all around 35% better even if the only improvement is one more motor.

@DayTripping is correct. After Driving my Gen 1 quad for a few years I now crave that rolercoaster acceleration even more than I ever did even with Ice cars that were just as fast as my rivian. I think the differnece is that with an AWD EV I can acauly use 800+ HP full throttle for at least a few seccond a few times ever time I drive without being a nuisance or drawing a bunch of attention. I want more! but the only real way to get that right now is:

• Cyberbeast - I actauly dont hate the looks other than that it is disproportionately long. I dont like that they skimped and did not give this the Plaid motors
• Modle X plaid - Minivan
• Lucid Gravity - Minivan
• Hummer EV - Maybe but between the wheels and the removable top its a nosiy ride
• Escalade IQ - Slow
• Range Rover EV - Not out yet
• yangwang u8 - Perfect but cant have it in the USA
• Mercedes G580E - Getting to close to $200k might also be slow
• Did I miss anything?
• Honorable mention - Lambo Urus SE PEHV - Over $200k but this is the only vehicle that would compel me to go back to ICE

Then there are a bunch of EV sedans but I dont want to sit that low daily

Sponsored

 

[DayTripping]

@DayTripping is correct. After Driving my Gen 1 quad for a few years I now crave that rolercoaster acceleration even more than I ever did even with Ice cars that were just as fast as my rivian. I think the differnece is that with an AWD EV I can acauly use 800+ HP full throttle for at least a few seccond a few times ever time I drive without being a nuisance or drawing a bunch of attention. I want more! but the only real way to get that right now is:

• Cyberbeast - I actauly dont hate the looks other than that it is disproportionately long. I dont like that they skimped and did not give this the Plaid motors
• Modle X plaid - Minivan
• Lucid Gravity - Minivan
• Hummer EV - Maybe but between the wheels and the removable top its a nosiy ride
• Escalade IQ - Slow
• Range Rover EV - Not out yet
• yangwang u8 - Perfect but cant have it in the USA
• Mercedes G580E - Getting to close to $200k might also be slow
• Did I miss anything?
• Honorable mention - Lambo Urus SE PEHV - Over $200k but this is the only vehicle that would compel me to go back to ICE

Then there are a bunch of EV sedans but I dont want to sit that low daily

Reading your comments, you are like my brother from another mother. I don't mind spending the money, I just want to get what matters for me. EVs allow you to use the performance on tap and do it discretely. I like to fly low and under the radar. The Rivian is ideal for that too, pretty innocuous.

I have to say, if Aston Martin made an EV SUV, I'd have to really take a look at it. A friend just bought the DBX 707 and GD that vehicle is gorgeous. We did a few runs and I'd beat him just a bit off the line and just barely keep him from passing up to about 100 and then we had to let off. He'd start to walk me down just before 100. It isn't artificially limited to 110 either.

The U8 looks interesting but I'd never take a chance on it in the US. If Hyundai or Genesis made it, I might.

I just looked at the Caddy's 0-60 time based on your comments and it is glacially slow for an EV at about 5 seconds. WTF? That would be a hard pass for me too.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

@Donald Stanfield I appreciate the suggestion and I truly like the Tri but I just cant trade in my gen 1 quad for basically 50% of a gen 2 quad to get what I would estimate at a 25% all around improved truck knowing that the gen 2 quad is right around the corner and for another (hopefully 10-15k) we might get something all around 35% better even if the only improvement is one more motor.

@DayTripping is correct. After Driving my Gen 1 quad for a few years I now crave that rolercoaster acceleration even more than I ever did even with Ice cars that were just as fast as my rivian. I think the differnece is that with an AWD EV I can acauly use 800+ HP full throttle for at least a few seccond a few times ever time I drive without being a nuisance or drawing a bunch of attention. I want more! but the only real way to get that right now is:

• Cyberbeast - I actauly dont hate the looks other than that it is disproportionately long. I dont like that they skimped and did not give this the Plaid motors
• Modle X plaid - Minivan
• Lucid Gravity - Minivan
• Hummer EV - Maybe but between the wheels and the removable top its a nosiy ride
• Escalade IQ - Slow
• Range Rover EV - Not out yet
• yangwang u8 - Perfect but cant have it in the USA
• Mercedes G580E - Getting to close to $200k might also be slow
• Did I miss anything?
• Honorable mention - Lambo Urus SE PEHV - Over $200k but this is the only vehicle that would compel me to go back to ICE

Then there are a bunch of EV sedans but I dont want to sit that low daily

That reasoning makes sense, but the quad is better in some areas and worse in range. That's how I justified it. So I would say the quad is 25% better as well because while it's better in speed it will be worse than your gen 1 in range from the numbers i've seen floating around, especially on the Michelin tires. I think your 25% improvement is a fair number but the tri and the quad are both only 25% better when you factor range in.

I use my R1 as my road trip car, so the extra bit of battery and increased efficiency of conserve mode were the primary improvements I was interested in. I get that if range isn't a concern for you that you'd arrive at your conclusion though. There's no right or wrong answer that applies to everyone as our priorities are slightly different.

Also as much as I'd hate to suggest an ICE have you looked at the DBX 707? That was on my list but I needed a bit more space.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I can't speak for @bmedfo1 but he seems similar to me in that the Tri isn't going to cut if you want significantly better acceleration than the G1 quad. While it might feel faster, the only place where it is what I'd call significantly faster (when measured) is 0-60.

You also must use launch mode. Most other speed ranges I tested (with the caveat I didn't go 90 mph and up) it was just a little quicker here or there or sometimes the same.

For me the 0-60 acceleration is good enough on a daily basis, and that it where is seems to have the most advantage over the G1 quad. Honestly, neither the Tri or G1 quad do much to excite me once you get over 60 mph. Neither is terrible, but they aren't satisfyingly quick either. YMMV.

That is where the quad might do it for me. It sounds like the Caddy is a big bust from performance perspective. They should have kept all the Hummer motors. A friend has the Hummer and it is impressive for how quick it is 0-60 for such a big vehicle. I love their name, Watts To Freedom mode (WTF!).

I get what you're saying in the first half of your post, but you lose me in the second half when you talk about the iQ and the Hummer. Neither of those two is even close to the Gen 1 quad performance so if you're coming from a pure power perspective I don't see how either of those two would factor into the equation at all.

I wouldn't know on the above 60 acceleration as I don't use mine for that very often. When I do, it's to pass on the freeway, and it's plenty fast for that.

 

[DayTripping]

The Caddy should have been quicker and gone with 3 motors from the Hummer, instead of the two. The Hummer is impressive 0-60 considering its size. Not as quick as the new quad should be, or even as fast as Gen 1 quad, but it still fun to launch.

Two motors in the Caddy isn't enough and with 3 it could have been a contender from a performance perspective.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

The caddy already gets terrible efficiency numbers. That’s probably why they kept 2 motors.

 

[bmedfo1]

The Caddy should have been quicker and gone with 3 motors from the Hummer, instead of the two. The Hummer is impressive 0-60 considering its size. Not as quick as the new quad should be, or even as fast as Gen 1 quad, but it still fun to launch.

Two motors in the Caddy isn't enough and with 3 it could have been a contender from a performance perspective.

Have you personally driven the Hummer suv 3x ? I am considering this as well and I trust your opinion. I know you said it was impressive but any other thoughts?

 

[DayTripping]

Have you personally driven the Hummer suv 3x ? I am considering this as well and I trust your opinion. I know you said it was impressive but any other thoughts?

Depends on your priorities but I like it. Not sure I'd own it but if I did I absolutely need to set up 80 amp charging. Efficiency is pretty bad but with the massive pack, it has decent range. My friend gets pretty close to 300 miles out of it.

The acceleration is good in the WTF mode, but that is like launch mode for the G2 Tri but without using it, it is significantly slower. If I had to guess, it is probably high 4 second range. For that reason alone, I'd personally disqualify.

The things that stood out when driving is while it is massive, it has a very tight turning circle and will turn much tighter than any current Rivian.

It is a fun vehicle but almost like a caricature to me. I think I'd enjoy it at first, but quickly tire of it. The Rivian is much more composed all around. When hard on the guess with the Hummer, its nose goes up and squats even more than a R1S. Its brakes are nowhere near those of the Rivian.

In person, I think the looks are pretty bad ass. It is an imposing vehicle. It is polarizing but not in such a bad way as the CT. It draws a lot of attention if you like that.

I do see why people like it, and my friend loves his. Its actually pretty good to road trip if you can find 350kW chargers. It is one of the faster charging EVs and with the massive pack, he has had good luck towing as well. It does have a lot of character but the mediocre braking, poor efficiency and lazy performance when not in WTF are hard stops for me.

I almost forgot. I like that it has some physical buttons, and not everything is on the touch screen. I like having manual vents. The interior is actually pretty nice. The sightlines out of it aren't as good as the Rivian but much better than the CT.

 

[bmedfo1]

I truly appreciate you taking the time to share. While I could read reviews and watch youtube all day it much better coming from someone with a Rivian and a similer Need for speed. I always rulled the Hummer out simply becase I liked the Rivian more, but ever since Rivian anounced the Gen 2 quad I have been itching to get something new. after driving the Cadi IQ I loved a lot of things about it. (Imposing size and look, 4 wheel steering, Steering wheel paddle to even further regen brake) But since the IQ was so slow I started thinking about the hummer again.

Im gald you brought up the WTF becase thats a great point I forgot. even unlike V mode in the IQ the Hummer is kind of limited power at all times unless launching and for me I relay enjoy the pulls from a bit higher speed more than the launch. I think the Hummer SUV 3x would also get under my skin knowing the Truck version got more power with the same motors but I guess the samller battery in the SUV might not be able to handle the current. Or maybe the shorter wheel base gets out of control if they let it rip any more.

I guess I just need to keep waiting for the Quad- I do hope that they give it some type of new name. I kind of feel like with all of the gen 1 quads out there the Gen 2 quad is not going to get the recognition as the Plaid, ZO6, TRX, Raptor, Turbo S, ect version of the R1 that it is.

I did see a set of the Gen 2 Quad 22' OEM balck wheel hit eBay temporarily this morning so maybe thats a good sign.

 

[DayTripping]

I think we have a similar approach. I have to say after driving the Tri, it honestly was a let down. I don't want to get my hopes up too high for the quad.

Honestly it irritates me that there is such a difference between the 3 modes for acceleration on the Tri. Launch mode is a world awayfor performance from AP when you launch. I hope the quad will narrow that gap. Sport on the Tri is pretty close to our G1 quads so to really get the extra performance of the Tri, you have to put it in launch mode and really send it.

Contrast that with a Plaid where no launch mode is needed to make it fly. I really hope the new quad will be more of that but I have an inkling it won't be. Looking at the 45-65 data I've seen, it really bothers me that it is a tenth slower than even the CT. It isn't in the same zipcode but might be in the same city. It isn't even on the same geographic region of the US with a X Plaid an isn't on the same continent with an S Plaid. So while it is an improvement over the G1 quad, that is setting the bar low.

I bought my G1 quad used as I had to buy something for tax purposes before the end of the year and no way I could have driven a Tri before I ordered and still get it delivered before the end of the year. I am not buying anything without a test drive. I would have seriously considered a quad if it was shipping. After driving the quad, I liked it, but new it wouldn't be quick enough (at least above 50-60) to keep me interested long-term.

I hate to say it but I may not get what I am looking for with the quad either. The 0-60 time is great, it is the acceleration above that concerns me. I'll put this in context. I purchased a refreshed Tesla Model S long range (aka MSLR). Sadly it never met its claimed 0-60 times by several tenths and it always felt almost like our quads when they launch in AP mode. If you drove a Model 3 performance (M3P), any gen, it was easily quicker to 60 but like most Teslas fell off above that for the Gen 1 M3P.

The MSLR launched very softly but about 50 mph really woke up and finished the quarter very solidly. It was actually pretty satisfying 60-130. I can easily replicate that but changing the drive mode on my Plaid and it still feels pretty good even if not as quick as the Plaid.

So even if I wasn't constantly pulling from 60-130, it gave me a good idea of what acceleration I'd want for my daily driver to be entertained long term. I can't find my last runs with it and don't have the car anymore, but it was in the low 7's if memory serves correctly. If I try and back into that stat with the G2 quad, I am somewhere in the 8's. I got there by taking the 1/4mile time (10.5@128) and subtracting the 0-60 time (2.5). So at a minimum were are in the 8's and that might need to be in launch mode to even get those if the Tri is any indication. So maybe real world the G1 quad is probably 8.2-8.3.

So if you want to get an idea of how the G2 quad will run, drive a current gen Model S long range in in Insane mode. It will definitely be quicker though at 60 mph than the G2 quad. My question is in the real world, how much slower will the G2 quad be?

So at this point I am sort of stuck which way to go and have almost resigned myself to just keeping my G1 quad and living with it as is. I was seriously considering selling my Plaid and G1 quad and consolidating with the G2 quad but I don't think it will give me what I am looking for. Maybe what I want isn't available yet. Maybe the G2 quad is quick enough for most. I am fine with its 0-60 time, heck, the G1 quad launched hard enough for me to enjoy daily. It is just the upper speed range where it needs the most help and I am not sure the G2 quad is going to get me there and the G2 Tri is really no better for me than my quad.

I didn't mean to write a book but maybe my logic will help others. I love my Rivian but it may not be what I replace my G1 with, if I do end up replacing it. Might just be better to keep the Plaid and my G1 and cover all my bets.

 

[bmedfo1]

I love the book and am waiting to see what the Gen 2 higher speed acceleration will be like.

• My biggest concern is that I go and trade in my Gen 1 quad for $50k and buy a $125k Gen 2 quad to find out that the tires and Launch mode gave them the 0-60 stat to push it as a huge performance upgrade even if it was not.
• I guess the HP numbers do tell part of the story because this can be directly derived from Amp X Volts = Watts and then watts converted to HP. (Big grain of salt here is this is Power into the motors.
• This did prove to be true for the Gen 1 quad. I cant remember the exact numbers but I did some pulls in service mode and recorded something like
• 1600amps X 400V = 600KW or about 805 HP. (all super rough) but made me happy to know it was in the right ball park.
• So the gen 2 quad should pull about 1,900 amps
• Unfortunately this is not quite like dynoing a car and motors can certainly have drastically different levels of efficiency.
• 0-60 is a BS measurement at this level. I am so sick of cars doing crazy $hit to either post a good stat or as a one time party trick. All these cars including Rivian with a complex setup to get into launch mode, Ice is even worse when they sit there at 3k to spool turbos and then anything worth talking about has more than enough power to break the wheels loose so now it’s the traction controls turn to compete. Then we get some number between 2-3 seconds and act like there is a big difference. This only worked for measuring a Rav 4 vs Accord
• While I do care about 0-60 a little I think its just as important what the car will do in whatever the fastest mode you can actually drive it in if you just floor it. (also forget this “with rollout” non sense that in a game of under 3 seconds makes a big difference.
• All reviews should include 0-60 then 60-100. The 60 – 100 tells me so much more about the power of the vehicle. This is where the plaid is fun and the Rivian starts to die off probably because of the carbon sleeved rotors on the plaid motor.
• What we do have is 0-60 and ¼ mile time for the gen 2 quad.
• If the gen 2 quad is 2.5 and the gen one was 3.0 you take into account doing a higher speed for a longer time in the ¼ mile (and 130MPH limit) and this almost makes me think the Gen 2 would hardley pull on the gen1 after 60
• The good new is that many Tri owners say the tri feels faster at higher speeds so this is subjective now but at least promising.

Maybe I just keep my Gen 1 quad, buy a used 2021 Modle S plaid for $50k, And a Ducati for $25k and call it a day, and stop speculating if Rivian or anyone else will ever make what I want LOL.

 

[DayTripping]

I love the book and am waiting to see what the Gen 2 higher speed acceleration will be like.

• My biggest concern is that I go and trade in my Gen 1 quad for $50k and buy a $125k Gen 2 quad to find out that the tires and Launch mode gave them the 0-60 stat to push it as a huge performance upgrade even if it was not.
• I guess the HP numbers do tell part of the story because this can be directly derived from Amp X Volts = Watts and then watts converted to HP. (Big grain of salt here is this is Power into the motors.
• This did prove to be true for the Gen 1 quad. I cant remember the exact numbers but I did some pulls in service mode and recorded something like
• 1600amps X 400V = 600KW or about 805 HP. (all super rough) but made me happy to know it was in the right ball park.
• So the gen 2 quad should pull about 1,900 amps
• Unfortunately this is not quite like dynoing a car and motors can certainly have drastically different levels of efficiency.
• 0-60 is a BS measurement at this level. I am so sick of cars doing crazy $hit to either post a good stat or as a one time party trick. All these cars including Rivian with a complex setup to get into launch mode, Ice is even worse when they sit there at 3k to spool turbos and then anything worth talking about has more than enough power to break the wheels loose so now it’s the traction controls turn to compete. Then we get some number between 2-3 seconds and act like there is a big difference. This only worked for measuring a Rav 4 vs Accord
• While I do care about 0-60 a little I think its just as important what the car will do in whatever the fastest mode you can actually drive it in if you just floor it. (also forget this “with rollout” non sense that in a game of under 3 seconds makes a big difference.
• All reviews should include 0-60 then 60-100. The 60 – 100 tells me so much more about the power of the vehicle. This is where the plaid is fun and the Rivian starts to die off probably because of the carbon sleeved rotors on the plaid motor.
• What we do have is 0-60 and ¼ mile time for the gen 2 quad.
• If the gen 2 quad is 2.5 and the gen one was 3.0 you take into account doing a higher speed for a longer time in the ¼ mile (and 130MPH limit) and this almost makes me think the Gen 2 would hardley pull on the gen1 after 60
• The good new is that many Tri owners say the tri feels faster at higher speeds so this is subjective now but at least promising.

Maybe I just keep my Gen 1 quad, buy a used 2021 Modle S plaid for $50k, And a Ducati for $25k and call it a day, and stop speculating if Rivian or anyone else will ever make what I want LOL.

Very much in line with my thinking.

I do think the seat dyno of the Tri owners is based on my sample size of one. I posted the differences I saw in the Dragy run I started to collect data for my truck. At some speeds almost no difference and at others speeds a marginal difference, and not enough for me to upgrade.

So a quick recap of metrics that I can compare across a few vehicles. MT loves this stat (45-65 mph) and talked about how good the G2 quad was. This was fast enough that wheelspin wasn't an issue for likely all vehicles but my Plaid. Neither my Plaid or G1 quad were at max SoC or anywhere near it.

The extra precision is I ran it with my Dragy. I noted SoC where I had it. The average of runs for the Tri was about .1 seconds faster than my G1 quad but all of its runs were at a higher SoC than even my highest charge level and most of runs were in the 60% range. I assume the tested times for the CT and G2 were at high SoC's and likely better surface. All my runs were on the street on cold days and not exactly warm packs but the Tri was tested in launch mode. My truck was in Sport mode.

My S Plaid (70%) - 0.90 seconds (50% SoC - 0.96 seconds)
CT CB - 1.1
G2 Quad -1.2
G2 Tri (82%)- 1.42
My G1 Quad (78%) - 1.48

So looking at the empirical data, I am not blown away by either the Tri or G2 quad. They are BOTH slower than the CT which has less HP and a LOT LESS torque yet it pips both Rivians in this stat, easily.

This is a speed range which almost anyone can exercise the potential of the car and I think Rivian needs to do some tweaking to improve the numbers and the G2 quad is running fat, sticky street tires so it should have even better traction than the CT CB.

For reference my Plaid is running sticky Michelins in square 295/20 all around at this speed traction is a serious issue so the times I ran could be better if on a better and warmer surface.

So for @bmedfo1, you might be happier with a used Plaid and keep your Gen 1. I think that is where I am at the more I think about it. I already have the Ducati and an H2 Kawasaki with a flashed ECU and different gears for the supercharger. It will easily pull my Plaid once above 90 when I can keep the front wheel down somewhat.

The Plaid is the car performance bargain of my lifetime. If they made a Plaid truck that didn't look like the hideous CT, I'd definitely give it consideration. Really the only option besides it if you value a quick EV truck will be the G2 quad. I've put together a few spreadsheets of my Drag runs for the Tri and my quad and referenced it with the G2 quad data I could find as well as for my Model 3 w/boost and my Model 3 highland performance. So I've been very data driven about it. I could have lived with the CT's performance but not its looks, interior and horrendous outward visibility. I bought the G1 quad going in knowing I'd give up a lot of performance to do so.

Not many options out there but I did like the looks of the Caddy. It does have a lot of curb appeal and very luxurious inside. I may have to see if Lucid survives and if they come out with a Sapphire version of the gravity even if it is sort of minivan-ish.

 

[mkg3]

its really interesting to read both @DayTripping and @bmedfo1 chit-chatting about how quick and fast a 7k lbs R1S brick can go or should go.

I like fast cars as anyone. I just know where 7k lbs 2-box SUV ranks where in need-for-speed is for me.

Keep in mind that as the velocity increases, drag increases at the square of the velocity. So with a frontal area like a barn door of R1S, the difference between the power available vs drag becomes much less than likes of MSLR/Plaid or M3P, that were mentioned. (side note: shape determines the drag coefficient and frontal area determine the drag using the coefficient and the air density).

The Gen 2 quad has more HP than the Gen 1 quad so its better but unless the R1S form factor is changed, it only amounts to marginal difference.

While I do not want a slow vehicle, I find the gen 1 R1S adequately quick and fast enough for the purpose of what I bought the vehicle for. Shaving another half a second to 60 or even a full second to 90 is not worth the gen 2 quad upgrade in my mind. For something quicker, faster and more enjoyable drive requires a significantly lighter and high power-to-weight ratio, balanced sports car, not an SUV for me.

 

[bmedfo1]

its really interesting to read both @DayTripping and @bmedfo1 chit-chatting about how quick and fast a 7k lbs R1S brick can go or should go.

I like fast cars as anyone. I just know where 7k lbs 2-box SUV ranks where in need-for-speed is for me.

Keep in mind that as the velocity increases, drag increases at the square of the velocity. So with a frontal area like a barn door of R1S, the difference between the power available vs drag becomes much less than likes of MSLR/Plaid or M3P, that were mentioned. (side note: shape determines the drag coefficient and frontal area determine the drag using the coefficient and the air density).

The Gen 2 quad has more HP than the Gen 1 quad so its better but unless the R1S form factor is changed, it only amounts to marginal difference.

While I do not want a slow vehicle, I find the gen 1 R1S adequately quick and fast enough for the purpose of what I bought the vehicle for. Shaving another half a second to 60 or even a full second to 90 is not worth the gen 2 quad upgrade in my mind. For something quicker, faster and more enjoyable drive requires a significantly lighter and high power-to-weight ratio, balanced sports car, not an SUV for me.

You are absolutely correct about the drag and that certainly is a factor but at the same time the total drag of the cybertruck is not much better when you factor in the additional size and also there have been some silly plaid swaps into things like mini vans that pull times = to the model x.

Yes the rivian will never be a race car because that’s not what it’s made for. But for me right now I only have space in the garage for a few complete toys (sxs motorcycles ect) the wife’s car one one more. I do need to tow and sometimes even tow on mild ofroad to get to my sxs tails. I have a family to haul on the weekends, I’m 6,4 and just like to have some room and sit up high. At the same time I drive 45 min to work and like to have some fun playing with big power.

 

[DayTripping]

@bmedfo1's thinking is inline with mine and I am not concerned as much about top speed hence the reason I am focusing metrics that matter more to me. None of the car mags test the same metrics except for 0-60 and 1/4 mile. I wish they'd do an 1/8th mile as well so you could more easily compare trucks/cars that are speed limited. The G1 quad can run flat out through the 1/8 but then hits the limiter.

So I turned to the only metric that I can reasonably compare, and get a more accurate idea, of acceleration above 60 mph. That is the 60-130 time. Since the G1 is limited, we can't really test it. Also given Rivian's speedo error, if the G2's are limited to 130, that might actually only be 127 true or so based on speedo error. So then you'll never complete a 60-130 pull.

I have data for every 10 mph interval from 0-110 for my truck and my other cars so I can easily compare to what the magazines get and have an idea. The reason I put the data for 45-65 is it is one many people can relate to such as passing on a 2 lane road.

My assumption is Rivian didn't build an 800hp+ truck and then not expect anyone to use it. I realize it is a 7k pound vehicle but I also had a very quick turbo diesel Excursion for fun and towing.

I'd like to have one vehicle to do it all as well. I realize the limitations of drag quite well. But I'd love for the Rivian to be quicker in the 60-100 range at a minimum.

I am a performance junkie but I want it with some modicum of practicality. The reason why I bought a Plaid instead of a C8 ZO6 Vette, Lambo or Ferrari. It can be just a car for me, I have to take the family a long, or at least have the possibility. Not a fan of an Urus. I have dirtbikes so a pickup is useful too. So basically I wanted a supercar/pickup and the Tesla and Rivian where the only real options, and pretty much still are.

Anyway, if the G2 quad is going to be Rivian's "halo" car, with all that extra power and torque, if it doesn't absolutely mop the floor with the CT CB, then I think they made a big mistake. Honestly, the numbers aren't pointing to that but I'll reserve judgment until we see an actual production one tested somewhere.

Each day we wait, the more likely it is that there will be other options to consider. While I like Rivian, I am not married to them as a company. I don't mind spending the money, but at that price point, I really want to get very close to what I want.

Sponsored