[subego]

I was just so sad when I saw my first R1T a few days ago.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was just so sad when I saw my first R1T a few days ago.

Any particular reason? I have good impressions of Rivian products, and owner sentiment seems to agree.

Admittedly, I've seen a grand total of one (1) on the road so far, and have yet to look one over in person.

[subego]

That I can’t get it in a two-seater with a full sized bed.

[Laminar]

Single cab long beds are work trucks, designed for real work, purchased by people looking for the most function at the lowest price. Manufacturers are trying to maximize margins on electric vehicles, which means appealing to buyers that are willing to pay high prices for luxuries that automakers can add for very little actual cost like extra seats, electronic features, and luxurious interior materials.

[subego]

I figured they’d be taking a swing at the more utilitarian stuff by now, but of course these are car companies.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I mean everyone is still mostly losing money on these as far as I can tell. Not a lot of companies in any industry looking to lose even more.

[reader50]

I believe they're calculating losses by: total company spending divided by the number of trucks & SUVs shipped. Something like $35K loss per truck, if I recall correctly.

But R&D overhead, and building factories are initial costs more than running costs. So I'd rather figure the cost-to-manufacture for the R1Ts and compare that to retail price. Then class the R&D + Production investments as capital overhead. The trucks probably sell at a profit over their manufacturing cost.

But I'm not an accountant, and Ford calculates things the same way Rivian does. Ford Blue makes their EVs, and with all the new factory investments, it's billed as losing a ton on each Mach-E or F-150 Lightning sold. Expected to remain that way for a few more years, too.

[Laminar]

I would believe that's why companies are spinning off EV manufacturing as its own division - they can pile the losses of initial investment on that division, protecting the profitability of their ICE manufacturing and giving them the ability to drive a narrative of "EVs are expensive!" so they can justify high prices.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by subego 

I figured they’d be taking a swing at the more utilitarian stuff by now, but of course these are car companies.

I don’t think Rivian is aimed at that market. They took a look at the pickup-used-as-family-car-and-occasional-bags-of-mulch crowd and saw an opportunity to offer something more bespoke to their actual needs.

[subego]

That was a general “they”, though since Rivian makes Amazon trucks, they might enter the market.

[reader50]

My impression is Rivian is offering the delivery van for generic sales now. I saw a YouTube reviewer looking over the generic version, which omitted any Amazon colors.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

I don’t think Rivian is aimed at that market. They took a look at the pickup-used-as-family-car-and-occasional-bags-of-mulch crowd and saw an opportunity to offer something more bespoke to their actual needs.

I agree. I think Rivian wants to be a high-end brand, and so they want to stay away from designs that seem “utility vehicles”. The delivery van thing isn’t apparently aimed at consumers, but rather fleet sales. There they don’t need to be as concerned with a look.

[subego]

This was posted to dunk on, but I kinda like it.



Edit: also, with one exception, some nice service loops.

[Thorzdad]

Those are nice loops.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This was posted to dunk on, but I kinda like it.

I think my issue with the Cybertruck is that it's like a Bronco, Wrangler, or G-Wagen - it serves no practical purpose. It is a status symbol masquerading as capability, and in the case of CyberTrucks today, they're only being driven by people who can throw away a $2200/month payment on a joke of a status symbol. At least a Porsche 911 can use some of its capability on an onramp.

I'm no fan of diesel truck bros, but at least they have actual capability - a real bed, real payload, real range, and real towing capacity. You can get one new for $50-60k and you can use its capability for value-added tasks that make money. When a Bronco or Wrangler is living out its actual purpose, it is a toy for a hobby - no one needs to scale Moab to add value to society. And again at least a Wrangler is actually capable of the claims that Jeep makes, whether or not they're actually useful capabilities or just a hobby.

But the CT can't even do the literal things Tesla/Musk are claiming. "Bulletproof," "Apocolypse-proof," "...better truck than a truck, while also being a better sports car than a sports car," "can 'briefly' serve as a boat," "3500lbs of payload," "500 mile range," all of these things are objectively false. It's not actually good at the things it purports to be good at.

[ghporter]

The CT in subego’s picture is a nice color. That’s all I can say that’s positive. I’m not saying any of the negatives that come to mind - not all of which are directly related to the design/utility/intelligence of the CT design…

[ghporter]

Separate issue that I think goes here: extra wide pickup truck wheels, particularly rear wheels.

Is there a function or purpose behind equipping a pickup with rear wheels that stick out well past the fenders?

[subego]

One thing I’m beginning to notice is the combination of a cramped cab and a tiny bed, but the thing is enormous.

It’s like they put one pound of shit in a two-ton bag.

[Laminar]

Nope, none whatsoever. Some people believe a wider stance increases stability and rollover resistance, but they're ignoring the ruinous effects that changing your tire centerline location has on your suspension geometry and scrub radius, not to mention the huge increase in likelihood of failure if you got the wheels to stick out that far by installing wheel spacers.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Separate issue that I think goes here: extra wide pickup truck wheels, particularly rear wheels.

Is there a function or purpose behind equipping a pickup with rear wheels that stick out well past the fenders?

There are for the rear-dualie pickups, which come with fender flares from the factory. The reason for these funny-looking trucks is regulatory: you cannot add a 3rd axle on a consumer vehicle. So you double-up the tires for greater load capacity.

If you add a 3rd axle, then the buyers need commercial drivers licenses to use them on public roads. Most members of the public only have the common drivers license - good for two axles. So it would kill your pickup sales.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I think my issue with the Cybertruck is that it's like a Bronco, Wrangler, or G-Wagen - it serves no practical purpose. It is a status symbol masquerading as capability, and in the case of CyberTrucks today, they're only being driven by people who can throw away a $2200/month payment on a joke of a status symbol. At least a Porsche 911 can use some of its capability on an onramp.

Doesn't that argument apply to almost all pickups and SUVs, though? People prefer them over e. g. station wagons or vans for aesthetic purposes. Auto makers then leaned into it and produced 2wd versions of “SUVs” (the RAV4 comes to mind) and vehicles that are not made for offroad purposes.

The CyberTruck is just another vehicle along the lines of a Hummer H1 (and its less capable successors), just electric. I reckon people like it for the reasons that Elon has designed it as such: it is a physical manifestation of insecurities.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But the CT can't even do the literal things Tesla/Musk are claiming. "Bulletproof," "Apocolypse-proof," "...better truck than a truck, while also being a better sports car than a sports car," "can 'briefly' serve as a boat," "3500lbs of payload," "500 mile range," all of these things are objectively false. It's not actually good at the things it purports to be good at.

I'd even step back and ask: why do you need to design a vehicle for regular people that is bullet resistant (which it seems to be, although, ≠ bullet proof)? Or pretend it can pull 3.500 lbs?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Doesn't that argument apply to almost all pickups and SUVs, though?

No - my line in the sand is that the vehicle's capability can add tangible value to society. A contractor can load a stack of drywall or a ton of gravel or 6 ladders or pull a skid loader 400 miles with an average pickup. Even if most truck buyers don't do that, at least the capability is real and not illusory. It's a capability that some people actually need in order to put food on their table. The Wrangler and Bronco capability is to climb a mountain, which is a fun lil hobby and not really a value-add to society, but at least they can actually do it. The CT's capability doesn't exist, at least not in any way, shape, or form that Tesla claims. And it costs twice as much as any other more capable vehicle, so CT buyers are paying twice what they need to for none of the capability.

I'd even step back and ask: why do you need to design a vehicle for regular people that is bullet resistant (which it seems to be, although, ≠ bullet proof)? Or pretend it can pull 3.500 lbs?

If you stop thinking of Tesla as a car company that makes cars and instead think of them as a hype company that makes stock prices then everything makes sense. The truth doesn't matter, reality doesn't matter, capability doesn't matter. Only press coverage and hype matter.