Help. Why not the Rivian?

[PilotPete]

Tesla took 17 years to be profitable.
Rivian was founded in 2009. That means they have three more years of negative profits before they're behind Tesla on that count.

Did Tesla become profitable because of the number of days that passed on the calendar? Or because they made a car at a price point and at a cost that created sufficient sales and profit to bring the company into the black?

If you believe the latter, then 3 years may not be enough for Rivian. Or, they could announce a new vehicle next week and be profitable by the end of the year.

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

No, I'm just pointing out that at 14 years, Tesla was struggling to get their Model 3 out the door. It was 2017, and they were definitely struggling. They had the Model S and X, but profitability still eluded them.

So saying 'Oh no, Rivian is struggling!' is no different than saying 'Oh no, Tesla is struggling!'.

Rivian's success or failure is not at this point, guaranteed either way. But their unprofitability? Well, that's not unusual.

-Crissa

I generally agree with that. But as a new vehicle buyer, I have to consider the possibility that a manufacturer will go bankrupt. Fortunately, I'm also an experienced investor so I know how to do that.

The fact that Rivian is not yet profitable is not a red flag at all. I would expect they are not profitable. What is troubling is that Tesla, considering only direct manufacturing costs, was profitable every quarter with only one or two exceptions, on a per car basis, while Rivian shows a big loss on every car. That's after backing out all overhead like management, R&D, building out Service Centers and charging networks and any advertising/public relations expenses. This may come as a shock to many, but for years the Tesla naysayers harped on their corporate losses, even as the direct costs to build each car were less than they sold them for.

Tesla made each car profitably even as they had years of corporate losses. The more cars they made, in general, the more money they had to contribute towards the overhead. Rivian is the opposite. They have priced their cars well below the direct costs to produce each one. The more they make, the more they lose (even as they lose less money per car). The curves have no break-even point, even as volumes increase. That's why I say they need to design new vehicles, with new manufacturing processes. They need to build cars that can be sold at a price point, and at suitable volumes, to sell them at a profit instead of a loss (even if they have an overall corporate loss due to overhead expenses).

By now Rivian probably have enough experience and expertise to do exactly that, but that doesn't mean it will be easy, or that they can do it. It's a tall order. If they rise to the occasion, they will survive (and I hope they do). But don't under-estimate how daunting of a challenge this actually is. Elon is not exaggerating when he says manufacturing profitably is hard. Really hard. And manufacturing at a loss is not sustainable. Tesla succeeded because they had a rule to always sell cars at a profit and, for the most part, they always did.

Rivian has taken a different path, the R1T and R1S are very labor-intensive cars to build and are not sustainable at any volume. As much as people like the product, they cost too much to make and there is no way to make it for less than they can sell it for. It needs to be re-designed from the ground up to make it cost less to manufacture. Tesla took a lot of heat for the way they always tried to simplify their products, to make them cost less to build, but Elon knew the cars had to be produced profitably or they would not survive. I hope Rivian can pull it together and survive too. Tesla is trying to help the entire industry survive by giving other EVs access to their charging infrastructure at favorable rates to their customers. That will help them sell more cars at higher prices than they could otherwise, but they have to do it profitably, at least on a per car basis, if they want to remain a going concern. Investors will not continue to dump money into them if there is not at least a visible path to overall profitability.

 

[Barb]

Uh, isn't there another company that was closed for about 10 years so others decided to go a different direction? They are opening it up as the others are now as well.

In the very beginning, Elon offered the charging technology for free and thought that it was silly to not have a standard way to charge. It wasn't Tesla; it was everyone else!

 

[Woodrick]

Not knowing all the details but going the same distance and has a bigger battery suggests that it costs more to operate at whatever speed the rating is at.

But honestly, and since you have two Tesla's already, Tesla means so much more than a basic vehicle.
And from a reality point, it's CCS.

Go back and read your release notes for a few versions and then look at the Ford release notes.

If you like conventional, that's Ford's forte.

Oh, and if you park in a garage, make sure you check the length. (the Ford Fanboys are providing a lot of information)

 

[Cybertruck2024]

Ford will be the first company to move to NACS, adapters are coming out soon. I live right next to a Supercharger with a Magic Dock and my Lightning chargers there with ease. That experience will be mirrored at all Superchargers in 2024, Magic Dock or not. When I bought my Lightning in 2022, the charging argument was a fair one, it isn't anymore.

My rationale to not buy the Platinum is that it doesn't give a lot of value over a Lariat. If you are interested in a high end Lightning, buy an extended range Lariat. If you want something that looks and feels like a traditional truck, with the extra benefit of EV acceleration, you won't be disappointed. Also with discounts, you could probably get one tomorrow at close to $10k less than an AWD CT that will come sometime undetermined.

If you want something that looks nothing at all like a traditional truck, then wait for a CT. If having the fastest truck on earth is important, wait for the CT.

Both are fantastic vehicles I'm sure. Both will be better in different use cases. It's really personal preference and you will be a winner either way. I am planning to trade my Lightning for a CT and my partner wants to kill me, she loves the Lightning and doesn't want to see it go. We just don't have a need for 2 trucks, she likes a sedan as her daily driver, so that's why I'm making the executive decision.

 

[Woodrick]

Ford will be the first company to move to NACS, adapters are coming out soon. I live right next to a Supercharger with a Magic Dock and my Lightning chargers there with ease. That experience will be mirrored at all Superchargers in 2024, Magic Dock or not. When I bought my Lightning in 2022, the charging argument was a fair one, it isn't anymore.

I totally agree.
But my point is as simple as I stated it. It currently has CCS.

That means I have to get an adapter (I don't think that the trucks come with one, nor that Ford offers it yet) and use it to plug in to the Tesla network.
You may have access to a charger on the Blue Oval network, maybe not and possibly have to sign up to charge.
So, as of today, you would be using a CCS network or only the very few magic dock pedestals that Tesla has. And a cross country trip would be as easy as Jim Farley's

And if all that made no difference to you, then fine.

In the future, you'd still have to use an adapter, but will you have to pay for it, will you get it for free, I haven't heard yet.
And if it was a future vehicle, it would be different. But this was a very precise question looking at a very precise vehicle.

 

[Cybertruck2024]

I totally agree.
But my point is as simple as I stated it. It currently has CCS.

That means I have to get an adapter (I don't think that the trucks come with one, nor that Ford offers it yet) and use it to plug in to the Tesla network.
You may have access to a charger on the Blue Oval network, maybe not and possibly have to sign up to charge.
So, as of today, you would be using a CCS network or only the very few magic dock pedestals that Tesla has. And a cross country trip would be as easy as Jim Farley's

And if all that made no difference to you, then fine.

In the future, you'd still have to use an adapter, but will you have to pay for it, will you get it for free, I haven't heard yet.
And if it was a future vehicle, it would be different. But this was a very precise question looking at a very precise vehicle.

All fair points. If you use a Supercharger a lot, is carrying around an adapter a pain? How will a Lightning be billed for Supercharging? Currently with the Magic Dock it takes about 60 seconds to get charging going in the Tesla app, will this stay the same? Does someone Supercharge enough where the 60 seconds becomes too much work? Will there continue to be higher costs per charge at a Supercharger for non-Teslas? How much will the adapter cost and will it be reliable? When will the adapter come out?

My guess is the adapters are out before 99% of people get their CTs, the only timeline is "early 2024." I'd also guess that the adapter cost + lifetime of higher rates at a Supercharger will be more than offset by the $10k-ish savings for a Lariat ER vs. AWD CT ($30k savings versus FS). Maybe the adapter gets delayed until 2025, but it probably will be that long for most non-FS CT deliveries. You can easily drive to most Ford dealers today and walk out with a Lightning.

Perhaps the pure Supercharger experience is worth a million dollars to someone, in that case any non-Tesla is a no go. But for someone else, pulling an adapter out of the frunk for the occasional Supercharger session won't be a big deal. I have only used fast chargers 4 times in 16 months of Lightning ownership for example. It's great we have options, there's something for everyone, and many of these options will be great vehicles.

 

[Woodrick]

All fair points. If you use a Supercharger a lot, is carrying around an adapter a pain? How will a Lightning be billed for Supercharging? Currently with the Magic Dock it takes about 60 seconds to get charging going in the Tesla app, will this stay the same? Does someone Supercharge enough where the 60 seconds becomes too much work? Will there continue to be higher costs per charge at a Supercharger for non-Teslas? How much will the adapter cost and will it be reliable? When will the adapter come out?

My guess is the adapters are out before 99% of people get their CTs, the only timeline is "early 2024." I'd also guess that the adapter cost + lifetime of higher rates at a Supercharger will be more than offset by the $10k-ish savings for a Lariat ER vs. AWD CT ($30k savings versus FS). Maybe the adapter gets delayed until 2025, but it probably will be that long for most non-FS CT deliveries. You can easily drive to most Ford dealers today and walk out with a Lightning.

Perhaps the pure Supercharger experience is worth a million dollars to someone, in that case any non-Tesla is a no go. But for someone else, pulling an adapter out of the frunk for the occasional Supercharger session won't be a big deal. I have only used fast chargers 4 times in 16 months of Lightning ownership for example. It's great we have options, there's something for everyone, and many of these options will be great vehicles.

Again, I wasn't calling anything out in my initial posting, just stating a fact.

But to answer your question "If you use a Supercharger a lot, is carrying around an adapter a pain?"
Yes. I have a J-1772, a CHAdeMO and CCS adapter. And they are all significantly more painful than just plugging in.
I had a Leaf and a Tesla with a J-1772 EVSE. It was a pain getting the adapter out and using it on the Tesla every day. Okay, we'll just stay on Fast Charging for this conversation.

If I'm plugging into CCS, I've got to open the trunk to get the adapter. I've got to connect it, I gotta pull this huge CCS plug over and put the adapter on it and fit it in the car.

You have a Model 3, you know how freaking easy it is to plug into a Supercharger. The connectors are so small and light.
You have a Lightning, you know how freaking big that CCS connector is, you know the extra insertion force that you have to use.

And when you use an adapter, it is often feels as if you have to get two people to separate the adapter from the pedestal cord or to pull the adapter off the vehicle.

Given the option of CCS or Tesla, I'd easily pay $1000 to swap that PITA CCS connector off of my car. And I currently use CCS charging about once a month, so I am quite familiar with it. It used to be our closest Fast Charger, but I've got a brand spanking new Supercharger near me now.

Used Fast Charging 4 times in 16 months? In 1 month, I may have used a Supercharger 16 times going 2600 miles (There were two CCS stops). Different strokes for different folks.

 

[FirstRLast]

I’m an early reservation holder, around 50k. Live in Connecticut so nowhere close to CA or TX. I’ve been a happy waiter, like so many. Have a model Y, have a couple power walls and a solar array. So I get it, mostly.

And I watch these threads closely. But with low range expectations and our needs, I’m struggling to justify the cost and tradeoffs of the CT. ?

As big skiers, we drive to Vermont most weekends all winter. 180 miles each way. Temps can can be low, 5 degrees not uncommon, and 10 below some mornings is not uncommon. And a lot of weekends, we are plunging far deeper to remote parts of Vermont for ski races. Elevation change from about 500 ft to 2,200 for most trips.

We’ve got a garage and home charger at both ends of trip.

Charging infrastructure in VT (and CT too) is really quite limited at this point. If you’re happy with slow crowded charging stations (if working) that a few generous ski hills have put up, I suppose things are workable. But barely.

So really, range and infrastructure is a huge issue for me. 400 to 500 miles as promised was keeping me on list and prevented me from going another way. I really do feel misled, like so many.

I’ve read all about pending revised 4680 chemistry and perhaps 10% to 20% longer range coming soon.
But jeez, if my order comes up (maybe any day now) I’m really debating taking a pass and pulling trigger on Rivian.

Out of Spec tests have everyone’s attention, and while not perfect, what else do we have to go on?

facts:

250 miles for CT, 290 for Rivian.

135kWh pack in R1T vs 120kWh pack in CT

2.2 miles/kwh R1T DM AT tires (34”)
Vs
2.0 miles/kwh CT AT tires (35”)


What am I missing?

I’m keep my eyes on the Rivians now too. It’s a good EV, ok truck and I love the interior. They will end up natively on the Tesla Supercharger network eventually so that’s a big plus. Last time I checked their charging curve was pretty terrible, but the Cybertruck doesn’t currently seem to be much better. But it will definitely get better and I bet it has some tricks for the V3 chargers we haven’t seen yet. When the dual motor none foundation Cybertruck is available I’m definitely going to compare the plus minus again. I’m guessing I’ll stick with the Cybertruck because I believe more in Tesla and I really want a full size bed but we will see.

Sponsored