Rivian R1S Versus Tesla Model X: By The Numbers


Tesla wanted competition. It’s got it.

Tesla has had the all-electric SUV market to itself since it first launched its Model X a little over three years ago. Although it will now see some competition from the likes of the Jaguar I-Pace and Audi e-tron, this newly revealed Rivian R1s, boasting as many as 410 miles of range, is the first to put it dead in its sights. Their exterior dimensions are also extremely close. Though still a couple years away from production, it’s not too soon to see how the two stack up against each other.

The two main things set the Model X apart from its would-be competitors is its ability to carry 7-passengers and range. The R1S, which also has three rows — excluding the version with the largest battery pack — mostly matches its people-carrying ability. The newcomer, however, far surpasses the Tesla’s range, with its biggest 180-kWh battery option offering 410 miles of travel on a charge. Impressive!

As one would expect range comes mainly down to battery size. The Tesla Model X is available with two different pack options: a 75-kWh pack, offering 237 miles of range, or a 100-kWh pack capable of 295 miles. The Rivian R1S is said to have a choice of three battery sizes: 105 kWh offering 240+ miles of range, 135 kWh for 310+ miles, and a monster 180-kWh pack promising 410+ miles.

Available, with luck, sometime in 2021, pricing for the Rivian SUV is yet to be announced. Its R1T pickup, which is based on the same platform, is supposed to start at $69,000 for its smallest battery trim, but we would not be surprised if the base R1S costs a bit more. For comparison sake, the 237-mile Model X 75D starts at $87,000. On a mile-of-range per purchase-dollar basis, we suspect the Rivian may come in a little cheaper, but this is quite speculative.

SUVs are all about hauling families and their stuff, so storage is an important consideration. Here, the Rivian offers 11.65 cubic feet (330 liters) of storage in its frunk and 6.36 cu. ft. (180 l) in the rear bin, adding up to 18.01 cu. ft. (510 l) in total.  Tesla, which doesn’t break down storage says the Model X offers 88 cu. ft. (2,492 l) of cargo space with its third row folded down. Obviously, the wide discrepancy here means the two companies are not offering apples-to-apples space figures. We estimate the R1S will offer more room overall, since its roofline doesn’t slope down and impinge on rear space as it does in the Model X and its frunk looks at least as cavernous.

When it comes to performance, both of these vehicles offer the type of acceleration unheard of in similarly-sized gasoline-powered vehicles. The slowest Model X zips up to 60 miles per hour in 4.9 seconds, matching the slowest R1S, which also takes 4.9 seconds. Here is where it gets more interesting, though. The quickest Model X, the P100D can do the deed in 2.9 seconds, but does so at a significant cost premium. The 135-kWh version of the Rivian SUV is that brand’s quickest at 3.0 seconds flat. The variant with the largest battery, that 180-kWh pack, adds a couple tenths at 3.2 seconds. This means that while Tesla may hold on to its racing crown, the 135-kWh R1S just about matches it for what we expect will be significantly less cost. It should be interesting to see how all this works out when the rubber hits the drag strip.

One area the Tesla seems to retain its advantage is efficiency. Its Model X 75D manages 3.16 miles per kWh, the 100D, 2.95 miles per kWh. Rivian published figures suggest that both the 105-kWh and the 135-kWh R1S return 2.29 miles per kWh, while the 135 kWh version is just slightly worse at 2.28 miles per kWh. We suspect actual real-world results to be somewhat different, but we doubt they will improve enough to approach what the California company can achieve.

As we said, there is still a ton of time before we can make reliable comparisons between the two vehicles when it comes to their various performance metrics. Depending on the needs of a potential buyer, either could clearly offer advantages over the other. This is why it’s great to see another entrant coming to the all-electric SUV arena. Variety is the spice of life and Rivian R1t and Tesla Model X still offer somewhat different flavors.

8 photos
Tesla Model X at Supercharger
29 photos
Tesla Model X at a Supercharger Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X (wallpaper 2,560x) Tesla says they know the issues with current Model 3 production, but didn't say that the issue had (as of yet) been resolved. Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X Tesla Model X In White (click for high resolution) Tesla Model X (click for high resolution) As Seen  With Skis Tesla Informs Model X Reservation Holders That It Will Be Opening Up More Configurations Soon, Hopes To Release All By Year's End Tesla Model X (click for high resolution) Tesla Model X Tesla Model X 3rd Row Seats Latching Mechanism Found Not Suitable For Europe Tesla Model X Interior/Belts Tesla Model X Gets 6-Seat Option New Design Studio Pictures Show What The Tesla Model X Can Accomodate Tesla Model X Roofline

Categories: Comparison, Rivian, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

102 Comments on "Rivian R1S Versus Tesla Model X: By The Numbers"

newest oldest most voted

Rivian’s numbers are mostly on paper. I don’t see how it can achieve the specs at the claimed price point or anything close to it, without major battery cost breakthrough that surpasses Tesla’s current lowest cost battery and highest efficiency combination.

Actually, Bjorn just posted a YouTube analyzing this and thinks the truck efficiency seems reasonable

Title: Rivian R1T first impressions and hidden features

Yep, on the list to cover tomorrow.

Exactly. If Tesla needs $87K for a 75kWh car it’s unclear how Rivian could undercut that with a 105kWh battery, especially since Tesla has the lowest battery cost in the business while Rivian depends on currently production constraint suppliers.

It’s really too early to make comparisons, let’s first see if and what Rivian actually delivers 2 years (or more?) from now.

The battery cost is not what makes the Model X expensive… The 75 kWh battery at this point should be significantly below $15,000 — and it will only get cheaper two years from now.

That’s actually what makes the comparison kinda pointless: there is no telling what Tesla will be offering and at what price by that time…

I doubt Rivian will get much change from $25K for that 105kWh battery from a third party supplier. That’s just a sizable chunk from a <$70K MSRP. But yeah, Tesla 2021 offerings will be a more relevant comparison than this.

Musk claims $100/kWh at the pack level by the time this launches. Even if Rivian pays 20% more, per a recent article here, that’s $12,600 vs. your $25k.

I don’t buy the $100 Muskclaim and think a 105 kWh pack will cost more like $16k in 2022 (optimistic ship date for $69k version).

I am really wondering what could Tesla do if they applied Model 3 battery technology to Model S/X, I think they could boom in at least 110-120kWh and maybe even with the same price as today. And imagine what they could do in 2021…

Yes. Impressive specs will bring availability and cost issues with them. I don’t think Tesla would have much trouble to spec out 200kwh battery (oh wait, they did in a smaller package of the Roadster 2.0). They simply don’t see a point for doing so in a mass produced car.

Indeed, as it stands today, the monthly payment for the battery capacity alone would easily outrun a mortgage payment on average in this country. Which immediately makes this a niche product, as the majority of Americans would reject paying more for the car than for the house. It’s just a car after all.

Similarly, beside the cost, where will the kwh supply come from for the a mass-produced car? Tesla is struggling to (truly) mass-produce a 75kwh car with the (eventual) battery pack production capacity said to be more than the rest of the world combined.

(And this is a seriously ugly car btw. This styling evokes same kind of dissappointment as Honda Pilot).

Agreed. It’s just the Tesla killer of the week. From the design and paper specs alone they seem to have completely missed the memo on efficiency and potential buyers are going to have to pay a lot more than alternatives. Rivian’s ~2021 product seems to need about 35% more battery capacity (which is a primary cost driver for BEVs) to cover the same range of Tesla’s current day comparable offering which is running on 5 year old tech. And the front of that thing looks terrible, Some round retro looking headlights would be a huge improvement to the looks!

The second generation Tesla Model X will probably be on sale in 2021.

Yup. The Model X (and the Model S) will likely get a major refresh before then, including shifting to using 2170 battery cells.

Switching to 2170 cells would require a major redesign of the platforms. That’s not happening anytime soon.

No, switching the cell format does *not* require a major redesign. Plus, you have zero idea when that is going to happen.

Tesla was already planning on switching the MS & MX to 2170 cells soon after the TM3 went into production. That has been delayed, probably because of cell shortage. That certainly suggests Tesla doesn’t think there needs to be a major redesign of the entire car; just the battery pack.

I seriously doubt that swapping out 18650 cells for 2170 cells will require a major redesign. In fact, I’ve seen it claimed that there is enough “head room” inside the S/X battery packs to put the new cells in the same space.

There are some other innovations in the TM3 that Tesla is going to want to replicate in the MS & MX; innovations such as the much more efficient wiring harness. That might well require a major redesign of the body. But I don’t think redesigning the battery packs to use 2170 cells will require any major change to body design.

So you think Tesla is just sitting down with nothing to do but drink “Teslaquilla?ah OK.

Elon said no to 2170 for S and X. Tesla already has another generation of cell in the works that is even better.

Doubtful. Tesla has too many other things to do. Still need to ramp up 3 to 10,000/wk, Start making the Model Y, The Semi, build some More Gigafactories around the globe, start making a cyberpunk truck.

A major S/X doesn’t seem fit Until 2023/2025. Maybe they do an interior update before then.

You really believe Model S is in for an exceptionally long 10+ year production run? I think Tesla will multitask.

Perhaps it depends on what people consider a “major” redesign. Tesla is constantly tweaking the interior and the finish, and occasionally tweaking the powertrain components. I’d call the 2016 front fascia “refresh” a significant redesign of the car, altho perhaps not a “major” redesign.

It seems unlikely to me that the Model S would go from 2016 to 2023 without any significant design change. It seems very unlikely to me that Tesla will still be using the more expensive 18650 batteries in the MS & MX in 2023.

The main issue with this is comparison, is that one is a crossover/minivan based on a car platform. And the other is an actual SUV based on a truck platform with real off-road capabilities.

Indeed, seems like the R1S is designed much more for off road. From the 14+ inches of ground clearance and 4 independent motor AWD. I would really like to see Tesla come out with something which is designed for off road, especially in regards to clearance. Otherwise, I may just buy a Rivian R1S instead 😉 We’ll see what the playing field looks like in 2021 though.

Just buy one! Tesla wants diversity and competition…doesnt NEED your money

That playing field should include Tesla’s own 200kWh(?) battery pick up truck.

Don’t forget about Bollinger. It’s probably the closest thing in terms of off-roading capabilities etc., and should become available in a similar time frame…

Bollinger is ugly

Bollinger is beautiful ugly. I agree that it’s “ugly” but I love it for that. It’s ugly in a good way. Clearly designed for maximum functionality and minimum cost. I am a Model S owner, and I would love to have a bollinger as well.

The Model X is exceptional in mud, snow, and loose sand. Unless you’re talking lift kits, knobby tires, and a tow hitch, plenty of Model X owners take their vehicle off-road, from Dubai to Russia, Norway, and farmland across the USA. I will enjoy watching the Bollinger vehicles square off against Rivian. I agree that Tesla isn’t in the same class of off-roading.

The Model X is a crossover, not a SUV, and it’s aimed at soccer moms who would never drive it offroad. That’s not to say that the MX has no offroading ability at all, but it doesn’t have an offroad vehicle’s ground clearance and it’s not really designed for it.

I personally have my doubts that either the R1T or the R1S will actually have 4 separate motors independently powering 4 wheels, but even if Rivian switches to 2 inboard motors — as pretty much every other EV maker has done when moving from a prototype with in-wheel motors to an actual production EV — I expect it will still have significantly better off-road capability than the Model X.

It looks like the R1S has been designed to compete directly with Land Rover cars/trucks, and I expect it to have similar offroading ability.

not sure why you would think they aren’t going to do 4 motors.

Because of all the other EV pre-production prototypes which had in-wheel motors but wound up with just two (or even one) inboard motor in the production version.

Someone pointed out that Rimac does use 4 independent motors. Well okay, but I don’t see that Rimac has anything remotely approaching a mass production car.

Nobody said Rivian wants to use in-wheel motors.

Yeah, Domenick clarified that for me in the IEVs Forum discussion. (Thanks Domenick!)

Okay, so it’s 4 independent inboard motors, and I can’t tell if each motor has its own reduction gearset or if the motor RPM speeds are slaved to the wheel RPM speeds. But either way, it makes the powertrain complex and expensive, and quite possibly more prone to breakdown. I won’t be at all surprised if Rivian switches to just two motors for the production version.

They don’t use in-wheel motors. They just remove the differential and each motor is attached to the individual shafts.

If the motors don’t have a reduction gearset, if they are slaved to run at the same RPM speed as the wheels, then that presents its own problems: losing efficiency from running at a slow speed, and the problem of cogging torque.

There are good reasons why this hasn’t been done in any mass produced EV. Rivian may have found a practical solution for the various problems, but any solution will come a price… either in terms of cost or in terms of engineering compromises. Or both.

We agree, Pushmi-Pullyu. I guess I’m settling on what a crossover is. Thanks for posting your thoughts there. As for the R1S and R1T, yeah, it doesn’t make sense not to do an axle with a differential system and two motors. I mean, what’s the advantage? The ability to drive the left wheels clockwise and the right wheels anti/counter-clockwise so the vehicle can spin in place like a tank?
Tanks, bulldozers, and snow cats are a different class of off-road vehicle entirely.

Im pretty excited about the Rivian SUV. I live in Colorado and I have 3 kids, so a small SUV is what we drive for our adventures. The model X would work for us, but thanks to the gull-wing doors, I cant put a roof rack on it! this is a serious design flaw. A roof rack is essential for skiing, and carrying larger loads. We downsized from a full size V-8 SUV, to a Honda Pilot, and we survive fine, occasionally mounting a box carrier onthe roof for camping and skiing trips. The Rivian seems to be about the same size as the Pilot, so it will work well for us.

This is a good suggestion. I hope Elon Musk can see it and launch an Model X off-road version.

It’s not a solution for everyone, but some people are using products from Seasucker. They offer temporary roof racks that secure to the roof of a vehicle using vacuum mounts.

I’m amazed that people would trust suction cups to secure a roof rack and its presumably valuable cargo.

Is it really that expensive to get a customizer shop to install 4-6 mounting points for a roof rack on the Model X? It would need a modified roof rack, one with longer legs on the back than the front, but it shouldn’t be difficult for a welding shop to modify an existing roof rack to fit.

Of course, the other problem with using a full-sized roof rack on a Model X is interfering with opening the rear (falcon-wing) doors. Either you’d have to leave the rear doors closed all the time or else you’d have to use a much shorter (or much narrower in back) roof rack.

Personal preference. Some people might not want to permanently attach something to their vehicle. A roof rack also lowers the efficiency of the vehicle. I’m sure there are places that make custom roof racks. If someone wanted a permanent roof rack on a Model X, they’d basically rotate the roof rack 90 degrees. The permanent supports would run the width and the removable supports would run the length. They could position items to one side of the car, so one of the rear doors can still open. That wouldn’t work for everyone though.

I can’t personally vouch for the product, but from what I read, they use vacuum cups. I’m not sure how strong they are, but I know vacuum cups are used to move large sheets of glass and counters for kitchens/bathrooms.

“Some people might not want to permanently attach something to their vehicle. A roof rack also lowers the efficiency of the vehicle.”

I guess I should have made it clear that I was suggesting permanently adding small mounting points for a roof rack, but that the rack itself would be removable, to minimize drag.

“…I know vacuum cups are used to move large sheets of glass and counters for kitchens/bathrooms.”

Sure, and the Safelite Auto Glass company shows using suction cups to move windshields in its TV ads. I don’t question the practicality of using suction cups for short-term anchoring. What I’d be concerned about is leaving it there for hours or days and bet on the vacuum seals holding.

I suppose that usually works; if it didn’t, nobody would use them. But I’d be concerned about betting the safety of my property — and the safety of any cars following on the highway — on the vacuum seals holding indefinitely.

From article:
The two main things set the Model X apart from its would-be competitors is its ability to carry 7-passengers and range. The R1S, which also has three rows — excluding the version with the largest battery pack.

Does that mean the version with the 180-kWh pack promising 410+ miles will only be capable of carrying 5 passengers? I’m assuming that will be the most expensive version since it’s the largest battery.

That is what I understand. We’re trying to find out why, exactly, the 180-kWh version is limited to 5 seats.

Isn’t that obvious? Bigger battery => less room for seats.

That was certainly my thought, but we wanted to confirm with Rivian.

Definitely. However, the pickup truck is on the same chassis and the battery fits beneath the bed and leaves room for that cargo tunnel. It must have something to do with the hardware for the third-row seats protruding down into the space where the extra cells are located. Being that the truck bed is flat, maybe that’s the difference. Still, nothing is 100 percent, and we were told that the battery packaging issue with regard to the third-row seats is an issue “for now.” So, perhaps over the next two years, Rivian can come up with a Plan B.

From article: “…The two main things set the Model X apart from its would-be competitors is its ability to carry 7-passengers and range….”


Access to a robust convenient and reliable fast charge network for the occasional long distance trips.

Electrify America should have a pretty good network by Rivian Job1

The Rivian should also be compatible with the high power CCS chargers at all the Porsche dealerships.

It will be interesting to see whether Rivian runs into the same issues Tesla did. How will they sell their vehicles? They’ve been around since 2009, but they don’t have a franchised dealer network like traditional auto manufacturers. How will the vehicles be serviced? It won’t be a problem initially, but eventually it will.

I wonder if any of these start ups will approach Tesla to join their charging network. I believe Tesla is open to sharing if others are willing to contribute to the expansion.

From what I understand, Rivian will have its own stores.

I would also love to know if they even approached Tesla about using the Supercharger network.

The easy way would be to do what small auto makers have done in the past, which is to piggyback onto existing legacy auto dealerships. But given the hostility with which many or most legacy dealerships treat EVs, that’s a questionable business plan. It might work if Rivian can carefully choose individual dealerships which have established a reputation for being EV-friendly, but aiming at individual dealers rather than partnering with an existing auto brand would, I think, make it much harder to establish outlets at an expanding number of dealerships over time, as Rivian would certainly want to do if it is successful.

Tesla’s approach, eschewing traditional dealerships and throwing out the “middleman”, is harder, but almost certainly will ultimately be more successful for new EV makers.

My Caddy dealer is an authorized Fisker dealer and service provider. If I were Rivian, I would get this kind of setup in countries where I wanted to do business. Not all new players in the space need to follow Tesla’s lead.

I am happy to see alternative. what makes model X to stand out is the look. I don<t really like the look of the Rivian.

As other said, the Rivian is designed much more for off road than model X.

May be a lot of F150 drivers will look at this as a nice alternative for their next vehicle

It’s great to see a comparison between two BEVs which are actually comparable!

Comparing the Model X to the I-Pace or the Model 3 to the Bolt EV… doesn’t, despite all Jaguar’s advertising trying to present the 5-seat I-Pace hatchback as being a head-to-head competitor of the 7-seat Model X crossover.

X and RS1 aren’t even comparable, except for being long range, high price EVs.

I’m not sure these can be considered any more comparable. While they are more similar size, they have completely different construction, making use cases even more distinct I’d say…

They are both BEVs, they both can seat up to 7 passengers in certain configurations, and they appear to be aimed at similar price segments.

I really don’t understand why any reasonable person would say the Model X and the R1S aren’t highly comparable. O_o The similarities far outweigh the differences.

If this comes to production *and* Rivian can build enough of them, it can provide some real competition to the pickup and SUV(*not* the crossover) market… With 400 mile range, and the 150kW EA chargers, it should be able to take me anywhere I need to go, while still towing a tiny-house. My main concern’s are, right now, it’s all talk, on paper. Supposedly they are going to use double-stacked 2170 cells. Now, I am not going to pretend to know exactly how much production capacity is built-out(Tesla produces somewhere around 35GWh/year, but AFAIK they aren’t selling to other OEM’s), but I suspect it’s less than will be needed to keep up with demand. Averaging out the battery pack sizes from the R1T and R1S, 105kWh, 135kWh and 180kWh gives us an average of 140kWh. I am going to assume that Rivian wants to put out 52,000 of them per year(26,000 R1T + 26,000 R1S), that’s 1,000 vehicles per week. They will need 7,280,000kWh(7,280MWh or 7.28GWh) of batteries per year to achieve that. I don’t know where they plan on getting those batteries from, and for the prices Rivian is quoting, the batteries need to be far cheaper than Tesla’s(that’s… Read more »

“Time heals all wounds.”

In a few years you will have another couple hundred GWh of capacity available compared to today. Rivian’s need is nothing compared to the broader market. What is likely to become a short-term squeeze is the cell assembly components, assuming they are highly specialized.

Remember, my estimate assumed that Rivian only wants a total of 52,000 sales per year(in other words, not enough to have a big dent in the global vehicle market, or even the US market, where pickups and SUV’s are king). If Rivian wants to do, let say, 520,000 per year(which is what they need in order to become a major automaker), they will need 72.8GWh per year. Unless Rivian builds a Gigafactory, they will be dependent on market prices for batteries, and will have to pay a lot of money for them. This is why Tesla is successful and the other startup’s are usually not. Tesla knew from the start, the only way to become profitable is to build your own batteries. Rivian *will* have to build a battery factory at some point in the future. Or they will 1(create vehicles at a loss and go bankrupt), 2(become a very low-volume manufacturer due to supply shortages), or 3(produce mid-high volumes, but at such a horrible price, that no one can afford their vehicles). If I were Rivian’s CEO, I would be looking for land to put up a battery factory, and finding the tooling right now… EDIT: They could invest… Read more »

Chinese and Korean battery makers plan to add several hundred GWh of capacity before Rivian sells their first vehicle.

Yeah. Unless Rivian can grow its production faster than Tesla has, I don’t think they’re going to have any problem with battery cell supply.

Tesla was pretty much forced to build its own battery “gigafactory” so it could become the first auto maker to make a long-range BEV (the Model 3) in high volumes. But as other auto makers move to put their own high-volume BEVs into production, the battery makers will respond — are already responding — by ramping up production.

Rivian should be able to depend on 3rd party battery suppliers for at least the next 5 years. After that, if they’re growing rapidly, then they may need to think about securing control of their own battery cell supply. But I don’t think that needs to be part of Rivian’s near-term planning.

Rivian have said they plan on producing 50,000 vehicles per year by 2025, so they really won’t be a big user of batteries in the grand scheme of things. A decent battery contract with a supplier is probably a far better bet for them than dealing with cell R&D. At the very least they will be able to take faster advantage of any new cell chemistry/designs developed by a company with a far higher battery R&D budget (i.e. LG etc).

Tesla has no problem sourcing some 7 – 8 GWh per year of cells for the Model S and Model X that are *not* from their Gigafactory…

Admittedly, the 21700 format is not nearly as established as the 18650 one, making it harder to source large amounts of cells on the spot market… With long-term contracts however it shouldn’t really make a difference.

I thought were trying to get past the “EV that only rich people can afford” phase?

IMO we need EV’s at all price points, just like we have ICE cars at all price points.
Having another high-end EV model is still good, even if it is too expensive for most people to afford. Besides, eventually, as batteries get cheaper, long-range EV’s will trickle down to where the average person can afford them, but for now, brands have to target the high-end luxury market where people don’t mind the higher prices.

You can’t expect a start up’s first product to be a cheap very high volume car. Rivian already skipped Tesla’s very expensive Roadster phase and is jumping right into the medium expensive Model S/X phase. Guess it can afford to with Tesla having proved the existence of a market and more of a supply infrastructure in place.

^^ this.

Companies such as Aptera, CODA, and Th!nk tried to enter the market with “economy car” BEVs. They all failed. Tesla is the only startup (highway capable, street-legal passenger car) EV maker in North America which has succeeded. Even entering the market much nearer the high end, it has been quite a struggle for Tesla to succeed.

Which business path would you suggest Rivian follow? The path which has always failed, or the path leading to the one and only success?


Why did my comment about roof racks on the Model X go to moderation?

No clue. Fixed.

Thanks! 🙂

One is an urban highway vehicle the other is designed for people who want to go off road sometimes. I can see the Rivian appealing to your average American truck buyer which is a big section of the market. They won’t be able to keep up with demand.

Rivian is taking reservations, we’ll soon know. I expect demonstrating demand to suppliers was the point of this unveiling.

Rivian won’t appeal to the “average” truck buyer. They’re aiming at the high-end adventure crowd.

” On a mile-of-range per purchase-dollar basis, we suspect the Rivian may come in a little cheaper, but this is quite speculative.”

Hard to see how they can do this with a vehicle with significantly higher drag force than the Model X. The batteries they use would have to be significantly lower in cost than Tesla cells to just equal Tesla range/dollar, let alone give more range/dollar. Tesla/Panasonic have a big jump on others in battery tech. Hard to see where Rivian would get cheaper cells of similar quality.

By the time the Rivian comes out there will be stiff competition in the electric SUV market. The 180kWh pack is absurd from a weight and efficiency standpoint. A lousy 25% gain in range for a battery that’s 80% bigger??? Terrible. While they might do alright in the truck market, I just don’t see the SUV making much of a dent. That battery is going to cost them (and customers) a fortune. The charge time is also going to be abysmal. 180kWh at 6kW per hour is 30 hours!!! Even if you are using the entire capacity of the onboard charger that’s still 18 hours for a full charge. Silly.

The problem is the way people use trucks, they are usually expected to be capable of towing something and towing anything with an EV dramatically cuts range, hence the need for a very big battery indeed. Expect Tesla’s pickup truck to have a 200kWh battery. Another problem is that people expect their SUVs to look chunky, which accounts for much of the horrible efficiency you noticed. Tesla styled Model X to have low drag but it doesn’t look like a typical SUV.

About the longe charging sessions you expect: a big battery can easily absorb high charging loads so if anything miles per hour of charging should be higher than with many other EVs. Still a long time to completely fill up using homecharging no doubt but the newest generation 350KW fast chargers are a perfect fit for these mega battery vehicles and one needs full capacity only on road trips anyway. The rest of the time one can use regular charging patterns and accept that the battery is mostly not completely charged.

Shape is in part following function. An SUV needs a decent amount of ground clearance – that increases drag. it needs clearance front and back for arrival and departure angles, it needs a relatively long, flat roof for putting things on (and in the boot), it needs larger, nobblier tyres and it needs larger wheel wells for wheels with more suspension travel. All those features reduce the efficiency of a vehicle, but at the same time are as much part of the function of the vehicle as the design. It also needs stronger and heavier parts for longevity over rough terrain and to soak up more bumps, That extra weight causes issues too.

Sure, they probably could do a slightly more efficient shape, but the main factors are things that make it what it is. It’s why CUV’s, that don’t have to worry about the majority of those things, have made the “SUV” much more efficient than it used to be, to the point that they are not that different fuel economy wise to the sedans and hatchbacks they replace.

You can’t really compare the two. Model X is a minivan that sits higher while the Rivian seems like a proper SUV, with real off road capabilities, accessories and protection.
I saw Bjorn taking his X off-road and he had to pay 10.000€ for repairs after that. Didn’t do anything crazy, it is just a car for asphalt only.

Look up the definition of minivan. Model X is not one.

It’s a minivan with fancier, less reliable doors.

And less utility due to it’s ridiculous seats and body shape (not that the body shape is ridiculous but just not conductive to utility.

The lack of usable storage space is certainly one of the reasons why it’s entirely inappropriate to call the Model X a “minivan”. If it actually fit that label, then it would have more usable cargo space.

We could fit an uncut 4 x 8 sheet of plywood in the back of our Chrysler Town & Country minivan, and close the hatch. The Model X? Not so much!

Thank you.

It’s true that the Model X isn’t built for real offroading. But just because it’s intended as a road vehicle only, doesn’t make it a “minivan”,and calling it one repeatedly doesn’t make it so.

My family used to have a minivan, I’ve driven a minivan… the MX isn’t a minivan.

Great to see yet another startup producing an innovative approach to a commonly seen vehicle. It is not a Tesla model X competitor. It should be an ICE truck competitor. I think despite the higher price point that it will be a competitor to the trucks on the market today, at least for the well off people who buy suped up trucks. Tesla will announce their take on a truck and I think it will be very different than the Rivion truck. I hope Rivion will make it into production with these two vehicles. All the best luck to that. It also shows that innovation does not come from the old school car manufacturers.

“Tesla wanted competition. It’s got it.”

Ok. Are they in production already? I didn’t know.

No, it will be between one and three years until Rivian is in production, according to their announced plans. But they have already taken possession of an auto assembly factory!

Bottom line…three years out. What will the model X be like in three years?

At least Rivian is a true SUV not a minivan like the X.

The Model X is a crossover where the Rivian is truly an SUV, but Tesla’s design choices, particularly the Falcon doors compromise it as a utility vehicle. Sure you can tow with a Model X, but that can get complicated, especially at a Supercharger. Or just trying to find a parking space to accommodate your increased length.

The Rivian is clearly the winner in my book, it didn’t compromise utility. And given the prices involved, unless Tesla redesigns the model X to be more like the Rivian I know which one I would want in my driveway and it’s not the Tesla.

Id MUCH rather have the Rivian, and bet any amount of money it will be a better seller. The model X never did agree with the basses because it’s just too weird, too gimmicky, and consequently, has too many quality / reliability issues. The r1s is looking to be a way better built products, but less of the Hokie gimmicks, and more of the solid straightforward ruggedness, with just the right amount of technology that most SUV buyers desire. It’s simply transcend’s merely being an electric SUV, it’s an actual attractive and desirable SUV as a whole, even when compared to gasoline counterparts. If you want to win people over to buy electric vehicles, this is the way to do it. And the pickup truck counterpart looks awesome as well

Model Y and GM’s EV*s will be soon showcased too. Just wait.

It would be nice if they spend a few hours and redesign the “family vacation front end”.

The X can barely be described as a SUV. It’s a wannabe. The Rivian is a SUV which will run rings around the X.

Can’t help but wonder why Range Rover hasn’t produced an EV Land Rover- its customer base would eat it up.

Does it have a Supercharger network? Not the regular chargers that take hours. If not they are selling a local driver only. It’s a nice EV but can it charge rapidly?

Respectfully a long line of “competitors”, “Tesla killers”…. not real cars.
Show me a charging station and a couple hundred thousand Riv-blah-blah-blahs…. on the road.
Show me a 1000 pre-orders or maybe even half-a-million. Welcome to Fantasy Island.

Towing comparison please.