The financials may not look good right now, but the vehicles are extremely good. They’re already way out in front of the EV truck segment, and the big automakers have a huge gap to make up to reach the same level of quality. I wouldn’t be surprised if they manage to turn this around and become profitable.
You hear this all the time. There is no such thing as a huge lead in automaking. It’s an incredibly clonable product, and each company has huge teams taking apart each others products.
It’s also not really the product that matters. It’s service centers, parts, repairs, manufacturing capacity. The traditional companies have entrenched supply chains to get parts, and cars, across the country and into hands. All the new companies have to build that from scratch. Producing a couple of something great is an achievement, it is not a lead.
It is much much easier to catch up on the product side than it is to innovate. And because the actual product is only a portion of total value, the companies that are “way ahead” with the most futuristic cars are really the ones playing catch up.
Think of it from the perspective of disruption. Large, incumbent businesses get disrupted all the time. A major indicator of a David beating a Goliath is when the rules of the business change.
And, with EVs, the rules of the business have changed, pretty much overnight.
IMO: Rivian is ripe for a major investment from an outsider with a lot of cash, (like Amazon,) or for acquisition from a major automaker. An acquisition will only work if they are generally allowed to be independent and run with little interference. Given how direct sales without independent dealers are major part of the rule changes, it's very hard for Rivian to leverage an acquiring company's dealer network.
Automotive companies have vast R&D budgets and they've been researching (and improving) EV's for decades. Many auto manufacturers have been involved in Formula E racing, keeping up the tradition of developing technology on the race track and then moving it into production for the consumer market.
Now that there's been a spike in consumer interest in EV's these companies would like to recoup that R&D, not to mention they want to be recognized as leaders in the automotive world. I wouldn't want to start a business to take on Mercedes, BMW, Renault, Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, Lexus - no way. Those guys will crush you.
The SUV and truck market is a different story, however and I think it's smart for Rivian to focus on that segment. They still have stiff competition from the likes of Ford, GM, Toyota and Honda but Toyota and Honda haven't been as active in EV's as the other world-class automotive manufacturers so you stand a better chance competing with them. GM and Ford have a history of failures in responding to rapidly shifting market demands (think of their disasters in the 70's and even into the 80's with producing cars achieving good fuel economy and lower emissions). Now is the time to compete against Ford and GM. Of all the upstart EV makers I think Rivian is best positioned to really stand out and make a name for themselves. As long as they stay away from cars.
If I recall correctly, Rivian is hugely invested into by Cox (specifically Cox Automotive started with a 350M investment), Amazon (750M in 2019 alone), and even Ford (around 500M investment in 2019).
I strongly disagree. Companies are having a very very hard time getting into the electric vehicle business. Toyota actively spent money trying to slow down the advancements in EVs to give themselves time to catch up (https://electrek.co/2021/09/22/toyota-facing-boycotts-over-f...). If only centers, parts, repairs, and manufacturing capacity matter, then Toyota should have nothing to fear. They have all of that in spades compared to rivian or Tesla.
I'm an R1T owner and I can't even put into words why the truck is just so much better and differentiated. It's not just that it's an EV Truck... my friend has a Lightning and it has none of the magic of my Rivian. Magic in a vehicle.
How much better it is, is not a measure of time. It may be a hugely improved product, and it may also be replicated in a few years. They also are not making many of them yet. Let's see it scale. (which maybe it will, but they dont deserve credit for something they have not done yet.)
It feels to me like the F150 Lightning is closer to a Rivian than, say, an electric BMW is to a Tesla, in terms of tech.
If I were shopping for a new pickup, it would be hard to choose between the Ford and the Rivian because Ford has the incumbent automaker advantages while Rivian has the "cool startup" advantages. But in passenger cars, Tesla still has the Supercharger moat, which the Rivian doesn't enjoy.
I agree it was risky, and close to failing, but that’s what usually happens with great things. I don’t think any other car company that makes electric cars would say they aren’t playing catch up with Tesla. They seem to perpetually be a few years behind.
I was just making my comment based on the parent comment saying it couldn’t be done. It’s done all the time in every segment.
Never underestimate the bean counters from ruining the incumbents.
Tesla was close to failing in 2008. After that its 'Musk level' close to failing. Even in 2017 when they were losing billions, they still had lots of option to raise money and their margins were already clearly moving in the right direction.
Wrecked them how? It’s 22Q4 sales numbers are a quarter of GM. They currently rank in 9th place in production. It’s taken them a decade to get a dealer network built. Their repairs timeline sound just as horrifying as their competitors.
But their owners love them and the kids love them. If you adjust the market to be just for what they do, electric cars and not all cars, they are indeed wrecking them.
It was a segment the ICE car manufacturers mostly ignored and now they have profitable competition where it didn’t exist before. Maybe not wrecked but definitely lold.
Lightly dented? Like I said, their lead means almost nothing.
I don’t know what being loved really has to do with production. It won’t take long for a bunch of companies to have equally loved products, and in 30 years, Tesla’s “lead” will be a footnote. Unless they do, future tense, wreck everybody.
It’s a weird response to to my claim that everything but the product matters just as much, if not more. I’m not at all saying Teslas product is or isn’t the best at the moment.
But their owners love them and the kids love them.
100% anecdotal, but between service woes, initial quality complaints, and Musk's latest antics, several early adopters I know have sworn off the brand. And I know several people ICE-owners looking for an EV, but not considering Tesla at all for the above reasons.
Seems to me Tesla's only real edge at this point is the SuperCharger network. But, that lead will diminish over time, especially if they open the network to all EVs.
Tesla is a luxury car manufacturer. Of course they have less sales. Luxury brands have lower volume and higher profit margins. You're comparing Gucci and Levi's.
You should maybe look a little bit deeper. Tesla already makes more money then Ford and GM combined, and that is simple profit. Beyond that Tesla has basically no debt and a great cash position, while the others have huge amounts of debt.
Tesla is still growing fast, has extensive self owned infrastructure in charging and service that will be very profitable and is a huge, huge asset. Tesla is competitive with European car makers in Europe, a market GM has dropped, and Ford mostly so relaying on VW MEB to stay in it at all. Tesla is competitive with car makers in China as well. GM and Ford have very little chance of even establishing their EVs seriously there. In fact the opposite, cars from China will compete with them in the US.
In the meantime the car industry has historically high level of access production capacity. Lots of old ICE and engine plants running below capacity, closing them is hard and costly. At the same time they have to do 10s of billions of new investments in new facilities.
At the same time the ICE sales are going down, lower economics of scale, access manufacturing means seriously negative margin. And that right around the time when anybody with half a brain will realize that buying and ICE car will be a bad investment and resell value will be low. This will collapse resale value of ICE cars and that impacts their financials.
Battery materials are a limiting factor already, and there is no physical way all the announced car makers plans can actually happen. Yes, mining is expanding, but not as fast as battery manufacturing and EV demand. Those companies that did not planned for this for the last 5 years will run into massive issues.
> It’s taken them a decade to get a dealer network built.
Meanwhile Ford and GM and co are literally in a war with dealerships over service. VW is literally suing its dealers and the auto lobby are launching a large scale lobbying effort to prevent the dealers lobbying effort. This could potentially cut 100s of millions away from the already thin profits of the car makers.
Literally every other car maker would kill to be in Tesla position.
> Their repairs timeline sound just as horrifying as their competitors.
Maybe be true or not, but on service, current car makers only maybe 20% of the money, the rest goes to dealers. Tesla will earn 100% of the money.
Its not well understood, but parts are a huge reason why traditional OEMs are profitable at all. Tesla meanwhile has very few old cars on the road, and many new cars under warranty. Despite that, Tesla service business is already profitable, and that is before millions of cars will go off warranty in a few years.
Again, literally every single car maker would love to be in Teslas situation.
One last point, if you insist on comparing how many cars they make. Look at the trendlines, not just a single year.
Tesla is really nothing special. It has one massive advantage: the supercharger network. Other than that, it has an excellent powertrain (eminently clonable), a pretty good nav system, a pretty good adaptive cruise control, no CarPlay or Android Auto, and no interior amenities worth mentioning. And they have absolutely terrible parasitic power consumption, a property that every other manufacturer has nailed for decades, because a car with a single lead-acid battery that parasitically discharges like a Tesla would be utterly useless. Tesla would like you to think they make the world’s best batteries, but they really don’t. They do have mindshare, though, and everyone else has been sitting on their butts and failing to compete effectively.
Do other EV makers have better parasitic drain? I'm honestly not sure. My Tesla's isn't that bad, but it's not 0. Might be a couple miles a day, which isn't a ton of miles, but it's a lot of energy.
It also seems they have a pretty significant efficiency advantage per kWh. Whenever I see EVs compared, the general consensus seems to be Tesla has a lead above everyone else.
"wrecked"... Tesla didn't even come close to wrecking anybody. They came in as a new competitor, and are still massively overvalued because of investor delusion.
Tesla makes better software right now. But the profit-margins argument seems to be a misconception [1]. Until Tesla distances itself from Musk, I also don't think the brand will stay 'cool' for that long.
I don’t think those are fully like to like comparisons though. You have to run those numbers just for electric. Nobody I know would cross shop a Tesla and a Rav 4. They can have their margins on their ICE catalog but they don’t have it on their electric yet even with the dealer network numbers added in.
Claiming everybody else is delusional when you are probably no rich from speculating is always a fun claim.
The car industry is consolidating. Chrysler is one example, they simply had no chance in hell to have any EV strategy. Now they have at least something thanks to their merger resulting in PSA. More such things will happen in the next 5 years.
Go look at how many cars companies like GM used to sell, and how many they are selling now.
Tesla is more profitable then GM and Ford combined, something that people would have not believed just a few years ago (not even mention debt, growth and other things).
They are not "wrecked" but everybody in the car industry knows that Tesla together with the rise of China auto is gone be a huge hammer to the rest of the industry. But with business like this, it takes years for these things to unfold.
Toyota engineers just acknowledged that their teardown of a Model Y "revealed a work of art". Toyota. If my 17,000 shares make me delusional, so be it, friend.
Ok, he's referring to the product of the giga-press as a work of art.
Too bad they didnt print the engineer's rationale, because that article isn't about that. But it is certainly referring to the product of the Giga-press being cast as opposed to being an assembly. A similar advancement happened in the aerospace industry, except this time the press is already for sale from Italy.
What I would rather see instead of one engineer gushing about a high-end manufacturing process would be Elon investing in automotive engineers who know where to route critical components and how to design maintainability instead of tanking shares on a social media vanity acquisition.
I disagree there are two primary leads in the automotive industry manufacturing and supply chain.
These are both hard to build, and require not only a monumental capital investment but also a lot of organizational experience to get right especially around QA and also can easily be a handicap for example established automakers often base their design choices on their existing supply chain and part availability as they often want to maximize part commonality between various models.
That said I do agree that as far as design goes it’s far easier for an established automaker to catch up to a contender than the other way around.
At least if they are willing to give up on some of the optimizations they squeezed out of the process over decades.
What they do have a huge lead on, and which is not clonable, and which is under+appreciated since the lack of it takes a while to affect profits is attention to detail.
They not only put a lot of thought in to their trucks to make them some of the best EV trucks in the world, but if they stay focused they can continue to bring that level of care and attention to all their future vehicles. At that point the cloned features look cheap and are already behind by the time they hit the market. You see this kind of pattern play out all over the place.
> they’re not practical replacements for a full size pickup truck (as the F-150 Lightning is).
Why not? I’ve done “truck stuff” in a Rivian, like towing a 5 ton car trailer over the Sierra Nevadas. They have the same towing capacity and the Rivian has better battery range. They also cost the same similarly equipped. What’s the issue?
Bed lengths for reference...
54" Rivian R1T
54" Ford Maverick
64" Honda Ridgeline
66" F150 Lightning
I own a Ridgeline. The bed is fine for chucking some camping gear, but it's nowhere near long enough for lumber, sheetrock, etc. Mountain bikes don't fit upright, even with the front wheel off.
The Rivian is 17" longer overall than a Maverick and 7" longer than the Honda. It's bed is really small - fine for casual use, but hardly suitable for "working truck stuff". And that's not the market Rivian is targeting, so that's fine.
Even the F-150 Lightning isn’t a good replacement for any pickup truck use cases that require towing or going far off the beaten path outside the reach of charging stations. There’s still no EV equivalent of just throwing a couple gas cans in the bed to extend the range.
It’s good for typical suburban pickup truck uses though and could be a good farm truck since you could just charge it at home.
Electricity assuredly is NOT everywhere. There are large swaths of the US where you will be very far from a plug. Also, it takes an impractical amount of time to charge an EV pickup truck on anything other than a fast charger.
We are not anywhere near where the infrastructure is ready for EV pickup trucks to be practical for a large number of people that currently need them. We may get there some day, but not for decades without a huge breakthrough in battery charging technology or manhattan project level investment in charging infrastructure.
220V 50 amps electricity is effectively everywhere. Those large swaths of the country with nothing in them are also places where there’s generally far less traffic.
Where do most pickup trucks get driven in the USA? I'd guess it's not in the middle of nowhere, at least that wasn't my impression when visiting the USA.
From a sheer volume perspective you're probably correct, but if you venture out into the less densely populated areas of the country (with more sparse/nonexistent infrastructure) you're more likely to see a truck on a given vehicle encounter. These are the places where electric is a non-starter.
You don't have to venture far from the major East Coast cities to get to "nowhere." For example, there are plenty of remote areas in WV (Canaan Valley, Dolly Sods, etc).
If you go camping in those areas, you have to make a 3 hour charging detour on the return leg. There are no public chargers in the nearest towns or on the main road into the area.
If you rent a cabin, you can probably run a charger out the window. Rent a condo at the ski lodge? Not sure, they didn't have chargers a few years ago, but might toady.
I camp in the Appalachians regularly, from DC. There a quite a few spots I can't get to without a 3 hour charging detour (2 hours charge time, 1 hour road detour to get to EV station) on the return leg. And that's for areas that are only 3-4 hours away (one direction). [this was using ABRP and a mid-range Riviant R1T]
The F-150 Lightning is also a very good truck, and it gets to capitalize on the F-150 brand and customer base.
They addressed a gap in the market (smaller electric truck) rather than trying to go head-to-head with the biggest full-size truck brand in the industry.
That bed length disadvantage is pretty significant if you're coming to it from the "truck user" market vs the "weekend camper" or "soccer mom" market.
I was interested in a Rivian until I saw one in person and saw how short that bed was. It wasn't the first spec I'd looked at on paper, but jumped out in-person. In that size I'd probably go cheap with a Maverick hybrid for now until there are more full-EV competitors.
Just looked it up and realized it isn't even close to passing the sheet good test. I suppose the expectation is to drive with the tailgate down? My minivan seems to be a more competent hauler of material (for my admittedly limited needs) than the Rivian.
Ford has been rapidly raising their prices (so it’s hard to keep track) but last I saw starting prices were $73k for the Rivian and $56k for the Lightning.
In isolation, sure, but this space is going to get so fiercely competitive so quickly (on the order of years, but that is fast for the car industry!) and ASPs for electric trucks will come down. Rivian are still generally only selling ~six-figure trucks today (the priciest configs ship sooner of course) and not making money at it.
How good the vehicle is becomes irrelevant if you can't make it at a price people want to pay. I still think Rivian can get there, but there is so far to go. They only delivered ~20k cars in 2022.
I'm not sure it's fair to say the priciest configs ship sooner. They're really only delivering two trucks right now, the quad motor, large pack versions of the R1T and R1S. The dual motor configs are cheaper but were only introduced recently. The max pack versions have been for sale for awhile and none of have been delivered, but they're also the most expensive.
They did raise prices around 1 year ago but I've seen no evidence that they've prioritized orders for those who purchased after the price increase or who equipped more expensive options (options like tents and racks are shipping separately).
If you can't make money on the highest margin configs (and they can't yet), you certainly don't prioritise selling the lower margin models. This is a fairly common practice for a new model line from an auto-maker and Rivian are no different.
The reason I point price out at all, competition is already available for less in places (F150 Lightning), and more electric trucks are due to launch shortly - not great if you can't turn a profit on six figure models let alone considering lower priced offerings to compete.
If you want a truck for looks, EV is nice enough. If you want a truck to haul stuff, EV is terrible. Put a trailer on your EV and they have basically no range at all.
If you need a truck to haul stuff reasonable distances, EV isn't for you (at least not right now). If you want to save the world, then an electric car gets much better ranges with much smaller batteries and a fraction of the power usage.
This leaves EV trucks in a "why bother?" category.
Most hauling around is local, within a city or region. EV range is reasonable and actually has many advantages over ICE cars. Operating cost being a huge one. Torque being the other.
And the reality is the waste majority of people simple don't drive long distances with trailers. Study after study shows how that simply not why most people buy trucks.
BMW's entire marketing department gets that you don't sell cars based on what the driver's actually going to use it for, but based on an emotional pull on who the driver wants to be. Trucks are no different. Studies after study can show how much people don't pull trailers, but that's not why the F150 is the US' best selling truck.
This isn’t true. I hauled a 5 ton car trailer from San Francisco to the Black Rock Desert in Nevada last year and it was a breeze. 160 miles (the range with the trailer) is not “no range at all”, and the charging network, at least here, is dense enough to deal with it.
100% anecdotal: I'm in Georgia. If I had to guesstimate, I see about ~20 Rivians a month now in both urban and suburban settings. They seem to be catching on.
The all electric Lightning outsold the R1T in December. Rivian is only guiding to 50K vehicles this year, many of which are Amazon vans. At the December run rate Ford will sell more than Rician in 2023. You can’t even order a Lightning online anymore-sold out for the year. Rivian doesn’t have the battery supply to grow fast.
"We generated negative gross profit of $(1,000) million for the fourth quarter 2022. For fiscal year 2022, we generated negative gross profit of $(3,123) million. Gross profit for
the fourth quarter 2022 was impacted by a lower of cost or net realizable value (“LCNRV”) of inventory charge and losses on firm purchase commitments of $920 million as of December 31, 2022 compared to $95 million as of December 31, 2021. We expect to continue to incur these charges throughout 2023 but anticipate the total charge will decline as we drive down cost of goods sold per vehicle by lowering material, production, logistics, and other costs. We forecast reaching positive gross profit in 2024 and therefore expect that by the end of 2024, we will no longer have material LCNRV inventory charges and losses on firm purchase commitments associated with our Normal facility."
You are incorrect. 'Loss' is a perfectly acceptable GAAP term for negative profits on the P&L, it's just that 'Gross Loss' is so rare, nobody really uses it.
You can even look at the 10-k and see they say 'Net Loss' instead of 'Net Income.'
>"negative gross profit" ... that is corpspeak for "loss" right?
Negative gross profit means they are selling the cars for less than it costs to make them, which is like 'mega-loss.'
It's one thing to make $5k per truck, but then spend a lot on advertising to get the word out (eventually the word is out and you can slow down advertising/spread it across more sales).
It's another thing to lose $5k per truck and still have to spend money on advertising it.
EDIT: To be fair, this is because Rivian built big/expensive factories and still only makes a small amount of cars in those factories. A big question will be their ability to actually use those factories to their full potential.
Maybe they’re trying to trick the automated trading algorithms that buy and sell shares based on sentiment analysis. Negative gross profit sounds vaguely like a good thing at a glance
Building an auto manufacturer from scratch is pretty up there as one of the hardest/most expensive business challenge that exists. The fact that they have survived through the "burning money" stage to get to the other side at all is pretty powerful.
All the examples of car startups that failed only did so because they struggled to drum up sales in their day (DeLorean, Fiskar, Tucker, etc). On the other hand, I am seeing Rivians EVERYWHERE. They are selling them as fast as they can make them. On top of that, they seem to be doing a great job of releasing new models pretty quickly and skipping over the years of QC problems that plagued early Tesla.
If there's actually consumer demand for the car, and the marginal costs to manufacture are favorable - you can probably ignore all of the sunk development costs. SOMEONE would want to carry on the business. But we will probably see all parties involved eating or writing off as much of the debt as possible right now that they are transitioning to cash flow.
It seems, though, like they are not at all through the 'burning money' stage. The marginal costs to manufacture appear to still be in the neighborhood of 3x the price of the vehicle. They seem optimistic they can turn that around this year, but promises are easy.
The cost per vehicle (all expenses total/ # of vehicles) may be 3x the sale price, but the marginal cost (the cost to produce one more car to sell) is still less than the sale price.
An important distinction. Otherwise selling cars would cost them money.
COGS per vehicle is still way more than twice the average selling price. Yes, selling cars costs them money. They have to figure out how to make the manufacturing process use fewer and cheaper parts, less labor, etc. It is a difficult problem because scaling only offers incremental improvements to COGS.
In the land of cheap debt and endless promises, you can continue running a completely irrational business for a very long time. Just look at Uber, who has never turned a profit.
It gets especially bad when you are a new electric car company presenting yourself as a tech company so that you can get tech-company like speculators throwing money at things that make no logical sense whatsoever.
The gross loss is driven by $920M in losses on firm purchase commitments. As I understand it, Rivian has entered into contracts with suppliers to buy some components needed to manufacture its vehicles at fixed prices over some future period of time, likely several years. If the market prices of those components decrease, the value of those contracts also decreases. In some sense this isn't a "real" loss - Rivian will still be buying the same components, at the same prices, on the same dates that it expected to at the start of the quarter. But the market prices of the components went down, which creates a paper loss, which they have to mark to market.
That also creates a timing mismatch - Rivian's revenue in Q4 was $663M and its cost of revenue was $1663M, but most of the $1663M is associated with vehicles that they haven't delivered or even manufactured yet, so they'll recognize that revenue in future quarters. I don't know what it actually costs them to manufacture one vehicle, but I bet it's a lot less than 2.5x the revenue they get from that vehicle.
Leaving aside the accounting and addressing your real question: From a quick search it looks like Rivian has raised a total of $23B of capital between VC rounds and its IPO, and it has $13B of current assets (mostly cash + inventory) as of 12/31, so that gives it a fairly long runway even at its current burn rate. But its burn rate - loosely, revenue minus expenses - is expected to slow over time, assuming that (1) its revenue grows faster than expenses (it's expecting deliveries to ~double this year, which should increase revenue at a similar rate) and (2) its unit economics work out, i.e., its "true" cost of revenue is less than its revenue.
I don't really think that is worth mentioning. Tesla always wanted to be profitable, to get their they need a high margin mass production vehicle. Since they had that, the Model 3, they have been profitable. The Model 3 was always the plan.
“We make the Amazon delivery vehicles that Amazon gets at cost so we are a cost center that manages to offset our expenses by $600M further optimizing the weighted cost per delivery vehicle for Amazon.”
Currently the price is approximately equal to the cost, but presumably there's nothing in the contract with Amazon saying that if Rivian's costs go down then the price to amazon goes down.
I think these look great, but I can't see them replacing combustion engines for all the things people who drive trucks in the country need.
Like... I'm not going to load this up with fence posts and go out for a 12 hour day... plugging in the fence post digger to the battery... I'd be afraid that since I can't just toss in an extra gas tank that I'd be walking home.
And I can't see this pulling a horse trailer across the Great Plains stopping every 300 miles to recharge for several hours. (But I know North Dakota did finally get a Tesla charging stating!) Just feels like it's not quite setup for "real" use.
I can totally see some suburban guy using this to go camping. But... even that, like I don't want to leave this parked at the trail head for a week, when I'm hiking. I bet the battery would hold a week, but like what if it didn't? I couldn't just bum a jump from another camper.
One of the joys to being out in nature, is being away from "it all" -- including being away from the population density required to make charging stations viable. I think that's always going to be a fundamental flaw with electric "adventure" vehicles.
Cool to look at. Promising tech. But EVs are still "toys" in my mind.
People still livin in a fantasy world where most trucks are used by farmers to put up fence posts. Its hilarious.
Every single stastic and analysis shows that the waste majority of truck drivers barley ever use trailer and haul stuff in the extreme minority of case. And even then they mostly haul locally.
> But EVs are still "toys" in my mind.
By that definition, most F-150 are toys.
The reality is there is a 2 million a year truck market and EV trucks are totally reasonably for 70% of that market and that is growing fast.
Look, I think that it's fair to say most people don't need trucks. If you haven't driven on a gravel road, or haven't towed anything in the last year... you don't need a truck.
But I legit spend a month a year on my family ranch... I still have relatives who live out there full time. 20,000 acres, nearest neighbor is 10 miles away, nearest gas station is 30 miles away, nearest grocery store is 70 miles away.
There aren't a lot of ranchers left, but it's not a fantasy for them. They need stuff that works. I don't know why you find that hilarious.
And for that matter... CA and TX both have energy production issues. We can't keep our homes powered during a blizzard, or during August, and I have serious doubts that adding more EVs to the grid will be sustainable.
Love to be proven wrong, but all the EVs come across as "rich man toys" to me still. Would the light stay on if everyone had a Tesla to virtue signal in?
> R&D: 402
> Selling, general, administrative: 393
Loss from Operations: (1,795)
Interest income: 99
Interest expense: 33
Other net income: 6
Loss before taxes: (1,723)
Remember, all of these are in millions. So Rivian managed to lose 1.7 billion dollars in 3 months. That comes out to nearly 19 million dollars lost every single day.
Financial experts: Do they break it down in a way that shows the COGS for each vehicle produced? Has that dropped a significant amount from a year ago?
To answer my own question, the numbers suggest COGS-per-vehicle has increased since last quarter, not dropped. Rivian is burning a lot of money every time they product another vehicle.
It isn't an either or scenario, and you're providing an unrealistic expectation.
Rivian is making "lifestyle vehicles", pick-ups and SUVs that are off-road capable, but are not not work trucks. There is no public transit out in much of these areas.
They also make Amazon delivery vehicles, so you can't expect Amazon deliveries to be made via public transport.
The entire vehicle fleet needs to be electrified, period. There are areas of the United States where a private 4WD vehicle are a necessity to get to and from home. The only way to eventually retire the vast infrastructure required to deliver fossil fuels to rural areas, and everywhere else, is to electrify the entire fleet.
Climate change is a chemistry and engineering problem. You can solve some of the chemistry and engineering problem upstream, through social and cultural changes, but insisting that those changes are the only way to solve the problem is flat-out false, and absolutely repellent to many people that, ultimately, will need to be brought along in the transition away from fossil fuels.
Nothing is stopping you from working on the myriad issues that prevent greater adoption of public transportation, and you and the world would be better served by getting to work building the future you want instead of trashing the efforts of people working the problem from a different angle.
In fact, insane car and highway infrastructure is actually a luxury. Funny how roads just magically spring up everywhere and they are 'required to live' but god forbid a bus that uses that road, that is luxury. Public subsidy of car infrastructure is far higher then for public transport.
> coincide with bus/train routes
There is this thing called planning. They put public transport where it is actually needed. Its not like 'ohh luck, they just so happened to build a train here'.
If your country has a serious imperative of doing public infrastructure correctly, then the amount of people who can reasonably be reached is very, very high.
And good urbanism isn't just density. Look at some railroad towns in the East, they have walkable rural urbanism. You don't need a car to live in such places. Or maybe one car for a whole large family.
Sure yes, there is some people who that doesn't include. But lets be fucking real, most people live in cities or in suburban areas. Or in sprawl town loosely attached to some larger metro area.
And in even more places trying to go threw or across the city takes longer with a car. Public transport is just fundamentally more efficient as a society.
If you had said 'some people need cars' that would be one thing, but to act like cars are normal and car infrastructure is standard and normal, and public transit is some sort of luxury that only fancy societies can afford and even then only once they have built their highway infrastructure.
A big problem with German public transport for example that right when they wanted to implement West German High speed rail, the unification with East Germany happened and new highway for cars took priority. And after that the EU believed the most important thing was building lots of highway all threw Eastern Europe.
Walking, biking and public transport should be the baseline, and if money is left over you can have fancy car infrastructure and parking is the luxury.
It's a luxury IFF you live right next to a station and need to go right next to stations and your trains/busses/whatever aren't too crowded.
Otherwise it's a necessity for those for whom private transportation is a luxury, and often not a pleasant one. Crammed standing into a crowded box, or transferring a couple of times to take 2 hours by bus to go somewhere you could get to directly in 30min, etc.
"Invest in public transportation" is a hard sell in a country where a huge portion of the population is able to afford private vehicles and space to park them, because the level of investment required to even equal the convenience factor of that is very, very, very high.
EDIT: even in Europe you don't have to travel that far outside of city centers to find quite a bit of private car ownership. All those European car companies aren't just doing it for shits and giggles, after all.
What a hilariously American comment. Nearly all American cities were built by train networks that existed in the 1800s. These train lines were ripped out to make way for car infrastructure in the mid-1900s, which was designed to segregate neighborhoods and give giant profits to GM. Even famously car-centric LA with their massive freeways once had the best public transit in the world.
The first things hip urban europeans do when they can afford it is buy an Audi wagon and move to the suburbs.
I worked in Mainz for many years and one of my German coworkers was so happy the day he finally had moved up enough and saved up enough to move out of town. Bought an M5 Wagon and a cute little Haus with a yard and a shed. He was so excited to be able to go to the hardware store to buy garden tools to fill up his shed and furniture that wasn't apartment-sized. He was finally living the American dream.
Name any country, any country WHATSOEVER, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, with more than 500,000 residents (small pacific island nations don't count lol) and I will find you an America-style suburban neighborhood full of station wagons and SUVs and single-family homes. Europe is easy. I lived in them. South America is easy. Asia is easy. Even Africa experiences this phenomenon.
You don't believe me. I know you don't.
Here's a suburban neighborhood consisting of fenced-in single family homes with manicured lawns and (most likely) a Range Rover in every driveway in Bujumbura, Burundi. The poorest country on earth: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Burundi/@-3.3707605,29.392...
Living somewhere where you can't smell your neighbors is what nearly every single human being who can afford it wants.
I'm an American who has lived in Germany, Nigeria, Kenya, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and Ecuador. They are all connected by the same thread: you got the choice, you get the fuck out of the cities.
Lol no. All the most desirable suburbs in Japan, South Korea have train access. Who the hell wants to find parking anytime you go to the city for arts and fine dining? Who wants to be at risk for DUIs? Most people in these suburbs cannot afford a driver, thats reserved for the ultra wealthy.
Even in Canada, the most desirable suburbs of Toronto are the "streetcar suburbs". People put a premium on having public transit, because it is easier to get on a train to go enjoy a night out than it is to drive there. If you're a loser that stays home all the time and has no friends, then that's on you.
I don't think we're talking solely about cities here; suburban and rural areas can never be sustainably and cost-effectively served by public transit, at least not the kind of areas with densities you'll find in the US.
Certainly US cities are very weak on the public transit front, and there's a lot of improvement that can be made there. Even then, though, there are a lot of municipalities in the US that technically are considered "cities" but don't have enough density to make pervasive public transit feasible.
Switzerland has villages with only hundreds of people that regularly receive train service. There are states with similar GDP, size and density as Switzerland that do not have any train service.
Sprawling suburbs are a giant scam - the cost of providing urban amenities (power, internet, sewage) to these neighborhoods is much higher than it appears. The lines of pipes and power lines in sprawling burbs cost wayyyy more than it would to maintain a transit oriented development full of townhomes and condos.
I ride the bus and I can promise you I don't do it because of luxury. Even if that was true, it would only be true in North America. In the rest of the developed world, public transport extends out into rural areas.
Yeah, if by "extends out" you mean "you can get there, eventually". Not if you mean "you can get there in a reasonable amount of time and you don't need to time it perfectly because you only get two chances a day".
>In the rest of the developed world, public transport extends out into rural areas.
I have spent a lot of time in Europe and, once you get away from population centers and even larger towns, public transit can get very hit or miss. OK, maybe there's technically a once or twice a day bus to that rural hamlet but lots of Europeans own cars and, while it's generally easier to get by without cars in areas of Europe, it's not like you can hop on public transportation everywhere.
It varies of course. Somewhere like Switzerland (as another poster notes) is generally easier to get off the beaten track by bus or train than a lot of coutries.
Switzerland has villages with only hundreds of people that regularly receive train service. There are states with similar GDP, size and density as Switzerland that do not have any train service. Don't think of the US as a whole, think of the individual states who easily have the budget equivalent of European countries.
I agree with you that investment in public transit is preferable to private vehicles in many cases, but the primary purpose of a pickup truck is not personal transportation, it's hauling a bunch of bulky, heavy stuff that isn't feasible to bring on public transit.
Regardless, public transit cannot go everywhere. Rural and light-density suburban areas can never be adequately and cost-effectively served by public transit. Sure, you can run trains or buses into areas like those, but either you'll have excessively low per-route ridership and unsustainably-high operational costs, or you'll have routes that require people to travel several miles in order to get to a station/stop, which means people need private vehicles anyway.
In these cases, you often end up with an overall trip that takes several multiples of the time it would take to drive your own private car. I get that many people might find it acceptable to impose that kind of situation on people (in the name of the environment or whatever reason), but I wouldn't want to live in that world. I use public transit whenever feasible, and only drive when I have to, but there are limits to what I will accept.
In the US, total cost per passenger mile for public transportation is higher than private vehicles. All that extra cost has environmental impact in the form of extra steel, concrete, and salaries.
For buying something from Amazon, the largest part of the carbon footprint is the cardboard boxes and overall, its still more efficient than traditional shopping.
you clearly don't live in suburban or rural areas. I've tried to take public transportation in Phoenix. They put stops every 1/4 mi. it takes longer to ride a bus than ride a bike. public transit is just not remotely reasonable.
One of their biggest plays are EV delivery trucks (and I see them on my streets). I'm sure someone will chime in about the environmental concerns of Amazon - but Rivan's strategy seems like a decent environmental message to me.
It'd be far worse to have scheduled bus routes and train tracks cutting across the vast wilderness than the occasional electric vehicle cruising through.
Not really sure what (if any) claim you're making here. I'm defining wilderness above to be "those areas without sufficient road infrastructure to support heavy vehicles like busses", if that helps clarify.
A double track train line can move orders of magnitude more people than a 30-lane highway can. Cars and highways are space inefficient, and highways cause property values surrounding it to decrease due to the pollution and noise.
You're not really responding to what the parent poster said. We're not talking about 30-lane highways, we're talking about a small one-lane road that only needs to serve tens of people per day. A train route for that is absurd.
Because of the space inefficiency of cars, you end up building and widening way too may roads, destroying the countryside. Trains allow you keep development contained without spoiling the countryside. Forgot where I saw this, but a Swiss women used to see lines of trucks in her village until the government heavily promoted electrified freight rail. Now there's little to no trucks in her village.
Basically anywhere in Europe (Switzerland especially) is incomparable to the "vast wilderness" I described above. I speak of roads where a "busy day" is more than (say) 3 light vehicles traveling.
Depends on how much energy the train uses. I would guess that the maintenance and supporting infrastructure for the 'occasional' car would dwarf the cost of a railway.
