News
Inside Rivian’s California battery lab: 180 kWh ‘megapacks’, carbon fiber, and ballistic shields
I found myself perplexed when I heard about Rivian’s plan to unveil an all-electric pickup truck with a battery pack nearly double the size of any other electric vehicle. Packing 80% more energy than Tesla’s flagship Model S and Model X, Rivian’s 180 kWh battery pack enables their full-size, adventure vehicles to travel 400+ miles (643 km) on a single charge. Rivian’s response? We actually call it the “megapack.”
At a flashy unveiling event in Los Angeles, the Michigan-based electric car company exited stealth mode and debuted their first two production vehicles: an all-electric pickup truck dubbed the R1T and an R1S luxury SUV. Capable of towing 11,000 lbs from its all-electric powertrain, the R1T is set to disrupt a $95-billion-dollar US truck market that’s largely dominated by Ford and GM. Rivian’s seven-seater, R1S SUV takes aim directly at gas guzzlers that are competing in the premium sports utility segment like Land Rover and Porsche’s Cayenne.
Powering the R1T Truck and R1S SUV is a quad-motor electric drivetrain that’s paired with one of Rivian’s three battery pack configurations, in 105 kWh, 135 kWh, and 180 kWh (the “megapack”). Rivian’s 180 kWh megapack holds enough energy to power a typical US household for more than two weeks. To learn more about the engineering that goes into each of Rivian’s battery packs, and the company’s plan to bring their ultra-long-range battery packs to market, I visited their research and development facility in Southern California.
The Battery Lab
Rivian’s battery lab is located in an unassuming industrial business park in Irvine, California. Still working its way out of nine-years in stealth mode, the 19,000 sq ft facility lacks any signage on its doors, yet has played a major role since mid-2017 when the company moved in to begin its research and development.
Upon entering the battery lab, I was greeted by the faint hum of testing equipment around me. Bright white lights illuminate a team of engineers in blue Rivian lab coats. I was told that the lab is where Rivian performs tests on the lithium-ion battery cells being used in its vehicles. The lab is also where battery module production is currently taking place, albeit mostly for prototype battery packs.
Leading Rivian’s battery and powertrain development is former hypercar engineer Richard Farquhar, who enjoys an insanely fun-sounding title: VP of Propulsion. Farquhar is one of the many members to recently join Rivian from renowned supercar brand McLaren. Rivian has brought on seven executives from the British company since late 2017, including Executive Director of Engineering and Programs, Mark Vinnels.
(Photo: Rivian)
Rivian’s Battery Cells and Supplier
As Farquhar and I walk past a long row of glass cabinets, seen packed with hundreds of cylindrical battery cells in their testing phase, his eyes lit up with excitement while discussing the most intricate elements of the lithium-ion cells. “We want to understand the battery cells even better than their manufacturer,” Farquhar tells me.
It was the perfect segue I was looking for. “So, where is Rivian getting these battery cells from?” I ask. Farquhar wasn’t able to share the name of their battery partner but emphasized that Rivian wasn’t worried about their supply of cells. “I have no concern whatsoever,” Farquhar emphatically stated.
While Rivian isn’t ready to announce a battery supplier (yet), U.S. customs import records suggest that the company could be partnering with LG Chem to procure their cylindrical 2170 form factor lithium-ion cells. Rivian imported nearly 12,933 kg (28,500 lbs) of the 2170 cells from LG Chem in 2018 thus far — enough to support a test production run of ~195 Rivian battery modules at 15 kWh each.
Designed for extreme conditions
Inside the cabinets were cells being cycled through various charge and discharge states, and at various temperatures. Rivian wants to be the leading experts on battery technology, and in lieu of having numerous vehicles on the road, the company is testing its batteries using real-world simulations.
In the office area next to the lab, engineers analyze the testing data in real-time while adjusting computer-generated models. These tests aren’t just being done for a few hours or days, Farquhar tells me. One battery test has been ongoing for 11 months and counting. Rivian plans to analyze battery cell behavior over time and collect as much data as possible before making adjustments to it and entering production.
While standing the test of time is incredibly important for all battery cells, standing up to extreme conditions is just as critical. On one side of the lab, special climate-controlled containers simulate extreme temperature scenarios and test how the cells, modules, and full-sized battery packs react to these conditions. Rivian expects their adventure-ready vehicles to be capable of handling extreme temperatures and climates. Pushing their batteries to the limit isn’t just a precaution, but a necessity.
From Battery Cells to Modules
Farquhar tells me that Rivian engineers have worked on battery algorithms that leverage a driver’s profile, including their location and navigation data, and real-time weather conditions, to preemptively optimize a battery. For example, when a vehicle is on its way to a DC-charging station, the battery modules will be cooled ahead of time and prepared to accept the fastest charging rate. In essence, Rivian’s battery algorithms are adjusting battery cell settings, constantly, on the fly. By using machine-learning to build predictive models of various conditions, Rivian is able to tune battery cells, with high confidence, on conditions it may encounter.
Rivian’s R1T pickup truck and R1S adventure SUV will use the exact same battery modules. Battery capacity will vary based on the number of modules inside a skateboard-style battery pack design. Each Rivian module holds 864 cells, with 432 on the bottom and the other half stacked on top. In between the cells is a thin 7mm aluminum plate with liquid coolant. The unique structure isn’t known to be used by any other manufacturer.
-
- A side view of Rivian’s battery module. Between the two layers of battery cells lies a proprietary cooling plate, allowing cells to be packed in tightly, while cooling the module efficiently. (Photo: Rivian)
-
- Rivian Battery modules being tested in Rivian’s Irvine, CA Development Center (Photo: Rivian)
A battery’s cooling system is one of the most important components within an electric car. If the batteries get too hot from fast charging or extended periods of high output, they could degrade in energy capacity and face permanent damage. If the batteries get too cold, they lose range. Keeping the batteries at their optimum temperature is a constant battle and is what truly differentiates any electric vehicle manufacturer.
Rivian’s solution to battery thermal management is the use of a cold plate that’s placed between two battery cells. A single cooling system chills both layers of cells at the same time. According to Rivian, this reduces the amount of energy needed to power the system, thereby allowing the car to have better range in all types of conditions. In addition to saving power, the cooling system’s design allows for tighter packaging of cells within the modules. According to Farquhar, Rivian’s unique packaging allows the module to be 25% denser than any other battery module on the market.
Rivian’s Battery Pack: Carbon Fiber and Ballistic Shields
I saw it from afar. Carbon fiber. Walking toward a station that was outfitted with Rivian’s line of 135 kWh and 180 kWh battery packs, my eyes were immediately drawn to a fibrous-looking cover plate.
Securing Rivian’s battery modules and high-voltage cabling in place is a carbon-fiber composite shell. Engineers were able to create a unique, high-strength geometric shape out of the carbon fiber while keeping weight to a minimum. Rivian seals the battery pack to be completely watertight. The pack is bolted into the frame of the vehicle and then covered by a smooth ‘ballistic shield’, which prevents damage to the underside of the battery pack and protects occupants within the vehicle’s cabin. The ballistic shield is fitted to the entire underbody of the vehicle.
Having a watertight battery pack that’s armored by a ballistic shield bodes well for a company whose mission is to build extreme off-road vehicles. That’s the messaging Rivian wants consumers to see. The vehicles are designed to be adventure-ready, being able to wade through 1 meter of water, climb 45-degree inclines, and drive over boulders.
Rivian’s Executive Director of Engineering and Programs, Mark Vinnels, told Teslarati that they dropped the vehicle on a boulder from 2 ft in the air, just to be able to verify the battery pack’s integrity in extreme off-road situations.
What about Production?
With the design of its battery module completed, a significant portion of the team’s focus has turned to module production — specifically, designing methods to quickly and efficiently manufacture modules by using automation. Rivian has set up a pilot production line at the Irvine facility, ahead of its anticipated summer 2020 production.
Rivian is actively developing automation processes for the entire battery module assembly. In a corner of the battery facility were two Japan-made robots that were brought in from the company’s massive factory in Normal, Illinois. A robotics technician was actively working on the robots, while I watched a module come together on the line.
The entirety of Rivian’s module and battery pack production is slated to be installed in a 300,000 sq-ft section of Rivian’s 2.6M sq ft factory in Normal, IL. The plant was acquired by Rivian in 2017 for $16M and originally part of an expansion made by Mitsubishi that the Japanese automaker never occupied. Farquhar stated that the area is virtually a “clean slate.”
ALSO SEE: Rivian R1T and R1S: Top 10 hidden features that make an electric off-road vehicle
Rivian expects to start deliveries of the R1S and R1T in the second half of 2020, with the largest battery packs entering production first. The R1S SUV starts at $72,500 (before tax credits) and has a range that varies between 240 to 410+ miles (385 to 660 km). Rivian’s R1T pickup truck has a starting price of $69,000 and similar range as the R1S at 230 to 400+ miles (370 to 643 km), depending on battery pack size. Both vehicles will support CCS DC-fast charging up to 160 kW and are capable of accelerating from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds.
Rivian is accepting preorders at its website.
News
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 began rolling out to some owners earlier this week, and there are some notable improvements that came with this update.
There were two new lines of improvements in the release notes: one addressing Actually Smart Summon (ASS), and another that now allows drivers to choose a reason for an intervention via a small menu during disengagement.
Overall operation saw a handful of slight improvements, especially with parking performance, which has been the most notable difference with the arrival of FSD v14.3. However, there are still some very notable shortcomings, most notably with region-specific signage and navigation.
Tesla Assisted Smart Summon (ASS) improvements
There are noticeable improvements to ASS operation, which has definitely been inconsistent in terms of performance. Tesla wrote in the release notes for v14.3.2:
“Unified the model between Actually Smart Summon, FSD, and Robotaxi for more capable and reliable behavior.”
As recently as this month, I used Summon with no success. It had pulled around the parking lot I was in incorrectly, leaving the range at which Summon can be operated and losing a signal while moving in the middle of the lot.
This caused me to sprint across the lot to retrieve the vehicle:
It was pouring when I left the gym so I tried to Summon my Model Y
It turned the opposite way and drove out of range, stopping here and forcing me to walk even further across the lot in the rain for it 🤣
One day pic.twitter.com/iD10c8sriB
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 5, 2026
Unfortunately, Summon was not dependable or accurate enough to use regularly. It appears Tesla might have bridged the gap needed to make it an effective feature, as two tests in parking lots proved that Summon was more responsive and faster to navigate to the location chosen.
It also did so without hesitation, confidently, and at a comfortable speed. I was able to test it twice at different distances:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 ASS testing part 1
This was a significant improvement than recent tries using ASS. The parking lot was pretty empty but getting it to come to my location in one singular motion and maneuver was encouraging. https://t.co/vF7TS48GGV pic.twitter.com/sYt8tyHgNn
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.2 ASS testing part 2 https://t.co/lxfWfnLUxf pic.twitter.com/2R0r3ohI3M
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
I plan to test this more thoroughly and regularly through the next few weeks, and I avoided using it in a congested parking lot initially because I have not had overwhelming success with Summon in the past. I wanted to set a low baseline for it to see if it could simply pull up to the place I pinned in the Tesla app.
It was two for two, which is a big improvement because I don’t think I ever had successful Summon attempts back-to-back. It just seems more confident than ever before.
New Disengagement Categories
This is a really good idea from Tesla, but there are some issues with it. The categories you can select are Critical, Comfort, Preference, and Other.
I think the reasons why people choose to take over would be a better way to prompt drivers, like, “Traveling Too Fast,” “Incorrect Maneuver,” “Navigation Error,” would be more beneficial.
I say this because it seems that how we each categorize things might be different. For example, I shared a video of an intervention because the car had navigated to an exit to a parking lot and put its left blinker on, despite left turns not being allowed there.
I disengaged and chose Critical as the reason; it’s not a comfort issue, it’s not a preference, it’s quite literally an illegal turn, and it’s also dangerous because it cuts across several lanes of traffic and is 180 degrees.
I chose to label this Navigation error as “Critical” while testing FSD v14.3.2
Here’s why:
✅ This intervention wasn’t “preference,” as the maneuver FSD routed was illegal
✅ If a police officer saw this maneuver, it would result in a ticket https://t.co/znhHb4haAo pic.twitter.com/bZOiLwWmQa— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Some said I should not have labeled this as Critical, but that’s the description I best characterized the disengagement as.
Categorizing interventions is a good thing, but it’s kind of hard to determine how to label them correctly.
Inconsistency with Regional Traffic Patterns
Tesla Full Self-Driving is pretty inconsistent with how it handles regional or local traffic patterns and road rules. The most frequent example I like to use is that of the “Except Right Turn” stop sign, which has become a notorious sighting on our social media platforms.
In the initial rollout of v14.3, my Model Y successfully navigated through one of these stop signs with no issues. However, testing at two of these stop signs yesterday proved it is still not sure how to read signs and navigate through them properly.
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 attempts the “Except Right Turn” stop sign: https://t.co/W5MjAybaNK pic.twitter.com/P6oeUsk4PN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Off camera, I approached another one of these signs and felt the car coming to a stop, so I nudged it forward with the accelerator pedal pressed.
This helped the car go through the sign without stopping, but I could feel the bucking of the vehicle as the car really wanted to stop.
Musk said on the earnings call earlier this week that unsupervised FSD would probably be available in some regions before others, including a state-to-state basis in the U.S.
“It’s difficult to release this like to everyone everywhere all at once because we do want to make sure that they’re not unique situations in a city that particularly complex intersection or — actually, they tend to be places where people get into accidents a lot because they’re just — perhaps there’s — and like I said, an unsafe intersection or bad road markings or a lot of weather challenges. So I think we would release unsupervised gradually to the customer fleet as we feel like a particular geography is confirmed to be safe.”
This could be one of those examples that Tesla just has to figure out.
Highway Operation
Full Self-Driving is already pretty good at routine roadway navigation, so I don’t have too much to report here.
However, I was happy with FSD’s decision-making at several points, including its choice not to pass a slightly slower car and remain in the right lane as we approached the off-ramp:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 highway operation: generally happy with the performance here, especially behavior near the exit
Love that the car got over in the right lane after its final pass, and stayed there as the off ramp was approaching https://t.co/qVRVhg6XGR pic.twitter.com/1ELwHf2XKS
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
Better Maneuvering at Stop Signs
Many FSD users report some strange operations at stop signs, especially four-way intersections where there is a stop sign and a line on the road, and they’re not even with one another.
I experienced this quite frequently and found that FSD would actually double stop: once at the stop sign and again at the line.
This created some interesting scenarios for me and I had many cars honk at me when the second stop would happen. Other vehicles that had waved me on to proceed through the intersection would become frustrated at the second stop.
FSD seems to have worked through this particular maneuver:
🚨 Tesla FSD v14.3.2 with a singular stop at the correct spot
No double stopping anymore in my experience https://t.co/Wd0TaNjc1R pic.twitter.com/CdQPvJHaAM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 23, 2026
FSD should know to go to the more appropriate location (whichever provides better visibility), and proceed when it is the car’s turn to move. The double stop really ruined the flow of traffic at times and generally caused some frustration from other drivers.
News
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla has a plan to make Hardware 3 owners whole after CEO Elon Musk admitted that those with that self-driving chip in their cars will not have access to unsupervised Full Self-Driving.
The company’s strategy is so crazy that it is sort of hard to believe.
Since the rollout of the AI4 chip in Tesla vehicles, owners with the last generation self-driving chip, known as Hardware 3, have been persistent in their quest for a solution to their issue: they were told their cars were capable of unsupervised Full Self-Driving. It turns out the cars are not.
Tesla owners with HW3 finally get their answer: https://t.co/CSZTKKkWXx
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) April 22, 2026
During the Tesla Q1 earnings call on Wednesday, Musk finally clarified what the company’s plans are for Hardware 3 owners, what they will be offered, and what Tesla will have to do internally to prepare for it.
The answer was somewhat mind-boggling.
Musk said:
“Unfortunately, Hardware 3 — I wish it were otherwise, but Hardware 3 simply does not have the capability to achieve unsupervised FSD. We did think at one point it would have that, but relative to Hardware 4, it has only 1/8 of the memory bandwidth of Hardware 4. And memory bandwidth is one of the key elements needed for unsupervised FSD.”
He continued, stating that HW3 owners would have the opportunity to trade their cars in at a discounted rate in order to get the AI4 chip:
“So for customers that have bought FSD, what we’re offering is essentially a trade-in — like a discounted trade-in for cars that have AI4 hardware, and we’ll also be offering the ability to upgrade the car, to replace the computer. And you also need to replace the cameras, unfortunately, to go to Hardware 4.”
Obviously, Tesla has a lot of people to work with and make this whole thing right. Musk was adamant that HW3 would be capable of FSD, and now that the company has finally admitted that it is not, there are some things that could come of this.
There has been open talk about some sort of class action lawsuit against Tesla. The promises that Tesla made previously could be considered a breach of contract or even false advertising, and that’s according to Grok, Musk’s own AI program.
Musk went on to say that Tesla would likely have to establish new microfactories to effectively and efficiently replace HW3 computers and cameras:
…So to do this efficiently, we’re going to have to set up, like kind of micro factories or small factories in major metropolitan areas in order to do it efficiently. Because if it’s done just at the service center, it is extremely slow to do so and inefficient. So we basically need like many production lines to make the change.”
This is going to be an extremely costly process, especially if Tesla has to buy real estate, properties, and equipment to complete this work. Additionally, there was no wording on pricing, but Musk never said it would be free. It will likely come with some kind of price tag, and HW3 owners, after being left hanging for so long, will have something to say about that.
Elon Musk
SpaceX just got pulled into the biggest Weapons Program in U.S. history
SpaceX joins the Golden Dome software group, deepening its role in America’s most expensive defense program.
SpaceX has joined a nine-company group developing the core operating software for the Golden Dome, America’s next-generation missile defense system. According to a Bloomberg report, SpaceX is focused on integrating satellite communications for military operations and is working alongside eight other defense and artificial intelligence companies, including Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies, and Aalyria Technologies, to build software connecting missile defense capabilities.
The Golden Dome concept dates back to President Trump’s 2024 campaign, and on January 27, 2025, he signed an executive order directing the U.S. Armed Forces to construct the system before the end of his term. The system is planned to employ a constellation of thousands of satellites equipped with interceptors, with data centers in space providing automated control through an AI network.
FCC accepts SpaceX filing for 1 million orbital data center plan
Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, director of the Golden Dome initiative, has described the software layer as a “glue layer” that would enable officers to manage and control radars, sensors, and missile batteries across services. The consortium is aiming to test the platform this summer.
Trump selected a design in May 2025 with a $175 billion price tag, expected to be operational by the end of his term in 2029, though the Congressional Budget Office projected the cost could reach $831 billion over two decades.
The Golden Dome role is only the latest in a string of military wins for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported, the U.S. Space Force awarded SpaceX a $178.5 million task order on April 1, 2026 to launch missile tracking satellites for the Space Development Agency, covering two Falcon 9 launches beginning in Q3 2027. That came on top of more than $22 billion in government contracts held by SpaceX as of 2024, per CEO Gwynne Shotwell, spanning NASA resupply missions, classified intelligence satellites through its Starshield program, and military broadband.
The accumulation of defense contracts, now including a seat at the table on the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history, positions SpaceX as the dominant infrastructure provider for American national security in space. With a SpaceX IPO still on the horizon, each new contract adds weight to what is already one of the most consequential companies in aerospace history, raising real questions about how much of America’s defense architecture will depend on a single private operator before it ever trades publicly.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla plans to resolve its angriest bunch of owners: here’s how
