Connect with us

News

Rivian trademark filings hint at possible crossover, sedan in the works

(Photo: Rivian Automotive)

Published

on

Rivian has released many development and marketing details surrounding its coming all-electric R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV over the last few months, but recently published US trademark applications hint that the Michigan-based startup has a crossover, sedan, and second generation vehicles already in the works.

Several Rivian-owned US trademark applications were recently published for opposition at the end of March, meaning the applications are pending a waiting period for objections to be filed before they become officially registered. The 1S and 1T names already associated with Rivian were included in the batch, but several others not currently tied to a revealed product were as well: 1C, 1A, 2C, 2A, 2S, 2T, and 2R.

Rivian’s current naming scheme using single letters to denote its vehicle types – ‘T’ for truck, ‘S’ for SUV – indicate that its application for the trademark ‘1C’ could correspond to a “crossover,” and the ‘2’ included in some of the new marks could hint at the next generation of its flagship vehicles. However, the remaining ‘A’ and ‘R’ designations are not as easy to guess.

A list of Rivian’s trademark applications filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Initial entry into the luxury vehicle market for car manufacturers is a tried and true strategy for new companies and new vehicle lines, and the popularity of larger utilitarian cars in the US altogether explain Rivian’s first focus on pricey SUVs and trucks. But it’s likely that the all-electric startup will expand into the sedan market shortly after either manufacturing or deliveries begin, which is probably where the ‘A’ and ‘R’ designations in Rivian’s trademarks are intended to be used.

Audi might have the biggest hint for interpreting Rivian’s intentions – its ‘A’ and ‘R’ monikers are attached to its sedans and sportbacks, respectively. The company’s ascending numerical designations (A3, A4, etc.) correlate to performance enhancements (higher the better), but Rivian’s intentions could go another direction.

Advertisement

One of Rivian’s primary competitors, the Ford F-150, uses catchy names like ‘Raptor’, ‘King Ranch’, and ‘Platinum’ to designate its variations rather than letters. The names aren’t simply tied to increasing performance enhancements but rather their intended use. Rivian could adopt a correlation like Ford’s and use its numbering system to indicate whether the vehicle had a city or outdoor adventure focus, for example.

(Photo: Rivian Automotive)

Rivian’s intentions for its upcoming all-electric R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV have been a fun source of speculation within its new and growing enthusiast community. Several graphic renderings imagining its modular capabilities were published by the team running RivianForums, inspired by the company’s patent application for such a system. Other visions of aftermarket off-road additions have also been published for community enjoyment.

The excitement for its vehicles has been duly noted and encouraged by Rivian as well. The company will appear at this month’s New York International Auto Show and has scheduled a special showing for reservation holders a few days prior to the event at a local car club. Attendees will enjoy cocktails, hors d’oeuvres, and a greeting by the company’s CEO and founder, RJ Scaringe, all while being treated to an in-person look at Rivian’s current vehicles, both of which boast up to 400 miles per charge, high-powered quad motors, and a 0-60 mph acceleration time of 3 seconds.

Accidental computer geek, fascinated by most history and the multiplanetary future on its way. Quite keen on the democratization of space. | It's pronounced day-sha, but I answer to almost any variation thereof.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Elon Musk challenges Tesla credit rating from Moody’s after SpaceX gets a higher one

Published

on

Justin Pacheco, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.

SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.

These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.

Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.

Advertisement

Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.

Advertisement

Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.

Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook

However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.

Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.

Advertisement

Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.

The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla faces Full Self-Driving pushback in EU over ‘speeding’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.

The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.

TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.

Tesla Full Self-Driving gets first-ever European approval

Advertisement

Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.

Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.

TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of ​vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.

This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.

Advertisement

This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.

However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.

Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla teases greater Grok FSD integration and ‘Banish’ feature ‘in about 3 months’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla is going to let you guide Full Self-Driving with Grok in 3 months, CEO Elon Musk confirmed on X.

The response from Musk, which revealed Tesla plans to allow drivers to effectively control the car and its navigation more explicitly using Grok, puts the feature for about September.

A Tesla owner said that Full Self-Driving is great, but owners should be able to “converse with Grok like we can with an Uber driver.” She then used examples like, “Grok, turn right here,” and “Drop us off right here, we’ll walk due to traffic,” and finally,” Drop at entrance first, then park far away.”

Coincidentally, the final piece of dialogue would also mean features like Banish are potentially on the way soon.

Advertisement

Banish is also referred to as “Reverse Summon,” and would enable the car to self-park while dropping occupants off at their destination.

This would be a great way to improve the overall experience while supervising FSD. Navigation is already a major painpoint that many owners complain about. Manual overrides when a maneuver is requested or canceled (like using the turn signal stalk to override a navigation route), do not always work.

Advertisement

The feature could be especially useful in street parking scenarios in a city, where spots are sometimes tough to come by. Many of us who grab dinner in a more populated area will park a street or two over from wherever we’re going, because sometimes you know that’s the best you will get. If a driver using FSD could say, “Hey Grok, turn right here on Queen St. and park in that open spot on the right,” it could save a lot of confusion FSD might have on its own.

Musk teased that a similar feature was “coming” back in February:

Tesla Full Self-Driving set to get an awesome new feature, Elon Musk says

It is certainly surprising that Tesla is doing it at this point. The company’s more recent moves have been more evident of taking control and inputs away from humans and putting them in the AI’s hands more frequently. The biggest example of this was taking away Max Speed in AI4 cars, giving us Speed Profiles, and not having any input on the fastest speed the car will travel.

Advertisement

Of course, giving navigation preferences to Grok is availble already in Teslas, but not at the drop of a hat. Instead, you can suggest a certain route at the beginning of your drive.

Here’s an example of that from December:

Finally, the original post that Musk responded to mentioned a parking preference after dropping off the occupants, which describes the Banish feature that Tesla has teased for years.

We’re not sure if Musk was responding more to the ability to guide the car with Grok, or whether he also was including Banish in the three-month prediction timeframe.

Advertisement
Continue Reading