News
Rivian patent reveals R1T auxiliary battery that pushes range beyond 400 miles
Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe previously mentioned that his electric truck company is developing an auxiliary battery that acts as a “digital jerry can” for its vehicles, allowing them to travel beyond their listed range. Thanks to a recently published patent application, more details on this auxiliary battery system are now available.
The patent, titled “Electric Vehicle With Modular Removable Auxiliary Battery With Integrated Cooling,” describes an external battery module that can be fitted to an electric vehicle, thereby providing it with additional range. This is especially important for Rivian’s trucks, since they are designed to go off-road. Thus, the company notes that there is a need for an “auxiliary battery system for an electric automotive vehicle to increase the range of the electric vehicle, and in particular, an auxiliary battery system that can be carried by the electric vehicle.”
As could be seen in the patent application, the auxiliary battery system would be installed on the cargo area of a truck. In the case of the R1T pickup, for example, the battery module would be fitted on the truck’s bed. The entire module also includes latching mechanisms and connectors, which are designed for easy installation and removal.
-
- Illustrations depicting Rivian’s auxiliary battery system. (Photo: Rivian Automotive)
-
- Illustrations depicting Rivian’s auxiliary battery system. (Photo: Rivian Automotive)
-
- Illustrations depicting Rivian’s auxiliary battery system. (Photo: Rivian Automotive)
-
- Illustrations depicting Rivian’s auxiliary battery system. (Photo: Rivian Automotive)
Illustrations depicting Rivian’s auxiliary battery system. (Photo: Rivian Automotive)
Perhaps more impressively, Rivian’s design for its auxiliary battery utilizes the cooling systems of the vehicle itself. Upon installation of the battery unit, Rivian notes that the vehicle’s systems would perform necessary adjustments, ensuring that ride quality and driveability do not get compromised or unnecessarily changed. Rivian outlines this process in the following section:
“When outfitted with the auxiliary battery, the electric vehicle can detect the fact that the auxiliary battery is attached to (e.g., mounted in) the electric vehicle (e.g., in cargo bed) and automatically set one of multiple predetermined feature sets, e.g., that pertain to driving performance of the electric vehicle. Such feature sets may set, for example, certain suspension characteristics appropriate for the attachment of the auxiliary battery, such as, e.g., a setting for firmness of ride of the vehicle, braking performance/sensitivity, nominal suspension height, effective steering ratio, etc.”
It should be noted that the auxiliary battery module design outlined in Rivian’s recently-published patent appears to be optimized for the R1T pickup truck. Based on the illustrations provided by the company, the external battery seems to take up a substantial amount of space in the all-electric pickup’s bed. With this in mind, it remains to be seen how the company would design a similar battery solution for the R1S SUV, which does not have a bed like the R1T. Nevertheless, considering Rivian’s polished approach to its designs, it is quite exciting to see how the company would equip a seven-seater SUV with a range-extending battery module.
RJ Scaringe noted in a previous interview that one of the reasons behind Rivian’s extra large battery packs (offered at 105 kWh, 135 kWh, and 180 kWh configurations) is to ensure that drivers would have enough range for their adventure needs. This certainly appears to be the theme with Rivian’s vehicles, as could be seen in its top-tier variants’ range of 400 miles per charge. Coupled with an auxiliary battery system, the company’s trucks could very well close in or even exceed the 500-miles per charge mark.
Similar to other new automakers such as Tesla, Rivian’s first vehicles are made for the luxury niche, not the mass market. As noted by RJ Scaringe in an interview with Green Tech Media, Rivian’s target demographic are the people who are “spending $70,000 or $80,000 on a GMC Denali or a Chevy Suburban or a Land Rover Discovery or a fully loaded Ford F150.” For these potential customers, the company can tolerate no compromises, and in Scaringe’s words, “under-promise and over-deliver.” This is especially true with regards to the R1T and the R1S’ range.
Rivian’s patent application for its auxiliary battery system could be accessed here.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
