Connect with us
rivian r1t r1s rivian r1t r1s

News

Rivian R1T and R1S will feature vehicle-to-vehicle charging, says CEO

(Photo: Rivian)

Published

on

Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe recently shared some new insights about the R1T pickup truck and the R1S SUV in an interview with auto publication The Drive. During his interview, Scaringe discussed Rivian’s battery technology, the company’s plans for the vehicles charging systems, and the media’s usual comparisons between himself and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

Rivian’s trucks are luxury adventure vehicles, and they are designed to carry several people in off-road conditions. As such, it is pertinent for Rivians to have the best battery technology available. When asked by the publication about the R1T and the R1S’s capability to charge its batteries, the CEO noted that the all-electric trucks would be capable of putting 200 miles of range in 30 minutes. With their 180 kWh battery packs, Scaringe pointed out that a 400-mile range is very feasible.

In the event that Rivian owners find themselves in remote areas without easy access to a charging station, Scaringe noted that the company is preparing solutions that will enable drivers to recharge their vehicles off the grid, such as auxiliary battery packs. The CEO also added that the company would allow vehicle-to-vehicle charging, allowing two Rivians to charge each other. “We’ve designed the vehicle so you can have auxiliary battery packs. You can also charge Rivian-to-Rivian, which is a neat thing. You connect the two vehicles, and then I could hand you some electrons,” Scaringe said.

These solutions will most definitely make Rivian’s vehicles an attractive purchase for the luxury adventure demographic, particularly among overlanders, who are known for taking long trips off the grid. Using Rivian’s vehicle-to-vehicle charging system, groups of overlanders can simply utilize a Rivian truck loaded with auxiliary battery packs as a designated charger for other vehicles that will be used primarily for camping, or even cooking, for that matter.

Being an electric car maker and having a striking physical resemblance to Clark Kent, Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe has been compared to Tesla’s Elon Musk, whose bold, ambitious, and rockstar CEO persona has brought comparisons to billionaire-superhero Tony Stark. Back in February alone, Forbes even wrote an article about Scaringe, dubbing him and Rivian as “Tesla’s worst nightmare.” In his recent interview, the Rivian CEO noted that this is far from the truth.

“In so far as we both build electric cars, we’re similar. Other than that, we’re building very different types of products for different companies. I say that with the deepest admiration and respect for what they’ve done. Tesla has really helped make electric cars exciting. They’ve helped shift the world towards electrification. We as Rivian, and we as the planet, owe them a thank you. But I think there’s a need for more flavors.

“The world needs more than one new electric and new innovator within the space, and we’ve been thoughtful also to not try to compete directly in the space they’re in. If we’re going after that type of a use case, I think it doesn’t make any sense. There are companies that are doing that. There’s a number of Chinese backed companies that are doing products that are very similar to the brand experience and sort of product experience that you get with Tesla,” he said.

Advertisement
-
-

Since unveiling the R1T pickup truck and the R1S SUV last year, Rivian has received overwhelming support from the electric car community, thanks in part to the design and capabilities of its two vehicles. The company has also been receiving support from large investors such as Ford and Amazon, both of which have helped Rivian raise over $1 billion in investments.

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.

The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.

SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.

Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.

There are plenty of ways the company can do this:

Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts

SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.

SpaceX is charging Anthropic massive money for its compute

High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity

The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.

Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.

Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.

High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online

GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.

Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications

Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.

These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.

Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages

SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.

Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.

SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y

Published

on

Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.

Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”

Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.

Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.

However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.

Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.

Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Another Tesla SpaceX merger prediction by ARK Invest has Elon Musk talking

Elon Musk again denies a Tesla China split as new SpaceX merger speculation resurfaces quickly.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk restated that Tesla has no plans to separate its China business from the rest of the company, responding to a new round of merger speculation from ARK Invest.

On the firm’s “Brainstorm” podcast, Cathie Wood’s team, including chief futurist Brett Winton and research director Nick Grous, argued a Tesla and SpaceX combination remains likely, with an announcement possible before the end of the year even if the deal itself would not close that quickly. Winton called Tesla’s Shanghai operations a “small ish wrinkle” for a merger rather than a real obstacle, since SpaceX’s national security work with the U.S. government sits uneasily next to Tesla’s manufacturing base in China.

Musk pushed back on the framing directly. “China is awesome. I strongly encourage people to visit,” he wrote on X. He also repeated language he first used in late July, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Tesla executives had been told to prepare for a possible spinoff, sale, or closure of the China business ahead of a SpaceX tie up. Musk called that report “absurdly fake news” at the time, adding that a separation had “never even come up in a discussion ever,” a line he echoed again this week.

The repeated denial has not settled the underlying question, because Shanghai’s role in Tesla’s business is exactly what makes a merger complicated. Gigafactory Shanghai still ships more than half of Tesla’s global deliveries and functions as the company’s main export hub for Europe and Asia. Teslarati previously reported on Musk’s initial denial, and the merger conversation itself has been building since SpaceX’s IPO gave it public shares to use as acquisition currency.

Wedbush’s Dan Ives has pegged the odds of a Tesla SpaceX merger at 80 to 90 percent by early 2027, and ARK’s prediction of a year end announcement adds another data point to that timeline, even as Musk keeps rejecting the specific mechanics reporters have described. Neither position rules out the other. Musk can deny a China spinoff was ever discussed while analysts still expect some form of combination to move forward, since ARK and Ives are both describing convergence at the corporate level, not necessarily the internal restructuring the Journal described in July.

For now, Tesla’s China business remains intact, and Musk’s comments this week make clear he has no interest in publicly walking that position back, no matter how often the merger question resurfaces.

Continue Reading