RS: It was really hard. When I first started the company, we had no money, no teams, no capital, no suppliers, no technology and no product. And, frankly, if I knew how hard it was going to be, I may have felt differently. But ultimately I was able to put together a very small amount of money, a couple of million dollars in early investment.

The initial product was more of a coupe. It was essentially a sports-car product. We developed that for about two-and-a-half years, and by the end of 2011, we reached, in many ways, the classic fork in the road. We had 20 people at the company and a neat little prototype, but for all intents and purposes, we’d failed at raising any significant capital. So the fork was either to continue down the path I was on, hoping, fingers-crossed, that something would change, or accept that we had to really rethink the business. Of course, I took the latter approach. and we shelved the coupe and the original program when we had about a year of capital to survive.

I then began the process of redefining the strategy to really make sure that the products we were developing, the technology we’re building, was needed — that the world actually needed this thing.

Then I began focusing on how to find somebody to sponsor this idea of creating products for adventure, for function, that eliminates the compromise we’ve grown so used to accepting. Ultimately, I went back to MIT, where I did my Ph.D., and that is where I connected with the Jameel family. [Abdul Latif Jameel Co.] is a very large multinational conglomerate, but their core business is in automotive distribution, up and down the value chain. And, serendipitously, they were thinking about how they take a position and help drive this shift to future mobility.

We began the process of them sponsoring Rivian, and it went from a small investment to a medium investment to, of course, now a much larger investment. And along the way we’ve brought other shareholders into the business.

JP: Your launch at the L.A. Auto Show was praised for being very professional. Flashy EV unveilings are fairly common these days and invite criticism as a result. How did you avoid overhyping your products?

RS: The reason we’ve been so quiet was not to hide what we’ve been doing. […] It was to position ourselves until everything was ready, and then show the world and start talking to customers. What’s happened now is the whole world’s become so confused with all these different new [future mobility products], because most of them are presented as being [more] developed than they actually are.

We want to sort of under-promise and over-deliver. So we took the decision to not say anything until we were truly ready. […] And when we made those statements, to not be making statements that are hot air but rather be making statements of fact.

And people still, even now, are saying, “Well, that’s not going to be possible. They won’t be able to get that kind of acceleration or they won’t be able to get that kind of range.” And that’s after we waited a very long time to show [the R1T and the R1S]. So that’s what the thought has been, to under-hype as much as possible.

JP: Let’s discuss pricing. You announced that the electric truck will start at $69,000 before tax incentives, and the SUV at $72,500. It’s important to note that these prices are for the shorter-range versions of the R1T and the R1S. Presumably the 400-mile range vehicles will be even more expensive. Do you foresee price being a speed bump for the company?

RS: I think that may seem high, but we have to take the context of really two things. First, we’ve strategically positioned ourselves to go after the aspirational side of this market. It’s really important to make that note; we’re not trying to compete with a $25,000 or $30,000 truck or SUV. This is a very high-performance [vehicle] and very technically advanced in terms of self-driving, in terms of connectivity architecture, in terms of battery size. The segment is going after 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.

So we’ve intentionally made sure that we’ve architected the vehicle for that premium positioning. If you come into the bottom of the markets, it’s very, very hard to push new technology.

JP: Have you announced pricing for the 400-mile range truck and SUV?

RS: We haven’t yet. But we will have a version of the big-range vehicle that’s sub-$90,000.

JP: At the Rivian launch, you talked about features like the additional trunks and usable plugs in the back of the vehicle. How important are those consumer goodies in getting people to get excited about your products?

RS: That’s a great question. So we think a lot about where we put dollars, because every feature we have in the vehicle has a cost. The vehicle is essentially the result of, without exaggeration, tens of thousands of decisions that are being made by 600 people. And so these tens of thousands of decisions all have to line up to a single point: What’s the vision for the vehicle? The vision for the company? For us, it’s the combination of three things that typically do not go together: a very high level of performance, coupled with a very high level of efficiency, coupled with a very high level of utility.

JP: What is your “future mobility” vision?

RS: An off-road vehicle that’s incredible on-road. That is simultaneously efficient, and super useful. That is quick, 0 to 60 in three seconds, with a range that is significant, over 400 miles. A vehicle with ample storage capabilities — the truck and the SUV have front trunks that are three times larger than the biggest front trunk in the world today. And then a gear tunnel where we can fit stuff down the middle of vehicles, snowboards and strollers and golf bags, very easily. So no matter where you drive it, [this vehicle] should really be the best.

On a personal note, I’m someone who loves to be outdoors. What always bothered me is the way I would get there, where there’s biking or skiing, because I’d be driving in something that makes the thing I am going to enjoy worse. Meaning, it makes the environment worse.

And we see in the market today a lot of people are struggling with this as well, who may end up having two very different types of vehicles. You’d be shocked at how common it is for people to have an electric car next to a giant 16-mpg SUV. So we said, “Let’s allow them to not have [to make] that compromise.” They can have something that carries all their gear and can still do the trips that they dream about, in an efficient electric format.

JP: That makes sense.

Source: greentechmedia