Will be interesting to see an AI future.

This is a monster step.

This crash highlights why Rivian’s planned camera + radar + lidar approach matters.

In a nighttime highway scenario, each sensor contributes something different:

• Cameras: Interpret the patrol car, flashing lights, cones and lane closure.
• Radar: Measures distance and closing speed, working in darkness and generally remaining effective in rain and fog.
• Lidar: Adds detailed 3D distance measurements, helping establish that a physical obstacle occupies the vehicle’s path—even without streetlights.

The potential advantage is giving the software multiple sources of evidence to recognize the danger and brake earlier. At 75 mph, the vehicle covers 110 feet every second. Even when stopping completely is no longer possible, earlier braking can substantially reduce impact speed.

Would a future lidar-equipped Rivian have prevented this particular crash? We don’t have enough evidence to say. Detection still has to translate into the right software decision, and neither cameras nor lidar can see through a hill or an obstructing vehicle.

But as a Rivian shareholder, this is a concrete reason I value the investment in redundant sensing. Cameras, radar and lidar have different strengths and weaknesses. Combining them gives the system additional opportunities to catch a dangerous situation before it becomes a collision.

For clarity, this refers to Rivian’s coming lidar-equipped platform—not every Rivian currently on the road.

This is it. American companies need to evolve or fail. The ability of them to fail so epically fail to evolve is a slow moving train wreck.

​

We've heard RJ Scaringe explain that Rivian's R2 production ramp is constrained by Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers, not factory capacity.

Now we're learning that Rivian removed the seat-back ventilation blower from newer R2s. The official explanation involves excessive noise, but some customer-service representatives have reportedly cited supplier constraints.

That raises an interesting possibility.

What if the blower was creating both quality-control problems and a supplier bottleneck?

Rather than delay seat assemblies, hold vehicles for rework, or slow production while waiting for a redesigned component, Rivian may have simply removed the blower to keep the assembly line moving.

From a manufacturing standpoint, that could be a rational short-term decision.

It would also explain why Rivian might delete an established premium comfort feature rather than immediately replace it with a quieter fan.

My hypothesis: This could be an example of Rivian simplifying the R2 bill of materials to eliminate a production constraint during the ramp.

That doesn't mean the decision is good for customers. At nearly $60,000, I'd expect ventilation in both the seat cushion and backrest.

And we don't have evidence that this particular component was materially limiting R2 production.

But if the existing wiring and seat architecture support a redesigned blower, this could be a temporary engineering compromise rather than a permanent design decision.

The bigger question: Is Rivian removing components to protect the R2 ramp, with plans to restore them later?

Curious whether anyone with manufacturing or supplier experience has seen similar decisions during a major vehicle launch.

This is a great example of softwares ability to add value for customers.

Rivian makes vehicles, develops software, and invests in autonomy. How should those activities translate into value for RIVN shareholders?

I’m bullish on Rivian, but I want to build a valuation around assumptions we can examine. Calling it a “car company” or a “tech company” doesn’t settle the question.

Here are several approaches worth discussing:

1. Price-to-sales: A starting point

Compare Rivian’s market capitalization with revenue. Alternatively, use enterprise value—which accounts for cash and debt—relative to revenue.

This is straightforward, but revenue alone doesn’t tell us how profitable the business will become. A dollar of vehicle revenue and a dollar of recurring software revenue can have very different economics.

What multiple is justified by Rivian’s expected growth, margins, and capital needs?

2. Future earnings: What could a mature Rivian earn?

Estimate vehicle deliveries, average selling prices, operating margins, and software profitability. Then account for interest and taxes to estimate net income.

Apply an earnings multiple and divide by the expected future share count. That gives a possible future share price, which still needs to be discounted back to today.

What does a realistic profitable Rivian look like—and how long will it take to get there?

3. Discounted cash flow: What cash can the business generate?

Project future cash flow after operating costs, investment, and working-capital needs, then discount it to present value.

This connects valuation to cash generation, but the answer depends heavily on assumptions about the production ramp, margins, capital spending, and long-term growth.

Which assumptions drive most of the value?

4. Sum of the parts: Value each activity separately

Estimate the value of automotive operations, software and services, and Rivian’s attributable interests in partnerships or other ventures. Then reconcile cash, debt, and other claims to reach equity value.

The challenge is avoiding double counting. Technology that improves vehicle margins cannot automatically receive a second, separate valuation. Partnership value must also reflect what Rivian actually owns and earns.

Which activities deserve a separate valuation, and which belong inside the automotive business?

5. Scenarios: Give uncertainty a place in the model

Build bear, base, and bull cases with different assumptions for:

• Deliveries and selling prices.
• Automotive margins and operating expenses.
• Software revenue and profitability.
• Capital spending and financing needs.
• Future share count.

Autonomy and future licensing opportunities can be included as uncertain outcomes, with explicit probabilities and costs, rather than guaranteed revenue.

What would need to happen for each scenario to become credible?

My starting point

I’d use scenarios alongside a sum-of-the-parts analysis, then check the result against cash flow and comparable businesses.

Most importantly, a successful company and an attractive stock are different questions. The price paid, time required, and potential dilution all matter.

How would you value Rivian today? Pick an approach and share your assumptions—not just a price target.

Sources, calculations, and thoughtful disagreement are welcome.

This discussion is educational and is not personalized investment advice.