re: Rivian exec: Elon and Tesla's LiDAR hesitancy isn't 'fully explainable'

quote:

---

Their robots use lidar (and other) sensors. The sensors themselves are relatively inexpensive. Less than $100. It's the software and programing that could become expensive.

---

So for Tesla, the hardware was much more expensive when they were conceptualizing this 15-20 years ago. It wasn't a big deal when GM was doing it 10 years ago. And it's really cheap right now.

But....with that hardware also comes with the leg work and investment to actually map out the lanes and highways so cars know the exact spot they should be driving in even if the sensors on the cars can't see the lanes (leaves/water on roadway, poor striping, heavy traffic covering the markings, etc.).

GM did a lot of that mapping for their proprietary software, and I think they leaned on Cruise Automation (back while it was still around) for some of that tech and mapping. That's why it started with freeways and highways only....and then going to the secondary and tertiary country roads and highways.

If Tesla got the hardware, they'd get a massive amount of shite if they licensed "legacy automaker" mapping to make their LIDARS work on some roads. That's just not their style. But I am confident that if Tesla went in with the investment that their system would absolutely leapfrog everyone else - they just focus more on this kind of tech. They just have hardware limitations at the moment that they don't like discussing.

Prior to the $6.57 billion Department of Energy loan finalized in January 2025, Rivian Automotive was not doing well financially but was showing signs of improvement and had sufficient liquidity to avoid immediate distress. As an electric vehicle (EV) startup scaling production, Rivian faced significant challenges—high cash burn, persistent net losses, and a competitive market—but strategic moves and operational progress helped stabilize its position. Below is a detailed assessment of Rivian’s financial health in the lead-up to the loan (focusing on 2024 and early 2025).
Financial Performance Overview (Pre-Loan, 2024–Early 2025)
1. Revenue and Growth:
• Rivian reported $1.30 billion in revenue for Q2 2024 (reported August 2024), up 12.52% year-over-year, beating analyst expectations by ~$30 million.
• Annual revenue for 2024 was projected at $4.5–$4.7 billion, reflecting steady demand for its R1T, R1S, and commercial vans (primarily for Amazon).
• Vehicle deliveries were on track for 50,000–52,000 units in 2024, slightly below earlier guidance due to softening EV demand and U.S. tax credit changes but still showing growth.
2. Profitability and Losses:
• Rivian remained unprofitable, with a Q2 2024 net loss of $1.12 billion (improved from $1.45 billion in Q2 2023). Earnings per share were -$0.97, better than the prior year’s -$1.46.
• Gross profit turned positive in Q1 2024 ($206 million) and was expected to stay modestly positive for full-year 2024, driven by cost reductions in its Gen 2 vehicle platform (30–40% lower production costs).
• Adjusted EBITDA losses narrowed, with forecasts targeting positive EBITDA by 2027 as R2 production scales.
3. Cash Position and Liquidity:
• Rivian held ~$7.7 billion in cash and equivalents as of late 2024, bolstered by a $1 billion convertible note from 2023 and cost-cutting measures (e.g., 10% staff reduction in early 2024).
• Cash burn was high (~$1.5 billion per quarter), but analysts estimated liquidity would sustain operations through at least mid-2026, especially with the Volkswagen joint venture (see below).
• Debt stood at $4.4 billion (all long-term), with manageable interest obligations due to favorable terms.
4. Strategic Investments:
• A $5–6 billion joint venture with Volkswagen, announced in June 2024 and expanded in late 2024, provided critical capital and validated Rivian’s software and zonal architecture (potentially saving VW $3,000–$4,000 per vehicle).
• Amazon’s ongoing partnership (100,000 van order) and prior investments from Ford and others added financial and operational credibility.
Financial Health Indicators
• Bankruptcy Risk: Assessments varied but showed no imminent threat:
• Alpha Spread (October 2024): 4.1% probability of default over 24 months, based on solvency ratios.
• ValueInvesting.io (2024): 48.27% distress probability, reflecting high burn and market risks but not insolvency.
• Macroaxis (September 2024): Elevated risk due to negative margins but manageable with cash reserves.
• Stock Performance: RIVN shares were volatile, down ~95% from 2021 IPO highs but up ~13% in the week before October 2024, reflecting optimism around Q2 results and VW backing. Market cap was ~$15.87 billion.
• Analyst Sentiment: Mixed but improving. Bearish views (e.g., MarketWatch warning of 20%+ stock drops if sales faltered) were offset by bullish targets ($30+ by 2026) tied to R2 launches (155,000–175,000 units/year capacity).

quote:

---

We have a pretty solid sample size from Tesla right now. Would be really odd for them to all of the sudden start killing people.

---

I don't think there's any unusual risk of that with Tesla.

But there's clearly competitors out there (both smaller ones and big legacy players) that have invested in better hardware that is enabling them to leapfrog Tesla in some ways already. And they are shoveling cash into this now to take advantage of their higher ceiling.

Toyota, Nissan, Ford, and I think Mercedes are following the Tesla model without LIDAR (someone fact check me on that though). And on that level playing field with Tesla, they will almost certainly continue fall well short. Tesla is just a very innovative company when it comes to this kind of software.

Rivan has a hardware advantage and they are pulling ahead slowly because of it. If they survive and Tesla continues to avoid LIDAR....Rivian will continue to pull ahead with every update to their system.

Same with General Motors, and they are already enjoying some advantages over Tesla where they can rely on LIDAR mapping. And GM has a absolutely massive R&D budget, and they aren't going anywhere (can't say the same for Rivian). GM has also demonstrated that they are willing to license their tech to other automakers in the past for battery development and telematics systems, so they could potentially do the same here and expand their size/scale/volume advantage.

I think the autonomous taxi startups (Zoox in particular) use both LIDAR and the onboard censors similar to what GM and Rivian do. I do not know what Tesla is cooking up in that area - but they are investing in autonmous taxis too. That's a little different animal. A Zoox or Waymo has to not only get people to/from addresses, but also has to find a space at the curb to pick them up, figure out what to do if there's no space to do it, and all of this has to happen without driver intervention. It's next level over what you can get in a consumer car from anyone.....and it's a higher bar of development than what's needed to enable autonomous driving in a consumer car with a human operator. Note that those robo-taxi startup companies only operate in some very small geographic areas where their systems memorized the road network, curb cuts, parking lot aprons, etc and they still aren't making any profits.

quote:

---

you cant compare super cruise to what tesla is doing. super cruise is a step above adaptive cruise control.

---

You absolutely can. It's different philosphies and approaches but it's clearly trying to achive the same result.

In some ways, it's already superior to Tesla for primary/secondary highway driving. And that's entirely because of their hardware advantage. It's not because GM is super innovative. It's because they are massive, have deep pockets, major power and leverage in procurment so they elected to use that to their advantage. They got the hardware for cheap, and their systems can offer autonomous features that are smoother and more natural than almost anyone else out there right now where they can leverage their LIDAR tech, and they have a far higher ceiling than Tesla's system because of it.

Tesla spends a lot of time and effort developing truly brilliant software. So within the constraints of their hardware limitations - they are far more advanced. But their hardware limitations are a massive vulerability for the future. It's already starting to look like they are reaching the technical limits to what vehicles can do without LIDAR.

Sorry to Teslabros, but the reality is that Tesla is already starting to be handicapped by their hardware decisions. That advantage that companies who have better hardware (or who can afford to transition to better hardware) will continue to chip away at Tesla's advantage in developing excellent autonomous driving software.

In this case Rivian is correct. But keep their motives in mind.

Tesla will be here in 10 years. Rivian is a question mark. And Rivian wants to draw attention to some risks that Tesla is taking with their hardware decisions. It's fair that investors see that and understand it.

But I still don't think Rivian is a safer investment.

quote:

---

EV leader's "rigid point of view" doesn't align with the engineering realities of autonomous vehicles or the declining prices of top-tier sensors, such as LiDAR, which uses lasers to measure distances.

---

Tesla is absolutely better than every major automaker at maximizing their capability. If everyone had the same hardware constraints, Tesla will win unless something major changes in the industry.

But what Rivian is pointing out is that some of Tesla's competitors do not share the same hardware constraints. Tesla has a real risk here of being left behind because of it. The tech is advancing very quickly, and expanding the hardware envelope will be required very soon to continue making advancements in functionality.

It's a sensitive topic to Tesla fans. But some of the automakers listed in this thread do have a natural advantage long term.

Rivian and General Motors clearly but there are a lot of legacy car companies with pockets deep enough to go through the awkward transition to newer systems with better hardware. Hyundai is IMO also a major threat here too. They are big enough to do pretty much anything they want and could support multiple systems with different hardware envelopes if they wanted.

quote:

---

They won't be able to survive without government funding. They currently produce one of the most unreliable cars on the road.

---

Correct. They can continue to advance in autonomous driving, but it won't mean anything if the system's wrapper just isn't working very well.

And even if the system is the best in the world and the car is excellent - that doesn't mean people have an appetite for a $100k EV. The economy isn't static, and our charging infrastructure definitely isn't advancing as quickly as a lot of people would like.

quote:

---

If Tesla got the hardware, they'd get a massive amount of shite if they licensed "legacy automaker" mapping to make their LIDARS work on some roads. That's just not their style

---

That's suicide for them from a messaging standpoint.

That would be similar to the moment that Apple went in with Beats. It's a sign that the innovative company has reached that "second generation" of existance where innovation isn't as high of a priority as it once was. An admission of falling short with their own tech.

Tesla just can't do that, and it will never happen while Musk is involved and alive. And that itself is arguably sort of a vulnerability too. The words from a Rivian exec could softly encourage Tesla to stay in their box and double down within the rhelm of their current hardware instead of growing their hardware envelope.

quote:

---

Lidar based systems stay dead center in the lane even if the road conditions are garbage or the lane markings are not clearly visible/worn out, or if there is moisture, light snow, or leaves on the roadway, etc - and there is no risk of confusing expansion joints or control joins with lane markings either or wondering/weaving in the lane since the system has both onboard sensors and LIDAR mapping to keep the vehicle where it should be.

---

what happens if there is an 18 wheeler tire in the middle of the lane? what about if the truck in the lane next to you starts merging into your lane? what about if someone walks out into the highway?

Also I can assure you that the super cruise does not always stay in the middle of the lane. It also does cancel if the markings are not well visible. also super cruise is tied to gps so in some cases when there is construction it still wants to route thru the old lanes.

it does work well on straight highway when everything is good. but it makes minimal decisions.

also they recently added the highway on my drive home and in the middle of a very sharp curve it will jerk into the oncoming traffic and then it will cancel for some reason. very dangerous if someone isnt paying attention.

quote:

---

Why would you use the superior system as a "backup"?

---

Tesla believes their system is superior, but obviously has (unlikely) safety concerns as demonstrated in the OP. So they could just use it from stopping cars hitting things.

quote:

---

Tesla just can't do that, and it will never happen while Musk is involved and alive.

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Their limited rollout of Robotaxi in Austin is geofenced just like Waymo,