4 ms·
> The R1T explodes — and I mean explodes — down the pavement. We go from zero to well above 60 miles per hour in what seems like an instant. The G force feels t
by prepend 5y ago
> The R1T explodes — and I mean explodes — down the pavement. We go from zero to well above 60 miles per hour in what seems like an instant. The G force feels tremendous.
It’s too much raw power for me. I immediately feel nauseous, like I might pass out.
I was wondering what this speed may be and it seems like it’s between 3.1-3.3 seconds depending on the specific mode [0].
It’s surprising to see such lazy journalism in FT. This is certainly a fast time, but the Tesla s has been around for a while and they have a 2s time. Porsche Taycan has 2.4s.
So this description is more a failure of the reporter rather than a useful description of the truck’s capabilities.
[0] https://www.0-60specs.com/rivian/r1t-0-60-times/ https://www.0-60specs.com/rivian/r1t-0-60-times/
- I_DRINK_KOOLAID 5y agoDon't ever trust US publications with 0-60 times. They do those trials at quarter mile tracks. There is barely any asphalt left there it's all tire rubble which increase the grip especially on launch. The real data is from UK/DE magazines, they try on highways abandoned airstrips. Going below 3.5s in 0-60 acceleration is like going past 225mph on pure speed. It can happen but all conditions have to align perfectly , hence it's not real world conditions.
- justin66 5y agoSignificant differences can be due to some publications using 1-foot rollout when recording times and others not using it.
- justin66 5y agoThere is nothing inaccurate about what you've quoted. It hurt your feelings the reporter did not mention a car you admire more? Seriously?
- prepend 5y agoMy feelings aren’t hurt and I don’t admire any of these cars. The article wasted my time by making me research stuff that should be in the article. It’s ok to criticize things you think are bad.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- alphabettsy 5y ago> It’s surprising to see such lazy journalism in FT. This is certainly a fast time, but the Tesla s has been around for a while and they have a 2s time. Porsche Taycan has 2.4s. They seem to be writing about their personal experience. Whether or not faster vehicles exist is irrelevant to their description of their own experience. It’s also not a car like those you mentioned. This is pretty common from writers and publications who are not usually focused on automobiles.
- prepend 5y agoI think the personal experience is great. I called it lazy because it should have been coupled with reporting to investigate what the actual time was and put it in context. I don’t think this is unique to cars and would have the same complaint if the reporter said “Holy mole the price of these carrots seems astronomical to me.” Without any research into the actual price. FT usually has really good editors to improve stories like this. If a reader has a likely question and the article doesn’t provide it, that’s usually lazy.
- justin66 5y agoIf you were looking to geek out over zero to sixty times as if they matter you are not the intended audience of this article. You really were completely off base expecting the article to indulge you. It appears in Financial Times, not Road and Track or something.
- prepend 5y agoI’m not looking to geek out, I don’t really care about this stuff. I just want to know the reporter’s perspective in context. The author presents this as something unusual, but it’s not. It’s the same 0-60 as a tesla model3. That’s pretty relevant info.
- justin66 5y ago> The author presents this as something unusual, but it’s not. That’s completely, ridiculously untrue.