Rivian CEO: 'blows my mind' to see US auto makers shifting back to ICE vehicles
Mood
heated
Sentiment
mixed
Category
other
Key topics
Electric Vehicles
Automotive Industry
US Market
Rivian CEO expresses surprise at US automakers shifting back to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, sparking a debate on the future of electric vehicles (EVs) and the challenges facing the industry.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
34m
Peak period
60
Day 1
Avg / period
31
Based on 62 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 4, 2025 at 5:38 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 4, 2025 at 6:11 AM EDT
34m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
60 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 5, 2025 at 11:05 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
The next big generational change in car design matures to commercial viability - the electric motor for cars - and the USA turns it into a bogeyman? Why? This is the next big economic win to take advantage of and the US has the factory and industrial workforce and infrastructure to nail it. Companies vying to be the Ford of the electric era. Instead it gets warped into some political litmus test for communities and people start 'rolling coal' to prove a point.
Does it feel good for impoverished industrial communities in the States to see China and BYD leading the way on something they could be doing?
There's still time to get back on track but it's running out. China will be pushing viable affordable models in the next few years for first time buyers, the secondhand market is maturing, lease electric cars are competitive in Europe, charge points are not hard to find, gas is only getting more expensive, and most governments have ICE phase out deadlines in place.
For EVs, there were the EV mandates, and there are several restrictions on mining the rare earth metals here like lithium and cobalt that China does not do.
Also, the US is physically very large and spread out, with more long distance driving, which plays more into an ice vehicle’s advantages. Sometimes even cheaper and definitely quicker than fast charging on a road trip.
Personally I think plug in hybrids could work better, especially EREVs. My concern is governments leaping to the conclusions that full EVs, mandate them, and in so doing lock out promising technologies from improving
The reason why EVs suck in the US comes down to high electric prices, scarce charging points, and the level to which EVs tend to be locked down and unrepairable.
There’s no profit for the current oligarchy; but to say there is no profit to be made from electrifying a billion plus parking spots; to install and manage infrastructure for millions of small business partners, to build new power plants with ever increasing demand — it sounds like a free markets entrepreneurs wet dream.
Of course to admit such would be to admit we are in a oligarchic structure that is antithetical to a supposed “free market” and so the capitalists must conjure stories about how electricity just is impossible to produce and electrical lines literally cannot be added to the American infrastructure or it will all suddenly topple over.
Differentiating this narrative from the expansion of high speed internet is difficult. Woe is me the oligarchic natural monopoly subsidized or wholly compensated by the taxpayer but unable to advance at all; change is impossible.
Landlords would either have to give up profit to pay for these installations, and/or raise rent on their tenants to afford them.
Many tenants can neither inflation increases in rent, nor increases covering the capital expenditure of electrical outlets in rental parking spots. This share of tenants grows each year that inflation outpaces wages, independent of whether landlords bother with that capital expenditure (which, to date, they largely do not).
As this business opportunity is associated primarily with the worker class rather than any wealthy class, the opportunity only becomes profitable when those businesses that employ 'worker class' personnel — think Starbucks barista rather than SFBay A.I. engineer — are distributing profits to those personnel in the form of wage increases to a sufficient degree that the household's renting power is not decreasing. Any wage gap chart will show that, since the 1980s, non-wealthy households — including the former 'middle' class — have experienced a continuous reduction in purchasing power for several decades. One can reasonable assume this will continue barring non-free interventions in the market.
Given that any reasonable business would never voluntarily give up profits as wages unless compelled, we can assume that those footing the bill for the 'entrepreneur's wet dream' you describe would be landlords — there is, quite literally, no one else left to pay that bill. The state can't impose regulations requiring such upgrades and let the free market work it out because landlords will simply dump that cost into rent, sharply worsening the nationwide poverty and housing epidemic, which would reduce the total amount of revenue available from the rental market. Neither the state nor the landlords would benefit from that outcome.
If you have a different theory of free market that involves business voluntarily sharing revenue with workers without raising price, or landlords investing revenue in enhancements without raising rental costs — and especially without imposing 'non-free' regulatory or union pressures — then I'd love to hear more about that.
You must feel that a free market cares that some people will no longer be able to afford rent; I don’t believe the economic definition of a free market includes such an idea; I think it’s very happy to displace people from their homes in order to shuffle in those who are willing to pay higher rents; see also: gentrification
Your point hinges on the idea that rent for people making wages below “SFBay A.I. engineer” is not increasing or would not increase because of the inelasticity of these consumers to price increases; can you substantiate this claim in any way?
It’s also worth noting that there are lots of government grants going towards electrification of vehicles including installation of EV chargers, so even removing your idea about landlords refusing to raise rents because they are worried about their tenants (lol) there is still easy room for landlords to get grants to pay for the installation/maintenance of these chargers anyways.
This repeated and explicitly-sexual metaphor in a non-sexual context is rather wearisome.
> You must feel that a free market cares
A free market does not qualify for use the property of 'caring'. Neither emotions nor intentions are a property of a 'market', free or otherwise, and I categorically reject all statements, inferences, and/or implications to the contrary (such as "that a free market cares").
> can you substantiate this claim in any way?
I made a statement in public for all to hear, I am unable to defend the statements I make, and am simply unwilling to have a reasoned discussion. You have been unfailing polite, and I have been nothing but rude.
Thanks for the English lit critique I guess but your opinion on various colloquialisms in the English language is not relevant to the conversation.
Your other points are similarly irrelevant to the convo, you use the idea of a market “caring” literally, claiming that of course a market doesn’t have emotions and can’t care which is plainly trying to deflect your suggestion that the market could never reach position x because it’s ultimately unprofitable for a landlord to engage in some behavior long term and you refused to materially respond to or acknowledge any of my points. Your post is abstracted from reality further than the idea that a market could “care” about something being taken literally. Obviously the market is not a human with wants, cares or needs.
> I made a statement in public for all to hear, I am unable to defend the statements I make
Well I’ve asked for you to defend them and this was your response so I assume you are being genuine instead of sarcastic here? Why respond at all I wonder.
If you can point to where I’m being impolite or offended you I’m happy to acknowledge this; I wasn’t planning to have a conversation with someone so sensitive that things like “I think your idea is bad” is a personal insult or impolite.
1. US is the largest oil producer country in the world
2. US knows it has lost the EV race
3. ICE employees have an outsized impact on elections due to where they live
[citation needed]
Here's mine, Saudi Arabia is by far the largest exporter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_expor...
Perhaps you're confusing oil production with refined petroleum (e.g. gasoline) exports?
Edit: Thanks for the correction, looks like for the last 8 or so years US has indeed occupied the top slot for production:
I think it's not unreasonable to think that "producer" means "producer", not "exporter". Wikipedia has a nominally matching article [0], which indeed lists the US as the largest producer of crude oil and lease condensate.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_pro...
The parent commenter is right. You are wrong. Do a little Google search before commenting.
Can avoid the hostility.
Plus, there’s a question if pure EVs are the best, perhaps EREVs might be better.
Gas prices are also a major economic indicator in people's minds. They have an idea of what the per gallon cost "should" be, and how much it costs to fill up the tank. They have no such equivalent estimate for electric vehicles.
This is profound and hard to believe --- because it is just plain dumb. China loves it. It is total capitulation to their economic agenda.
25% of US GDP is derived from global trade. Turning your back on this will lower the standard of living for Americans in general by raising prices.
Next up in this regression --- a default on US debt.
see: https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/rese...
The only way to service the debt --- is by selling more debt.
Which will become increasingly difficult to do --- which leads to default.
EVs are still inevitable in the not too distant future so long as batteries keep improving, but the jump is not going to happen overnight.
With the increase of density of fast charging infrastructure (which, is pretty much the only reason you need large ranges in EVs), you require less overall range between stops.
What’s needed is access to at home charging infrastructure so cars can be topped off daily.
No but what they do have is the ability to pull into literally any Andy Griffith backwater town gas station and be on their way in 5 minutes. That makes their range nearly unlimited.
The average American household has multiple cars - having at least one of them being a EV commuter appliance isn't that wild of an idea.
So; to answer your question: how often do I drive 300+ miles in a day? 2x a week for 1/4 of the year.
Also, your anecdote is certainly not the plethora of people in America. The vast majority of folks take maybe one vacation a year, if that, and certainly don’t own a vacation home.
Electric vehicles have a dubious environmental impact, require special and costly new infrastructure, are inferior economically and do not align with US policy goals around energy.
Look at every business who has tried to adopt Tesla vehicles and you will see only failure followed by trying to unload the vehicles for a huge loss. Tesla cannot or will not produce a decent work truck, and are grossly disconnected with the needs of the average American (self driving, robots and other such bric-a-brac need not apply).
For those that want to purchase these vehicles, they should remain an option, albeit a minor one. The technology (still quite inferior) needs to stand on its own, not be propped up by the public, the vast majority of us do not want an electric vehicle and will never want one.
Citations needed.
Oil extraction is massively damaging, co2 is causing global weather turmoil, exhaust while better than the 70’s for passenger cars/trucks is still an air quality issue, noise pollution is worse for ice.
And electric cars are objectively more pleasant and nicer to ride unless one likes loud, slow to accelerate vehicles over smooth and quiet. I guess there will be some who prefer noise and lag for nostalgia.
ICE ludism doesn’t matter though, we’re at a tipping point, especially in the rest of the world. Ice cars are become horses and no amount of complaining will stop that.
"Objective" is reaching a bit. Loud? My last two ICE vehicles have sufficient cabin noise-dampening to the point that one of the manufacturers can actually pump engine noise into the cabin. Tire noise from EVs is more, typically as a factor of increased gross vehicle weight. Lag? Unless you are driving an ICE with a large turbo, what lag? And as the owner of an ICE that can accelerate 0-60 faster than consumer EVs with the exception of Tesla's Performance models (which it keeps pace with) and the Plaid, and who likes having a performant vehicle, I could count on one hand the number of times I've needed that level of acceleration. Regular Tesla Model 3 0-60 times of 5.6s is absolutely in the world of Audi (with multiple entry level models in the 5s range) and even Camry only half a second behind.
I like EVs, I've spent plenty of time in them and enjoy driving them.
But I think there's a certain irony that often those who squeal "ICE Luddite" seem to also hold views about ICE modernization that are more akin to a time capsule of "the last time I cared about ICE vehicles was 15 years ago, and I'm certain they haven't advanced an inch since then".
But Comparing more normal people cars though like various mid range post 2020 Subarus, fords, rav4s, and 2010s Volvos, among others, those compared to EVs and plug in hybrids in EV mode including lower end ones like the crosstrek plug in hybrid - the latter were all quieter and had immediate acceleration w less lag compared those ice.
(And I’m excluding the 2025 stop start Subaru forester from that assessment because it’s lag is a whole other level from stopped. Not sure if that’s normal for all stop start cars, but perhaps this is the type of modern ICE innovation from the past 15years that the ev people are unaware of?)
Equally, airplane travel is a totally different experience when one is on a private jet or in first class versus taking southwest.
Most cars are not like this, because they don't spend as much money on sound dampening materials. The baseline 'good' for an EV is just much higher. Also, at idle, ICE cars are louder.
> Lag? Unless you are driving an ICE with a large turbo, what lag?
Pretty much every ICE car that is commanded to rapidly accelerate must drop down a gear (or 2). The mechanical time to shift gears and then also rev match just physically takes time. More expensive ICE cars are faster, sure, but compared to even the most anemic EV, the EV will win in response time. As soon as you hit the accelerator, you get torque. It's just not even close. Likewise with deceleration. You have a very non-linear deceleration curve with an ICE vehicle that is neither smooth nor even.
Electric cars are the cleanest—and getting cleaner faster than expected
https://theicct.org/pr-electric-cars-getting-cleaner-faster/
USA:
A cradle-to-grave analysis from the University of Michigan has shown that battery electric vehicles have lower lifetime greenhouse gas emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles, hybrids and plug-in hybrids in every county in the contiguous U.S.
https://news.umich.edu/evs-reduce-climate-pollution-but-by-h...
But noooo, you need to have an account with your debit card linked to it and use their half assed application or you won't be able to activate charger. And you should better pray that charger in your destination is actually operational and your car is compatible with the charger, which itself is fucking wild.
The whole EV industry essentially ignored lesson learnt for last 100 years using ICE cars - gas pumps, with somebody who can assist you if you don't know do exist for a reason!
Rivian CEO should go outside and try what is the average charging experience for an average customer.
Many would love it if it was secure enough.
Something like the "new" Ramcharger (2026?) is perfect for me. It is a plug-in hybrid with an electric drivetrain, with a V6 generator for adding range.
Build more vehicles like that please. Ideally something with Toyota's reliability.
Getting a new car has felt like a step up in quality of life, but not so with EVs. You get an overall worse experience.
A part from already mentioned issues like, charging infrastructure, range and charge times there are everyday things of living with a car.
Removing stocks and buttons for essentials controls like drive select, turn signals, door locks and opening the glove box.
Inability to fix small issues like replacing a light bulb or fixing a lock. Aging software that becomes unsupported by manufacturer a few years in. But is much more essential to car operation, than before.
And low resale value that makes these very expensive to buy vehicles, essentially single use appliances with planned obsoletion embedded.
Living with EVs is tougher than ICE cars. And until that at least equalizes, what regular consumer would want that?
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.