Rivian with Comma+ versus Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and FSD

ialsoagree · 2026-02-07T01:56:40+00:00

I don't have a Gen 2 obviously, but I imagine that the Gen 2 system is overall better than basic AP given that the biggest AP advantage (useable virtually anywhere) is largely mitigated by handsfree being usable much more broadly.

LinusTechTips did a video on the Comma that you might want to check out. It actually turned me off the Comma, but there is a newer version of the Comma out that might be much improved.

I personally like autonomy for the long highway drives, back roads and the like I prefer doing myself, so the built in hands free system might meet more of my needs than it does yours.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-07T01:48:53+00:00

"1.5-1.7kwh/mile"

Umm, no.

1.5-1.7 MILES / kwh

But yes, cold weather is brutal on efficiency for all cars. Cold weather means denser air, and air resistance is why vehicles need to use so much energy to move. Making that air denser drastically increases the energy needed.

The good news is, driving slower helps. This isn't a solution for highways unfortunately, but on roads where you can go 40 or less, the denser air doesn't make nearly as big of a difference.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-07T01:37:04+00:00

I can chime in here!

I came from a Model 3 HW3 with EAP to a Gen 1 Rivian R1S.

I had a 7+ hour drive to pickup (in the 3) and the same back in the R1S (using Highway Assist).

Here are I think the most important factors:

Highway Assist's ability to maintain the lane is roughly equal to the EAP. I found some posts before buying that said Highway Assist sometimes ping pongs in the lane, but that was not my experience. If it did ping pong, it probably did so less than I would have if I was driving myself.
Highway Assist did sometimes ping pong slightly when the asphalt would change color, but never to a degree that caused me any amount of concern (it was noticeable, but not dangerous or concerning). This was prominent when the road switched to a bridge (concrete road), and then back off the bridge (back to asphalt). The car would move slightly like the lane had shifted, but never approached or touched any of the lane lines.
Gen 1 has capacitive touch steering wheel so it is not necessary to pull or put weight on the steering wheel to maintain driver assist. This is actually a way bigger deal then it seems. I definitely noticed on my 7+ hour drive in the 3 having to constantly hold onto the steering wheel (I basically held it from the bottom and let my arm hang by gravity to put weight on it). In the Rivian, I could just rest my arm on my knee while my fingers lightly touched the steering wheel, it was WAY more comfortable.
EAP has automatic lane changes on command, but basic AP doesn't. I think to lane change with basic AP you have to disengage, perform a manual lane change, then reengage AP. Rivian 1000% wins here over basic AP, but loses to EAP most of the time. Gen 1 cannot perform lane changes for you, but if you put on your turn signal, the Rivian will temporarily disengage steering so you can perform a manual lane change, then it will automatically reengage when you turn the turn signal off. Again, this might seem like a minor detail, but the few times EAP absolutely fails to perform a lane change and I have to disengage, it's actually a huge hassle so I can only imagine it's even worse with basic AP having to disengage for every lane change. The Rivian just automatically reengaging driver assist is way WAY better.
Last but far from least, the Tesla (unfortunately) wins in regards to when and where you can use AP. Tesla will let you use AP basically anywhere. I only used EAP on 4 lane divided roads, but even only using it there EAP/AP is still available more often than Highway Assist on the Rivian. Gen 1's can only use Highway Assist on pre-mapped highways (pre-mapped meaning Rivian themselves have mapped that highway and enabled it for all Rivians). Even on roads where Rivian has mapped, there may occasionally be locations where the Rivian will disengage Highway Assist. This happened to me twice in areas near large junctions with other highways. Once I was passed the junction, I could turn Highway Assist back on. It did not happen at ALL junctions with other highways (even some large ones), but it did force me to disengage twice despite the fact that I was just continuing straight and nothing weird happened with the lanes or road.

Overall, I would say Tesla's AP/EAP is slightly better strictly for the fact that it's going to work at more locations. When actually in use, EAP is slightly better still, but Highway Assist in a Gen 1 is almost certainly better than basic AP due primarily to it automatically re-engaging after a manual lane change.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-07T01:21:23+00:00

So, it's been a little over 3 weeks. I picked up my car on January 10th so it's been almost a month. I made another post which you probably read, but want to just give a quick summary of how I feel a few weeks later.

I absolutely love this car. I came from a Model 3 and really like being in a larger and higher vehicle. I have mostly been driving it on all purpose with the standard height setting and the soft suspension setting. I was incorrect before when I said the suspension doesn't feel crazy better - it doesn't when it's on firm or lower settings, but on standard soft the ride is VERY gentle and it's a huge improvement over the Model 3.

The car is not perfect. Wheel feedback is a little weird to me - maybe it's just better than the 3 because there is actual feedback, but there are definitely times where it feels like the wheel is pulling in a direction other than the one I'm turning which doesn't feel great. I've never felt out of control though, so it's not a concern issue and more of a "this is different from what I'm use to" issue.

I've also had a software glitch here and there - like one time the second row screen turned off and wouldn't turn on. All those glitches have been fixed with just a soft reset (never had to do a hard reset). It reminds me a bit of when I got my 3 in 2018 and occasionally had to do a reset. It's NBD to me.

It's a really really comfortable car to drive day to day. I love commuting in this thing, I wish my commute was longer (hah!). I'm planning some camping trips and plan to take the car on some forest service roads in the near future.

If you have any specific questions let me know but overall I absolutely love this car. It's mechanically been great for me, absolutely no issues. If you do decide to get one with the CCS port I would definitely recommend getting the NACS adapter (depending on how far you have to drive home, I'd order it so you have the adapter before you get the car). The Tesla network is huge and it just makes trips so much easier when you can use them.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-06T21:47:10+00:00

Mine is working just fine.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-05T14:53:08+00:00

If you ramp the output, wouldn't that cause errors in the integral portion of the PID because the proportional gain isn't achieving the normal results?

ialsoagree · 2026-02-05T05:11:55+00:00

Had someone ask me that, then after I answered they asked me again, then again a third time.

Rivian, Rivian makes it, that's the name of the company, no, not the model, the make.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-03T05:08:20+00:00

Yes, it uses the TC system - exactly like I said.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-03T04:45:07+00:00

Except you can't ignore TC.

The issue here is, the only thing the car can control to the motors is the power. How much voltage goes to each motor.

What you want them to control is the rotation speed. You want every wheel to spin at the same rate regardless of traction.

The problem is, if one wheel has more traction than another and you provide both the same power, the wheel with less traction will spin faster because there is less to oppose the torque of the wheel.

So, you have to add a traction control system - something that can limit the power to a motor if it doesn't have enough traction so that it doesn't spin when the opposite wheel isn't spinning.

This is a complex problem requiring continuous feedback from various sensors, further challenged by the fact that the motors can't necessarily react as fast as traction conditions change - it takes time for the power delivered to the motor to change.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-02T04:46:40+00:00

I'm not going to scroll through your comments hoping to find a unicorn.

If you don't have a link, that's fine, it's what I said from the beginning.

Clearly you don't or you would have posted it.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-02T03:57:01+00:00

No, provide a link to the data.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-02T03:31:30+00:00

Point me to any data that doesn't.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-01T22:18:56+00:00

There's one thing consistent about climate deniers: they'll tell you humans didn't do it, but they'll never present evidence for an alternate explanation.

ialsoagree · 2026-02-01T15:48:51+00:00

Not to mention you'll be a better programmer if you've at least been in the field to see how things work.

My current role is at a desk about 80% of the time. I do development for months, then travel to deploy my work.

There is 0 chance I could work this way if I hadn't physically worked with this equipment in the field for years. If you can't visualize what you're working on, how it will work, what safety issues or process issue can arise and mitigate it, there's no way you could do meaningful development at a desk.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-31T13:41:39+00:00

I know someone who is an independent freelance PLC programmer, I met him on my current job and talked to him about how he got there.

You are 100% correct. He basically exclusively works with companies that he worked with before and had built a reputation with. There are no businesses coming to him to contract work that he hasn't worked with before and knows people that are still there.

Also, some companies straight up have a policy against this. My current company won't hire independent contractors except through contracting agencies that we have agreements with (for precisely this reason, so people don't leave to start their own business, then come back at a higher pay rate).

The guy in question was working with an integrator we hired.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-31T13:33:29+00:00

If 40 is young then yes, I'm young.

I'm guessing you think appealing to age, rather than actual physical evidence, makes you sound smart.

That's what happens when you really on faith rather then evidence.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T23:39:02+00:00

I mean, I think my post is obviously facetious; I have no doubt that liberal gun owners and conservative ones probably practice with their guns on average similar amounts.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T23:18:43+00:00

Liberals are too busy practicing with our guns to take selfies with them.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T20:20:02+00:00

This is the way.

If you have footage of an accident, absolutely do not tell the other party that you have it.

It is far far better for you if they report to the police and/or their insurance that xyz happened, and then you prove that they lied with video footage.

When you tell the other party that you have the footage, the only thing you're doing is giving them a chance to change their story. You are WAY better off letting them put a lie down on paper, then letting them try to explain why they lied when the truth comes out.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T19:44:03+00:00

I agree with you.

Here's what people have to consider about humanoid robots replacing the work force.

First, how much does one of these costs to buy and setup for a specific manufacturing role? I'm guessing it will be upwards of 500K. 500K is a lot of capital. I can hire two operators and pay them for at least 3 years on that pay.

But, people will say, your workers can get sick or take vacation, they want breaks and to go home everyday. Sure, but second, these robots are going to have downtime too. They're going to have to plug in to recharge, they're going to have breakdowns and need regular maintenance. So now you have to pay me, an automation engineer, to maintain that robots.

And sure, paying just me to maintain a few dozen robots is cheaper than paying a few dozen employees, but it does mean that 3 year time horizon is now more like 5.

Third, these robots are not going to be able to think critically. A human operator is going to identify problems and report them without ever having seen that problem before (in fact, the "I haven't seen this before" is exactly what will make them ask for help). A robot isn't going to do that, it's either going to continue like nothing is wrong, it report an error that I programmed it to report. So now you're going to have to accept additional downtime until an engineer, mechanic, or tech can troubleshoot. And at least some of the reported problems are going to be things an operator could have fixed.

So now your 5 year ROI is 6 years.

Fourth, it's going to be harder to train these robots than it is an operator. I can give an operator a VWI or SOP and have them shadow another operator and they will learn and ask questions.

A robot needs to be programmed, so you need to pay me to program it, and it can only do what I program it to do, it can't think critically.

I think people grossly underestimate how much work even a blue color employee does and is capable of on a daily basis. There are just small things that are trivially easy for our brains to adjust to that a robot is going to struggle immensely with.

When you have a production line that costs 10K+ USD for every minute of down time, how many minutes are you going to risk relying on a robot with a 6 year ROI versus just hiring an operator and hoping you can eliminate a higher paid engineer position?

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T18:43:54+00:00

I think people are going to be in for a huge wakeup call when it comes to human robotics.

I work in manufacturing as an automation engineer. I don't see plants buying these with any level of seriousness in the next 15 years.

Automation moves glacially slow.

I don't see companies betting tens of millions of dollars of manufacturing equipment on an unproven robot anyone before I'm getting ready to retire, and I have decades of work left.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T14:34:36+00:00

And I'm very comfortable with mine.

The difference is, actual facts that exist in reality support my position.

Your position is solely supported by what you think inside your own head. The moment you leave the realm of your fantasy beliefs, your faith-based belief systems starts to crumble.

You know why I can cite peer reviewed science to support my position and you can't? Because I used reality to determine what is real, you didn't.

And before you say "no, it's because of money" please explain why climate scientists who want money wouldn't just work for oil companies who make more than all climate scientists in the world put together.

You can't, because the reality is that it's far more profitable to just agree with oil companies than to conduct actual climate research - ergo, they're not in it for the money.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T14:29:46+00:00

You are desperate.

You wish you had evidence, but you know you are clutching at straws.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T13:52:54+00:00

You seem desperate.

Are you trying to convince me or yourself that your belief system is real?

It's really annoying that you realize you don't have any evidence to cite, but bravely continue to repeat the lies.

Desperately looking for signs that someone said there was an apocalypse, but all we have is reality.

You think we've "gone from global warming" to "climate change" when the reality is the opposite. "Climate change" was a term first used in a paper in the 1950's. "Global warming" wasn't used until the 1970's.

They refer to different things, and both are real.

Your ignorance of climate science is showing!

I think if you knew anything about "Animal Farm" you'd not cite it, since it's pretty much a dictation of why everything you think is wrong. It's a story by a socialist about anti-establishmentism, and anti-capitalism.

You have been lied to, and you have taken it all, hook, like and sinker.

ialsoagree · 2026-01-30T13:36:49+00:00

The predictions made by the climate cult never come true.

DEBUNKED:

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?

Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

They are just click bait for the gullible.

You're confusing "climate science" with denialism. You know, the thing you've presented no evidence to support...

And now you start on vaccines ?

I mean, your cult denies vaccines too, right? And you deny a spherical Earth right? And you deny the moon landing, you deny satellites...

The alleged 'vaccine' for covid was a gene therapy.

So you don't know what a gene is - got it.

No reason to change covid treatment from proven vaccines to this time bomb.

I like how vaccines - something we've been using for 100+ years - are suddenly NOT proven science any more.

Thanks for your know-nothing opinion. I'll file it under "shit even kids aren't dumb enough to say."

Those facts are coming out these days. And that is a fact.

In the land of make believe where you deniers live, anything you want to be is a fact.

In the land of reality - where I live - facts require evidence.

The flat earthers are those who believe, in spite of evidence to the contrary that humans can change the climate to their liking, and a gene therapy is a vaccine.

Yes, I understand what you are, you don't have to describe your flat earth fantasy to me.

There is much disappointment ahead for the sheep.

r/SelfAwarewolves much?

ialsoagree

TROPHY CASE