Rivian R1T: First Drive in the Electric Pickup | Hacker News Reader

Rivian R1T: First Drive in the Electric Pickup

businessinsider.com

104 pointslxm245 comments

Semi related – I find the fascination with large and heavy vehicles in America incredibly bizarre. At some point SUVs and trucks started being less about utility and more a test of manliness or patriotism or something. Driving around in even a regular sized sedan sometimes feels like you are in a sketch comedy. I have seen people do grocery runs in literal monster trucks.

The average price of a pickup truck sold today is $56K, very far from the "blue collar workhorse" it is advertised as. 70%+ of them will never see a day of off-road or hauling use (https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...).

Aside from the safety problems (for pedestrians & cyclists, not the driver of course), these trucks also wreck city streets, which are not designed for them. It's disappointing that this trend is continuing with EVs as well.

Registration fees should be based on vehicle weight to match the cost of the damage done to the roads.

Currently it's actually the opposite in some ways. Vehicles with a GVWR of at least 6000 lbs (2700kg) that are used for business can be deducted 100% in the first year, no matter what the business use is. This leads to a lot of white collar consultants buying giant luxury trucks or SUVs to drive around town meeting clients rather than luxury sedans.

In Utah, (and possibly other states?) we get to pay an extra yearly fee for driving a hybrid or electric car. :)

Same here in Ohio. I know the justification given was to offset the taxes on fuel that go towards road maintenance, but that math never held up. Just another regressive tax against the little guys instead of the heavy industry that causes the vast majority of road wear and tear...

I believe the extra yearly fee is to offset the tax on gas used to maintain road infrastructure that all vehicles use.

Nope.

The report produced an extensive list of equations for describing the data collected from the tests, and from those equations was born the Generalized Fourth Power Law. It’s a rule of thumb for comparing the amount of pavement damage caused by vehicles with different weights, in terms of axle loads:

(W1/W2)^4

In the equation, W1 is the weight of an axle on vehicle 1, which we would compare to W2, the weight of an axle on vehicle 2.

Let’s look at some numbers for comparison.

Consider a standard sedan with two axles and a total weight of 2 tons. Assuming an even distribution, each of its axles would bear the weight of 1 ton. Now consider a semitruck with eight axles and a weight of 40 tons -- each of its axles would weigh 5 tons. The relative damage done by each axle of the truck can be calculated with the following equation, and comes out to 625 times the damage done by each axel of the sedan.

(5 tons/1 ton)^4 = 625

Considering that the truck has eight axles and the sedan has two, the relative damage caused by the entire semitruck would be 625 x (8/2) -- 2,500 times that of the sedan.

- https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-... - https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2017/06/22/murphys-law-how-trucks... - https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-indu...

Regardless of transportation cost attribution, the electric vehicle fees are meant to offset transportation funding, which ICE vehicles pay largely via federal and state fuel taxes. And which we as a society have decided is a political decision, separate from direct use/cost. Otherwise we'd have just stuck with everything being a toll-road.

Equating the marginal increase in pavement maintenance costs (due to trucks and heavy-loads) to the overall costs of building and operating a highway is also entirely wrong, but that's a bit tangent the point here.

I'm usually the first to point out the outsized amount of damage and wear attributable to heavy vehicles, but it's still a marginal increase of only one cost component in running a public transportation network.

This is my favorite equation to trot out when red state folks demand bikes be taxed for also damaging the road. Comes out to some fraction of a penny.

And emissions

I used to have a similarly narrow view. And because my worldview was similarly colored and judgmental, I too would roll my eyes when I saw an off-road capable truck parked at a mall, and reflexively throw out similar loosely-substantiated stats (70% will never take them off-road, etc.), and even indulge in more vitriolic private musings such as "he's probably compensating for a smaller-than-desirable reproductive organ."

That changed when I traded-in my Tesla for a mid-sized, off-road capable truck, and found myself on the receiving end of this view.

I certainly did not buy a truck to "overcompensate" as the article suggests or to use it only to haul groceries. I'm not even a blue collar worker – decidedly white collar in SV, with no need to haul lumber or construction material. Luckily, being a SV white collar type also made me beneficiary of WFH, and killed my commute.

I loved my model S, but didn't need an efficient/fun tarmac shuttlecock between work and home anymore. I also found that an off-road truck was more suited to my new "commute": like the ability to go haul my astrophotography equipment to the middle of nowhere – far away from light pollution where regular cars can't make it.

I also traded-in my road bike for a mountain bike because I discovered that even small/mid-sized cars are hostile to cyclists in America. It doesn't matter if a Nissan Leaf runs me over or a Ford F-150 – I'm still dead. So now I also use my off-road truck to haul my off-road bike to places where a regular car can't run me over. A bear maybe, but not a car.

Rivian seems to offer the best of all worlds, and I'm rooting for their charging infrastructure to grow asap – so I can still do truck stuff, without the emissions.

Are there people who'll buy a truck/SUV only to use it as a mall crawler? Sure. Just as there are people who'll buy BMW M3s or Porsche 911s and never take it on the track.

I think the basic concept around truck ownership is as true now as it always has been: A truck can do everything a car can, but a car can't do everything that a truck does (at least not as easily or conveniently). Most people who buy trucks or similarly large vehicles with copious storage space do so because they think they might someday need to do one of those things.

A truck cannot go under very short tunnels, under low & thick tree branches, etc... Each vehicle has its tradeoffs. With that being said personally i prefer a larger vehicle because its easier to get in/out of, sitting higher lets me see further, lots of other tall vehicles essentially force me to also be in a tall vehicle or have a worse view while driving.

What do you put on the truck bed that you couldn't in a car trunk?

a dead bull elk

a large amount of garden soil

a Christmas tree

a large sofa

an ATV

a camper attachment

a cage containing 2 live goats

leaf debris from a half acre of lawn

playground equipment

(Results may vary, such as with an exceptionally large car trunk)

It's not just manliness. It's everyone. Ford hasn't made a car in two years. Total insanity.

To be fair, Fords smaller SUVs are essentially sedans with an extended roof and trunk. A Ford Escape has almost identify fuel milage as a Toyota Camry. Likewise, a Ford F-150 gets nearly the same gas mileage as a Chevy Equinox.

At this point, there's a lot of engine tech that really helps to optimize for a vehicle's power demands. Ford in particular is running very small volume engines at high compression ratios to get some great fuel economy.

SUVs also have higher front profiles which makes them significantly more deadly to pedestrians.

Current safety ratings are only for people inside of the vehicle and that is insane.

The Escape is pretty much a larger Hatchback Car. Lifted slightly with bigger tires and more headroom. Compared to a sedan you get more cargo space options. For a family cars make zero sense.

Ford said that they stop producing cars for US market some time ago meaning that they’ll produce SUVs and trucks only.

As a family person that runs to fruit market every several weeks and brings back a boot load of fruits in boxes it is hard to understand how a sedan can suffice.

Having said that huge SUVs are overkill too, something like Subaru Forester/Outback or RAV-4 seems to be the sweet spot for people with less than 3 children. With 3 children you start looking at something with 3rd row of seats.

> boot load of fruits in boxes

Hard to believe that the 100 gallon boot volumes of a small sedan are insufficient for a weekly fruit&veg shop - let alone the 300 gallon boot of an estate car or the 400 gallon boot that a compact car has if you take the 30 seconds to lay down the rear seats before you load it...

And being a bit older, I do remember being driven into summer holidays with a family with 3 children, luggage and an inflatable rubber boat - in a Fiat 126 (half the length, half the width, and a quarter of the weight of today's giant pick-ups and Escalades...

https://photos.app.goo.gl/NkXauuz2vUALRafq6 this is what my wife goes through in two weeks.

That's boot of my Subi Forester and that is not the fullest it is ever been. During mango season we even take a bit of passenger space. That box of oranges is was 5 AUDs btw.

In the rest of the world you just fold your seats or stack your stuff better?

“Stack your stuff better” doesn’t sit well with soft mangoes and “just fold your seats” doesn’t sit well with children in child seats in the second row.

Practice is often different from theory.

Now having written that and looking at you user handle I realise that you might think that mangoes are firm and you can stack it.

Well, those firm mangoes you see in super markets are not ripe, they are green. Ripe mangoes we buy here in Australia are soft, you can damage them with you fingers and I would like to keep them for at least couple weeks.

My mom would haul enough mulch for our entire garden in a Taurus wagon, which was built on a midsize chassis

I fit 8 dining room chairs and accessories in my Leaf.

https://i.imgur.com/TzYt8Qi.jpg

I fit 4 chairs and a dining table in a Jetta. Only took the legs off the table.

It can be done, and it is done all the time all around the world. People just want to use their extreme case to justify both ways. We are saying “I fit my whole house in a fiat 500” and they are saying “I eat for 25 people every week so others must need it to”.

The reality is that people drive suburbans and Tahoes and they don’t even have kids just because they can. I hate to say it but the best thing that can happen to the US culture is expensive fuel. And I say this as someone who races cars as a hobby and would like cheap fuel.

> It can be done, and it is done all the time all around the world. People just want to use their extreme case to justify both ways. We are saying “I fit my whole house in a fiat 500” and they are saying “I eat for 25 people every week so others must need it to”.

I agree with everything you wrote in this paragraph in terms of SUV vs. compact hatchbacks, but I stand by the fact that if all large crossovers and small SUVs were replaced by midsized station-wagons the roads would be a better place and the drivers would lose no utility.

Then we both agree

Leaf is a hatch back, a good alternative if you want to down size and not ready to go to SUV. For electric stuff I'm waiting Tesla to start delivering Model Y in Australia.

Hatches are considered cars. Fords most liked car options were the sporty hatch versions of the fiesta and focus.

Hatches are essentially a downsized SUV. They are very different from sedan's when it comes to storage of goods. The positive is they generally can hold more stuff. The downside is that it is easier to access that stuff by unknown 3rd parties (break and enter).

The Leaf is a hatch back but it's very shallow. The total volume isn't that different than the Model 3 we have or an Accord I had in the past. The main difference is the configuration with the Leaf being shallow but tall.

To be fair most modern small & mid-size SUVs are the sizes of wagons with similar fuel consumption

I don't know about US but in Australia all SUVs are marked as "Wagon" in registration papers.

Just to be clear, they aren't stopping sports car production. They did end all sedans though.

They sure ramped it down though. No more Focus/Fiesta RS or ST stateside.

I’m guessing we’ll see ev equivalents for that soon enough.

Given that Ford gave its classic sportscar "Mustang" badge to an EV SUV rather than anything resembling a classic Mustang, Ford seems to be putting a lot of work into avoiding sedans/coupes even in EVs.

They’ve been run out of that market largely by Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Their truck market is strong though, so makes sense to double down.

Is that really true? They list on their website today Mustang, Mustang Mach-E, and Ford GT.

Which are respectively a performance car, a luxury electric SUV and a sports car. Ford is no longer making any regular cars like sedans or hatchbacks.

Meanwhile in the EU Ford offers 3 or so SUVs, and a myriad of regular cars.

> 70%+ of them will never see a day of off-road

I remember laughing my head off when Lexus announced they were making a "Luxury SUV". I'm on my second one and it rarely even experiences a gravel road.

As someone who likes 4WDing we appreciate people buying these. A ~10 year old nicely devalued and non-abused SUV is a perfect car for those that want to actually 4WD.

Taking a new and expensive 4WD down a narrow track with branches scraping stripes down the side would be too stressful for most.

One theory I have as to a contributing factor is that the streets are poorly maintained in enough of America that an SUV/Truck suspension is a noticeably comfier ride.

One thing begets the other though: more heavy SUV/Trucks the worse the wear on the road.

have you tried driving in the rest of the world? The US streets even in the north are pool tables compared to most of the world.

Agreed about manliness (“build ford tough”!) and patriotism but don’t forget status. Part of me dies seeing people driving around land rovers in the city by themselves. What a waste of energy…

It is all marketing. It was sold to people. Mainly as a symbol of a good life.

Because it is hard to prove to others, and especially to yourself, that your life is quite good. You can buy expensive clothes (with huge logos that can be seen from a mile) but how expensive can they get, they can be fakes; you can have expensive house (but not much people can see you comong in/out), etc.

So car becomes a perfect proof. "Everybody sees how big and how new and how powerful and loud it is". You have succeeded. Look at drivers sometimes. They are even acting like driving in a movie of some sort. Doing faces when accelerating and etc.

It is the same with plastic surgery - you don't want it to be subtle anymore. You want it to be visible. So anybody can know that you can afford it.

Cars are not very practical. Small and cramped on the inside, and not great for a family.

Trucks and SUVs make for great family movers.

I have a full sized half ton truck, It is the main family hauler. But I use the bed alot and tow my boat or trailer all the time.

But something small like a Ford Escape is perfect for most, and that is why there are so many of these compact crossovers on the road. They are bigger than a Car, higher up, and the back seats can be fold down to allow for a lot of storage room. Our secondary Vehicle is a Escape titanium, and see these everywhere along with Rav4's and CRVs. Really the only 3 compact crossovers worth looking at IMO.

Larger cars are safer-- to the people inside them[0]. And the cost of an SUV is nothing compared to medical bills and chronic pain. Of course, they only remain safer as long as they're larger than other vehicles on the road, so it's just a never-ending arms race.

[0]: https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight.

Yeah that speaks a lot about individualism in the US. They make streets way more dangerous for everyone else. If everyone drove small cars it would be safer overall for everyone.

The potential cost injuries from cycling are far less than the health benefits from it. Cars on the other hand are as dangerous as smoking for its user:

https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/33/2/160/1591440

In this sense an SUV is like smoking lots of cigarettes around others but without inhaling as much.

Please stop. Comparing cars to tobacco and using a bike to transport your family or goods. Where is the parallel? It is obvious that we have to change towards reality of EV and optimization of cars. In EU SUV is not predominant form factor (yet), but there are use cases for different people. You cannot paint with this big and bold "everything on bicycles" brush, trucks are America's problem exclusively. The solutions are obvious. Create adequate public transportation grids for the cities and manage all car traffic. People living outside the cities cannot do they work on a bicycle.

The parallel of tobacco and cars is that they both have potential bad health effects to it user. And Lol, car culture with EV just removes the very local emission part for now. All other problems in terms of space, accidents etc. remain. Sure bicycle is only a partial solution. But I only pointed out that using cars is bad for your health while bicycle has a net plus health benefit.

You're right, although vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death in young adults in the US. I'm just saying that SUVs and trucks externalize their costs onto other road users.

> cost of an SUV is nothing compared to medical bills

Another argument for universal, free at point of use, health care?

And/or roundabouts. They significantly reduce lethality of collisions at crossings.

Absolutely!

And this is one of the origins 1974 Chevrolet C10 Custom 3MT: Regular Car Reviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeT6LspPPFQ heavy cheaply made piece of shit with a cult status

> ... large and heavy vehicles... Aside from the safety problems (for pedestrians & cyclists, not the driver of course), these trucks also wreck city streets, which are not designed for them.

The best selling trucks in America, the F150 and the Chevy Silverado, are lighter than a Tesla S.

The 4th Power Rule tells us that they are all doing bonkers amount of damage to roads. It's especially terrible considering very few truck owners actually use them for anything more than single-user commutes.

Trucks are such horrible deadly things for cities and should be either banned or prohibitively taxed for anyone who doesn't need them.

https://insidescience.org/index.php/news/how-much-damage-do-...

https://www.thedrive.com/news/26907/you-dont-need-a-full-siz...

They are doing far, far less damage than heavy trucks, such as semi tractor-trailers or even box trucks with significant weight inside.

Even so, the goal here is to spend the resources to permit movement of goods and people... not to limit traffic to those vehicle types that do the least damage to the road. The road is there to be used, not admired.

If you really want 0 damage, work toward legalizing hovercraft on national highways.

> They are doing far, far less damage than heavy trucks, such as semi tractor-trailers or even box trucks with significant weight inside.

Why on earth do you think it's ok to compare the damage done by industrial freight vehicles to personal transportation?

That’s a counterintuitive thing about current generation EVs: they are heavy. Those huge batteries weigh a lot.

Regenerative braking helps reduce the extra energy cost of this quite a bit by recycling a decent percentage of the kinetic energy you put into moving that big heavy thing.

The weight does have some safety and handling benefits under some conditions but it does probably do more road damage.

As EVs grow states will probably have to charge a “road fee” or something, but it will still be far less costly than gasoline fuel and all the extra maintenance an ICE requires.

Side note but the F-150 Lightning is as important to the EV revolution as the Tesla Roadster and Nissan Leaf were years ago.

Rednecks will stop scoffing at EVs once they find out what instant full torque means. Days worth of on site power for job sites or camping without generator noise is also pretty badass.

That's what this article about Rivian's R1T is about too: Rivian's 4-wheel motored truck (and its SUV form factor brother the R1S) are going blow some minds among my redneck cousins. 4WD is nice, but 4-wheel Motored, with instant full torque at each wheel and each wheel can have its own torque for the offroading task, is a dream they probably don't even know they have yet.

Presumably that's mostly because of batteries - the electric F150 weighs a whopping 6,500 lb - 1500 lb more than the heaviest Tesla S.

Okay..? So all three are very heavy.

True, we should start a program to get everyone a GMA T.50 – kerb weight of < 1,000 kg!

Bought a truck when I moved to Texas. I managed to furnish my home there off Craigslist by picking up stuff way cheaper than by buying new stuff. Completely infeasible to buy some of these things even with the Subaru Forester I used to have.

It sounds like you've minimized one-time furniture costs by increasing your recurring fuel costs.

I misspoke. I let the Forester. I just don’t use it for this anymore.

Couldn't have rented a van/UHaul for a day or weekend?

Not really. In my experience, quality vs list time is a concave up decreasing function. If your close duration is high, you will get substantially worse execution.

If you’ve been able to beat that, then you are better at this than I am.

…streets don’t account for SUVs and pickup trucks in their designs?

Absolutely disheartening to see EVs amenable to people who drive trucks and SUVs though, one would hope their manly culture of overpaying for patriotic vehicles would change before the climate does, but alas.

“All Rivian has to do is build a ton of them, handle service and repairs, and not run out of money.”

I honestly wish them the best of luck. Those are a bunch of hard things to get right and definitely the things established brands have in their favor. It will be better for the world if we can have more electric options.

Considering they’re the supplier for amazons electric delivery vehicle fleet, I doubt they’ll run out of money

They need profits, not just revenue, and Amazon is known for squeezing suppliers.

I think Amazon is invested too.

But even as a customer, EV delivery is a big cost saver and competitive advantage for Amazon. They o Lu way they'd let them fail is if they could buy electric trucks cheaper elsewhere.

Businesses frequently fail due to cashflow management issues, revenue is not a golden ticket.

Amazon hires contractors for delivery services, and they go bust all the time due to insane demands and low margins. Providing services for Amazon is not a ticket for the gravy train.

Amazon is also a significant investor in Rivian.

Seems like a funding problem, and I wonder if investor sentiment for electric vehicles will help. During the dot-com boom, investors were clamoring to fund all kinds of companies.

And hire a competent designer.

I don't know anything about the author, but the breathless praise combined with questionable analysis leads me to think this is a PR puff piece.

For example,

> The instant you start letting off the accelerator, the motors start braking and feeding energy back to the battery pack. This is especially helpful for off-roading, which requires lots of careful stopping and starting.

This could very well be true, but how did the author come to this conclusion in the context of a test drive?

Well, it's pretty clear from the article that a significant chunk of the 'test drive' occurred off road.

And it only makes sense that regenerative deceleration with a motor at each wheel would provide much more granular control when crawling over rocks or other loose surfaces than a friction brake system would.

Other manufacturers of conventional off-roaders have had to design and implement 'hill descent control' systems to serve this very purpose; using the brakes individually to provide a controlled descent.

With a driver pressing on a brake pedal, equal force is sent to each wheel, which may cause locking on one wheel (and thus loss of braking force), and increased demands on the other wheels, which might lead to locking/slipping and a loss of control. Anti-lock brakes aren't really designed to solve this; they pulse the brakes at that wheel to un-lock them, but once they decide the wheel is turning again, they'll allow it to lock right up again.

The Adventure Journal review is a bit more in-depth from someone perhaps a bit more experienced.

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2021/09/drive-test-rivian-...

It’s right there in the article. The “test drive” the author is talking about is an off-roading event organized by Rivian. There are several videos on YouTube about this event.

> Rivian invited me out to Colorado earlier in September to spend a few days getting to know the R1T inside and out. I scrambled up mountain passes, cruised sweeping highways, and got up close to the myriad of thoughtful features the truck has to offer.

This one is pretty good (JerryRigEverythin) and even includes repairing a blown tire! https://youtu.be/KGqexebCcUo

Yep, that's a great review. Overall I'm very impressed by the R1T! I'm not a truck buyer, but this bodes well for the R1S which I am interested in.

My point is that evaluating the relative effectiveness of regenerative braking in off-road contexts requires data and analysis which would not be present in a test drive context. Speculating about the effectiveness or parroting Rivian marketing materials would not require any data or analysis.

What data and analysis do you need to say “regenerative braking is useful for off roading”? It’s an opinion by someone who finds that feature useful.

What is so hard to believe for you? Off roading requires plenty of start and stop, hence more braking. Regen allows the driver to use brake pedal less. Seems obvious that this is useful on its own, in addition to regen adding energy back to the battery.

It's not hard to understand how pedal feel-- specifically, the degree of instant, single-pedal control you get in an EV with regenerative braking-- are helpful in many contexts. It's something I realized within a few miles of driving an EV for the first time. It's an opinion I still hold after 10k miles.

While this author might not be as experienced with EVs, nearly every journalist and enthusiast in the space has been impressed with the company and their hands-on experience.

The experience is significantly different from an ICE truck, (quiet, powerful, feature-ful...) that it would have an impact on someone inexperienced

Sounds like the author is waxing lyrical about regenerative braking? A bit breathless and certainly veering into marketing (rather than analysis) territory.

If you've driven a heavy vehicle up and down steep stuff, regenerative braking is super nice. shifting into 3rd or 2nd is not the same. A compression brake is kind of ok.

This is business insider we're reading. The publication is meant for lay folk.

(Like me who apparently doesn't block ads because there were more of those on a given screen than article text)

This is exactly my point. Establishing that regenerative braking is "especially helpful" for a particular driving context feels like a conclusion one could not reach during a test drive.

More likely that the author got some talking points and maybe even data from the fine folks at Rivian.

I think the article is pure PR.

however, automatically engaging regenerative breaking is especially helpful for mimicking a manual transmission (without freewheel/overdrive). It's a desirable characteristic for sporty driving styles.

my favorite piece of BS is "they've flipped the script!" I hope not, people already know what they want a pickup to do: haul their stuff around. They don't want their stuff hauling their pickup around, for example.

Except it mimicks downshifting a transmission where you can have different gear ratios at each wheel, dynamically! It's the perfect application of this tech.

Yes, it's a puff piece, but that doesn't mean there's not truth behind it.

Also, perfect traction control at each wheel. And the ability to do tank turns, or to get out of deep snow/sand

Yes, that’s how these things usually work. Though usually the writer doesn’t handle covering the talking points like checking off a to do list.

They took the cars off-road for hours on Colorado trails. Did you not read the article?

All early access content is written like this, these days. See the Amazon hardware coverage from today.

The entire automotive press industry is designed to simply transform and reprint materials provided by automakers.

Same here, it hit the front page in minutes with no comments and content is lacking a bit...

Its not really true actually. Repeatably starting is actually very bad for the battery and you don't get nearly as much back as you lose.

This feature that Teslas have had for 13+ years is unprecedented!

I believe regenerative braking has been used in cars since 1967. However the review talks specifically about how the feature applies to off-roading which other electric cars including Teslas are not designed for.

The Prius had regenerative braking too, but, like Tesla, only on one axle (or two in the case of Tesla AWD vehicles).

It's nice that it has a dashboard in front of the driver, not off to the side.

There are some things that tesla does that I think are poor design, and that is the most egregious. lack of tactile controls for critical functions is just as bad, like touch controls for turn signals... ugh.

So I was a staunch physical control guy (drove a manual through 2016, with the first car lacking power steering), and now a Tesla owner. I thought I’d feel more strongly against the entire touch setup. And it does suck a lot and makes me take my eyes off the road more than I should. At the same time, my spouses Honda, which has more physical buttons than many other cars, requires fewer, but not markedly fewer eyesight departures.

I guess the last car I could drive and fiddle with the controls without looking was my 2003 EP3 hatch. So I figure if all cars are going to make me look at a screen as I fiddle, in for a pinch, in for a pound.

Analogue physical controls are ideal. Infinite-spin dials suck (except for speaker volume), and digital buttons for controlling ranges are even worse: fan speed, temperature, blend door control, wiper intermittency rate, etc. work best with absolutely poitioned analogue controls that you can feel the current state by touch alone. Early 2000s cars do it best, in my experience.

You can't tell the wiper intermittency setting with your eyes looking through the windshield? It's either too little or too much.

I get the argument about the touchscreen generally, but think you’re wrong about the location of the dashboard being a problem in a Tesla M3/Y.

Here’s the thing: any dashboard (that’s not projected into the windscreen) requires you to look away from the road, whether it’s front/below or side/below. The only data you’d likely be checking on a regular basis in an EV whilst on the move is speed; speed is top-left of the screen (i.e. closest to the driver’s regular gaze position) and retraining to deflect your gaze there takes very little practise. Once you’re accustomed, flicking your eyes there for a fraction of a second is no different to flicking your eyes to a traditional dashboard for a fraction of a second.

Tesla M3 desperately needs a heads up display. The location of speedometer is completely wrong in Tesla M3, in my humble opinion. For example, I have glasses and my peripheral vision is far better in vertical direction, opposed to horizontal direction.

Even without glasses, to look at your right direction, your nose is in the way of left eyes vision and you actively need to look at the speedometer by turning your head.

Fair enough, tho' my experience is different. I find it equally quick and easy to flick my eyes to the speedo in the M3 vs. a traditional location.

And I'd argue it probably better than some traditionally-located speedometers, given challenges of poor contrast or visibility, different gauge styles, and the unpredictable coverage of the cluster by the steering wheel in various cars.

I actually prefer the speedometer location in my Model Y to almost any other car. It literally took me an hour to adjust to looking over rather than down.

I don’t know why every vehicle doesn’t have a HUD at this point. Once you have one you don’t want to go without, even if it’s just the speedometer.

> touch controls for turn signals

Wait… really?

Not sure what they mean. My Tesla definitely has a turn signal stalk just like every other car I’ve ever owned.

The 2021 Model S has touch controls for turn signals. The rest of their lineup still has a conventional turn signal stalk.

For those confused, this is a reference to the new Model S and likely the new X, when it comes out.

Tesla may yet change their minds. My 2013 S (car ~ 4000) has the cruise control stalk in the Mercedes position. It was moved to a more traditional location a few months later.

I saw a plaid delivered with the yoke steering wheel and no stalks anywhere.

You obviously don't own a Tesla. Turn signals are not touch controls. There are enough physical controls for important functions. Everything else being on the screen has been perfectly fine. In fact it's mostly better, due to automatic sensor-based control and high quality voice recognition. The only annoying thing in my mind is opening the glove compartment.

Well you obviously don’t own a new Tesla Model S. The yolk steering wheel has capacitive buttons for signals and the horn [0].

[0] https://thegreencarguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GCG_Te...

> yolk

We'll you've obviously been driving an egg this whole time.

Sorry. Yoke.

So, that's correct, but it just means everyone's correct. The original commenter said "like Tesla does" implying that significant number of Teslas have this, or it's their standard, which isn't true. It also makes one think of a touchscreen control rather than a capacitive button on the steering wheel.

Don't get me wrong, it's a stupid design. I have a Model 3, and really wish I had a front instrument cluster, too. But the whole thread seems to be half-truths from various camps trying to mislead each other.

> Turn signals are not touch controls.

In the newly refreshed Model S they are.

They made some noise about it at least. https://carbuzz.com/news/tesla-replacing-indicators-with-gue...

I watched a video review of it earlier today and it seems like an awesome truck (if it holds up long term). But the front is so hideous. It seems like they were so thoughtful with the rest of the design, but turned the front over to Little Tikes. I can’t believe that’s what they went with. Also, the price is way higher than I was thinking for a truck.

But I’m really excited about electric trucks. I often need a truck but not every day, but the thought of having a daily driver that uses so much gas keeps me from buying one.

The price is on par with current truck prices in the category. If you haven't been paying attention, it could be easy to miss the massive markup in truck pricing over the past decade. Some of the base models are still reasonable, but there are normal people buying 60-70k "work trucks" all day now.

These things will sell like crazy.

I saw one on the road last week at night and it looked distinctive and very appealing actually.

I kind of hope that Rivian is a success that pulls Tesla back from trying to make spaceship aesthetic vehicles and put some manual affordances back in.

My only gripe is the 8000lb+ curb weight. That's not going to be friendly to roads, but better an electric than a gas SUV I suppose.

> But the front is so hideous.

Have you seen Tesla's Cyber Truck. It's much worse!

The Ars review was fairly positive as well.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/rivians-67-500-314-mile...

Early prototypes of the Rivian were used as crew trucks on Ewan McGregor's and Charley Boorman's Long Way Up series. They drove electric Harleys from the southern tip of South America up to LA. The crew drove two Rivians.

Amazing cars. Looks super promising.

Saw one driving around SF a few weeks back and they look fantastic, if a little toy-like. Especially the front lights look like a toy.

Yeah and notably the Rivians were far better than the electric bikes.

OTOH, I wonder what a telsa truck would look like in person.

A bunch of video *overviews for it showed up on youtube yesterday, I watched a few and liked this one best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGqexebCcUo

The Kelly Blue Book overview was also pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpBMld6U9B0

While that's a solid video overview of the Rivian, I don't know if I would call it a review seeing as it doesn't offer any criticism nor does it go into any depth about range.

3129 kg is incredibly heavy, I wonder how well the batteries cope in cold climates (say 10 to -15 degrees c) - that's been a big limiting factor for utility EVs in New Zealand and I'm sure other countries.

Apparently, Rivian did some low temperature testing earlier this year: https://electrek.co/2021/02/27/rivian-tests-r1t-electric-pic.... They tested with -40 degrees, which oddly is the same in Celsius and Fahrenheit. It keeps the batteries at 14 degrees fahrenheit, which is still -10 Celsius for optimum battery performance. So, -10 Celsius and above should be fine. It will obviously use a bit extra energy for that heating below that.

Norway is actually banning fuel car sales in a few years (2025) and already has more than 50% market share for EVs thanks to their policies and incentives. So, while there are some challenges, it's not a show stopper for a country that regularly sees such temperatures give a large part of it is north of the polar circle (66.6 degrees).

Temperature management is an issue of course but a lot of EVs actively manage the temperature of their batteries now (except some of the cheaper ones). Also, lots of ICE cars have issues with extreme temperatures. Good luck starting a Diesel with -40. The viscosity of the fuel becomes an issue. Norway works around this by having a lot of infrastructure to keep car engines heated (even petrol cars) while they park. This now doubles as charging infrastructure and of course their grid is 100% renewable (hydro). Also they use fuel additives to keep the fuel viscosity a bit lower.

So, remote areas in New Zealand might be a bit lacking on the infrastructure side but as long as you can plug it in where you park, it should be fine.

> Norway is actually banning fuel car sales in a few years (2025)

There is no ban. This is a misconception that has been widely repeated in the media. There are only talks of a ban.

https://roadmapsforenergy.eu/norway-fossilfuel-car-ban/

https://energiogklima.no/nyhet/bilparken-bare-nullutslippsbi...

It seems you are right. However, they did just have elections and the left wing opposition that ran on a pro climate agenda won by quite large margin. That and the current reality of most sales already being EVs makes a 2025 cut off quite possible for ICE vehicle sales. I'd say that talk just got a bit more serious.

Heat pumps have largely solved the battery capacity problems with cold batteries (though not the fast charging rate). I don't have numbers for Rivian, but heater-equipped EVs from other manufacturers now routinely post numbers in frigid temperatures that are under 20% range degradation. You're basically just paying for the extra energy to run the heater.

From what I’ve seen only a few models have a heat pump if you were to buy today so buyer beware. It might be technically solved but it’s still an issue if you want to buy an EV in the next few years.

Ah that's good to know thank you!

How is Rivian an California startup? The founder is from Michigan. Rivian is headquartered in Plymouth, Michigan outside Detroit. The truck is being built in an old Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Illinois. It's a Delaware corporation. Is it because the original funding came from California?

The founder is actually from Florida (where Rivian then operating under a different name originally started in 2009). They moved the headquarters from Michigan to California about a year ago.

The internet seems split on the location of their headquarters. Some sites say Irvine, CA, the rest Plymouth, MI.

Their HQ is in Irvine,CA. It says on their website on the careers page.

The relevant section[1]:

> Rivian is based in California with a manufacturing plant in Illinois and additional locations in Michigan, Arizona, Vancouver and England. While our teams have adapted well to new ways of collaborating, we believe that having inspired physical spaces to gather and connect remains important.

Looks like they moved the HQ to Irvine in 2020.

[1] https://rivian.com/careers

As someone with two kids, I'm more interested in the R1S, and I'm confused why they're not leading with the SUV, which seems to be a less competitive market segment. The Model X is the lone electric SUV, that I'm aware of, but it has a number of features that don't appeal to the average American buyer (the stupid doors, over-use of touch screens, etc.). The R1T will compete with the F-150 lightning and Cybertruck.

Other electric SUVs: Ford Mustang Mach-E, Hyundai Kona Electric, Tesla Model Y, Volvo XC40 Recharge, Volkswagen ID.4, Jaguar I-PACE, Audi e-tron, Kia Niro EV.

Don't forget that emphasis on will compete. The Model X is already out (and so are a bunch of other EV SUVs now from a variety of manufacturers, as others pointed out), but neither the F-150 Lightning nor the Cybertruck are out yet, and while both have strong presales as this article points out Rivian is looking to beat them both to actual market, which also includes the small possibility of flipping presales if people can actually drive away with an R1T "today" versus wait another few months. (Though that's probably a very tiny possibility given the huge brand loyalties of both Tesla and the F-150.)

The Cybertruck isn't actually going to be a production vehicle so it's really only the F-150 Lightning which isn't even released yet.

Its amazing that people just claim this nonsense. Where are you getting this information TSLAQ twitter?

Tesla is literally building a gigantic factory that they have already invested billions into and they literally have about a million people who have put money down to get a pre-order (even at 10% conversion rate that is a lot) and somehow its but somehow its not going into production? Total nonsense.

So your belief is that Tesla is committing fraud? That the over 1.25 million reservations the have taken for the Cybertruck is some sort of scam?

Wouldn't be the first time.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/why-selling-full-self-d...

Was it a scam to take $3k from people for full self driving in 2016 and still not deliver?

For modern truck that has mass appeal I'd suggest you look at this new Sport Adventure Vehicle (SAV) namely Santa Cruz by Hyundai. It has the potential to kick start and popularize a new vehicle segment similar to what Toyota RAV 4 did to the SUV segment back in the days. This small truck is no slouch since it can tow up to 5000 lbs trailer due to its hybrid vehicle architecture combination of both Tucson and Sante Fe SUVs. Watch it in action easily pulling an 18-foot pontoon boat [1].

I believe it's going to get PHEV or EV option soon by probably adopting electric drivetrain that is powering Kona SUV at the moment [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR8wq0VMHiQ

[2] https://topelectricsuv.com/news/hyundai/hyundai-santa-cruz-h...

Ford's new hybrids are also seriously interesting. Having a proper truck that is also a full-on portable power station is a game changer.

> Having a proper truck that is also a full-on portable power station is a game changer.

Why?

Great question. :)

If you're on a jobsite without power, a combined truck-generator saves the cost of the separate genny, setup/teardown time, fuel logistics, logistics for the equipment itself, etc.

For disaster response, you show up with your fully-fueled truck, and you're providing power as soon as you shift into Park.

Everywhere you go in your truck, you basically have the power supply capabilities of a small workshop. It's big.

I think because contractors often need to power their tools on sites that may not have a power source.

That's a Ute.

I dig the look of the Santa Cruz, but if you're price sensitive, the 50% higher MSRP than the Ford Maverick makes it a tough sell.

Funfact: the first electric vehicles were trucks. Edison designed a battery for them.

Over 200 comments and nobody has mentioned privacy. Read the Rivian privacy policy, it's downright scary. They track and record everything: location, acceleration/braking, charging, etc., and they explicitly state that they will "share" all the personal information with 3d party advertisers. I don't know how anyone gets on board with this stuff. I would be in line for one of these (or any electric vehicle) but every company seems to do it nowadays, with no option for opting out.

probably because nobody read it. It should be illegal to share personal data with 3rd parties without EXPLICIT permission for each sharing instance. In order to share your x-ray/medical scans/information it must be done on a case by case basis. This should be required for all personal information

Just looking at the body... while a Unibody design will work for city usage, I don't see this working for anyone that does any towing, hauling significant weight, or frequent off-roading. There's a reason the truck manufactures have stuck with body-over-frame, you separate the "hold the people" concerns from the "hold the weight" concerns to make a more durable product. Essentially, if you're using it as a car, it'll make a great car, but using it as a truck will inevitably lead to failure. If you don't believe me, ask any 4x4 Offroader, or watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKMQjm7i2Jw

Speaking of reliability, the American truck market is _hyper competitive_ and that is one of the main reasons people buy the vehicles: they just don't break down. I think there's a great opportunity for truck makers here: an electric truck has far less things to break. A generation leap in reliability could be achieved. I think GM and the new Hummer has the best chance of breaking into the market in this regard.

You mean the 100k Hummer? If anything the Ford F-150 is the truck that will cause this change. F-150 is the top selling car in America(1 mil units a year) it’s a big deal that it’s going electric.

> Unibody design

It is not a unibody frame, exactly, it’s a unibody-on-frame. For most cases that seems like it should be better.

It is body on frame. They just combined the cab and bed into one unit.

The idea that unibody design can't be made as good for any work a truck has to do is simply nonsense. And that video proves nothing other then about the vehicles actually tested.

> I think GM and the new Hummer has the best chance of breaking into the market in this regard.

The Hummer is instantly expensive, far to expensive to reach any real volume.

It's nice to see positive reviews, but the one thing that fundamentally concerns me is design. Are people really going to spend $73K on a truck whose front end looks like......that?

"fundamentally" seems a bit overwrought

Probably some.

And it redefines it as a vehicle with a curb weight of 6,900 pounds which would be unlawful to drive on many American streets, if anyone bothered enforcing that.

Can't wait to get hit by one.

There should be a tax on vehicle models proportional to how dangerous they are to others, whether that be other drivers, or cyclists, or pedestrians.

Heavier cars pay more, lighter cars pay less. Cars with better collision avoidance tech pay less, cars with none of that pay more. Longer braking distance pays more, shorter braking distance pays less, etc.

California already taxes trucks (like this one) based on weight.

Good. But we should just have an overall "danger score" that sets the tax. Let companies compete to minimize their danger score.

That has to be factored into insurance rates already

Apparently not well enough, since cars keep getting heavier and road deaths keep going up.

Tax isn't a remedy to everything I guess

If you made it a tax, you could make it punitive enough to dangerous vehicles to really change behavior/design.

Perhaps ironically, the biggest pedestrian/cyclists tax would fall on EVs, as they seem to be involved in more accidents due to pedestrians/cyclists not hearing them.

If that's true, then I'm all for it. The tax itself would be an incentive to fix that issue.

Though recent hybrids and EV's have to emit a fairly loud sound when running electric only. I have a hybrid CR-V and it sounds sort of like a chorus just going "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA".

> [EVs] seem to be involved in more accidents due to pedestrians/cyclists not hearing them.

Big citation needed on that claim. I don't think car/ped collisions are frequently avoided on the basis of hearing engine noise.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-03721/p-70

Wow, 20% is huge! I wonder if any of that is due to low profile aerodynamic designs on hybrids with big A-pillar blindspots, rather than noise?

Nitpick: GP said EV's, this says hybrids.

But yes, same basic reasoning.

Citation?

That's almost the exact same curb weight as an F-250... F-250s can drive practically anywhere in the US.

Where would these be unlawful to drive?

On numerous streets of Berkeley and many other California cities where the operation of commercial vehicles over 3 tons is regulated.

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/#14.60.070 "Prohibiting the use of certain streets by commercial trucks exceeding three tons gross vehicle weight."

In California pickup trucks generally are commercial vehicles, regardless of whether they are used for hire or not.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/vehicle-industry-regi...

>operation of commercial vehicles over 3 tons is regulated.

These are not considered "commercial vehicles" by the very code you linked. They are considered passenger pickup trucks.

In California pickup trucks are not considered commercial vehicles unless they are being used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

Your links literally prove my point: these trucks can be driven anywhere in Berkeley (unless it's a work truck).

No, and you should stick to topics you actually know about. Virtually every pickup in California has a commercial registration, including my Tacoma, because it has been "designed ... primarily for the transportation of property."

Many California truck buyers are surprised by this fact.

Meaning, "has truck plates?" I'd say maybe 50%, tops.

On my morning walk I passed dozens of parked pickup trucks and all had commercial plates. They are easy to spot because they don’t follow the 1ABC234 format. They are either 1A23456 or 12345A6.

In my experience it's close to impossible to register something like an F150 in California without using a commercial registration. A quick google suggests this experience is widespread. I don't think I have ever seen a F150/250 or Silverado without one in California, ever - easy to spot because the number plates are a different format.

There's always been fun debates among car enthusiasts about what you register a Subaru Baja (a strange half-car, half-truck thing) as in California too...

Pretty sure they do fall under designed…for the transportation of property.

It's not really stunning to me that cops aren't out there checking 43 streets for vehicles that are in the wrong tax category by 700 pounds.

Any road not designated a Truck Route.

Wrong. They are allowed practically anywhere an F-250 is allowed and are not limited to truck routes.

Many cities in CA have designated "truck" routes, as defined by vehicle weight. For example, Redwood City municipal code states:

"The following streets are hereby declared to be truck traffic routes for the movement of vehicles exceeding a maximum gross weight of three (3) tons, hereinafter called 'trucks', and the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to designate such streets by appropriate signs as "truck route". The streets are specifically designated as follows:..."

and:

"No person shall operate any truck having a gross weight in excess of three (3) tons on any street in the City except on those streets specified in the preceding section..."

The weight on a single axle of a school bus is more than the entire weight of an R1T, and those go on basically every American street. Should we ban school buses too? Also, you say "if anyone bothered enforcing that" as if there were a law that just isn't enforced, but I'm not aware of any such law at all. Which law is this exactly?

Buses and other heavy/large vehicles require a special license and training

Yes, but isn't the threshold for that above 26,000 pounds?

At least in CA, it looks like there is a limit of 6k lbs if the vehicle is 3 axle and not a motor home, and the 26k is for GWV rating, not weight of the vehicle. So there does not seem to be a hard limit for weight on a 2 axle vehicle.

     Class C:

     Any 2-axle vehicle with a GVW rating of 26,000 lbs. or less, including when such vehicle is towing a trailer with a GVW rating of 10,000 lbs. or less; any 3-axle vehicle weighing 6,000 lbs. or less; any 2-axle vehicle weighing 4,000 lbs. or more unladen when towing a trailer not exceeding 10,000 lbs. GVW rating; any motor home of 40 feet in length or less; any 5th wheel trailer under 10,000 lbs. if not for hire or under 15,000 lbs. with endorsement; or vehicle towing another vehicle with a GVW rating of 10,000 lbs. or less.

And how many humans does a school bus carry vs a pick up truck

> Should we ban school buses too?

Yes. I thought the ludicrous giant yellow buses were a joke until I visited America. Start enforcing proper driving standards rather than making every vehicle double-height and armour-plated.

> Start enforcing proper driving standards rather than making every vehicle double-height and armour-plated.

School buses being built the way they are keeps kids from getting killed in crashes. Enforcing proper driving standards basically just means somehow penalizing the driver who killed people, which doesn't bring them back to life.

> School buses being built the way they are keeps kids from getting killed in crashes.

And yet the US somehow ends up with many more road deaths of children than countries with more sane bus designs. Bigger buses means bigger roads, more spread out development, more road dependence...

So you're saying it doesn't solve the problem of car congestion because it's still a car, just a VERY BIG car?

Worse... it's a bit of a menace. Dangerous to be hit by, and worse for the roads due to its weight.

Built in my hometown (where I still live). I’m excited to see them succeed.

sadly, it isn't tough enough to support a snowplow. Because it would be the best snowplow vehicle you could buy if it was a bit tougher.

I wonder if you could just put a plow on the back and run it in reverse. As far as I know, electric vehicles can go just as fast in reverse as forward since there are no gears.

I think price is part of the calculation of "best" and this vehicle is about 10x more valuable than the rusted old trucks with plow attachments I see around here.

I wonder what the wade depth is?

It's 3 feet / 1 meter

F-150 gas: ~$35k

F-150 lightning: allegedly ~$45k

R1T: ~$70k

You have to compare across similar trim levels. The off-road and upmarket versions of the F-150 are not $35k. The F150 Raptor for example is $78-81k, and arguably they’re better competitors given their claims to off road capability.

The F-150L is really designed as a fleet truck, which puts it into a whole separate category.

The F-150L will also likely be completely sold out for quite a few months. Good luck getting one, the Mach-Es are selling for 10k+ list at dealerships.

Yes, EVs cost more up front today. But you can't forget about how much cheaper they are to own: electricity is way cheaper than gas, there's way less maintenance, and they last a lot longer.

Plus, EVs have to amortize a lot more R&D costs/factory capital still. Actual posted marginal costs seem similar/cheaper on paper and it seems only a matter of time before EVs at the same trim level are cheaper than their ICE counterparts. Though we'll probably see the "shell game" of EVs never having easily comparable trim levels continue to play out for at least a few more years to keep consumers on their toes (and continue to amortize R&D costs/factory capital, at least at the major manufacturers).

The interesting things to watch right now for EV costs are the Chinese manufacturers with very different capital expenses (and already complete R&D amortization) entering the EU and US markets, and the German manufacturers in a sharp game right now of trying to hit 100% EV production by 2025. If the German manufacturers hit that 100% goal it will still be tough to compare ICE to EV trim levels as there won't be ICE trim levels left to compare from them, but it will also mean that they intend to hit the full breadth of trim levels and the economies of scale of delivering them all on the same base platforms.

Ah yes pay up front to maybe break even after driving for 6 years and 100k miles. Electricity prices are likely going higher as more EVs are built, so keep that in mind too. Or you could get solar panels, now your up front cost is even higher, but if all goes well eventually you will break even with this too and maybe even save money some day all while saving the environment (aside from battery and panel waste)

Gas prices could go up higher too.

Hopefully, they will (with a carbon tax)!

If I ever see a modern full-size single-cab pickup, I take a picture of it to show my friends. It's that rare.

It's more luxe than any of those trucks, though, and carries a starting price of $67,500. Up to $100,000.

For a pickup truck? The electric Ford F-150 starts around $41,000. Which, with the base F-150 starting at $29,290, is still too much.

A majority of pickup truck sales in the USA fall in the luxury range (average price $56K). People buy them more to make a lifestyle statement than actual utility.

The only people buying the single cabs that cost 30k are contractors and businesses. The average sale price for a Ford or a Ram these days is more like 50k.

Looking at the pictures of where it's being used, I don't see anything too loose, anything too steep and certainly nothing wet. It may very well certainly 'redefine what a truck can be' once it's been through half a lake - it could become a dead weight.

That said, I think most people do not use an off-road truck to any extreme, and for the most part it will just function as a car with a large space for putting big items.

At some point, electric trucks will genuinely be far superior off road. Given they don't require air to run, assuming the human inside can tolerate it, electric trucks really could go anywhere. I somehow doubt it's this truck though.

R1T: "Water fording depth is more than three feet—42 inches"

Ford F-150 Raptor: "Do not exceed a maximum depth of 32 in. (810 mm) and no greater than 4 mph (7km/h) to avoid potential vehicle damage."

[1] https://www.adventure-journal.com/2021/09/drive-test-rivian-...

[2] https://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_Content/Catalog/owne...

I'm not defending the F-150 as the pinnacle of trucking.

A common modification for people wanting to go through something more challenging than a puddle is a snorkel, but I imagine you would be very challenged to make such a modification to this EV?

Also most of the time if you go through something too deep with a conventional engine it's going to bog out - as long as you don't then try to turn it over you can empty the engine of water and get it back working quite reliably. I suspect this EV will not be so robust.

Anyway, as I said, this truck will likely suite most people.

I honestly don't know, but at some water depth you have to start worrying more about water intrusion inside of the vehicle. 42" is high enough that the battery pack on the Rivian would have to be wet, if not entirely submerged. (Max ground clearance is something like 15", so I'm going with "entirely submerged"). I don't think they'd be citing a 42" fording depth if it was prone to fiery battery destruction when hitting that much water. Would be a bit of a PR problem.

On a gas/diesel vehicle, if you're using a snorkel, we're talking about depths where the 12v battery is fully submerged, and apparently it doesn't short out, which is, again presumably, the same situation here.

Again, at some point, on a modern vehicle, gas/diesel/electric, you have to start worrying about floating/lack of grip, water intrusion to the cabin, filling up the HVAC system, messing with various electronic components inside the vehicle. Computers, screens, wiring harnesses, heated seats.

Just from reasoning it out, at a 42" ford depth, I don't have a reason to think it would fare worse than any other modern fossil fuel vehicle, even if said vehicle was equipped with an intake snorkel above the waterline.

I just don't get the knee-jerk assumption that somehow it's EV-ness will make it most likely worse than a gas/diesel truck, when the very thing you're doubting is (apparently) a marketing bragpoint for Rivian. Again, this is all to take their marketing material as gospel, I recognize that.

> I honestly don't know, but at some water depth you have to start worrying more about water intrusion inside of the vehicle. 42" is high enough that the battery pack on the Rivian would have to be wet, if not entirely submerged.

Fair, but it's also the control electronics, etc. Of course, without testing it's hard to know.

> On a gas/diesel vehicle, if you're using a snorkel, we're talking about depths where the 12v battery is fully submerged, and apparently it doesn't short out, which is, again presumably, the same situation here.

I believe the water either has to have a high salt content or be jumping over a short distance. Car batteries rarely short from water and there are of course modification to relocate them.

> I just don't get the knee-jerk assumption that somehow it's EV-ness will make it most likely worse than a gas/diesel truck, when the very thing you're doubting is (apparently) a marketing bragpoint for Rivian.

It was mostly that this article was suggesting "this truck will go anywhere", whilst really only lightly testing it. I really don't doubt EV's will (or have) surpassed gas guzzling vehicles, I just want to see a proper off-road test.

A snorkel is for air intake for combustion. Not required in an EV.

> A snorkel is for air intake for combustion. Not required in an EV.

In theory, but I don't believe EV's are currently optimised for passive cooling.

Also it was more of a comment on the waterproofing of essential electronics. An old school truck engine can be entirely submerged if the air intake is spared from water intake.

Have a look at its wading ability with your own eyes https://mobile.twitter.com/RJScaringe/status/143208876292280...

But you probably way overestimate people who want to drive their truck into a lake (why?)

> Have a look at its wading ability with your own eyes [..]

That's pretty reasonable. If it can do that repeatedly then I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. My concern was mostly that sensitive electronics and/or cooling systems might be screwed from water intake.

> But you probably way overestimate people who want to drive their truck into a lake (why?)

Sure only 5% or less will ever even really use it as a proper truck, rather than a parking lot tank. But I think people still buy trucks based on their perceived ability to perform such tasks.

I don't know why you'd drive into a lake but I do know why you'd want to ford a few feet of water. A lot of rural routes cross creeks by just crossing them. I mean just look at [1]. Yeah it's dry in the summer but it's knee-deep or worse in winters.

1: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5944861,-120.761369,1872m/da...

These are called low-water bridges, at least in my area, and we have quite a lot of them.

Because they flow across the road by design, I would not choose to ford a few feet of water on one of these unless it was somehow not flowing. But I could definitely be forced.

Either way, I agree with your overall point--sometime, I may need to drive my truck into several feet of water for a non-recreational purpose.

I'd actually feel a lot better in a heavy truck like that. My rear end can easily be pushed around.

What about dropping a boat into a lake? You have to partially submerge the back end of the truck in order to off-load a boat on a ramp. Can the Rivian (or any BEV) do this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com