It literally has an Off-Road drive mode with 4 different setups within it and a built in air compressor in the truck need for adjusting your tire pressure when you take it off road.
Wow, that is truly surprising. I’d be more worried about the driver if I were Rivian? What stops someone from driving through a creek and submerging their truck? Damaging their undercarriage on a rock? Sliding into a tree? etc.
> The Rivian was designed, and is, an incredibly competent off road vehicle.
It looks like it doesn’t have locking differentials but that’s usually overkill.
> It literally has an Off-Road drive mode with 4 different setups within it
I’ll need to read more about the “Off Road” drive modes. It sounds similar to the Tacoma’s “Crawl Control”.
> a built in air compressor in the truck need for adjusting your tire pressure when you take it off road.
An air compressor is nice but you can pick up a Tsunami Air Compressor and a tire deflator for like $130.
Each wheel has it's own motor.
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/quad-motor-vs-loc...
The Tacoma Off Road Crawl Control is somewhat similar but uses ABS to prevent slips. It does come with a rear locker though.
From the link:
> If the axles are not physically tied, there is no way for any of the four wheels to know how much traction it actually has until it breaks free. Then, of course, it knows "too much" torque and it can apply traction control. But the damage is done. It has broken free, and any negative consequences have already happened prior to the computer being able to make any further calculations.
> Again, if physically locked together with large gears and drive shafts, there is no possible way for one wheel to break free in that manner, unless of course something is broken.
Some other interesting tests by an R1T owner.
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/quad-motor-vs-loc...
Specifically, wouldn't one line of code that says "never ever ever turn this wheel faster than this other wheel" be totally and completely indistinguishable from having the wheels on the same axle, as far as the physical world is concerned?
You can measure the speed and adjust the power going to the motor if you go over or under that speed. The lower latency that this cycle has, the better, but it can never go to zero like with physically connected wheels.
A physical axle can have both wheels break free too can't it?
Comparing apples to apples the only scenario you're concerned with is where one wheel breaks traction and the other doesn't. Why is a logically driven exact speed match between wheels inferior to a physically linked speed match between the wheels. Explain the difference practically speaking.
Practically, electric motors can't generally transfer torque from one wheel to another like you can with locked hubs. (The only exception would be where your battery is underrated to provide sufficient power to both motor to maximize their torque)
> If the axles are not physically tied, there is no way for any of the four wheels to know how much traction it actually has until it breaks free. Then, of course, it knows "too much" torque and it can apply traction control. But the damage is done. It has broken free, and any negative consequences have already happened prior to the computer being able to make any further calculations.
> Again, if physically locked together with large gears and drive shafts, there is no possible way for one wheel to break free in that manner, unless of course something is broken.
The real question is can all the wheels go to zero traction at the same moment and thus the computer thinks all is well. I think the odds of that are low enough to not worry about.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC5ld79joIA
Note that the Land Cruiser is bouyant in the water and not touching ground.
Front wheels can turn and provide rudimentary front rudder effect wrt force from rear wheels pushing forward.
If 4xwheel drive was engaged the front wheels wouls also be driven and provide a "clawing forwards" directional force.
It's not the ideal boat, but it floats and works up to a point (as seen).
With the engine weight forward it's entirely possible the front wheels were occassionally touching down when over the pan of the crossing.
When the vehichle went to the left of the crossing it's unlikely the front wheels had any contact as the crossing (unflooded) is typically higher than the river bed on either side.