4 ms·

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 'rede

by bArray 5y ago

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.

rconti 5y ago
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-r1t-sets-a-new-standard-for-pickups-gas-or-electric/ https://www.adventure-journal.com/2021/09/drive-test-rivian-... [2] https://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_Content/Catalog/owner_information/2017-F150-Raptor-Card-Version-2_rq_EN-US_12_2016.pdf https://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_Content/Catalog/owne...
- bArray 5y ago
  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.
  - rconti 5y ago
    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.
    - bArray 5y ago
      > 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.
  - et2o 5y ago
    A snorkel is for air intake for combustion. Not required in an EV.
    - bArray 5y ago
      > 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.
redisman 5y ago
Have a look at its wading ability with your own eyes https://mobile.twitter.com/RJScaringe/status/1432088762922807302 https://mobile.twitter.com/RJScaringe/status/143208876292280... But you probably way overestimate people who want to drive their truck into a lake (why?)
- jeffbee 5y ago
  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/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5944861,-120.761369,1872m/da...
  - mod 5y ago
    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.
- bArray 5y ago
  > 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.
- Corrado 5y ago
  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?

by bArray 5y ago

rconti 5y ago

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-r1t-sets-a-new-standard-for-pickups-gas-or-electric/ https://www.adventure-journal.com/2021/09/drive-test-rivian-... [2] https://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_Content/Catalog/owner_information/2017-F150-Raptor-Card-Version-2_rq_EN-US_12_2016.pdf https://www.fordservicecontent.com/Ford_Content/Catalog/owne...

bArray 5y ago
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.
- rconti 5y ago
  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.
  - bArray 5y ago
    > 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.
- et2o 5y ago
  A snorkel is for air intake for combustion. Not required in an EV.
  - bArray 5y ago
    > 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.

redisman 5y ago

Have a look at its wading ability with your own eyes https://mobile.twitter.com/RJScaringe/status/1432088762922807302 https://mobile.twitter.com/RJScaringe/status/143208876292280... But you probably way overestimate people who want to drive their truck into a lake (why?)

jeffbee 5y ago
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/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5944861,-120.761369,1872m/da...
- mod 5y ago
  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.
bArray 5y ago
> 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.
Corrado 5y ago
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?