4 ms·

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 s

by 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.

by bArray 5y ago

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.