Front End Structure and Packaging of Rivian R1T - Sandy Munro Live

[Canthoney]

Sponsored

 

[LoneStar]

This is going to be very educational, enlightening.

Only takes a casual glance to notice the abundance of mechanical fasteners hardware that looks more aerospace than automotive. Surprised to see so many torqued bolts without a torque-stripe marking to ensure it was checked to a spec min. value.

 

[mkg3]

Every one of those parts require assembly. More assembly and parts = more time and costs.

There are huge opportunity to reduce production time and costs, if they actually redesign below the skin with manufacturability in mind.

Frankly, I'm shocked at how little effort was paid to reducing parts count and ease of manufacturing....

 

[Dark-Fx]

Every one of those parts require assembly. More assembly and parts = more time and costs.

There are huge opportunity to reduce production time and costs, if they actually redesign below the skin with manufacturability in mind.

Frankly, I'm shocked at how little effort was paid to reducing parts count and ease of manufacturing....

I bet you would be surprised how much complexity was taken out from the initial prototypes till now.

 

[mkg3]

I bet you would be surprised how much complexity was taken out from the initial prototypes till now.

One of the advantage of EVs, inherently, is lower parts count compared to ICE equivalent. EV's simply require less parts from propulsion standpoint alone, but there are other simplified items too (and can be self contained, such as HVAC).

The way things look on the video, the vehicle is designed and put together like a traditional ICE vehicle from legacy mfg, and over designed in some areas.

The prototypes are made to demonstrate certain functionality and aside from the objectives, one makes due with whatever makes it work. It can be more complex and it also can be much simpler, depending on what it is.

Regardless of however the prototype was put together, it is clear that the vehicle subsystems were designed by groups of traditional automobile engineers, and not with LEAN and DFM with self aligning parts, larger subassemblies and part count reduction as objective.

 

[Max]

"I have some friends that have left their Jobs and gone to Rivian"
"This is their first go and you can see the traces of that"

I bet after this, they are not his friends anymore and if they have any say, these guys won't be getting a contract to optimize anything.

Here are some screenshots:
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/r1-teardown.3482/post-155691

 

[Michaewh]

As a buyer, I like the beefy “overbuilt” construction. Lighter would be fine, but I wouldn’t want it in exchange for safety or durability. Opportunity to reduce cost is only important for stockholders and future models/production.

 

[kylealden]

One thing I'll be interested over time is whether any of this apparently unnecessary modularity (excess of fasteners, "overbuilt" parts, etc.) are design choices to enable more part sharing with the R1S, EDV, and future vehicles, or concessions to supply constraints (limited ability to redo tooling etc. as they evolve the platform).

I'm sure there's plenty from Column A (this is their first go, they can get better at optimizing for cost, they're being conservative, etc.), but this is a pretty mature platform - remember we've been looking at substantially complete prototypes for three years now.

I doubt anything in this video would be a total surprise to Rivian, which tells me they are either intentional or forced tradeoffs. They they're trading for is more interesting to me than the mere fact of the tradeoff.

 

[mkg3]

As a buyer, I like the beefy “overbuilt” construction. Lighter would be fine, but I wouldn’t want it in exchange for safety or durability. Opportunity to reduce cost is only important for stockholders and future models/production.

Beefy overbuilt has almost nothing to do with safety or durability. Its just heavy.

Properly designed crumble zone and rigid structure determines the safety and durability of any vehicle.

There are momentum (mass x velocity) and kinetic energy (0.5 x mass x velocity^2) being higher for heavier vehicle so its easy to assume heavy and beefy is safer, but its not true by itself.

Opportunity to reduce cost means each vehicle will cost less to build which will ultimately help the company viability, not just for shareholders. Also lighter vehicle will increase range for any given fixed battery back.

 

[Engi_Nerd]

Not sure why we'd expect a new manufacturer figuring out how to launch and support an all new product to hyper-optimize for cost and weight on the first go. Getting this thing to market meant chalking a line many years ago and I expect the structure was conservatively optimized for crash safety above all else since a poor showing would essentially end the company.

 

[Joints4Sale]

Well, boys and girls. I like that Sandy isn't in this one.

 

[zipzag]

"This is their first go and you can see the traces of that"

Odd comment in video. No Rivian primary designer has not worked at other auto manufacturers.

As a buyer, I like the beefy “overbuilt” construction. Lighter would be fine, but I wouldn’t want it in exchange for safety or durability. Opportunity to reduce cost is only important for stockholders and future models/production.

My concern as a future owner is capital efficiency leading to a healthy company. I'm mildly concerned with this video. I'm more concerned about Rivian's spending on public level 2 chargers. I assume that idea came out of a marketing class project at a local community college.

 

[Max]

Odd comment in video. No Rivian primary designer has not worked at other auto manufacturers.

On a relevant note; Just heard Elon is banning teleworking for all Tesla employees. That may translate to Rivian getting more Tesla refugees.

 

[HJP1]

As a buyer, I like the beefy “overbuilt” construction. Lighter would be fine, but I wouldn’t want it in exchange for safety or durability. Opportunity to reduce cost is only important for stockholders and future models/production.

I agree being one of the initial owner's I like the concept of the vehicles possibly being overbuilt rather than a focus on cost savings which I'm sure will come later. Hopefully I will drive this LE R1T for many trouble free years.

 

[DJG]

My concern as a future owner is capital efficiency leading to a healthy company. I'm mildly concerned with this video. I'm more concerned about Rivian's spending on public level 2 chargers. I assume that idea came out of a marketing class project at a local community college.

Level 2 chargers definitely have a place, particularly where we've been seeing them pop up, like at parks or campsites. Those are places you are staying all day or even overnight (look at the Under Canvas Moab location, perfect solution). Also, from what I understand, some/many of these are just rebranded existing chargers that required little investment from Rivian. Level 2 is fairly simple technology and requires nothing unique or proprietary from Rivian. They are marketing/branding billboards essentially.

Sponsored