Misguided article by Outside Magazine

[kneebuster]

We Designed the Perfect Electric Adventure Vehicle - Outside Online

Written by someone who appears to have never driven an EV for any length of time, and has little knowledge of the losses in a mechanical drive train. I normally like the writers at Outside, but this one has a clear bias, compounded by a lack of practical knowledge. What do you all think? I wish there were a space for comments on that article to set the author, and subsequent readers, straight.

On the plus side, I can't help but love that the "Electric Adventure Vehicle" aligns nicely with Rivian's branding.

Sponsored

 

[SeaGeo]

Yeah that was a difficult read.

 

[crashmtb]

woof. More moving parts does not make something less complex. Four electric motors is a less complex arrangement than one with a conventional driveline(transfer case, diffs etc).

The article just reminds me of...this.

 

[mgc0216]

I couldn't finish it.

 

[SoCal Rob]

They kind of lost me with their first bullet point:
The Problems with EV Trucks

• Extreme complication equals a nearly endless list of potential failure points. And anything that can break will break off-road.

That last sentence is demonstrably false. As written, they are saying that anything can break (air suspension, regular suspension, 4 electric motors, traditional 4x4 transfer case) will break (without exception) as soon as the vehicle leaves pavement.

I would even settle for anything that can break is more likely to break off-road.

edit: typo

 

[av8or]

Hogwash!

Sponsored by (we aren’t ready for EVs to be popular)Government General Motors-toyota-big oil.

 

[ajdelange]

He is certainly spot on with respect to the battery size, especially the Large precluding the kind of outing that I fear many fancied they were going to be able to do with the Large R1T. He may be a little pessimistic in his assumption of a kWh/mi any time one is off bitumen though there certainly will be trails which are that bad. But he is optimistic in neglecting to mention that experienced BEV drivers stay out of the top and bottom 10% of SoC and, in paricular, failing to account for phantom drain. Members here are discovering, to their horror, that while their trucks are sleeping they are using 2 - 4% of their battery each day for housekeeping.

In fact I think I now know what the RAN is for - to provide a bunch of remote points one can camp for for more than a day or 2 within a few miles of, prefferably uphill,

As for the motors, differentials etc. I do agree that he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about but as I don't either I will refrain from comment.

 

[lostpacket]

woof. More moving parts does not make something less complex. Four electric motors is a less complex arrangement than one with a conventional driveline(transfer case, diffs etc).

The article just reminds me of...this.

WHERE CAN I PREORDER

 

[W1SE]

I know what is really going on, the author has a late R1T reservation and needs people to bail so he can get his sooner. I don’t think it’ll work.

 

[SeaGeo]

In fact I think I now know what the RAN is for - to provide a bunch of remote points one can camp for for more than a day or 2 within a few miles of

that seems to be the waypoint chargers. if you look at where they're building out the RAN DCFC those are along major travel routes. Which I think is mostly to manage quality of service and charging reliability for owners in the short to medium term.

 

[ironpig]

We Designed the Perfect Electric Adventure Vehicle - Outside Online

Written by someone who appears to have never driven an EV for any length of time, and has little knowledge of the losses in a mechanical drive train. I normally like the writers at Outside, but this one has a clear bias, compounded by a lack of practical knowledge. What do you all think? I wish there were a space for comments on that article to set the author, and subsequent readers, straight.

On the plus side, I can't help but love that the "Electric Adventure Vehicle" aligns nicely with Rivian's branding.

I would disagree about the author. Wes Siler is actually really well versed in the various trucks and SUVs on the market and I like his writing. He has no allegiance to any brand and will call out any manufacturer for their poor engineering and or their lack of technological advancement (Toyota Tacoma).

He lives in Montana and drives long distances. I can see why an EV truck doesn't work for him.

There are certain things he's right about - The current EV trucks don't need to be this fast, are too heavy and are marketed to early adopters who can afford to pay for performance they don't need. Personally I don't need the 4 motor R1T and would buy the 2 motor version if it was cheaper, but with the current price debacle and all that's happened it's stupid not to buy the pre-price hike R1T.

He's also right that for extreme overloading you are better off with a simple ICE truck which an carry extra fuel and extra parts (hoses, belts, fuel pumps, etc) for long journeys where you can fix it in the field. An EV truck can brick itself and not be field repairable.

But what he fails to acknowledge is that there need to be early adopters who push the limits of the first EV trucks to show that they can be a viable option and that most of the issues will be solved by improvements in battery tech. It was the same with the Model S. IT was faster and more luxurious than an EV commuter car needed to be, but because of that it was incredibly attractive to buyers and ignited the EV revolution more than any GM attempt.

I would love a small EV pick up truck with longer range - but until the battery tech catches up and the profit margins improve for the manufacturers, it ain't going to happen.

 

[ironpig]

Hogwash!

Sponsored by (we aren’t ready for EVs to be popular)Government General Motors-toyota-big oil.

Highly doubt that - if you look at any of his social media you'll see he's no fan of Toyota or big oil. Far from it.

 

[DuckTruck]

Well, I did get almost all the way through that first paragraph before calling it quits. Eight more seconds of skimming the rest, and now I can hardly wait for their simple, inexpensive, lightweight, 600-mile range, slow, one motor, 2,500 pound 4x4 mini-truck with the built-in Swiss Army Knife to come to market in a few months. It better not cost any more than REI's best tent, backpack, and pair of hiking boots, combined.

I'll bet RJ is at home right now thinking, "Wow! Why didn't I think of that!"

 

[dfx]

I would disagree about the author. Wes Siler is actually really well versed in the various trucks and SUVs on the market and I like his writing. He has no allegiance to any brand and will call out any manufacturer for their poor engineering and or their lack of technological advancement (Toyota Tacoma).

He lives in Montana and drives long distances. I can see why an EV truck doesn't work for him.

There are certain things he's right about - The current EV trucks don't need to be this fast, are too heavy and are marketed to early adopters who can afford to pay for performance they don't need. Personally I don't need the 4 motor R1T and would buy the 2 motor version if it was cheaper, but with the current price debacle and all that's happened it's stupid not to buy the pre-price hike R1T.

He's also right that for extreme overloading you are better off with a simple ICE truck which an carry extra fuel and extra parts (hoses, belts, fuel pumps, etc) for long journeys where you can fix it in the field. An EV truck can brick itself and not be field repairable.

But what he fails to acknowledge is that there need to be early adopters who push the limits of the first EV trucks to show that they can be a viable option and that most of the issues will be solved by improvements in battery tech. It was the same with the Model S. IT was faster and more luxurious than an EV commuter car needed to be, but because of that it was incredibly attractive to buyers and ignited the EV revolution more than any GM attempt.

I would love a small EV pick up truck with longer range - but until the battery tech catches up and the profit margins improve for the manufacturers, it ain't going to happen.

Good points. I agree completely. What I didn't like about the article was his snarky criticism of the current offerings, when to get to a smaller truck with boosted range you need to have these types of early versions to set the stage for progress.
I have a question about battery efficiency. I currently get about 300watts/mile on a 7 year old 70d with 70k miles on it. I realize that the Rivian is inferior aerodynamically and has more weight but I would think that after 7 years of work on battery technology they would have been able to compensate for the above and match that 300 w/mi . Any thoughts on this?

 

[DuckTruck]

Good points. I agree completely. What I didn't like about the article was his snarky criticism of the current offerings, when to get to a smaller truck with boosted range you need to have these types of early versions to set the stage for progress.
I have a question about battery efficiency. I currently get about 300watts/mile on a 7 year old 70d with 70k miles on it. I realize that the Rivian is inferior aerodynamically and has more weight but I would think that after 7 years of work on battery technology they would have been able to compensate for the above and match that 300 w/mi . Any thoughts on this?

Honestly, I'd think that even if the battery technology was three times better in your 70D, you'd still use 300 watts/mile, right? It's just that your battery would be smaller and lighter for the same amount of range.

Unless there are changes in aerodynamics, total vehicle weight, motor efficiency, and tire technology/rolling resistance, I'm not sure you'd get any better efficiency per mile.

Granted, as technology changes and allows the same range from a lighter battery, you would improve your range slightly over your current setup. If you simply filled the same space with a more energy-dense battery at the same weight, you'd get more range, but if the total weight, motors, tires, and aero all remained the same, I don't think you'd get a boost in your miles:kW ratio.

I hope I didn't misinterpret your comment.

Sponsored