Rivian Patents Low-Range Crawler Gearbox (Bolt-on) for Off-Roading

[MountainBikeDude]

Wow, that is a lot of unsprung weight and complexity at each wheel, all in an effort to replace the differential. Feels a lot like trying to reinvent the wheel...

Where do you see this bolting on at the wheel?

Sponsored

 

[R.I.P.]

You are right, of course, it is on the gearbox side of the half shaft. So it is sprung weight, but additional weight nonetheless with four sets of gears where an ice would use one, and a DM would use two.

As you know, I believe that a far more elegant solution is to just lock the differential like everybody else does. In side by side testing, the DM already is demonstrating no problem with the low speed motor torque that the QM has, but even if you were to use reduction gears for further advantage you would be putting in two sets instead of four.

I guess I am just not a real big fan of over complexity.

 

[SoCal Rob]

You are right, of course, it is on the gearbox side of the half shaft. So it is sprung weight, but additional weight nonetheless with four sets of gears where an ice would use one, and a DM would use two.

As you know, I believe that a far more elegant solution is to just lock the differential like everybody else does. In side by side testing, the DM already is demonstrating no problem with the low speed motor torque that the QM has, but even if you were to use reduction gears for further advantage you would be putting in two sets instead of four.

I guess I am just not a real big fan of over complexity.

It would definitely be more complex than the current QM, DM, and even a DM with locking diffs. On the other hand, the additional weight of these 4 units on a QM should be less than a transfer case, 2 differentials, and at least 2 additional driveshafts which would be on an ICE vehicle while also being less complex and probably requiring less maintenance. So, it’s not a bad solution in general, though I know it doesn’t address your concerns about the QM setup and your use case.

I will be surprised if the Bosch QM setup is going to be offered for too much longer after the Enduro DM is ramped up, especially if they introduce an Enduro QM as the new halo vehicle. On the other hand, if they can develop an upgraded/uprated Enduro DM which exceeds the output of the Bosch QM then they could make that combo with locking diffs as the new top spec. I could see them wanting to continue going the QM route to leverage the investment in the software managing it, plus it is a differentiator. As far as I know. The R1S is the only QM SUV on the market with nothing else on the horizon.

Sorry, that’s a lot of bouncing back and forth with speculation. It seems like there are quite a few ways to approach this and it will be interesting to see what wins out. I can think of some other setups which could work but would be kind of wacky. Though probably no wackier than if someone discussed today’s torque converter electronically controlled automatic transmissions when automatic transmissions were first being developed. I’m sure at some point we’ll be looking back at this time as being full of 4WD EV innovation and experimentation.

 

[MountainBikeDude]

It would definitely be more complex than the current QM, DM, and even a DM with locking diffs. On the other hand, the additional weight of these 4 units on a QM should be less than a transfer case, 2 differentials, and at least 2 additional driveshafts which would be on an ICE vehicle while also being less complex and probably requiring less maintenance. So, it’s not a bad solution in general, though I know it doesn’t address your concerns about the QM setup and your use case.

I will be surprised if the Bosch QM setup is going to be offered for too much longer after the Enduro DM is ramped up, especially if they introduce an Enduro QM as the new halo vehicle. On the other hand, if they can develop an upgraded/uprated Enduro DM which exceeds the output of the Bosch QM then they could make that combo with locking diffs as the new top spec. I could see them wanting to continue going the QM route to leverage the investment in the software managing it, plus it is a differentiator. As far as I know. The R1S is the only QM SUV on the market with nothing else on the horizon.

Sorry, that’s a lot of bouncing back and forth with speculation. It seems like there are quite a few ways to approach this and it will be interesting to see what wins out. I can think of some other setups which could work but would be kind of wacky. Though probably no wackier than if someone discussed today’s torque converter electronically controlled automatic transmissions when automatic transmissions were first being developed. I’m sure at some point we’ll be looking back at this time as being full of 4WD EV innovation and experimentation.

I would agree as well. I think the Quad setup will always have a place in Rivian's lineup. It will undoubtedly be swapped from a Bosch motor to Enduro or Enduro like, in house motors within the next year or two.

For me, the current QM more than suits my needs on and off road, and while a QM with crawler gears, 800V (hoping) architecture would be sweet, I'll be good in the current iteration for several years to come.

 

[Mathme]

To me, this looks like an offensive move on their part...now anyone who had ideas of something similar will need to pay royalties to Rivian for his use. Rivian may never go with this, but it's THEIR unique idea.

 

[Ralph]

To me, this looks like an offensive move on their part...now anyone who had ideas of something similar will need to pay royalties to Rivian for his use. Rivian may never go with this, but it's THEIR unique idea.

Users complain about a problem. Rivian pays for engineers to investigate at least one potential solution. Rivian should pretend they did not do this work?

What exactly do you find offensive? Not a fan of intellectual property?

Rivian is not required to collect royalties or prevent others from implementing "similar" ideas.

 

[zefram47]

Users complain about a problem. Rivian pays for engineers to investigate at least one potential solution. Rivian should pretend they did not do this work?

What exactly do you find offensive? Not a fan of intellectual property?

Rivian is not required to collect royalties or prevent others from implementing "similar" ideas.

Offense vs defense...they lobbed the idea over the fence and protected it with a patent so no one else could use it. In some sense, this behavior stifles innovation more than it promotes it.

 

[Ralph]

Offense vs defense...they lobbed the idea over the fence and protected it with a patent so no one else could use it. In some sense, this behavior stifles innovation more than it promotes it.

When or under what circumstances should Rivian patent/not patent?

FWIW - I am no fan of the abuse of the patent process and patents.

 

[zefram47]

When or under what circumstances should Rivian patent/not patent?

FWIW - I am no fan of the abuse of the patent process and patents.

Personal opinion, but patent what you intend to make or have already made. Throwing pie in the sky ideas out there with no intention to ever produce it is the problem. From the perspective of software patents...that's part of the problem with patent trolls. Those patents that were never implemented by their originator get bought up by a company that then sits on that portfolio until someone seemingly infringes and just litigates with no actual products to their name.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Throwing pie in the sky ideas out there with no intention to ever produce it is the problem. From the perspective of software patents...that's part of the problem with patent trolls.

I'm sitting on a couple of "prior art" uses of some specific technology that has been patented since I came up with the idea but hasn't seen usage commercially yet (and my invention of the idea is timestamped in a way that can't be fudged). Waiting to hear about some litigation around what I'd describe as blindingly obvious solutions to a problem to reach out to those litigating, but it hasn't come up yet.

IMHO The US Patent system is too cumbersome for an individual to contribute their ideas to.

 

[Ralph]

Personal opinion, but patent what you intend to make or have already made. Throwing pie in the sky ideas out there with no intention to ever produce it is the problem. From the perspective of software patents...that's part of the problem with patent trolls. Those patents that were never implemented by their originator get bought up by a company that then sits on that portfolio until someone seemingly infringes and just litigates with no actual products to their name.

No one can ever know whether Rivian ever intended or currently intends to actually build something like this. Right?

And waiting to patent an idea until it is delivered is a recipe for disaster - rewarding entities with the most resources ($, existing factories, etc.) disproportionately for their ability to implement ideas faster than those without the same resources.

Few people would argue that patent trolls are not a problem. Rivian going to the trouble to investigate this solution and patent it can, in fact, be seen as a defense against patent trolls.

Software patent trolls* have indeed made themselves and lots of lawyers rich(er) far beyond any contribution they have made. Much reform is needed.

I have an acquaintance, who has a couple of patents related to using very common software tools to accomplish a process (data access) that it is clear the tools where actually made to accomplish. Total nonsense!

* Just in case it has to said, the problem is of course not just in software.

EDIT: Grammar

Sponsored