Underbody protection and cautionary off-road experience in a R1T

[cardad]

I don't see any way around it, but this datasheet kind of shows how outdated the thinking is where many/most EVs are going to be "Other (describe)" write-ins.

Fluids? Yes, wiper fluids are topped!

https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/labo...und-requirements-hybrid-and-electric-vehicles

These rules do not apply off road. This is why off road only vehicles (aka unlicensed) can fail to meet various safety and regulatory requirements.

It’s merely a software and UI tweak to turn the sound off when running off road.

Sponsored

 

[Rhidan]

I'm curious if anyone reading this understands the legal/regulatory issues involved in this? If so, is Rivian allowed to give us this option? If someone can provide a link to the pertinent laws/regulations that would be great. Thanks.

I believe Rivian is required to make it so you *cannot* disable it. From the 2010 law:

Further, the Secretary shall ... prohibit manufacturers from providing any mechanism for anyone other than the manufacturer or the dealer to disable, alter, replace, or modify the sound or set of sounds, except that the manufacturer or dealer may alter, replace, or modify the sound or set of sounds in order to remedy a defect or non-compliance with the motor vehicle safety standard.

 

[dduffey]

These rules do not apply off road. This is why off road only vehicles (aka unlicensed) can fail to meet various safety and regulatory requirements.

It’s merely a software and UI tweak to turn the sound off when running off road.

The rules apply to manufacturers. The question was if there is anything Rivian can do to enable this option and if there is a way the rules state to do so please point it out because lots of people would be happy.

Here is a link to the requirements: https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/QuietCar_FinalRule_11142016.pdf

Please share where the rules would enable Rivian to enable a UI tweak "when running off road."

 

[SeaGeo]

Given how good vehicle software is getting at recognizing pedestrians, it would be great if the laws/regulations allowed EVs to make the required sound only after it detected a nearby pedestrian. This would allow quiet EV driving in situations like off-roading and country roads. Surely this is something being considered, right?

As written, they legally have to have it enabled and not be able to be disabled easily.


As @Rhidan shared:

Further, the Secretary shall ... prohibit manufacturers from providing any mechanism for anyone other than the manufacturer or the dealer to disable, alter, replace, or modify the sound or set of sounds, except that the manufacturer or dealer may alter, replace, or modify the sound or set of sounds in order to remedy a defect or non-compliance with the motor vehicle safety standard.

BTW, has anyone considered how silly this rule will seem when the majority of cars are inherently quiet but are forced to make this gratuitous noise? Imagine sitting at a curb side cafe with all the cars coming by sounding like hurricanes :-(

We're a long way from that. Like 90% vehicle adoption from it. Even then though, when driven slowly, EVs are quiet enough to present issues for pedestrians in areas where there isn't a lot of background noise. I've patiently rolled within 10 or 15 feet behind plenty of pedestrians while in parking garages without them knowing. Generally to freak out a friend, but it's a legitimate safety concern for the visually impaired as well as those who are sighted.

These rules do not apply off road. This is why off road only vehicles (aka unlicensed) can fail to meet various safety and regulatory requirements.

It’s merely a software and UI tweak to turn the sound off when running off road.

This isn't an unlicensed off road vehicle. See the legalise that Rhidan shared. Rivian is legally prohibited from allowing such a software UI tweak. I'd encourage folks to write to their congressional representatives if they want the regulation modified rather than suggesting Rivian can just make a switch.

 

[BillArnett]

...I'd encourage folks to write to their congressional representatives if they want the regulation modified rather than suggesting Rivian can just make a switch.

That's fine. But for now I'll just cut the speaker wire(s). Or maybe some duct tape over the speaker grille will be sufficient. Has anyone tried that?

 

[Blueassassin]

That's fine. But for now I'll just cut the speaker wire(s). Or maybe some duct tape over the speaker grille will be sufficient. Has anyone tried that?

I'm with you seems like a simple fix when I get my truck because I'm not dealing with that shit.

 

[BillArnett]

As written, they legally have to have it enabled and not be able to be disabled easily...
This isn't an unlicensed off road vehicle. See the legalise that Rhidan shared. Rivian is legally prohibited from allowing such a software UI tweak. I'd encourage folks to write to their congressional representatives if they want the regulation modified rather than suggesting Rivian can just make a switch.

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read all of the 372 page (!!!!) document but it's at least plausible that this rule applies only to vehicles on public roads. The testing procedure used to verify compliance, absurdly complicated though it is, probably doesn't require testing in all possible vehicle modes. If Rivian were to hard code into the software that the sound is not produced in Off-Road mode I suspect it would pass verification. That would not be allowing a modification; it would not be under the driver's control.

And surely, the law was. never intended to apply off-road.

BTW, my 2020 Tesla Model 3 does not make this noise. Why is that OK?

 

[SeaGeo]

BTW, my 2020 Tesla Model 3 does not make this noise. Why is that OK?

Because the implementation of the law way delayed until sometime in 2021 IIRC. And Tesla decided to make fart noises rather than pedestrian warning sounds prior to that.

 

[crashmtb]

That's fine. But for now I'll just cut the speaker wire(s). Or maybe some duct tape over the speaker grille will be sufficient. Has anyone tried that?

There is surely a connector that can be unplugged. Then it’s reversible.

Some tape over the speaker holes should attenuate the sound nicely though.

 

[BillArnett]

Because the implementation of the law way delayed until sometime in 2021 IIRC. And Tesla decided to make fart noises rather than pedestrian warning sounds prior to that.

Ah.

My Jeep, which makes a huge racket normally, is 100% silent when at rest (since it has an engine shutoff hack to save a it of gas) but that's OK since the law applies only to EVs and HEVs. Makes me think this law was really more about slowing the adoption of EVs than pedestrian safety.

 

[BillArnett]

There is surely a connector that can be unplugged. Then it’s reversible.

Some tape over the speaker holes should attenuate the sound nicely though.

Maybe the connector is right on the speaker? That would be convenient. But if not, it's easy enough to splice in a connector. The difficulty will be getting access to it. Anyone know how to do so?

 

[SeaGeo]

Ah.

My Jeep, which makes a huge racket normally, is 100% silent when at rest (since it has an engine shutoff hack to save a it of gas) but that's OK since the law applies only to EVs and HEVs. Makes me think this law was really more about slowing the adoption of EVs than pedestrian safety.

Your Jeep isn't moving when it's at rest. But, agreed, ICE vehicles and mild hybrids have a loophole there.

The law wasn't about slowing the adoption of EVs, it was advanced by a large number of groups, specifically including the national federation for the blind. Their concern, which was supported by a fair amount of data, was of a safety concern associated with the visually impaired being unable to reliably observe vehicles moving around them at low speeds. Especially with other background noises around.

 

[BillArnett]

Your Jeep isn't moving when it's at rest. But, agreed, ICE vehicles and mild hybrids have a loophole there.

The law wasn't about slowing the adoption of EVs, it was advanced by a large number of groups, specifically including the national federation for the blind. Their concern, which was supported by a fair amount of data, was of a safety concern associated with the visually impaired being unable to reliably observe vehicles moving around them at low speeds. Especially with other background noises around.

The standard requires a noise even at rest except if the vehicle is in Park. (Maybe Rivian can rename Off-Road mode "Park" as in "National Park" mode?

Yeah, I was being facetious. And I appreciate the difficulties blind people have with traffic. But this is the wrong solution.

 

[SeaGeo]

The standard requires a noise even at rest except if the vehicle is in Park. (Maybe Rivian can rename Off-Road mode "Park" as in "National Park" mode?

Yeah, I was being facetious. And I appreciate the difficulties blind people have with traffic. But this is the wrong solution.

Yep, not saying it's the right one. Hence encouraging people engage with their reps for what it's worth. I don't like the noise, but I also don't want my parents to accidentally walk in front of a car. lol. An offroad exemption would be logical imo.

 

[SoCal Rob]

Yep, not saying it's the right one. Hence encouraging people engage with their reps for what it's worth. I don't like the noise, but I also don't want my parents to accidentally walk in front of a car. lol. An offroad exemption would be logical imo.

If we had the technology perfected, then maybe the pedestrian warning sound (PWS) could be temporarily disabled when off pavement and the cameras don’t detect any people around the vehicle. I think the problem is that our technology isn’t close to perfect, and there are enough cases where it would cause a problem if geolocation of an area determined to be off off road wasn’t 100% reliable as an indicator of threat to pedestrians.

There are times where I’ve been off pavement and truly off-road where there have been hikers around. Another issue is temporary event parking where a field which would typically be considered off-road is used as a parking lot. These are just two examples I can think of and I’m sure there are others.

I think you’re right that the change has to be a legislative one since I don’t see Rivian taking this on. From Rivian’s perspective, they could potentially benefit from a small amount of customer goodwill from folks who are truly put off by the noise while taking on the huge liability of skirting compliance with the law as written. If their algorithm doesn't work quite right or a camera fails or some other glitch occurs then the PWS would be disabled when it should be active. If that happens and someone gets injured or killed Rivian has the deepest pockets for a plaintiff to sue.

Sponsored