Announcing our new "CLUBS" section where you can join or create a Rivian club or group! You can use this new feature to conveniently plan and discuss local events, gatherings or other club/group related topics.
So we encourage you to join (or start) special-interest and regional-based Rivian clubs at: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/group-categories/clubs-groups.1/
I added the emphasis because that sentence right there is the problem. You continue to talk past everyone who tries to have a productive conversation by insisting this whole conversation is about fully locked diffs vs. quad motors, when that is simply not the case. You can continue to knock that straw man down all you want, but don't expect too many others to engage on it.
Yet Wrangler remains one of the most offroad capable vehicles you can buy.
That's the premise of the thread. I didn't start this thread, R.I.P. started it. And that's exactly how and why he started it. So next time you claim that someone didn't say something, maybe you'd be better off reading the thread again for clarification.
The Mercedes I mentioned has three individual lockers, front, center, rear. That's extremely rare among vehicles being sold today.
What you want is to simulate a limited slip diff. Like I mentioned earler, even brake-based 4wd systems or AWD systems work pretty well on the street or moderate offroad in all kinds of weather. The entire idea is to make sure power is getting to the wheels with traction.
Please stop telling people why I started the thread. Your statements are not accurate. You seem to be watching a different movie than most of us, and you seem utterly hell-bound on drawing this conversation off-topic.
Not sure why people keep saying this...it's not really accurate. In order for brushless motors to function without the risk of major cogging they'd have sensors built-in that will accurately be able to determine the position/speed of the rotor. I'd imagine the motors being used would be at least 8 pole or higher, so this should be possible with fairly high precision compared with something like an ABS sensor. Reading those data at thousands of times per second they'd easily be able to see when a wheel started turning and if it was turning too fast relative to the others either reduce power or even drive it in reverse to slow it down. You wouldn't need the brakes for this unless you were holding the vehicle on a steep grade. Even then, you could sense brake pressure at the point where it started rolling backwards and immediately apply sufficient torque to the motors to hold the vehicle.
I tell all my companies that when possible, to let physics do all the hard work. When you can, choose to run downhill, rather than climbing uphill. Physics is a wonderful force multiplier. Just because I could design a robot to pull up my pants, it doesn't t mean it is a good idea.
Actually no. In the case we have been discussing, we want power to the wheels with the least traction. We are trying to protect the reserve of static friction that the downhill wheels have (so they can protect us from sliding down the hill), so do NOT want to direct any power to them. As I'm sure you know, tires have a certain amount of friction they can use, which is shared between resisting driving torque and providing lateral support to prevent side slipping. So if you off-camber, the downhill wheels are the "rails" you are riding on. The uphill (slipping) wheels are providing the propulsion.
Which still seems like they should be able to detect a very laterally sloped surface and treat the motors differently. Hell, maybe we need a "side slope mode" in the off-road section. WIth the right control logic it should certainly be possible to only drive the up-slope motors. The problem is that using that mode in the wrong situation could be damaging and Rivian isn't likely to make it as a result.
