Munro Rivian vs Tesla Subframe Comparison

[stumptown85]

Saw this by accident, but around the 6 minute mark they discuss the differences between a Rivian and Tesla frame component.

As a manufacturing and design engineer, that subframe makes me cringe visually. Forget Enduro motors and in house audio systems for a moment. This component looks grossly over engineered and complex, and as a result, expensive. I suspect even the Ford Lightning subframe is more elegant than this, which explains why gross margins are so bad and just how much mountain Rivian has yet to climb.

Sponsored

 

[quartz]

...Forget Enduro motors and in house audio systems for a moment. This component looks grossly over engineered and complex, and as a result, expensive. I suspect even the Ford Lightning subframe is more elegant than this, which explains why gross margins are so bad and just how much mountain Rivian has yet to climb.

Let's not forget about the air suspension, long arms, hydraulics, etc that necessitate such over-engineering in the first place ?

I agree though, there is lots of room for improvement!

 

[CrazyOne]

They compared R1T subframe to MY. 4500 lbs mid size SUV vs 7100.lbs off-road capable truck with significantly more towing ability. Let's not give too much weight Munro.

Stamped steel is cheaper for sure, but let's see the Cyber truck part before jumping to conclusions on strength and weight.

 

[stumptown85]

Im not suggesting it needs to be like a MY frame, but one example that is really obvious is the number of distinct parts and welds. Every part and weld in that assembly has a distinct cost. Every weld is also a possible failure point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with stamped and welded assemblies for the purpose of minimizing overall part count.

 

[Guy]

Munro has been very useful in showing the excess complexity in the T1 - a classic example is the seat anchors, four unique SKUs for the four corners rather than one item for the corners which adds complexity and cost to the assembly. I am sure some of the planned shutdown in Q4 is to try and improve in some of these areas so that assembly times improve and gross margins get better.

 

[Zoidz]

In the discussion they conveniently leave out any mention of the difference in horsepower between the Y and the Rivian. The Rivian is almost twice the horsepower and weight/towing capacity of the Y. They should at least acknowledge that the R1 inherently requires a heavier, stronger subframe.

I agree that it looks overly complex from a production assembly viewpoint. There is room to optimize by reducing part counts and perhaps using a combination of formed and structural members.

 

[COdogman]

I can’t believe they even compared those 2 vehicles. They couldn’t just wait until 2030 when the Cybertruck is available and do it then?

 

[Dark-Fx]

I can’t believe they even compared those 2 vehicles. They couldn’t just wait until 2030 when the Cybertruck is available and do it then?

The problem is the R1 refresh is due before that.

 

[COdogman]

The problem is the R1 refresh is due before that.

True. But the CT will also need a refresh by the time it’s released.

 

[Dark-Fx]

True. But the CT will also need a refresh by the time it’s released.

It did on day one.

 

[usofrob]

Lots of extruded aluminum is the Lotus->McLaren->Rivian way

http://sandsmuseum.com/cars/elise/thecar/chassis/index.html

https://www.pacificmotors.com/auto-...rriage-crossmember-frame-oem-mclaren-570s-17/

Looking at the Rivian's just by itself, you can tell it had to be beefed up from the original design. Look at what they did at Lotus and McLaren to see what it looks like as a reasonable design.

Sponsored