Sponsored
SPITmadFIRE
Well-Known Member
We're talking about gen 1 Bosch quad, which is definitely not a better design than the in house DM variants. Gen 2 in-house quad takes the cake, obviously, but I don't see how the original quad motor is "better" than the enduro DM on anything other than acceleration metrics.
SPITmadFIRE
Well-Known Member
There's no "software lock down to DM" because there's no difference between PDM and DM except for sport mode. FWIW I have a PDM Max, but I wouldn't have paid extra for PDM today if I had the option. I had preorder pricing, so my PDM Max was the same price as a DM Max, otherwise I would've just gotten DM.
R1Tom
Well-Known Member
G1 QM are massively better at torque vectoring than any version using brakes to torque vector. Also better at not using an internal clutch constantly to bring the rear motor on and off line which definitely has potential to be a failure point.
If you are saying oil cooling is somehow superior to air, I disagree. Oil is more effective yes, but air is simpler. Will not leak eventually. From a technical standpoint some will argue oil is superior, but it is simply more effective meaning it transfers heat better, but a properly designed air cooled motor, designed correctly...which I believe Rivian has accomplished, will perform the cooling correctly too.
Rivian must feel it is superior too as they are willing to offer a longer warranty on the QM too.
What are your "DM/PDM" superior design elements?
Sponsored
SANZC02
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Bob
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2021
- Threads
- 50
- Messages
- 7,409
- Reaction score
- 12,699
- Location
- California
- Vehicles
- Tesla Model S, LE - R1S
- Occupation
- Retired
I did not vote, I have a quad and 99+% of the time use 10% of its capabilities.
My suggestion, get the cheapest one, it will (or at least in my case) be way more performance than you will need and still put a smile on your face.
My suggestion, get the cheapest one, it will (or at least in my case) be way more performance than you will need and still put a smile on your face.
windblowlc
Well-Known Member
The Quad is $2K cheaper in this case.
Electrified Outdoors
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Ken
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2023
- Threads
- 63
- Messages
- 3,683
- Reaction score
- 3,980
- Location
- Mount Airy, Maryland
- Website
- EVoutdoors.org
- Vehicles
- 2024 Rivian R1S Quad, 2024 Silverado EV RST First Edition
- Occupation
- Real Estate
I feel this way too, mainly because of the idea of a software defined vehicle. The quad motors give the software folks more possibilities and the vehicle more capability after it leaves the factory via OTA software updates.
Quad is most definitely the best performance for dollar (gen 1 of course).
I suggested dual motor mainly because of the price difference only being 2k (Canada) and because he wants max efficiency.
Otherwise it's quad all the way at 2k less. To get equivalent power in Gen 2 your starting at six figures.
The oil cooled enduros tend to feel more refined however this is an adventure truck and I love my Gen 1 Quad.
??
SPITmadFIRE
Well-Known Member
Again, you're making performance, acceleration, and other arguments that would matter on a track car. If you want the fastest possible R1, great! Might as well wait for gen 2 quad.
I don't see the clutch disconnect as a concern. I see it as a benefit. I get 4WD every single time I accelerate from a stop, and 2WD every time I'm cruising on the highway. Warranty arguments are nonsensical; Rivian offers a ridiculously long warranty for both because they're a brand new company and need to build credibility and confidence. Furthermore, the quad warranty is cheaper for Rivian to administer because those motors come from a supplier. I bet Bosch pays out a portion for every failed unit.
Also, quad motor units aren't air cooled; they have a coolant jacket. The biggest difference between these thermal packages has nothing to do with how cool they keep the motor, but how quickly the vehicle can precondition and reach optimum pack temperature. In the winter, a DM vehicle will always outperform the Bosch QM in that very real, and significant way.
Don't get me wrong, I love the OG quad motor vehicles. They're incredibly fast and were an awesome first product for Rivian to launch the brand with. They made an excellent compromise outsourcing the original motors to Bosch. That said, I'm approaching 10,000 miles on my vehicle and exactly 0 of them have been on a track. I've spent 0 seconds wishing I had better torque vectoring in my 110mph max vehicle with a curb weight of 7,000lbs. For an AWD, street and off-road capable vehicle, DM is all I could ever want.
SANZC02
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Bob
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2021
- Threads
- 50
- Messages
- 7,409
- Reaction score
- 12,699
- Location
- California
- Vehicles
- Tesla Model S, LE - R1S
- Occupation
- Retired
Quad it is, I love mine. ?
Sponsored
windblowlc
Well-Known Member
It's a no-brainer. ?
R1Tom
Well-Known Member
I do agree the DM has a performance advantage versus QM conserve mode, which I never use unless using the truck on a long road trip trying to minimize DC charge times....which for me is almost never. So for me it is all motors almost all the time.
I do like the brakeless torque vectoring even if just leaving a stop sign or curve on an on ramp where I am accelerating aggressively.
Same as you....don't get me wrong....both are very competent vehicles and the DM is likely "enough" for many....but when I see comments about how it is "superior design," I feel that is anecdotal and unproven.
I was using "air cooled" to simplify the statement since the rotor and stator in a QM are directly cooled by air, which is then cooled by the water jacket as you pointed out. So that means they do run at a higher internal motor operating temp often. But is that "bad"? It can sound "bad" to people who don't understand motor design and capability.
Do we know for a fact that the DM is actually capable of transferring more heat from the motors to the battery pack? I would need to see actual heat transfer calcs or Rivian to weigh in on the DM being capable if faster pack pre-heating.
And regarding the clutches....yes...superior in automation of actuation, but it is interesting the Rivian already revised the clutch controller for the G2 to the inverters themselves to more accurately control the timing. Why? People say the G1 are silky smooth....then why do that? Maybe warranty issues comming up? Just a WAG and I admit it. What we don't know and won't for a while....is are they robust enough to live long lives?
Ultimately each has its fan base. For some the QM is better. For others the DM.
SPITmadFIRE
Well-Known Member
I want to emphasize I'm a fan of every Rivian, and everyone's own choices with what they get. I'm thrilled with my DM. You're thrilled with your QM. I think that matters infinitely more than what config is "best". I don't want my previous comments to seem too combative about this.
Preconditioning and being able to efficiently warm the battery from cold was a big reason why I went with DM, in addition to the range benefits combined with max pack. You don't really need stats from Rivian, the center screen tells you everything you need to confirm this. I've never seen my motors get over 150F when warming up the pack from cold, while driving. Because the stator is bathed in oil, they can heat that oil a whole lot more effectively and this translates into a better source of heat. QM configs get scorching hot motors to precondition the pack simply because they have to. There isn't as much direct contact between stator and fluid and battery.
dleepnw
Well-Known Member
really? with the DM having an oil cooled stator, i would think thats the superior design that will control temps to provide more consistent power and overall efficiency
R1Tom
Well-Known Member
I agree...they are all awesome!
But we really don't know enought to conclude the DM heat the battery packs up quicker or more efficiently.
For the battery pack to heat up faster with a DM....assuming glycol flow is same in both cases, the leaving motor glycol temp would need to be greater in the DM than it is in the QM. That is a value I would love to know.
We also don't know that what they are measuring for temperature in the DM and QM is equivalent. They could be in different locations leading to very different values being reported on the screen. It would be nice to know for sure they are in the thermally equivalent spot before concluding what the difference means. It would also be nice to know if the flow rates are same or different.
It does make sense that the internal temp would be greater in the air cooled QM as the oil bath would be better at transferring that heat away from the motor and to the heat exchanger. But then there is that brazed plate heat exchanger causing a reduction in glycol temps from internal oil temps(has to be some difference to drive heat transfer...likely many deg) going back to the battery pack and the QM directly heats the glycol in the motor jacket.
But in the end watts are watts. So regardless of internal temps, if the QM and the DM are able to consume "x" watts they would need to reject "x" watts. So my thought is although the internal temp maybe higher in the QM than the DM, that the end result is eventually the same. It doesn't take more energy to make the QM motor hotter....just that it has air surrounding it, which is a great insulator, so to get to the same overall heat transfer, it will be hotter.
I guess all I am saying ultimately is we don't really have enough info to conclude that the DM is heating the battery pack faster.
Not trying to be combative in anyway....and ultimately it very well could be that the DM can ultimately heat that battery pack faster. Maybe the QM is basically "throttled" to a max internal temp, and the DM is able to burn up more watts becuase the oil can do so without raising the internal motor temps to a 'throttle" point. I just don't have enough info to know for certain.
Sponsored