Do I want the underbody shield?

[Yossarian]

My R1 backstory is long and not particularly interesting, so let me say only that I'm a legacy reservation holder who changed configuration from the R1T Max (quad) to the S about a year ago, initially with the 21" wheel/tire combination. After it became apparent that it would be quite a while before additional 21" tire options hit the market, I changed to the 20" configuration, intending to swap the OEM AT's with All-Seasons in 60R. I did not go for the package with the underbody shield because my offroad needs are quite modest, consisting only of occasional forays on dirt/gravel/fire roads, usually with a small teardrop in tow.

Am I making a mistake in not getting the underbody shield? Are there benefits to having it that I'm overlooking, perhaps even in something like bumping resale value? I understand the negative in changing config, that it will mean a further delay in delivery, but I'm OK with that at this point.

Sponsored

 

[ads75]

I decided to go with the underbody shield after seeing several metal trailer parts in the middle of the Turnpike one day. I don't plan on taking the R1T off road (not much in SE Pennsylvania), but wanted extra protection for the small chance I ran over debris on the road.

 

[Jumpjack]

I'm in a similar position although now wringing my hands over the quad vs dual performance (R1S) conundrum and am also happy to wait longer for any other options or improvements.
Before the dual drive was an option to configure I was obviously looking at quad only and had the same question which I put to the forum sometime last year. I too really don't need the underbody protection so why pay more for more weight (?) but my concern was that knowing the dual drives were coming would this make the quad essentially the Rubicon of the options and if so when it came to resale would a quad without underbody protection suffer in value compared to those with?
At the time of my posting the general consensus was only get it if you need it and although the value question in context of other drive trains did give some pause for thought they pretty much stuck with initial opinions on that basis that there are a lot of quads out there with it already and even some years down the line buyers will mostly not be taking these vehicles to anywhere the underbody would be needed or even helpful.
I'll be interested to see if people feel the same now with some time passed and the other drive train options are out there.

 

[mkg3]

All EVs, are design to withstand certain amount of impact underbody to protect the battery farm. In rare occasion, where steel/concrete or other very hard objet creates an impact/strike, a major failure probably cannot be avoided.

Would underbody shield prevent that? I think not. Its reinforced composite and is very durable and hardness is beyond of the non shielded underbody. However, the energy of the impact probably exceeds the shield's ability to protect, if hit at higher speed. Maybe if one does lots of off-roading and at lower speed, it may payoff to have.

It's an insurance policy for those who feel uncomfortable about the potential. Personally, I do not believe it's necessary. That said, I do have it on my R1S. I wanted it for two reasons, 1) resale feature for those that may value it, and 2) for cleaner underbody aerodynamics. The latter is more of placebo effect for my brain than anything else though...

 

[RabidRat]

Road noise reduction would be another reason.

There had been a couple of posts in the past from folks who got a service loaner with a shield that they didn't have, or vice versa, and remarked on the difference on the highway.

 

[Supratachophobia]

I'm in a similar position although now wringing my hands over the quad vs dual performance (R1S) conundrum and am also happy to wait longer for any other options or improvements.
Before the dual drive was an option to configure I was obviously looking at quad only and had the same question which I put to the forum sometime last year. I too really don't need the underbody protection so why pay more for more weight (?) but my concern was that knowing the dual drives were coming would this make the quad essentially the Rubicon of the options and if so when it came to resale would a quad without underbody protection suffer in value compared to those with?
At the time of my posting the general consensus was only get it if you need it and although the value question in context of other drive trains did give some pause for thought they pretty much stuck with initial opinions on that basis that there are a lot of quads out there with it already and even some years down the line buyers will mostly not be taking these vehicles to anywhere the underbody would be needed or even helpful.
I'll be interested to see if people feel the same now with some time passed and the other drive train options are out there.

Same boat, R1T ---> R1S, 21" --> 20" AS, and it always seems like something else is holding me back. At first it was end of quarter build quality (which I personally believe was a good choice on my end), then it was leasing (but I can't since I'm PPH, then it was insane interest rates, and I think I finally figured out what it is deep down.

If the Enduro line is the future and the Munro teardown clearly outlines the improvements, then why would I settle for the "old" tech of the Bosch system? I might as well hold out for the inevitable quad Enduro and any benefits it carries in efficiency (not really concerned too much about 1000HP). But all that won't get sorted out until at least summer, so here I am still not enjoying an R1.

Ultimate FWP.....

 

[Donald Stanfield]

From what I was told during my config stage is that unless you plan on coming down on rocks it shouldn't be an issue to forgo the shield.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

The standard HV pack is protected by carbon composites. If you are not careless with speed and path you take off-pavement, you don’t need the option. Unless buyer is looking specifically for the feature, doubt it makes any difference on resale; since most don’t even understand what it’s for and who needs it.

 

[foxerson]

My original reservation was configured with the shield just because it was bundled with the 20” wheels. That changed and I dropped the shield from my final config. I understood it to be valuable if you expect to be dragging the belly over rocks. But otherwise was unnecessary added weight.

I have done a bit more offroad driving than anticipated and have really enjoyed getting off the beaten path. No regrets at all for skipping the shield as I have no intention of getting into terrain where it would actually be put to use.

Resale value benefits are mostly speculative at this point. I suspect it could be an important feature for a subset of buyers and totally irrelevant for everyone else.

 

[dradam]

I was an early order holder for the quad R1 S. I wanted range but did not have a max pack option and the new max pack in my opinion is lackluster at best. I chose 21 to maximize range, silver to reflect heat and hopefully less a/c battery use and did not want the added weight of the shield.

I think it really comes down to how you will use your vehicle. If I were an off roader, I would want the shield. But as a routine daily driver. I want the range.

 

[CruxOp]

I vasilated on this and researched for hours before getting our s without the shield, and have not thought about it once in the 6+ months we've had the car. If you're not doing serious off-roading that involves high centering on rocks I wouldn't bother with it

 

[Yossarian]

Thanks to all for the thoughtful replies. As I posted, I don't need the shield for my offroading, and as folks replying have pointed out, the effect, if any, on resale is pretty speculative at this stage. There are however a couple of potential pluses that folks mentioned that I hadn't thought about: help with aero/increased range and cabin noise reduction.

Range is important as we do an annual trip to the Rockies during ski season. That's the reason I initially went with the 21" option. I'm hoping to minimize the range impact of the 20" wheels by not just swapping AT's for AS's but also going to 60R sidewall tires. While every little bit helps, I'm inclined to think that the contribution to range from smoother airflow with the underbody shield will be vanishingly small, making adding the shield for that reason not a great value proposition.

OTOH, if there really is a decent reduction in road noise due to the underbody shield, that could tempt me. I've only driven the R1S once, and did not think it was particularly noisy, but didn't think it was all that serene either. If the reduction was significant, say in the area of -3db, geting the shield may be worth it.

Again, thanks to all for the replies.

 

[solaskaze]

Thanks to all for the thoughtful replies. As I posted, I don't need the shield for my offroading, and as folks replying have pointed out, the effect, if any, on resale is pretty speculative at this stage. There are however a couple of potential pluses that folks mentioned that I hadn't thought about: help with aero/increased range and cabin noise reduction.

Range is important as we do an annual trip to the Rockies during ski season. That's the reason I initially went with the 21" option. I'm hoping to minimize the range impact of the 20" wheels by not just swapping AT's for AS's but also going to 60R sidewall tires. While every little bit helps, I'm inclined to think that the contribution to range from smoother airflow with the underbody shield will be vanishingly small, making adding the shield for that reason not a great value proposition.

OTOH, if there really is a decent reduction in road noise due to the underbody shield, that could tempt me. I've only driven the R1S once, and did not think it was particularly noisy, but didn't think it was all that serene either. If the reduction was significant, say in the area of -3db, geting the shield may be worth it.

Again, thanks to all for the replies.

That's correct: any aero savings is probably negated by a) its weight b) you have a big, tall, gigantic windshield pushing air in front of you. As for noise: YMMV, but the wind from "upstairs" in my no-underbody R1T completely dwarfs any savings you'd get downstairs. That said: it's no Bentley, but the wind noise is entirely tolerable for an Adventure vehicle.

 

[DarthBrader]

If you tow a camper, consider the impact on payload. Without the shield, the R1S has excellent payload capacity. That’s why I’m going without. When you add tongue weight, passengers, gear, etc, it adds up quick.

 

[HaveBlue]

Both models have an underbody shield. Aero is the same. I spent the whole day 4wheeling today and it has a ton of ground clearance. My buddies in 4runners with a mild lift each we're hitting a lot and nothing for me while not even on highest. I have the standard underbody shield. By the time I get to hitting that, the wheels will be demolished from the rocks. Then again I have the 22s. We didn't air down. The Rivian articulation is crazy good and the traction control is much better than the 4runner atrac. It just keeps pulling. I wish I had more pics from the day.
If I switch to off-road wheels, it will need steel rocker panels or sliders not a different under body shield.

Sponsored