R1S Tri Motor Placement

[Riviannaivir]

I’m sure I can find the following information somewhere on Rivian’s site, but so far I have not, so I’m asking here:

Does anyone know how the motors are placed in the Rivian R1S Tri-Motor configuration?

to me, it would make sense to have a single motor in the rear and two motors in the front for some torque that, but I really don’t know.

Sponsored

 

[peace and quiet]

I’m sure I can find the following information somewhere on Rivian’s site, but so far I have not, so I’m asking here:

Does anyone know how the motors are placed in the Rivian R1S Tri-Motor configuration?

to me, it would make sense to have a single motor in the rear and two motors in the front for some torque that, but I really don’t know.

 

[swflor]

This

 

[Riviannaivir]

Awesome. Thanks. I wonder... Does anyone know if the rear tires experience undue wear and tear due to the two-motors in the back. I am aware of such issues with the Tesla Model S Plaid, but perhaps Rivian has better coordination of the two motors?

 

[iamnid]

Awesome. Thanks. I wonder... Does anyone know if the rear tires experience undue wear and tear due to the two-motors in the back. I am aware of such issues with the Tesla Model S Plaid, but perhaps Rivian has better coordination of the two motors?

Rivian has been selling a quad motor for some years now. I imagine it will be similar to that but with just one motor in the front.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Two in the rear and one in the steer.

 

[Electrified Outdoors]

My understanding is that it’s a single unit with two motors in it as gen1 quad was. Of course the design is totally different. Tri is a beast!

excessive tire wear under normal driving should not occur on the rear but could be an issue in the front if conserve is used frequently in stop/go traffic.

 

[electruck]

Awesome. Thanks. I wonder... Does anyone know if the rear tires experience undue wear and tear due to the two-motors in the back. I am aware of such issues with the Tesla Model S Plaid, but perhaps Rivian has better coordination of the two motors?

undue tire wear would be a function of your right foot, not the motor configuration.

 

[HaveBlue]

Last thing you want is a front wheel drive 7000lb mini van and yet, here we are.

 

[mkg3]

I own quad R1S. That said I still fail to see the point of having 4 motors (or 3/4 for the gen 2 Acent). I would have selected dual motor at the time, if available.

If the point is to say I have 3 or 4 motors, fine - where is the purpose?

Will I know the difference between 3.5 sec to 60 vs 2.8~3.0 sec? Am I doing 1/4 mile drag?-no.

It's a 7k lbs SUV (or truck). Does the extra motors and power allow the vehicle to climb vertically? Wouldn't dual motor with locking differential be sufficient or even better for rock crawling or off roading?

AND having 2 motors in the front and one in the back makes absolutely no sense. The reason to put more power in the back wheels during an acceleration is to gain advantage from weight shifting towards back tires by not breaking traction (avoid wheel spin). With that, it also requires more power to turn heavily loaded wheels; hence, dual motors in the back, than the front - if you must have 3 motors...

 

[R1Tom]

I own quad R1S. That said I still fail to see the point of having 4 motors (or 3/4 for the gen 2 Acent). I would have selected dual motor at the time, if available.

If the point is to say I have 3 or 4 motors, fine - where is the purpose?

Will I know the difference between 3.5 sec to 60 vs 2.8~3.0 sec? Am I doing 1/4 mile drag?-no.

It's a 7k lbs SUV (or truck). Does the extra motors and power allow the vehicle to climb vertically? Wouldn't dual motor with locking differential be sufficient or even better for rock crawling or off roading?

AND having 2 motors in the front and one in the back makes absolutely no sense. The reason to put more power in the back wheels during an acceleration is to gain advantage from weight shifting towards back tires by not breaking traction (avoid wheel spin). With that, it also requires more power to turn heavily loaded wheels; hence, dual motors in the back, than the front - if you must have 3 motors...

You are perfect example of why they make a dual. Many don't care.

 

[alpine_]

I own quad R1S. That said I still fail to see the point of having 4 motors (or 3/4 for the gen 2 Acent). I would have selected dual motor at the time, if available.

If the point is to say I have 3 or 4 motors, fine - where is the purpose?

Will I know the difference between 3.5 sec to 60 vs 2.8~3.0 sec? Am I doing 1/4 mile drag?-no.

It's a 7k lbs SUV (or truck). Does the extra motors and power allow the vehicle to climb vertically? Wouldn't dual motor with locking differential be sufficient or even better for rock crawling or off roading?

AND having 2 motors in the front and one in the back makes absolutely no sense. The reason to put more power in the back wheels during an acceleration is to gain advantage from weight shifting towards back tires by not breaking traction (avoid wheel spin). With that, it also requires more power to turn heavily loaded wheels; hence, dual motors in the back, than the front - if you must have 3 motors...

There is 2 motors in the back and one in front, so not sure where you're going with that. The 2 motors are lower powered and more efficient than the single front motor, so it's not an apples to apples comparison either. Some people chose the Tri for the interior package and small increase in price compared to the PDM version.

 

[DayTripping]

Awesome. Thanks. I wonder... Does anyone know if the rear tires experience undue wear and tear due to the two-motors in the back. I am aware of such issues with the Tesla Model S Plaid, but perhaps Rivian has better coordination of the two motors?

Issue with the Plaid is not the dual motors in the rear but typically too much negative camber for the street and too much toe. Get a good alignment, some shims for the camber or adjustable arms, and you are good to go.

I own quad R1S. That said I still fail to see the point of having 4 motors (or 3/4 for the gen 2 Acent). I would have selected dual motor at the time, if available.

I'll tell you why I wanted a quad motor, for torque vectoring. Once you have it, and you like to drive with any sort of sporting intent, you'll appreciate it. The dual motors don't do it. Another plus, if they'd kept it, would have been tank turns. Also a quad motor can give much finer traction control at each wheel.

A physical locker could be better in some offroad situations (with software programming you could get the same effect), but on road, a quad motor AWD has some significant advantages over dual motor if you value performance and traction control.

Obviously, for those who don't care, the dual motor is an option. IF that had been the only option, I'd be driving a CyberTruck despite how hideous I think it looks. I wouldn't have bought the tri either, it was either a G1 or G2 quad.

 

[mkg3]

There is 2 motors in the back and one in front, so not sure where you're going with that. The 2 motors are lower powered and more efficient than the single front motor, so it's not an apples to apples comparison either. Some people chose the Tri for the interior package and small increase in price compared to the PDM version.

Not sure what you're pointing to. Perhaps you'd misread? Rivian puts quad/tri motor versions into a conserve mode using the front motor, not the rear two. While each of the rear motor may consume less power than the front, the total power consumption of two rear motor is higher than a single motor in the front.

As for people selecting tri motor over the pdm, there maybe validity to that point. I always prefer power bias to the rear.

 

[mkg3]

...I'll tell you why I wanted a quad motor, for torque vectoring. Once you have it, and you like to drive with any sort of sporting intent, you'll appreciate it. The dual motors don't do it. Another plus, if they'd kept it, would have been tank turns. Also a quad motor can give much finer traction control at each wheel.

I have a Subaru with torque vectoring. As for the tank turn, Rivian negated that capability so its a moot point....

...but on road, a quad motor AWD has some significant advantages over dual motor if you value performance and traction control.

It depends on what kind of performance you are looking for. On a dry surface, driving on twisting roads or road course on a track days, I prefer RWD over AWD. AWD needs to be driven closer to FWD in terms of vehicle dynamics. On the wet roads, clearly AWD is much more effective. In both cases, tires make a huge difference. I am aware that Audi Quattro dominated the road races early on and has its advantages, though. Audi had power bias toward the rear.

I think that people get too focused on straight line acceleration and for that, AWD and not breaking traction is a huge deal.

All that said, Rivian is a truck and a SUV, not a sports car. I view it as a utility vehicle and not a performance vehicle. It just happens to have some sports car like performance and qualities but by no means drives like one. It weights almost 2x as much as most sports cars.

Sponsored