R3X needs o be a quad motor thoughts?

[CharonPDX]

I think tri motor is good enough, 1 front, 2 rear. It does most importantly need a solid cooling setup, and a higher top speed than 130mph. Those two, are the most important.

To me, the X is more the "off-road" version. It doesn't need a higher top speed.

The tri-motor non-X R3, however...

Sponsored

 

[RivAW]

IMO the R3X should have a Quad motor. There is just so much more that can be accomplished with active rather than passive only stability/traction control. I also think this is truly what set Rivian apart from the others when the R!T first arrived.
Oh, if they threw in the variable height/hydraulic suspension I wouldn't complain either. I know this adds to the cost, but the top model should have both of the above.

How would you expect them to do this and come anywhere near the price point they are aiming at (acknowledging the R3X will be the top trim level of the R3 line)?

 

[MountainBikeDude]

To me, the X is more the "off-road" version. It doesn't need a higher top speed.

The tri-motor non-X R3, however...

I mean, if they are using the Lancia as inspiration, then give it an inspired higher speed

 

[CharonPDX]

I mean, if they are using the Lancia as inspiration, then give it an inspired higher speed

Maybe an extra special trim level "Rally" or something like the "Dune" R1s that software unlocks higher speeds only in Rally or Sport mode?

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

I mean, if they are using the Lancia as inspiration, then give it an inspired higher speed

Gen 2 QM R1 capped at 130 isn't it? And if not for that it would have beaten the Lucid in Hagerty's 1/4 drag race.

 

[Tedski]

My understanding is that many modern heavy cars handle a lot better than they should due to the stability control systems that torque vector using the brakes. Also I believe the quad motor R1Ts handle so all because in addition to the above, they torque vector with power in addition to brakes. So it seems like the R3X would benefit from smaller(cheaper) motors at each wheel.

But it seems like most of the posters don't see it that way. Can someone explain why this wouldn't provide better handling? Is it just theoretical and no real world benefit?

Since any BEV is going to be heavy by definition, wouldn't a quad motor appropriately sized help handling?

Don't care about insane acceleration or top speed, just the best handling.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

But it seems like most of the posters don't see it that way. Can someone explain why this wouldn't provide better handling? Is it just theoretical and no real world benefit?

Since any BEV is going to be heavy by definition, wouldn't a quad motor appropriately sized help handling?

Don't care about insane acceleration or top speed, just the best handling.

Not sure where or how you're getting that hot take. The same vehicle dynamics and stability tricks already in the R1 can be applied to the R3 and R3X. It's just a matter of adjusting software parameters to suit the smaller car's power curves, lighter weight and shorter wheelbase.

While it most likely will not have adjustable air suspension or the R1's dynamic [and hydraulic] roll control, good tuning—of steering ratios, spring rates, adjustable dampers and well-matched roll bars—can still result in excellent handling. Legacy auto, modders and enthusiasts have been doing it for decades.

Don't care about insane acceleration? That's the top performance benefit of electric drive. 100% power available on-demand, even from stand still, as long as software allows it. No engine, transmission or turbo to spin up.

 

[mkg3]

....Don't care about insane acceleration or top speed, just the best handling.

It depends on what you mean by "the bet handling".

Best handling on what? Public roads, off roads and dirt, paved tracks? So it depends. Just take a look at Mazda Miata. Considered to be one the best handling vehicle for being the light weight RWD sports car. Very little power but it enjoyable to drive (and shift too )

The advantage of AWD/4WD is what you'd said and also be able to propel the vehicle by transferring as much power to the tires as possible (4 contact patches vs 2 for non-AWD). This does not make it best handling however in all conditions.

My personal experience is that a mid-engine RWD provides the best road handling vehicle. For EVs, RWD with no more than 50:50 (F/R) weight distribution for the roads. For off road, AWD clearly has unmatched advantage.

So if one looks at the premise of R3X, a rally inspired vehicle, then 30/70 power split between F/R may be the best solution; hence, few of us said try-motor with 2 in the back. Of course it would need a limit-slip differential for the front motor and probably best done with an e-limited slip differential, and SW controlled torque vectoring for the each motor in the rear.

Beyond the motors, the suspension setup will make a huge difference for the ultimate handling of R3X.

 

[iansriv]

How fast is fast enough? I have speeding tickets all over Europe, Middle East, Asia and here in the US. I stopped driving "fast" a couple of years ago. Honestly, I look back and dont understand what I was doing. A Camry can go >100mph but should it and should the driver? If you track the car then go for it.

 

[mikehmb]

My understanding is that many modern heavy cars handle a lot better than they should due to the stability control systems that torque vector using the brakes. Also I believe the quad motor R1Ts handle so all because in addition to the above, they torque vector with power in addition to brakes. So it seems like the R3X would benefit from smaller(cheaper) motors at each wheel.

But it seems like most of the posters don't see it that way. Can someone explain why this wouldn't provide better handling? Is it just theoretical and no real world benefit?

Since any BEV is going to be heavy by definition, wouldn't a quad motor appropriately sized help handling?

Don't care about insane acceleration or top speed, just the best handling.

A very large part of the reason EVs have flat handling is the extremely low center of gravity.

Torque vectoring, and all the electronic wizardry that comes in newer vehicles (and arguably older Audis) is great, but the low CoG does a lot of the heavy lifting here.

BTW motors *at* the wheels would be catastrophic due to the significant increase in unsprung mass. Motors *per* wheel is a different story. That said, you could argue torque vectoring via mechanical limited slip diffs and/or wheel braking in a dual motor setup would also be excellent.

 

[mikehmb]

How fast is fast enough? I have speeding tickets all over Europe, Middle East, Asia and here in the US. I stopped driving "fast" a couple of years ago. Honestly, I look back and dont understand what I was doing. A Camry can go >100mph but should it and should the driver? If you track the car then go for it.

Personally ... I'm a fan of quick, but don't care about fast.

Give me 0-60 in under 3 seconds, and I don't give a rat's fart about top speed.

 

[Time2Roll]

IMO the R3X should have a Quad motor. There is just so much more that can be accomplished with active rather than passive only stability/traction control. I also think this is truly what set Rivian apart from the others when the R!T first arrived.
Oh, if they threw in the variable height/hydraulic suspension I wouldn't complain either. I know this adds to the cost, but the top model should have both of the above.

I say leave the max performance for the flagship vehicle model.

I am more inclined to say single motor rear wheel drive should be made available for lower cost and higher volume and keep the company in business.

 

[UnsungZero_OldTimeAdMan]

How fast is fast enough? I have speeding tickets all over Europe, Middle East, Asia and here in the US. I stopped driving "fast" a couple of years ago. Honestly, I look back and dont understand what I was doing. A Camry can go >100mph but should it and should the driver? If you track the car then go for it.

100 mph in a Camry? did it make it less beige? Friend just bought a early production Evora. I tease him every chance I get for having a Camry.

 

[ndmiller]

With the size being smaller than the R1 and the R2, even a measly 535hp should be lightning quick.

3 or 4 motors is just going to raise the cost, while the space for the battery is probably a fraction of the R1's.

Regular old dual motor performance for me with a 70-90KW battery should make it less expensive, brutally fast with a 300+ mile range. Add drive modes for extra fun and use all the compute and sensors to give us posi-traction or not.

 

[Glembi2]

My understanding is that many modern heavy cars handle a lot better than they should due to the stability control systems that torque vector using the brakes. Also I believe the quad motor R1Ts handle so all because in addition to the above, they torque vector with power in addition to brakes. So it seems like the R3X would benefit from smaller(cheaper) motors at each wheel.

But it seems like most of the posters don't see it that way. Can someone explain why this wouldn't provide better handling? Is it just theoretical and no real world benefit?

Since any BEV is going to be heavy by definition, wouldn't a quad motor appropriately sized help handling?

Don't care about insane acceleration or top speed, just the best handling.

I used to believe that quads were always the best option until a log discussion with @R.I.P. about what happens when a quad loses grip in 3 wheels.

While I’m personally done with oil changes, differential failures, and transfer case failures, limited slip differentials have the advantage of knowing your actual ground speed. From that one wheel that is not turning, you can selectively brake the other wheel ( or lock the differential ) to slow down the other wheel. The quads don’t have that option.

The big takeaway is that duals outperform quads on slippery, off camber turns.

That said, I’m still smiling every time the quad’s torque vectoring kicks in.

Sponsored