Amazon/Rivian Even Larger Than GM Van

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Metalman

I suspect that trailer is way overloaded with that big tractor.

You may be correct, although the tractor doesn’t look all that large to me.

Regardless, the spare wheel on trailer appears to only have 6 lugs, but even with that small a wheel, it could have rating of 3,760 pounds each, making trailer GVWR in range of 15,000 pounds possible with right tires.

Anyway, my point was that a 4-wheel motorhome makes a lot of sense provided chassis is designed for that purpose from the start. That’s also why we are seeing so many new heavy duty electric vans that are SRW (in lieu of duallies).

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

You may be correct, although the tractor doesn’t look all that large to me.

Regardless, the spare wheel on trailer appears to only have 6 lugs, but even with that small a wheel, it could have rating of 3,760 pounds each, making trailer GVWR in range of 15,000 pounds possible with right tires.

Anyway, my point was that a 4-wheel motorhome makes a lot of sense provided chassis is designed for that purpose from the start. That’s also why we are seeing so many new heavy duty electric vans that are SRW (in lieu of duallies).

My guess would be that SRW evans simply have longer range than DRW evans simply due to the extra power needed for the DRW.

I bet they also have low-rolling-resistance tires on them to eek out a few more miles too.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

My guess would be that SRW evans simply have longer range than DRW evans simply due to the extra power needed for the DRW.

I bet they also have low-rolling-resistance tires on them to eek out a few more miles too.

Yes, there are a lot of reasons why SRW design is better in many applications. They can also reduce weight, thereby increasing payload. They provide much greater width between rear wheel wells, so center aisle can be wider to accommodate larger pallets/loads on floor. On independent suspension (like on most electric vans and pickups) it moves rear wheel hub outward (compared to duallies of same vehicle width), allowing rear halfshafts to have a better angle through full suspension articulation, etc...

For vehicles like a farm or dump truck DRW is fine, but for smaller motorhomes I see little advantage beyond lower cost of using an existing commercial truck chassis.

[Bob Denman]

Rivian's contract with Amazon has been in the news recently. I hope that it is the means by which this Company gets it's feet on the ground, and running the race!

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

Rivian's contract with Amazon has been in the news recently. I hope that it is the means by which this Company gets it's feet on the ground, and running the race!

Clearly you haven't seen the reviews of the R1T that are making the rounds.

Note that it is in production and reaching customers hands...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS1HdnKG0YY

[Bob Denman]

I've been watching with great interest... but that's not the product that will give them the capital they need to become a big player...
They need that Amazon money!

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

I've been watching with great interest... but that's not the product that will give them the capital they need to become a big player...
They need that Amazon money!

They already have Amazon money and Ford money.

Rivian has been around for a while I doubt they are going anywhere...

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Clearly you haven't seen the reviews of the R1T that are making the rounds.

Note that it is in production and reaching customers hands...

That is a very interesting video. A couple of things that jumped out are the all-electric outdoor kitchen, and also his comment about the CEO (I think) stating that the auto industry does not have the capacity to regulate itself. That comment reminded me that the RV industry is probably far worse.

Acceleration of 0-60 MPH in 3 seconds seems ridiculous to me for a pickup truck, but I suppose that if towing an 11,000-pound trailer, it would still be able to accelerate to highway speeds up a steep grade and into the wind in reasonable time.

Honestly, I wish RVs were designed more like that Rivian and less like a regular house on wheels. The design seems well thought out and functional, not just a bunch of random ideas thrown together. Thanks for posting video.

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

That is a very interesting video. A couple of things that jumped out are the all-electric outdoor kitchen, and also his comment about the CEO (I think) stating that the auto industry does not have the capacity to regulate itself. That comment reminded me that the RV industry is probably far worse.

Acceleration of 0-60 MPH in 3 seconds seems ridiculous to me for a pickup truck, but I suppose that if towing an 11,000-pound trailer, it would still be able to accelerate to highway speeds up a steep grade and into the wind in reasonable time.

Honestly, I wish RVs were designed more like that Rivian and less like a regular house on wheels. The design seems well thought out and functional, not just a bunch of random ideas thrown together. Thanks for posting video.

The F-150 Lightning will be around the same "speed" (I've heard 0-60 "under 4" ish statements).

I do think that simply is a consequence of having to tow something--need that much power. Thus as a side effect of that you get great unloaded acceleration.

[Bob Denman]

0 to 60?
Electric motors eat that up for lunch!

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

The F-150 Lightning will be around the same "speed" (I've heard 0-60 "under 4" ish statements).

I do think that simply is a consequence of having to tow something--need that much power. Thus as a side effect of that you get great unloaded acceleration.

I’m not sure about that. People have been towing 11,000-pound trailers with far less than 800 HP for a very long time.

Regardless, that AWD 4-motor drivetrain would be pretty nice under a compact Axis-size motorhome. With independent suspension at each corner, wide track, low center of gravity, low unsprung mass, etc. it would ride and handle like a dream compared to truck-based motorhomes. And a lot quieter too.

[ducksface]

I think we might need to understand that a 6%, one mile up hill grade might be the equivelent to a 60mile flat run, battery usage wise.

The 400 mile range becomes a 100 mile range(insert whatever number here you like, but you know it's devastating) with any sort of uphill involved.

I believe the vehicle is a pipe dream for other than urbanites.
It is essentially a flashlight that rolls. Batteries be batteries no matter the application.
Low setting=18 hours
Med = 9 hours
High=40 minutes.

Low=lab test and media statement
High= life on the rolling roads we encounter.

[Bob Denman]

Well... At least it's a really BIG flashlight...

[HMCSW]

Originally Posted by Lt Keefer

Electric vehicles are great for city deliveries and grocery getters, but I will always have a gas engine in my recreational vehicle. The recharging infrastructure will never get to the places I want to visit.

Range and weight, recharging time plus the grid does not have the ability to handle all the extra load the in the coming years. Hell California can't handle the demand as it is.

On top of that there is zero chance the will be enough materials mined to make the batteries in the next decade. There are no where near enough mines scaring the earth on board and the vast majority are in China.

[Chance]

The Workhorse C-650 and C-1000 are additional electric van options optimized primarily for package delivery in city traffic. As most startups (not that Workhorse hasn’t been around for long time) into new electric vehicles, they are having their share of technical and financial issues.

Real reason for sharing this information are some of the technical specs that could just as easily apply to gasoline motorhomes. That’s what I find most promising. Just shorter than extended ProMaster vans, with 158-inch wheelbase like so many Ford E-350 motorhomes, yet much roomier than a van.

The smaller C-650 is listed as only 20’-7” long by 86 inches wide, yet has 650 cubic feet of cargo volume. The longer version at 27’-0” has 1,000 cubic feet of cargo space. Front axle is 5,000 pounds (same as Ford E-350 and E-450) and rear 7,500 ponds (E-350 SRW is even higher at 7,800 pounds). However, GVWR of C-650/C-1000 goes to 12,500 pounds in part due to commercial 245/70R19.5 tires in Load Range G or H, far exceeding the 7,500-pound rear axle requirement.

I’d like to know real reason why Ford doesn’t upgrade the E-350 SRW GVWR by upgrading wheels and tires. It appears so easy to match Transit and Sprinter load capabilities.

These seem a bit tall to me, but would provide plenty of headroom for drop-down beds.
.

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Chance

I’d like to know real reason why Ford doesn’t upgrade the E-350 SRW GVWR by upgrading wheels and tires. It appears so easy to match Transit and Sprinter load capabilities.
.

Because Ford knows the application requirements and understands that both, Ford and the Customer, need to make a profit ....
Have you ever asked why most of the Fedex trucks are gasoline and not diesel???

This pesky profit thing seems not to affect the digital/electric world since Tesla "value" more than Ford....

[Metalman]

Originally Posted by Chance

These seem a bit tall to me, but would provide plenty of headroom for drop-down beds.
.

And/or basement storage.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

Because Ford knows the application requirements and understands that both, Ford and the Customer, need to make a profit ....
Have you ever asked why most of the Fedex trucks are gasoline and not diesel???

This pesky profit thing seems not to affect the digital/electric world since Tesla "value" more than Ford....

I’m not following your “profit” comment. How does offering a SRW E-350 with higher GVWR for smaller Class Cs or walk-in vans reduce profitability? It is technically possible since others like WorkHorse are doing it. And it should cost less, not more, in lower E-Series GVWR range than equivalent DRW.

SRW E-350 are presently limited to 10,050 pounds GVWR, while similar F-350 pickups go to 11,500 pounds. Other than competing with their own Ford Transit, I don’t follow why an 11,000-pound (or higher) GVWR SRW option would reduce profitability.

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

The F-150 Lightning will be around the same "speed" (I've heard 0-60 "under 4" ish statements).



I do think that simply is a consequence of having to tow something--need that much power. Thus as a side effect of that you get great unloaded acceleration.

The F150 Lighting is 4.4 0-60 ride.
Fast for a truck, and a lot faster than any stock muscle car (Corvettes, Mopar, Mustangs, etc. from the 60's and 70's).
Although, a new Honda minivan is faster than most every old stock muscle car (the truth can hurt). Why anyone wants to drive a poor handling truck at that rate is beyond me. As a owner of multiple trucks of various brands (own a delivery business), ours are purely judged on reliability, capability, and comfort of ride. Besides, 4.4 seconds is slow in these modern times. If I want speed, I'll hop in my AMG (which is specifically designed to handle these speeds). By the way, the stock Ram 1500 TRX goes 0-60 in 3.7 seconds.
The day is coming when a electric ride can tow, and/or handle the applications of an RV, and have some decent range. My 2020 Four Winds 31y can go just over 500 miles on a fill up!

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Chance

I’m not following your “profit” comment. How does offering a SRW E-350 with higher GVWR for smaller Class Cs or walk-in vans reduce profitability? It is technically possible since others like WorkHorse are doing it. And it should cost less, not more, in lower E-Series GVWR range than equivalent DRW.

SRW E-350 are presently limited to 10,050 pounds GVWR, while similar F-350 pickups go to 11,500 pounds. Other than competing with their own Ford Transit, I don’t follow why an 11,000-pound (or higher) GVWR SRW option would reduce profitability.

Probably because Transit is more profitable than E-350 and ford is planning to kill the E350 / E450 to align its line with what is sold around the world????
This difference between 10050 to 11500 is really probably just a question of changing what is written in the paper...
I special order a F150 back in 2017(2018 model) because I wanted the maximum payload and towing I could get with the V8 engine...
That truck had a 10900lbs towing capacity... The very same truck today have a towing capacity of 14000lbs....
Product planning, marketing, etc are always playing a big role in setting GVWRs, towing, payload, etc...