Kevins comments at the end made me think about how getting a next generation of battery that weighs dramatically less will allow manufacturers to put a focus back on removing structural mass!
I don't know if these stat is still true but what I remember reading several time is: 80% of all fatal crashes are single vehicle crashes. this is why crashworthyness saves lives. The object most likely to kill you in a crash is a tree not an SUV. So the 25% overlap test should prove to be a very important safety improvement.
👍👍Jordan and Kevin’s clear explanations of how crash structures help the vehicle glance sideways rather than pivot in frontal crashes, thereby preventing getting T-boned, were clear and informative. Nice team! 🤓
Wow here’s a thought, Munro team up with IIHS for post crash structural analysis to raise impact performance and lower build cost through optimised build strategy.
I’m conflicted w my rivian. I love the car but it much too pricey and flashy for my taste. But I’m keeping it bc the it’s safe for my family w the high crash test scores and heavy weight.
couple of questions. Is there a point where defensive or offensive is better? Based on vehicle weight? Also, does one version typically have a structural weight difference in material needed?
the EV convo has been what's the range? how much $$? How long to Charge? and progress with each. Seems like 2023 might be the year of safety improvements. In Part because of EV Crumple zone advantage and because of material improvements. Great video good to see it being covered in detail hopefully this helps create stiff competition 😉in SORB and other safety scores.
Thank you guys for another informative video! I really enjoy this channel and wish these videos were part of the curriculum in my program. Would it be possible to do a video on the Republic Seabee and the Munro Paradigm? There seems to be a lot of interest in the comments section and historically, there has been a lot of overlap between the aviation and automotive industries. I think we would also be interested in a high level overview (since specifics are probably classified) of Munro's work in defense, particularly how the US' approach to engineering in that field compares with China's, and whether the US is at risk of losing its position as the world's largest superpower. PS Since Jordan and Kevin were arguing about who is stronger, when is Jordan going to show us his backflip? 😂
Thanks for the info. One correction: IIHS doesn’t run all the crash tests Jordan mentioned. NHTSA runs the full frontal and side pole, but the SORB is obviously IIHS.
Range targets and weight, At what point does a big heavy long range battery become more of a problem than a solution. What is the trade off between range, weight, and cost. A lot of people talk of range anxiety. How much of that is ignorance of needed range for a use case. A review of use case versus range requirements would be interesting. How much are you paying for range that you may not need.
I keep saying this over and over: People continue to want to compare the Rivian to some small trail truck like a Ridgeline or Maverick, just because that sort of matches the Rivian styling, plus the mono body type construction. But that's just not the case, the Rivian IS an F350 class truck. It weighs just as much and has even more torque; and I'm sure it has to use 8 ply tires or better, just like a 1 ton truck. I wish you guys would stress this more, that this is not a small nimble truck as it appears. This thing is a tank and it's built like one.
Great summary Jordan and Kevin. I really appreciate the details of structure and safety. Just heard that Rivian vice president overseeing body engineering is departing company
It would greatly depend on what vehicle you are in when hit. The safety ratings of that particular car model/year are too varied which is why they only compare single vehicle to barrier analysis.
Not a car. That is a small airplane that they designed for sale back around 2008, but the funding for the project evaporated when investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed.
Seems like Rivian has accomplished something really important here, but Jordan seems to think they should do better. I suppose one can always do better. But for Pete's sake, let's look at the context. First of three different vehicles that Rivian--a startup car company--has put into full-year production in one year. Who has done that in the modern era? Nobody. Then they get the highest score IIHS gives out on one of those three vehicles. And it's kind of ho-hum. This apparent disdain is quite irritating. And it is especially so, since Ford--who has been making pickups for many, many decades--received a lower rating on the ICE F-150 (only a top pick versus the Rivian top pick plus) than the Rivian R1T.
They built a heavy tank with heavy armor.. Of course it could be better. That's what engineering is, and literally what this channel is about: identifying the glut. Yes it survived the tests; now it's time to shed some weight and still get the same results or better. And all that heavy armor is costing them more money to build, which is why it's well north off $100k, which is ridiculous for what is basically a standard truck in function. So YES, I'm with Jordan; they have a lot of room for improvement.
@@calholli As I say, their competition that has been making trucks for many decades has-apparently-more opportunity for improvement. This is part of the essential context that is missing here.
@@williamelkington5430 There is need for context or comparison. We're talking about this truck vs physics. NOT this truck vs other trucks. Look at this design- It could easily be skeletonized and lose a lot of weight. This is supposed to be a little trail riding 'adventure truck" -- but instead it's literally a F350 1 Ton level truck. It's f^cking 7k lbs. Anywhere it can lose weight NEEDS to happen on the next one. They did well: they built a tank. Now lets see if they can apply some engineering and geometry and make it happen with cheaper and lighter materials... It's just like firearms; anyone can make a 25 lb rifle, but no one will want to carry it around. That's why the AR15 is so popular, because it's made out of aircraft aluminum and plastic and a relatively thin barrel, which keeps it light weight-- without losing any performance; and it's still ultra durable. That's what this truck needs all over the place. There's a LOT of bulk, over built, over engineered structure here, including the frame, including all the crumple zone in the front (in this video). When you do that: when you cut out weight, now you no longer need your structure to be so strong in the first place, because you're using less mass. They played it super safe with this thing and built a TANK-- now they need to start pushing towards a better balance, by cutting out as much as they can, without losing any integrity. This is the definition of "engineering" -- to push things to their material limits and use no more than you need to. Just like designing a bridge. Designing for function is one thing, but designing for function at the least weight you can get to is a whole other challenge. Designing for function at the least weight and at the lowest price is the dynamic challenge that they are up against, that they really didn't tackle on this one. They just built it to work, not caring about weight or price, and it shows. They have work to do, and they need to hire on more engineers if they aren't up to it yet.
@@calholli Well, I disagree. There is always a need for a comparison and contrast with other comparable vehicles. Munro & Associates does this all the time and so does Consumer Reports, and they do this because context is important.
@@williamelkington5430 That's for other channels mostly. Comparing what you get for your money vs what other cars offer. Go watch Doug's channel for that. This is for engineers who are comparing how things are built vs how much better they could be built or improved in the future. This channel is about iterations; it's about always questioning "what should we do better next time". That's why they have tore down several Tesla's, to see the changes they made along the way, and to show the drastic change to large castings; etc. It's just the point that there are glaring examples of neglecting efficiency in certain areas on this thing. Lots of bloat. and you don't need to look at any other car brand to understand that. Jordan was simply pointing out the blatantly obvious; the things that stick out and can't be ignored, being: This thing is too f^cking heavy. lol.. and the reasons are very apparent. You were implying that Jordan should not have said it.. which is silly.
Rivian can still follow in a few years. Tesla doesn't make those giant presses, a third party does; and they could just as easily make them for other companies too; like Rivian.
250 ft. And a Hyundai did it a while ago off 300 ft DROP ALSO. NotE that the Tesla had its doors off. It rolled. bUT Barely on the roof (low center of mass, like all EVs). Rolled, so it was NOT a 250 ft drop. It takes a lot of LUCK or MIRACLE to have such a crash survived by all 4 occupants, but if you do it with a bunch of cars of each brand and type, not only Tesla occupants will survive, and FOR SURE other Tesla occupants will suffer fatal injuries. You may have to up your fangirlyness in cherry picking istances to promotes as your tokens of Tesla worship.
I own property near Ouray colorado off the Million Dollar Highway. Cars go off the side ar least a couple dozen times per year and it is far FAR further down. 7 people die per year on average. Survivability is not exclusive to Elon cars even if driving a tesla may force you to become a ol psychopath
Look at Volvo dropping their whole lineup of vehicles off cliffs and through ditches and from all angles for years. They’re the only vehicle manufacturer that says no one will be killed or seriously injured while in Or driving a new Volvo vehicle.
Essentially, all EVs are acing all crash tests. The reason is quite straightforward. The main rigidity of the vehicles is associated with the battery and thus the passenger cell. This leaves the front of the vehicle front box to be quite straightforwardly designed to manage any crash you might come up with. It's also the reason they ace the side crashes, again the battery case is the strongest part of the car is the battery case, thus it virtually precludes safety cage intrusion. The safest vehicle ever tested by Euro NCAP has been the EQS, but other EVs have done almost as well. Getting the highest ranking is really not an achievement, particularly from an EV. The obverse is also true. If you dont ace it, that is a red flag.
even though Rivian earned IIHS top safety pick +. its still too Heavy, weighs more than a Tesla PLAID w/ 3 motors. Rivian has room for lots of Improvement , but it LACKS the Agility to impliment those changes. TESLA on the Factory floor , Innovates at speed of thought, Tesla makes 1000 line changes every 24H, and 100 BIG changes every month, and those are Condenced into the BEST changes every Quarter. Rivian lacks Advanced 4680 cells, Structural battery pack (ZERO maitenance) and TOTAL underbody Gigacasting like TESLA does. the AUSTIN model Y w/Gigacasting is the BEST car you can buy.
A truck weighs more than a car??? No???? 🤣 At least you arnt comparing it to the nonexistant Cybertruck again... but comparing it to a CAR is just as silly. Its a TRUCK. Model Y could win every award in the known universe and it still wont climb rocks, tow trailers, or fit a toolbox.
Yet they still can not get paint right!!. Tesla Stans always claiming EV this EV that , Renewable Energy, Blah Blah Blah yet they get so defensive towards every other EV.
Jordan and Kevin - Excellent engineering analysis!
Thanks for watching, Fred!
@@MunroLive @ 13:05 "Munro Score" Jordan is a marketing genius! You should make that a thing!
Kevins comments at the end made me think about how getting a next generation of battery that weighs dramatically less will allow manufacturers to put a focus back on removing structural mass!
@Munro Live @ 13:05 "Munro Score" Jordan is a marketing genius! You should make that a thing!
I really enjoyed learning the difference between offensive and defensive strategies. Thanks for the useable information.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great explanation of the effects of the structural engineering, as always!
Excellent insights to make more people study physics and engineering, thus greatly helping civilisation to achieve new heights 👏
I'd vote for you!
Keep up the great work guys!
Thanks! Will do!
Thanks Kevin and Jordan for another excellent review of the Rivian R1Ts front structure and why it top honors from Highway Safeys crash test..
LOVE ❤️ YOUR NEW INTRO…THANKS JORDAN and KEVIN,ERIC and the rest of the MUNRO TEAM 🤗😎👍💚💚💚
Thanks guys!
You bet!
It would be interesting if you guys could get ahold of the Tesla that went over the cliff.
The failed component there was the SSW Interface.
(Seat-Steering Wheel) 😉😏
JORDAN great presentation, Clear to understand even if your not an engineer .
I don't know if these stat is still true but what I remember reading several time is: 80% of all fatal crashes are single vehicle crashes. this is why crashworthyness saves lives. The object most likely to kill you in a crash is a tree not an SUV. So the 25% overlap test should prove to be a very important safety improvement.
I didn't know!
The side crash test with the large updated barrier from iihs was extremely impressive. Hardly any intrusion into the cabin
Very well done! Thank You!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks for another awsome review 1
No problem 👍
stellar presentation guys!
10:30 implication of vehicle weight. In the SORB test the weight of the vehicle is the weight of the hammer crushing the front of the vehicle.
👍👍Jordan and Kevin’s clear explanations of how crash structures help the vehicle glance sideways rather than pivot in frontal crashes, thereby preventing getting T-boned, were clear and informative. Nice team! 🤓
Thank you!
Welcome!
do a video on how the Tesla occupants survived deliberate drive off a 250 cliff onto rock. the occupants had only moderate injuries.
Still waiting for the Jordan backflip.
Wow here’s a thought, Munro team up with IIHS for post crash structural analysis to raise impact performance and lower build cost through optimised build strategy.
I’m conflicted w my rivian. I love the car but it much too pricey and flashy for my taste. But I’m keeping it bc the it’s safe for my family w the high crash test scores and heavy weight.
When there designing these car, are they not using a piece of software to help design how they get affected when hit? Gust asking.
Great Job Rivian!
Mark Plott is rage crying right now guaranteed
couple of questions. Is there a point where defensive or offensive is better? Based on vehicle weight? Also, does one version typically have a structural weight difference in material needed?
the EV convo has been what's the range? how much $$? How long to Charge? and progress with each.
Seems like 2023 might be the year of safety improvements. In Part because of EV Crumple zone advantage and because of material improvements.
Great video good to see it being covered in detail hopefully this helps create stiff competition 😉in SORB and other safety scores.
Thank you guys for another informative video! I really enjoy this channel and wish these videos were part of the curriculum in my program.
Would it be possible to do a video on the Republic Seabee and the Munro Paradigm? There seems to be a lot of interest in the comments section and historically, there has been a lot of overlap between the aviation and automotive industries.
I think we would also be interested in a high level overview (since specifics are probably classified) of Munro's work in defense, particularly how the US' approach to engineering in that field compares with China's, and whether the US is at risk of losing its position as the world's largest superpower.
PS Since Jordan and Kevin were arguing about who is stronger, when is Jordan going to show us his backflip? 😂
👍👍
Thanks for the info. One correction: IIHS doesn’t run all the crash tests Jordan mentioned. NHTSA runs the full frontal and side pole, but the SORB is obviously IIHS.
Range targets and weight, At what point does a big heavy long range battery become more of a problem than a solution. What is the trade off between range, weight, and cost. A lot of people talk of range anxiety. How much of that is ignorance of needed range for a use case. A review of use case versus range requirements would be interesting. How much are you paying for range that you may not need.
I keep saying this over and over: People continue to want to compare the Rivian to some small trail truck like a Ridgeline or Maverick, just because that sort of matches the Rivian styling, plus the mono body type construction. But that's just not the case, the Rivian IS an F350 class truck. It weighs just as much and has even more torque; and I'm sure it has to use 8 ply tires or better, just like a 1 ton truck. I wish you guys would stress this more, that this is not a small nimble truck as it appears. This thing is a tank and it's built like one.
Great summary Jordan and Kevin. I really appreciate the details of structure and safety. Just heard that Rivian vice president overseeing body engineering is departing company
Could you do an episode on how someone (other vehicles) would fare when hit by a Rivian?
It would greatly depend on what vehicle you are in when hit. The safety ratings of that particular car model/year are too varied which is why they only compare single vehicle to barrier analysis.
It's a heavy solution.
Thanks for the Video, so what about the R1S? It seems it meets all the same requirements but didn't get picked?
It's a year of so down the pipeline, surely.
dont think it has been tested yet.
They have to procure the vehicles before they can test them.
I wonder how the F150 did?
What's that old(?) car in the background? The one with the open "swing door"?
Not a car. That is a small airplane that they designed for sale back around 2008, but the funding for the project evaporated when investment bank Lehman Brothers collapsed.
@@KCautodoctor THX!
@@KCautodoctor If they designed it, they borrowed liberally from the Republic Seabee!
It's a well built vehicle and yet their stock price has dropped like crazy, I just don't get it.
Thanks for not including Sandy in this video!
Seems like Rivian has accomplished something really important here, but Jordan seems to think they should do better. I suppose one can always do better. But for Pete's sake, let's look at the context. First of three different vehicles that Rivian--a startup car company--has put into full-year production in one year. Who has done that in the modern era? Nobody. Then they get the highest score IIHS gives out on one of those three vehicles. And it's kind of ho-hum. This apparent disdain is quite irritating. And it is especially so, since Ford--who has been making pickups for many, many decades--received a lower rating on the ICE F-150 (only a top pick versus the Rivian top pick plus) than the Rivian R1T.
They built a heavy tank with heavy armor.. Of course it could be better. That's what engineering is, and literally what this channel is about: identifying the glut. Yes it survived the tests; now it's time to shed some weight and still get the same results or better. And all that heavy armor is costing them more money to build, which is why it's well north off $100k, which is ridiculous for what is basically a standard truck in function. So YES, I'm with Jordan; they have a lot of room for improvement.
@@calholli As I say, their competition that has been making trucks for many decades has-apparently-more opportunity for improvement. This is part of the essential context that is missing here.
@@williamelkington5430 There is need for context or comparison. We're talking about this truck vs physics. NOT this truck vs other trucks. Look at this design- It could easily be skeletonized and lose a lot of weight. This is supposed to be a little trail riding 'adventure truck" -- but instead it's literally a F350 1 Ton level truck. It's f^cking 7k lbs. Anywhere it can lose weight NEEDS to happen on the next one. They did well: they built a tank. Now lets see if they can apply some engineering and geometry and make it happen with cheaper and lighter materials...
It's just like firearms; anyone can make a 25 lb rifle, but no one will want to carry it around. That's why the AR15 is so popular, because it's made out of aircraft aluminum and plastic and a relatively thin barrel, which keeps it light weight-- without losing any performance; and it's still ultra durable. That's what this truck needs all over the place. There's a LOT of bulk, over built, over engineered structure here, including the frame, including all the crumple zone in the front (in this video).
When you do that: when you cut out weight, now you no longer need your structure to be so strong in the first place, because you're using less mass. They played it super safe with this thing and built a TANK-- now they need to start pushing towards a better balance, by cutting out as much as they can, without losing any integrity. This is the definition of "engineering" -- to push things to their material limits and use no more than you need to.
Just like designing a bridge. Designing for function is one thing, but designing for function at the least weight you can get to is a whole other challenge. Designing for function at the least weight and at the lowest price is the dynamic challenge that they are up against, that they really didn't tackle on this one. They just built it to work, not caring about weight or price, and it shows. They have work to do, and they need to hire on more engineers if they aren't up to it yet.
@@calholli Well, I disagree. There is always a need for a comparison and contrast with other comparable vehicles. Munro & Associates does this all the time and so does Consumer Reports, and they do this because context is important.
@@williamelkington5430 That's for other channels mostly. Comparing what you get for your money vs what other cars offer. Go watch Doug's channel for that. This is for engineers who are comparing how things are built vs how much better they could be built or improved in the future. This channel is about iterations; it's about always questioning "what should we do better next time". That's why they have tore down several Tesla's, to see the changes they made along the way, and to show the drastic change to large castings; etc. It's just the point that there are glaring examples of neglecting efficiency in certain areas on this thing. Lots of bloat. and you don't need to look at any other car brand to understand that. Jordan was simply pointing out the blatantly obvious; the things that stick out and can't be ignored, being: This thing is too f^cking heavy. lol.. and the reasons are very apparent. You were implying that Jordan should not have said it.. which is silly.
it all looks primitive now since Tesla moved on to the next level
Rivian can still follow in a few years. Tesla doesn't make those giant presses, a third party does; and they could just as easily make them for other companies too; like Rivian.
It earned it because the IIHS does not know how to center a vehicle for the test and it missed. Simple as that.
Yeah yeah yeah... but just what in Hell is that thing to the right of the Rivian?
Its amphibious plane Republic seabee
IIHS doesn't do full frontal impact, nor do they do side pole. Those are left for the government to do.
Rivian can be Improved w/ Structural battery pack & Gigacasting the Underbody.
also helps w/ Weight loss.
@@markplott4820 Did anybody ask? Are you drunk already?
try dropping one off 300 foot cliff and have all 4 people on board survive like a Tesla just did
250 ft. And a Hyundai did it a while ago off 300 ft DROP ALSO.
NotE that the Tesla had its doors off. It rolled. bUT Barely on the roof (low center of mass, like all EVs). Rolled, so it was NOT a 250 ft drop. It takes a lot of LUCK or MIRACLE to have such a crash survived by all 4 occupants, but if you do it with a bunch of cars of each brand and type, not only Tesla occupants will survive, and FOR SURE other Tesla occupants will suffer fatal injuries.
You may have to up your fangirlyness in cherry picking istances to promotes as your tokens of Tesla worship.
I own property near Ouray colorado off the Million Dollar Highway. Cars go off the side ar least a couple dozen times per year and it is far FAR further down. 7 people die per year on average.
Survivability is not exclusive to Elon cars even if driving a tesla may force you to become a ol psychopath
Look at Volvo dropping their whole lineup of vehicles off cliffs and through ditches and from all angles for years. They’re the only vehicle manufacturer that says no one will be killed or seriously injured while in Or driving a new Volvo vehicle.
Essentially, all EVs are acing all crash tests. The reason is quite straightforward. The main rigidity of the vehicles is associated with the battery and thus the passenger cell. This leaves the front of the vehicle front box to be quite straightforwardly designed to manage any crash you might come up with. It's also the reason they ace the side crashes, again the battery case is the strongest part of the car is the battery case, thus it virtually precludes safety cage intrusion. The safest vehicle ever tested by Euro NCAP has been the EQS, but other EVs have done almost as well. Getting the highest ranking is really not an achievement, particularly from an EV. The obverse is also true. If you dont ace it, that is a red flag.
Come on. Watch all Munro vids, but guys please work on dropping all the unnecessary "Sort of & Kind ofs". This drives me absolutely f-ing crazy.
Bad sound quality.
even though Rivian earned IIHS top safety pick +.
its still too Heavy, weighs more than a Tesla PLAID w/ 3 motors.
Rivian has room for lots of Improvement , but it LACKS the Agility to impliment those changes.
TESLA on the Factory floor , Innovates at speed of thought, Tesla makes 1000 line changes every 24H, and 100 BIG changes every month, and those are Condenced into the BEST changes every Quarter.
Rivian lacks Advanced 4680 cells, Structural battery pack (ZERO maitenance) and TOTAL underbody Gigacasting like TESLA does.
the AUSTIN model Y w/Gigacasting is the BEST car you can buy.
A truck weighs more than a car??? No???? 🤣 At least you arnt comparing it to the nonexistant Cybertruck again... but comparing it to a CAR is just as silly. Its a TRUCK. Model Y could win every award in the known universe and it still wont climb rocks, tow trailers, or fit a toolbox.
Yet they still can not get paint right!!. Tesla Stans always claiming EV this EV that , Renewable Energy, Blah Blah Blah yet they get so defensive towards every other EV.
Amazed Prince Harry has got time in between whining about his family to make UA-cam videos 🤣