Low range - is this a concern?

[Gems]

How will the scouts perform in off-road obstacles with low range if there is no transfer case? Or gearing reduction? I understand direct (1000 ft-lbs) to wheels is amazing, but for example, a 100:1 crawl ratio in a jeep can actually throw down thousands for pounds of torque (10-20k) to the wheels even after drievetrain loss.
I’m no expert or engineer, so I’m looking for honest answers. I don’t want to accept “who needs more than 1000ft lbs of torque” because those in the off-road community benefit greatly from low range.

barring that, everything else looks amazing! I have a reservation for both harvester models.

 

[Scout997]

No details obviously so just speculation but I’d think these things would do better than a Rivian due to the live axle and locker. But as these vehicles will be heavy as $hit compared to your standard ICE off roader I’d think that’s the bigger issue.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

You certainly won't be able to cram a Marlin in there anywhere.

This is, apparently, the axle. Technically it's a solid axle and has a lockable differential, but with the motor housing built into the axle, it's likely there's zero chance of increasing the gear ratio inside of that axle.

https://www.theautopian.com/i-crawl...o-look-at-the-engineering-heres-what-i-found/

 

[popo_patty]

You certainly won't be able to cram a Marlin in there anywhere.

This is, apparently, the axle. Technically it's a solid axle and has a lockable differential, but with the motor housing built into the axle, it's likely there's zero chance of increasing the gear ratio inside of that axle.

https://www.theautopian.com/i-crawl...o-look-at-the-engineering-heres-what-i-found/

Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no need for gear ratios with an electric drivetrain

 

[DadSquatchOR]

As long as there is a way to crank up the regen to mimic low-range for downhill the experience should be the same, the mechanical advantage on climbing will be made up for with torque

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no need for gear ratios with an electric drivetrain

You're not wrong. There's no "need."
For most purposes, 1000 ft-lb of torque is going to be plenty. But...well, there are people who don't want to stop at "plenty."

Without the ability to change the gear ratios in the axles/differentials, and without any kind of transfer case, EVs tend to be as close to direct drive as makes no difference (there are few EVs with transmissions).

That said, in the crawler world, some people like to stack several transfer cases in series to crank up their vehicle's gear ratio from 2:1 or 4:1 to... say, 20:1, or 100:1, or 500:1 and some go up to 1500:1. The final torque numbers are such that the vehicles can crawl very difficult terrain at engine idle or can crawl up very steep slopes with minimal engine RPM. The final torque numbers can get up to 10,000 ft-lbs or even higher. It's expensive, it often ends in broken parts, but...it's...a hobby.

It's totally "unnecessary," but so are a lot of things in the car world.

The most likely approach to increasing torque on a Scout will be swapping the entire motor-axle assembly for something with a higher gear ratio in the differential. That will also be expensive, and it's not at all clear that will be possible without some way to reprogram the controllers.

Side Note: The Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) is about the size of the classic Mini Cooper. It's driven by relatively small electric motors and has a final gear ratio of 1024:1. It moves very slowly, but it can climb a 45º slope if necessary.

 

[Gems]

You're not wrong. There's no "need."
For most purposes, 1000 ft-lb of torque is going to be plenty. But...well, there are people who don't want to stop at "plenty."

Without the ability to change the gear ratios in the axles/differentials, and without any kind of transfer case, EVs tend to be as close to direct drive as makes no difference (there are few EVs with transmissions).

That said, in the crawler world, some people like to stack several transfer cases in series to crank up their vehicle's gear ratio from 2:1 or 4:1 to... say, 20:1, or 100:1, or 500:1 and some go up to 1500:1. The final torque numbers are such that the vehicles can crawl very difficult terrain at engine idle or can crawl up very steep slopes with minimal engine RPM. The final torque numbers can get up to 10,000 ft-lbs or even higher. It's expensive, it often ends in broken parts, but...it's...a hobby.

It's totally "unnecessary," but so are a lot of things in the car world.

The most likely approach to increasing torque on a Scout will be swapping the entire motor-axle assembly for something with a higher gear ratio in the differential. That will also be expensive, and it's not at all clear that will be possible without some way to reprogram the controllers.

Side Note: The Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) is about the size of the classic Mini Cooper. It's driven by relatively small electric motors and has a final gear ratio of 1024:1. It moves very slowly, but it can climb a 45º slope if necessary.

I believe the rubicon and bronco can put up to 20k ft lbs of torque in crawl mode, from factory, and with drive train loss down to 10k. That’s 10x+ more torque than the scout will have. New Rubicon has a 100:1 ratio iirc

i am not sure I fully understand it now, but I hope it’s a non-issue. Even on moderate off road trails low range is very helpful both uphill and down hill.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I believe the rubicon and bronco can put up to 20k ft lbs of torque in crawl mode, from factory, and with drive train loss down to 10k. That’s 10x+ more torque than the scout will have. New Rubicon has a 100:1 ratio iirc

i am not sure I fully understand it now, but I hope it’s a non-issue. Even on moderate off road trails low range is very helpful both uphill and down hill.

Sure, but you have to sacrifice a lot to get that 100:1 gear ratio. Convenience, cost, comfort, long-range drivability, and towing are big ones to me.

Convenience (and cost): I am all electric, so I never have to go to a gas station. While that might seem trivial, I'm about 15 minutes from the nearest gas station, so filling up at home saves me about 40 minutes a week compared with when I had a Tacoma instead of a Lightning. This would be true for the Scout as well. With 50,000 miles on our two EVs, this has been a significant time and money saver--it costs me about $13 to fill my Lightning from 0% to 100% overnight--that's about $0.04/mile compared with $0.28/mile for the Tacoma on the highway and the Lightning is even cheaper around town.

Comfort and long-range drivability: The Lightning is (and I presume the Scout will be) significantly more comfortable than a Jeep Wrangler, and I've gone all over the US Southwest and Pacific west in it. I've gone on week-long road trips where I wouldn't have considered taking the Tacoma, much less a Wrangler.

Towing: I think the Scout Travler claims 7000 pounds towing capacity. The Wrangler is lucky if it can do 3500 pounds, and with the added weight of the Rock-Trac system, I'm betting that's down to 2000 pounds with the crawler and 4.88 gears installed. I haven't seen a door sticker to confirm.

I've gone on some trails with the Lighting, but it's too big to be a real trail vehicle and it's absolutely not a crawler. However, on downhill slopes the Lightning provides better "crawl control" than my Tacoma with Crawl Control did. The Lightning's 1-pedal drive means I get all 775 ft-lb acting as an engine brake. This can stop the vehicle on any slope I've driven on without using the friction brakes. Is it a "crawler"? No. Does it crawl? Yes. Would I take it on the Rubicon trail or onto some of the more challenging trails in Moab? Not a chance. But i have had no issues with some of the trails I've played on. And I can pack a whole lot more camping creature-comforts into my Lightning than I ever could with the Tacoma.

Rivian has successfully completed the Rubicon with a basically stock R1S (they added sliders). The Scout Traveler looks to be larger than the R1S, so I don't think it would do as well on the Rubicon, but it wouldn't be because of lack of torque and crawling capabilities.

Will the Scout be as capable as a stock Wrangler Rubicon with 4.88s and 35" tires? Not on the trail. But it would certainly be a much more pleasant drive to the trail and home from the trail. As you no doubt have noticed, the most capable crawlers are on trailers when they arrive at the campground before heading to the trailhead...

The offroad capable EV industry is still in its infancy. It took almost 80 years for Jeep to offer a 100:1 crawl ratio from the factory. If offroad crawling is a top priority for you, I'd say make friends with someone who has a Rivian, invite them to a moderate trail, and see what it's capable of today. The Scout will be similar.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

If it matters, I apologize for going full-on teacher/'splainer to in this thread. It's tough to know who has what experience. The main reason EVs tend not to have reducing gears is loss of efficiency. Since EVs have so much torque at minimal RPM means it's really not necessary for most use-cases.

 

[commadorebob]

My take: Off the shelf part makes for easier and cheaper repairs compared to custom solutions. I hope home garage repairs is something Scout is keeping in mind.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

My take: Off the shelf part makes for easier and cheaper repairs compared to custom solutions. I hope home garage repairs is something Scout is keeping in mind.

They claim 80% of likely repairs will be possible on the trail or at home. Obviously you don't want to be messing with the high voltage components, but all the mechanical stuff looks pretty standard.

 

[Gems]

Great info. I feel that both Scout and Rivian are the first EVs that will actually take a major market share in the overland type of trails…nothing too extreme but still can tackle obstacles that get the heart rate up. It won’t replace a jeep for me personally, the list is too long (and refined over 80 years as you said) to make it unmatched today.

I’ll likely keep the jeep for crawling and the scout will be the “scouting “, towing, and daily driver. I’ll even take it on some Moab trails but I’ll just need to know the limits.

I’m really excited for it—if it tows well and I can get 300+ miles range on a 6000lb trailer I’ll be very pleased.

My 6.7 Cummins has 850 ft-lbs of torque, I am curious how these will do towing and climbing a 6-7% grade at 7000-10000 ft. Elevation.

and, also, how their regenerative braking will compare to engine braking on the long steep descents.

 

[Treebeard]

How will the scouts perform in off-road obstacles with low range if there is no transfer case? Or gearing reduction? I understand direct (1000 ft-lbs) to wheels is amazing, but for example, a 100:1 crawl ratio in a jeep can actually throw down thousands for pounds of torque (10-20k) to the wheels even after drievetrain loss.
I’m no expert or engineer, so I’m looking for honest answers. I don’t want to accept “who needs more than 1000ft lbs of torque” because those in the off-road community benefit greatly from low range.

barring that, everything else looks amazing! I have a reservation for both harvester models.

Electric motors can turn very very slowly with a lot of torque. My Rivian in rock crawl moves very slow and all of wheels have power at the same time. I don’t rock crawl, but the times I use the setting for steep hills That are slippery it’s been great.