Well, yes, but you can also sense which ones are turning slower and just increase the torque to those. Locking diffs simply provide torque to the wheels with grip, which is exactly what one motor per wheel can do too. There’s no difference in the real world, and in fact performance is even better because there’s no turning circle penalty from having a locked diff.
> Well, yes, but you can also sense which ones are turning slower and just increase the torque to those.
From the link:
> If the axles are not physically tied, there is no way for any of the four wheels to know how much traction it actually has until it breaks free. Then, of course, it knows "too much" torque and it can apply traction control. But the damage is done. It has broken free, and any negative consequences have already happened prior to the computer being able to make any further calculations.
> Again, if physically locked together with large gears and drive shafts, there is no possible way for one wheel to break free in that manner, unless of course something is broken.
I mean, doesn't the set of computer controlled individual motors completely and totally contain all scenarios presented by a locked differential?
Specifically, wouldn't one line of code that says "never ever ever turn this wheel faster than this other wheel" be totally and completely indistinguishable from having the wheels on the same axle, as far as the physical world is concerned?
You can measure the speed and adjust the power going to the motor if you go over or under that speed. The lower latency that this cycle has, the better, but it can never go to zero like with physically connected wheels.
Maybe so but what does that have to do with anything?
A physical axle can have both wheels break free too can't it?
Comparing apples to apples the only scenario you're concerned with is where one wheel breaks traction and the other doesn't. Why is a logically driven exact speed match between wheels inferior to a physically linked speed match between the wheels. Explain the difference practically speaking.
Pedantry: The speed of sound in steel is about 5100m/s, so a solid 2m axel will still take about 4µs for interactions to propagate from one end to the other.
> If the axles are not physically tied, there is no way for any of the four wheels to know how much traction it actually has until it breaks free. Then, of course, it knows "too much" torque and it can apply traction control. But the damage is done. It has broken free, and any negative consequences have already happened prior to the computer being able to make any further calculations.
> Again, if physically locked together with large gears and drive shafts, there is no possible way for one wheel to break free in that manner, unless of course something is broken.
All four wheels rotating at the same speed is the normal case: straight line driving on good pavement.
The real question is can all the wheels go to zero traction at the same moment and thus the computer thinks all is well. I think the odds of that are low enough to not worry about.
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/quad-motor-vs-loc...
The Tacoma Off Road Crawl Control is somewhat similar but uses ABS to prevent slips. It does come with a rear locker though.