Rivian's Tonneau Cover Awning Idea Is Stellar Low-Tech Innovation
The latest car news, reviews, and features.
Rivian has just patented a very cool and practical pickup truck accessory idea for the R1T. You know how tonneau covers are basically retractable awnings that pull out to cover a truck bed? Well, if such a cover had compatible mounting points on the roof as well as the bed, it could do double duty as a camp awning, covering your cargo while you're driving, and then make shade for people when the truck is parked.
The patent Rivian filed with the U.S. Patent Office in May covers various specific details, but the meat of the product description is this:
'…the multi-purpose cover may adaptably operate in the first configuration as a tonneau cover to extend and retract to protect the cargo area of the vehicle and the driver or owner's cargo from environmental elements … and, alternatively, operate in the second configuration as an awning to provide the driver or owner shade and shelter…' Rivian/USPTO
I dropped Rivian's PR people a line asking for details. They probably will not comment on a future product, but we'll update the story if they share anything interesting.
Images of Rivian's existing tonneau cover for the R1T pickup give us some hints about what this new accessory might look like, though. The current cover can fold into a neat little bag that then slides into the gear tunnel, that little extra cargo hold that's one of Rivian's most practical novel features. Rivian
Roof-mounted retractable awnings have been around forever, and they got a popularity surge when everybody started going crazy for overland accessories circa 2020. When I was off-road guiding in Australia around 2012, we would just hang a tarp between a couple of vehicles during lunch breaks. But these days you can easily find quick-deploying high-end units that float over your campsite, like the Kammok Crosswing: Kammok
If you haven't seen a truck awning, that image above should be all the context you need.
According to the drawings and description in the patent, Rivian's awning/tonneau combo would have support poles while in awning mode. But, if the company's plans come true, it looks like they're working out how to make it extend and retract electronically while it's in tonneau bed-covering mode, which would be pretty trick.
This seems like a great idea to me. Why lug around two accessories that are basically the same thing—an engineered tarp—when you wouldn't need them both at once? Well, except, I guess, if you wanted shelter during a lunch stop in the rain. Then you'd have to pick between a dry picnic area or a dry bed cover. Still, the only real downside of this idea that comes to my mind is that the Rivian R1T pickup truck's bed is not exceptionally large. A tonneau cover would be about 55 inches long and 51 inches wide. That'd be a viable shelter, but not the most luxurious one.
In the patent drawing, it appears that the gear tunnel door allows for side access to the bed, but I suspect that's just a byproduct of the image being more conceptual than practical. Being able to grab this cover from the side would make it easier to remove and hoist up onto the roof, but if you look at this cutaway of the R1T's body, you can see that the gear tunnel is isolated from the bed and altering that would require significant changes to the truck's structure. Possible, but a lot more complex than a dual-purpose sun shade. Rivian
Here's hoping Rivian goes through with plans to actually make this thing, because it'll be tough for the aftermarket to step up now that Rivian's planted its flag with the patent.
Got a tip? Send us a note at tips@thedrive.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Motor 1
33 minutes ago
- Motor 1
‘She Just Bought This Car': Mechanic Works on 2018 Ford Edge With 92,000 Miles, Then It Starts Misfiring
A mechanic working on a 2018 Ford Edge pointed out a problem with one of the engine's cylinders that he says is a very common issue. The automotive technician—who goes by CoryOnCars (@coryoncarsofficial) on TikTok—shared footage of himself diagnosing the car and carrying out the repairs. The mechanic informs viewers that the vehicle he's about to work on is a 2018 Ford Edge SEL with a turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine. He adds that the car has 92,400 miles on it and that the current owner bought it less than six months ago. 'The reason she made an appointment is because it's running rough, especially [at] first start in the morning. It smokes a little bit on first startup. It's got a check engine light on. It's got low coolant,' he explains. 'Now if you know anything about these 2.0-liter Ecoboost engines, they have some internal issues on the cylinders, and they like to seep coolant into the cylinders. That's why we got low coolant here. That's why we got the misfire on startup and smoking on cold start,' he says. After running a scanner to retrieve the diagnostic code, the mechanic says it appears to be a 'P0316 misfire detected on start-up.' CoryOnCars adds that this is typical of the other Ford Edges he's diagnosed. According to him, the problem usually lies with cylinder two. Coolant Leak Diagnosis CoryOnCars explains that there are two different ways to check the engine cylinders for leaking coolant. 'We can either pressurize our cylinder and watch our coolant bottle rise up with coolant, or we can pressurize our cooling system and watch down inside the cylinder with a borescope, and find coolant seeping into the cylinder,' he explains. The mechanic says he's going to start with the borescope method on cylinder two. He starts on cylinder two because he says it's been the problem cylinder on every other Ford he's worked on. After inserting the scope, the mechanic starts looking around the cylinder. He then pressurizes the cooling system and waits 20 minutes to re-check the cylinders. The mechanic quickly finds what he's looking for. He says cylinder one shows a tiny leak, while cylinder two has a considerable amount of coolant pooling on the pistons. He locates the origin of the leak in the head gasket seam. 'Yeah, unfortunately, this cylinder is crying and the owner probably is going be too,' he says, adding that people pay a lot of money for their cars and that manufacturing standards aren't what they used to be. He then runs the second test by pressurizing the cylinders and checking the coolant level. When it starts to rise, the mechanic confirms that there is an internal engine chamber combustion issue. Is Buying a Used Ford Edge a Worthwhile Investment? CoryOnCars claims that the problem he found on the Ford Edge was fairly common. After diagnosing the car, he even says that he's going to recommend the owner take it back to Ford to see if they would do some sort of 'goodwill recall.' But according to Kelley Blue Book , the 2018 Ford Edge has retained about 47% of its value over the past three years. This indicates that the vehicle holds its value better than many of its competitors. In addition to holding its value, the car offers a comfortable ride, spacious interior, and a suite of standard features, making it an appealing option for families and commuters alike. When buying a used Ford Edge, or any other car for that matter, it's important to get a comprehensive vehicle history report and consider performing a pre-purchase inspection. If the vehicle has been well-maintained and doesn't have a history of engine troubles, a Ford Edge offers good value as a used car. Viewers React The video from CoryOnCars received 651,600 views. Many of the comments reflect the reputation Ford has seemingly built up for unreliable engines. 'When you said '2018 Ford Edge' I immediately went 'That engine is toast,'' one user wrote. 'All you had to say was '4 cal turbo' and I knew what the problem was,' another wrote. 'What's even more messed up, it's a manufacturing defect and they know about it and issued a TSB, but won't make it right,' someone else complained. Several fans of Cory also asked if he would consider conducting online classes to teach others more about the basics of car maintenance. Motor1 reached out to Cory via TikTok direct message and to Ford via email for further information. We'll be sure to update this article if we hear back. Now Trending Woman Gets Dealership Oil Change For Her Brand-New Toyota Tundra. Then She Catches the Technician In a Lie This Might the Only Way You'll Ever Own a Pagani Utopia Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily. back Sign up For more information, read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use . Share this Story Facebook X LinkedIn Flipboard Reddit WhatsApp E-Mail Got a tip for us? Email: tips@ Join the conversation ( )
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Police cast wide net in probe of defunct North Texas car dealership's business practices
Desire Godfrey said it was time for a vehicle upgrade. The Lancaster mother had her eye on a Lexus. "I had a baby, so I'm looking for something reliable for me and a baby," Godfrey said. She searched online and found what she thought was the right vehicle at The Reserve Auto Group in The Colony. She described the sales process in May 2024 as a positive experience. Warranty and GAP insurance issues But an unexpected oil change six months later changed everything. Godfrey, 33, said a Lexus dealership informed her the vehicle was not under warranty. She also discovered her GAP insurance policy didn't exist. "They (Reserve Auto Group) never paid the warranty company the money they were supposed to pay to activate this warranty and this GAP insurance," she said. Car loan charges continue Godfrey said the costs were included in her car note. She filed a report with The Colony Police Department — and she's not alone. Police said they received their first complaint on Jan. 31. According to a news release, police have been investigating multiple fraud claims connected to the dealership since 2023. The business shut down in December 2024, but complaints continue to come in. Alleged auto fraud pattern Investigators said customers were allegedly instructed to write separate checks for aftermarket warranties or GAP insurance policies. Those payments were supposed to go to third-party providers, but police said the dealership allegedly cashed the checks and never forwarded the money — leaving customers without coverage. Another victim comes forward A second alleged victim, who spoke to CBS News Texas anonymously, said she and her husband also bought a Lexus from the dealership. She provided a non-activation letter from DOWC Administrative Services LLC, a company that offers GAP insurance and warranties. The letter stated: "Please be advised that Reserve Auto has failed to remit payment to Us as the Administrator and Provider for your Contract. Consequently, the Contract was not activated in our system." Investigation still ongoing Police have not made any arrests or publicly identified anyone associated with the allegations. Officers said they are continuing to vet additional alleged victims. CBS News Texas is not naming the person listed as the dealership's owner, as police have indicated he did nothing wrong. He spoke briefly by phone, saying he wanted to schedule an appointment to discuss the claims further because he believed "we did not have all the facts." When asked for clarification, he said he didn't have time to explain. Legal team responds Two emails followed the call, and attorneys from Herrin Law introduced themselves. "We have no comment at this time. Thank you for your interest in our client's side of the story," attorney Benjamin Palatiere said. He requested that all future inquiries be directed to him. Buyer left without coverage Meanwhile, Godfrey said the vehicle itself has not had any issues. But she continues to pay for a warranty and insurance that don't exist. "So nobody wants to refinance the loan. Nobody wants to give me GAP insurance," she said. "It's just more so like I'm going to take it or leave it. If I wreck the car, then I would have to figure out a way to pay that car off." Godfrey said she hopes to recover the money one day.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
