Removable top is a must

[61scout80]

Scout Motors, please learn from Toyota's failure with the FJ cruiser. It was an exceptionally capable and good-looking vehicle from a legendary brand that was marginally received at best. The FJ absolutely should have taken a larger bite out of the Wrangler's sales numbers and should still be in production today. But the top was not removable, so it did not survive. It was a cartoon version of itself.

Toyota has plans to release an electric FJ in '24. Once again without the removable roof, which will mean they are competing with the Bronco Sport, not the Bronco 2 & 4. I do not believe the FJ will flourish as a true off roader.

Without a removable roof and doors the new Scout will not be competing with the Wrangler and Bronco. That is where the brand needs to dominate to get started. After the initial vehicle gets launched is the time to build a tamed version for those who would be interested.

Thanks for the opportunity to chime in!

 

[Harris005]

This is little more than an over-engineered sun roof. Being open only for people in the front seats is kind of sad for people sitting in the back.

I’d like to see various roof options, canvas, mesh and removable hardtop. The Hardtop need to be compatible with a roof mounted rack.

I’d like to be able to go on a camping trip with a kayak or other gear loaded on the roof. Then once everything is unloaded at camp be able to explore the area with the top wide open for all passengers.

(I assume that carrying a load above the roof with a soft top is impossible for safety reasons.)

Great point not to be overlooked!

 

[Chaparral]

It's all part of the tradeoffs between a fixed roof, panel roof and a completely removable top where a full roll cage is necessary. If you have a completely removable roof like the Jeep or Bronco, it is very tricky to get a decent roof load rating without tapping into the roll cage for stability. Bronco utilizes the front windshield cross member and the rear removable roof section. The static load rating is 450 lbs. but the dynamic (while moving) load rating is 110 lbs. For comparison, the Land Rover Defender with a fixed roof has a static load rating of 661 lbs. and a dynamic rating of 291 lbs. If you get into overlanding, that load rating (particularly the dynamic rating) is easy to hit when you add a roof tent or other equipment.

Everything has tradeoffs.

It seems to me that much of the industry has lost sight of what’s meant by the word “Utility” in SUV.

The only way to get significant market share in the rugged vehicle segment is to take sales away from Bronco and Jeep and that will only happen if you offer more utility and capability.

That means, utility, capability, configurability, modularity, customizability and versatility are everything.

For example, I’d like to see exposed threaded holes and screw heads everywhere inviting the owner to switch things out and bolt things on.

When it comes to the roof it has to be strong but also has to be versatile. The owner needs to be able to easily switch the hardtop out for canvas or mesh or twill or whatever else. Complex motorized mechanical systems would make this much more challenging if not impossible.

If you can match or one-up the versatility of the Bronco roof but also achieve a much higher dynamic load rating - that would add a lot of utility over the Bronco and would really make potential buyers consider the Scout. (Another area you can add more utility than the Bronco is with a higher towing rating)

The design of the roof needs to be all about utility. Target matching the Defender’s dynamic load rating but with the versatility and configurability of the Bronco.

I don’t think the aerodynamic drag coefficient of an open roof causing a reduction in range should be big factor in the roof design decision making. Energy loss to the air is extremely high at high speeds but it falls exponentially as speed is reduced. In as much as people usually have the top open in scenarios where they are moving around at lower speeds the extra drag might not be a big problem. Maybe the calculated range estimate can take into account the change in drag when the roof is open so that the driver is aware of it. If having fun means losing range that’s a choice I’ll make at times. Making a design decision that says ‘sorry you can’t have a proper open roof because it reduces range‘ would be kind of sad.

If the choice is utility verses luxury, utility should win every time.
If the choice is utility vs aesthetics, utility should win every time.
If the choice is utility vs range optimization, utility should win every time.

 

[J Alynn]

I will challenge the idea that top down driving is usually slower (to paraphrase). I live in an area with lots of highways and anyone who owns jeeps or broncos (my daughter included) drives the highways regularly at speeds in excess of 60mph. There are hundreds of Jeeps/broncos in SE Penna. and not many locations for off-roading/overlanding so I think top down driving and energy use are VERY important as an EV vehicle.
Ultimately we are different users but to grow and succeed, Scout has to serve their largest demographic first. Otherwise sales are significantly lower and the Scout has to be $80K a vehicle to survive and most buyers will just stick with jeeps and Broncos due to cost. I think the critical step to satisfying the off-road group/enthusiasts is a robust OEM product line that is specifically engineered to solve problems and exceed options other vehicle currently offer.

 

[Chaparral]

I will challenge the idea that top down driving is usually slower (to paraphrase). I live in an area with lots of highways and anyone who owns jeeps or broncos (my daughter included) drives the highways regularly at speeds in excess of 60mph. There are hundreds of Jeeps/broncos in SE Penna. and not many locations for off-roading/overlanding so I think top down driving and energy use are VERY important as an EV vehicle.
Ultimately we are different users but to grow and succeed, Scout has to serve their largest demographic first. Otherwise sales are significantly lower and the Scout has to be $80K a vehicle to survive and most buyers will just stick with jeeps and Broncos due to cost. I think the critical step to satisfying the off-road group/enthusiasts is a robust OEM product line that is specifically engineered to solve problems and exceed options other vehicle currently offer.

It would be interesting to see statistics that break it down. I think it is best to give the driver various roof options that include a full top down experience and let them choose and manage the range impacts accordingly. A Bronco hardtop comes off in sections - it’s not all or nothing.

The Scout is targeting a $40K price point. That will be competitive with Jeep and Bronco but only if it matches their utility. We should not expect it to have feature parity with Rivian at this price point. If Scout get it right, I think a lot a potential Rivian buyers would either prefer the Scout or see it as providing all they want out of the Rivian at half the price.

When it comes to efficiency of an off road vehicle, aerodynamics very important but are a bit less of a dominant factor than with a road optimized vehicle. The size of the wheels and tires, their mass distribution and related energy losses become a big factor for an off roader. This is evident with the Rivian “explorer pack” where 34 in all-terrain tires and some other changes cut 14.6% off the range compared to the 32 in road tires. Anything tire manufacturers can do to make them lighter would result in significant gains. Rivian worked with a tire manufacturer to get things as efficient as they could. Scout should do the same. Engineers probably have a few things they need to take a harder look at in order to optimize an off road vehicle.

 

[61scout80]

It's all part of the tradeoffs between a fixed roof, panel roof and a completely removable top where a full roll cage is necessary. If you have a completely removable roof like the Jeep or Bronco, it is very tricky to get a decent roof load rating without tapping into the roll cage for stability. Bronco utilizes the front windshield cross member and the rear removable roof section. The static load rating is 450 lbs. but the dynamic (while moving) load rating is 110 lbs. For comparison, the Land Rover Defender with a fixed roof has a static load rating of 661 lbs. and a dynamic rating of 291 lbs. If you get into overlanding, that load rating (particularly the dynamic rating) is easy to hit when you add a roof tent or other equipment.

Everything has tradeoffs.

Why not have the roof panels set directly on the roll protection? It would give the option for side panels removed like the Jeep 1-touch sky top, and the option to remove the roof panel entirely. This would allow the load from the rooftop accessories to pass through to the roll protection. It would also give the option to take the top off and remount the rooftop accessory directly to the rollover protection. it could allow for even more top options too. A soft top, soft removable side windows with hard top, and a powered rooftop cartrige to have a slider like the 1-touch skytop. If the quarter windows are removable even more panels could be produced with MOLLE mount, first aid kit or other options, sort of like the defender.

There are trade-offs in this obviously. If you want the roof off and have a tent or rack up there it's a lot more work without an innovative system allowing the accessory to remain attached to the panel while removed. The user would need to be able to reach the panel to remove, which could be an issue. It also limits the tailgate design.

I'd think the roof panel mounted to the roll protection like this would reduce vibration and noise as well.

3 second sketch:

My wife's Jeep with quarter windows removed:

 

[61scout80]

(I assume that carrying a load above the roof with a soft top is impossible for safety reasons.)

Mounting is a challenge. Putting holes in the top to pass hardware through has a high potential of leaks and rips.

There is a solution. It's a very creative solution for those wanting a soft top, just not my cup of tea.

https://www.extremeterrain.com/rr-s...wSejoWqFcMLxkfam_eRoCh_EQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

[Harris005]

Rented a Mustange convertable last week. It had one of the slickest top releases I've seen. Instead of the typical two handles on either side of the windshield, it had a single handle in the middle. It operated very smoothly.

 

[J Alynn]

Rented a Mustange convertable last week. It had one of the slickest top releases I've seen. Instead of the typical two handles on either side of the windshield, it had a single handle in the middle. It operated very smoothly.

That’s way easier than the Bronco or my old BMW convertible. The side latches can be a challenge sometimes. Like that alot

 

[OleScout]

If not removable tops, t-tops! Burt Reynolds would be proud!

 

[Big_red1a]

Please, Please make the roof removable !!!

 

[LastDayScout]

Please, Please make the roof removable !!!

You will have to wait a few more years to see that option. But, I will say the cabana top is enormous. It will definitely give the open air feel and be way easier to use.