Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
My favorite thing is to be shown to be wrong, but you're simply stating it rather than showing it.
... I found one John's videos, and he already isn't making any sense. He says "instead of rating gas trucks in MPG, you need to convert it to watt hours per mile". Nonsense, people don't purchase energy for their trucks in watts, but gallons. Knowing how far you can go and how much it will cost is more easily accomplished with MPG. How does converting that to watt hours per mile help someone understand how far they can go, or how much it will cost?
His criticism is that they towed an inefficient trailer, and should have towed something else. What other horse trailer is more efficient? You don't haul horses on a Harbor Freight trailer. It's a dumb argument.
Then he undermines his own point by saying his F150 has a 36 gallon gas tank, and he needs that much to tow his 5th wheel... 270 miles is the most he's gone without refueling the F150.
He assumes most EV pickups are going to have a 200 kWh battery, which is massive, and expensive. The battery alone might be $30,000.
|
1) I doubt that I have the facility to navigate your favorite thing.
2) There is a specific purpose for everything said in the videos. Anyone participating in a conversation about energy and work must be acquainted with the fundamentals. All units are interchangeable. Pistons are going away. People need to be able to communicate in the units of measure that will come to dominate the market.
3) Since all the energy data for the Tesla are in Watt-hours/mile, it's imperative that the audience can compare the performance of a ICE vehicle in the same units. All the car magazines have been publishing dual-data for years now.
4) The Rivian is out now, and 'truck' owners will be purchasing 'Watts' when they 'refuel'.
5) There's less familiarity with electric units, however that's evolving.
6) So many Watt-hours per mile at a given speed becomes so many Watt-hours per hour at that speed.
7) Knowing the usable battery capacity, divided by the hourly rate yield the hours, then easily the distance, just like with fuel.
8) Say, @ $ 0.12 / kWh, and the usable pack capacity, simple multiplication gives your cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) the comment about trailer design inefficiencies didn't rear its ugly head until EVs entered the picture. Only now can people see what crap's passed for acceptable design until recently. Which is completely lost on the original videos.
10) we demonstrated that a trailer can have a net-negative drag coefficient, and actually increase the range of the to vehicle when pulling.
11) as to the horse trailer, we demonstrated the aerodynamic particulars of the Model X, the intellectual dishonesty of the comparison, and the NASA-inspired aerodynamic technology which would address that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12) The point about the F-150 is that, it has an 1,180-kWh 'pack' and only a 'non-anxiety' range of 270-miles when towing the 5th-wheel.
13) You're making subjective evaluations about cost, within an industry that's in its infancy, as if all extant performance is fixed, with no prospects for improvements.
14) If you get 1-million miles out of a pack, does it matter what its cost is, over the life of the vehicle?
15) higher front -end costs overshadowed by lower back- end costs can ultimately result in lower total cost of ownership. I don't see a downside.
16) Charge at home.
17) Run on fusion energy.