Engineering Explained:Why Tesla's Are Bad at Towing

[Grant-53]

Most unibody cars today are not designed to tow more than 1000-2000 lbs and a tongue weight of 500 lbs whether gas or electric. Consult the owner's manual for the vehicle. Since trains have long used electric motors the issue is supplying the necessary power. Methane to hydrogen fuel cells may be more suited to commercial vehicles.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The topic of the thread is why Tesla's are bad at towing, and the conclusion is that batteries suck and need to get better, much better.

I expanded the topic by mentioning it's not just energy capacity that matters, but how quickly it can be replenished. If it could be replenished very quickly, it matters less how big the "tank" is.

The point of a trailer isn't to be as aerodynamically efficient as possible, but to haul the intended cargo in a given footprint and weight rating. There's no "solution", only trade-offs.

The reason trailers don't have regen is because only 3% of vehicles are EV in the first place, and they already have regen built in. Redundantly adding it to a trailer adds weight, complexity and cost. It's not that it hasn't been thought of already, it's that people thought about it and then realized it was dumb.

* ' bad' is an unfortunate choice for an adjective.
* it's hard to imagine that an engineer would ever use such a descriptor.
* 'bad' is inclined to put people into emotional-reactional rather than rational thinking, as capitalized on in the 'behaviorism' psychology of the advertising industry.
* TFL cars.com stood on the world stage and revealed the poverty of their intellect when they did their piece.
* And Engineering Explained didn't do anyone any favors when they took the bait.
* Attributing deceitfulness to the fallacy of their testing methodology would have implied that they actually knew the physics involved in their arguments.
* Donald Rumsfeld's concept of 'known-knowns,' known- unknown's, and 'unknown-unknown's' probably better captures the actual shortcomings of the video presentations.
* If you want to see REAL RANGE ANXIETY and the dark underbelly of a RAM pickup or HUMMER, hitch them to that horse trailer, and redo the 75-mph 'test', except, give them a 'gas tank' the same size as the Tesla.
' If our vision be arrested here, let our imaginations pass beyond.' Blaise Pascal

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

I think your estimate of KWH to gallon is a bit understated. I have 12-18 (depending) kwh to do 40ish in the ranger which used to get a solid 20mpg

*Reformulated E10, REGULAR UNLEADED has 111,836- Btu /gallon
* @ 3412 Btu / kWh, a gallon = 32.7772 kWh

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

On the Cybertruck forum, there has been lots of talk about a battery pack on a trailer, even motor for regen and drive capability...

I am not a fan of the trailer providing motive power, but I am a fan of regen, especially down hill.

I think for the ultimate aerodynamics some kind of physical aerodynamic 'bridge' between the tractor and the trailer makes sense... but I think low hanging fruit would just be making the trailer fit as much as possible into the wake of the tractor.

If the trailer was narrower and as close to the height as possible than the tractor that would be something more easily achieved without recreating a lorica segmentata for towing.

* Since range anxiety appears to freak so many out, one argument which resonates with me is, the concept of non-stop driving to the overnight destination, once leaving home. And vice-versa for the return trip. Recharging at the campsite. Low stress on holiday.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

* 'bad' is inclined to put people into emotional-reactional rather than rational thinking, as capitalized on in the 'behaviorism' psychology of the advertising industry.
* And Engineering Explained didn't do anyone any favors when they took the bait.
* If you want to see REAL RANGE ANXIETY and the dark underbelly of a RAM pickup or HUMMER, hitch them to that horse trailer, and redo the 75-mph 'test', except, give them a 'gas tank' the same size as the Tesla.

Bad is a universally known descriptor to encompass any number of reasons something is suboptimal, and not necessarily used to manipulate emotion. If you were about to take a bite of an apple, and I said "wait, that's a bad apple", you wouldn't need a scientific description of what is bad about it.

Engineering Explained explained the physics and showed his work, so there's no bait. We can counter his facts with other facts, but it's all out on the table.

Why would someone barely put any fuel in their ICE vehicle to tow? That's the point; that they don't have to experience range anxiety or limit the places they can go due to an inferior energy storage solution.

Imagination is necessary to advancement, but has to be tempered with reality (physics). Most ideas are bad. I criticize most ideas because of that indisputable fact, and I'm usually right. Simply proclaiming a new idea to be bad without even knowing what it is will result in being right most of the time.

You're essentially saying the evaluation of EVs as 'bad' at towing is a bad analysis itself, but without explaining why. Convince people of the reasons why EVs might be a good option for towing. I believe there are plenty of use cases that would be best filled by EVs, but that market segment is so small. It's like the use case where a motorcycle with a sidecar is the best option.

[freebeard]

Most ideas are bad.

Yup.

Sturgeon's law
Sturgeon's law is an adage that states that "ninety percent of everything is crap." The adage was coined by Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author and critic.Wikipedia

[aerohead]

You'd find that on You-Tube, with John Gilkison's videos on the fallacy of TFL's and EE's presentations.
He's better on camera than I am. So I've been producing materials he can share, attempting to fill in the voids in public understanding, since there remains no public education.
Your comments are very revealing about your command of the subject.
I'm unsure of a remedy.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Your comments are very revealing about your command of the subject.
I'm unsure of a remedy.

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.

[aerohead]

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.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

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.

2. People don't need to understand future units until we're in the future. Currently we live in the present, which means present units of measure are relevant now.

3. Why? People don't care how much energy is expended, only how far they can go and how much it's going to cost. My wife doesn't consider how many what hours a microwave is going to consume to heat something up, she only cares that she can do it quickly.

9. It rears it's ugly head when considering EVs because the thing that sucks about them is the battery, and to tow with an EV requires an enormous battery; the very thing that massively sucks from a cost, weight, volume, refilling time, degradation, environmental regulation perspective.

10. "Better" trailer design will only occur when its needed. So far, it seems it hasn't been needed. I'm as annoyed as anyone when I observe inefficient designs, but aerodynamics isn't the only consideration. In fact, it's among the last considerations. Even less important if only used very infrequently.

11. I didn't read the truck article, but I imagine there were dishonest aspects of it. Doesn't negate the overall opinion that current EVs tend to be suboptimal for most people who tow.

12. 270 miles of worry free towing and rapid refilling is not a compelling point if one is defending EVs for pulling a trailer. I hope that's obvious to you.

13. No, I'm commenting about the state of things as they exist in reality. I'm withholding opinion about what may or may not occur in the future. I'm a superfan of EVs, so I have great hope for a future where batteries suck a lot less.

14. Total cost of ownership is relevant, which is why I made my spreadsheet. The initial cost of the EV/battery is relevant to that calculation. Depreciation is the single largest cost to most people, so reducing initial purchase price is the best way to reduce overall cost per mile.

15. Depends on use case. Higher initial costs can be made up in the long run, but how long do most people keep a vehicle and how far do they drive? My spreadsheet makes it relatively simple to "do the math".

17. I hope for fusion one day too. It's not enough to have an idea, it must become reality.