Engineering Explained:Why Tesla's Are Bad at Towing

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I can take a pee, and grab a snack in 5 minutes. How much of a charge do I get in 5 minutes? 20 miles maybe. 20 min later I don't need to take a pee and grab a snack again to get another 20 miles.

The popo don’t take kindly to that method of saving time at the gas station while you fill and unload at the same time

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.pou...amp/1764697001

[ldjessee00]

Hello Redpoint5,

Your an EV fan? I would not have known that from your comments on this thread.

ICE is equivalent to the electric motor. If fuel is equal to the battery pack, show me how to use petroleum without polluting or fractions of the pollution? (PV & wind energy source for EVs) Show me how you can re-use petroleum after it is burnt in the ICE?

I think the better analogy is that electricity and petroleum are the equivalents with the battery pack is the fuel tank.

You linked to an article that has missing data in its chart. Also, a trend is more than month to month sales fluctuations. You also show a chart that shows that BEV sales numbers will increase.

Processor speed is also not the only metric for processor advancement. Specialized chips, now at 7nm that are in phones are all 64bit. Just 5 years ago, most were still 32bit. These processors are doing more in the same clock cycles and with a lot less power. If you do not count that as advancement, then our metrics are never going to align.

Diminishing returns... until there is another big leap forward. I was saying that processors were going to slow down back in the 90s, just due to the limitations of getting reliable signal and electricity to flow at such small pathways... and those pathways are now considered oversized. They figured out ways to handle those differences. Like the 100 years advances that have been made with airplanes... time and money was spent and they improved. (same could be said about a lot of different technologies)

Well, we will see in 2 to 3 years if there is some introduction into the market of new battery technologies. We will also see if there is an increase in BEV sales.

Airplanes cost more to fly, in both real and unpaid for costs, than driving or train, yet people take airplanes more often than trains... If it was just cost, trains would win everytime.

Think of all the money spent to build airports, to expand airports, then all the money the government spends to run air traffic control (a cost the airlines mostly do not have to pay for). The system is rigged to support airlines and air travel here in the US. In other countries, not as much. Oh look, they have better train systems.

All improvements above the status quo could be considered a gimmick at first. 64 bit vs 32 bit processors were a gimmick to sell more complicated chips when there was almost no software to take advantage of 64bit... yet it is the standard now, even in phones and tablets.

US Federal Highway system is not required, it was only seen as needed by the military, to help move forces around quickly inside our country. The country actually was successful without them. All roads were maintained by states, counties, townships, or cities before that and the majority of roads still are.

I know about the population density of all those places, having lived in Korea or Indiana most of my life, with a short time in California and several visits (I have a child living in California), so? Most Scandinavian countries have a tiny population density, yet trains are still successful there... So population density is not needed nor a requirement for trains to be successful.

What it takes to make a rail system successful, like our highway system, is continuous investment to maintain and improve the system over time.

Depends on your metric for 'dominate'. No non-hybrid or EV is getting the headlines, so by that metric, they already dominate. For EV sales to outnumber ICE vehicles in the US, I think that will take several manufacturers producing EVs in mass. That will take time, and given the automotive industry, I would guess 10 years.

Like, the mid-engine Corvette should have been earth shattering, but most of the articles I read all mentioned how there could be a hybrid or EV version in the future. Like the midengine was just a stepping stone towards a hybrid or EV.

Stories like this, from a small town in Indiana, is why I think we are further along and closer than you to EV dominance by any metric. I did not think I was that optimistic, but I guess maybe I am.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

Hello Redpoint5,

Your an EV fan? I would not have known that from your comments on this thread.

I've commented in many threads and I take the stance that it's best to be most critical of the things you care about.

I think the better analogy is that electricity and petroleum are the equivalents with the battery pack is the fuel tank.

That's precisely what I said. "a battery is the equivalent of a fuel tank".

You linked to an article that has missing data in its chart. Also, a trend is more than month to month sales fluctuations. You also show a chart that shows that BEV sales numbers will increase.

The main data that is missing is the Prius Prime, which is not a "pure" EV. Those other cars that sell 30 per month didn't just happen to crank out 20,000 one month, so they can be ignored. The 10% less EV sales takes into account the missing data. It would be slightly worse if not.

Well, we will see in 2 to 3 years if there is some introduction into the market of new battery technologies. We will also see if there is an increase in BEV sales.

Our disagreements aren't on whether or not EV sales will increase, or if technology will improve; it's in the rate of those things advancing. We'll likely have another year of stagnant or perhaps down EV sales, then I expect them to slowly start picking up again.

If EVs weren't selling like hotcakes with a $7,500 advantage over conventional vehicles, then they have a lot of ground to make up once those subsidies are over. As I've pointed out in other threads, what do you think would happen if the RAV4 had a $7,500 tax advantage over all other vehicles? We'd see 90% of sales going to the RAV4, and yet even that advantage isn't enough to drive an EV sales explosion.

Airplanes cost more to fly, in both real and unpaid for costs, than driving or train, yet people take airplanes more often than trains... If it was just cost, trains would win everytime.

Gonna need you to show your work again. The first check I did for a theoretical trip from Portland to Vegas on Feb 12th showed the lowest fare on a train is $137 and will take 30 hours. Spirit airlines is $33 for the 2hr flight. If you don't like Spirit you can fly Alaska for $69.

Most trips I check train vs flying, because I've never been on a train in the US. Every time it's both more expensive and takes much longer. I wouldn't even mind about it taking so long if I could sleep and wake up at my destination, but taking over a day to get to Vegas is silly. I can do the drive in less time.

Maybe if the train hovered the trip could be cut down to 10 hours and the ticket price would be $1,000 or something.

As an aside, commercial jets can get 100 passenger miles per gallon of fuel. This source puts the most efficient inner-city rail at nearly equal to commercial flight, and all other rail at less efficient:

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10311

Besides all that, most mass transit will die on the vine once autonomous vehicles become commonplace. We shouldn't be expanding an infrastructure that already struggles to be useful, or pollutes more (such as city busses), we should be preparing for autonomous EVs.

Think of all the money spent to build airports, to expand airports, then all the money the government spends to run air traffic control (a cost the airlines mostly do not have to pay for). The system is rigged to support airlines and air travel here in the US. In other countries, not as much. Oh look, they have better train systems.

Airports are mostly funded by consumers, which is why you see a significant portion of the cost being accounted for as airport fees. Talk about rigged systems, trains are subsidized perhaps at the largest proportion than any other mode of transport. Maybe space flight is the only more heavily subsidized form of transportation... or the school bus system.

US Federal Highway system is not required, it was only seen as needed by the military, to help move forces around quickly inside our country. The country actually was successful without them. All roads were maintained by states, counties, townships, or cities before that and the majority of roads still are.

The fact that the US got by with poor/no roads 80 years ago isn't an indication that we can shift road infrastructure funds to floating trains now.

Scandinavian countries have a tiny population density, yet trains are still successful there... So population density is not needed nor a requirement for trains to be successful.

I'd like to be wrong on this, so here's your opportunity to show me how trains in Scandinavian countries have become a dominant mode of transportation in a free market. We've already established that EVs are only dominant there due to massive market manipulation.

quote]
What it takes to make a rail system successful, like our highway system, is continuous investment to maintain and improve the system over time.[/quote]

What it takes to make a rail system successful, like our highway system, is continuous investment to maintain and improve the system over time profitability.

For EV sales to outnumber ICE vehicles in the US, I think that will take several manufacturers producing EVs in mass. That will take time, and given the automotive industry, I would guess 10 years.

That's the significant metric to me; the point in time that EV sales account for 50% or more of vehicle sales. 10 years is 2 generations in the automotive world. No estimates I'm seeing project 50% sales in 10 years, though I'd be happy if that came true. Most project a 2045 timeframe. I optimistically throw out a guess of 2040.

Stories like this, from a small town in Indiana, is why I think we are further along and closer than you to EV dominance by any metric.

I hope you're right.

In 2008 I bought an SSD drive for my grandpa's PC, and it was such a game changer that I declared in 2 years, half of all consumer drive sales would be SSD. 12 years later, we're just now hitting that point. My uneducated guess was off by a factor of 6.

It's easy to see the value of a great new technology, but it takes time for the market to shift.

[oil pan 4]

Close to EV dominance?
Ha.
DoE thinks by 2030 in the US that 70% of vehicles sold will still be straight non hybrid gas burners.
EV sales probably won't hit 50% until after 2050.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Close to EV dominance?
Ha.
DoE thinks by 2030 in the US that 70% of vehicles sold will still be straight non hybrid gas burners.
EV sales probably won't hit 50% until after 2050.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.car...d-prius-sales/

In other news the RAV 4 hybrid is the best selling hybrid

RAV4 Prime will likely do well when it releases.

Baby steps

Or as that droning john4 guy would say “know your audience “

And the best incentive to purchase a BEV is to charge reduced title+registration and forgo the subsidy that not everyone can use.

A 2011 leaf with its baby battery should pay about $25 a year all in like a moped instead of $665 for title + registration but you would never convince the state legislature that a 25 mile winter range car shouldn’t pay a $550+ premium over a gasser

[ldjessee00]

Tax break for EV was not a whole consideration with the Leaf purchase, it only helped tip the scales to buy new instead of used.

For my next EV, it is not a consideration, but that is my financial situation (and hopefully will be the same in two to three years).

I see switching to EVs like switching light bulbs. You could take the approach that it is worth while to switch to a more energy efficient bulb right away, saving money (and reduce pollution) now, or you can go along with the sunk cost fallacy and think you need to wait for the current one to burn out. I see the advantage of trading/selling my gas vehicle while it still has some value.

I have seen a SUV sitting in a person's yard with them trying to sell it over a year. No one wants to buy it. Every month or so, the price goes down a $100 or so. Curious as to how many years it will sit before they decide to scrap it, part it out, or it just turns into a entropy sculpture in their yard...

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

In other news the RAV 4 hybrid is the best selling hybrid

RAV4 Prime will likely do well when it releases.

And the best incentive to purchase a BEV is to charge reduced title+registration and forgo the subsidy that not everyone can use.

A 2011 leaf with its baby battery should pay about $25 a year all in like a moped instead of $665 for title + registration but you would never convince the state legislature that a 25 mile winter range car shouldn’t pay a $550+ premium over a gasser

I expect the RAV4 Prime to do well, as the Prius Prime did pretty good and eventually killed the Volt. Consumers will be even more interested in a CUV.

The best incentive to purchase a BEV is not reduced title/registration, it's probably the $7,500 federal tax credit. If you polled people and asked if they would rather have no registration/title fee, or $7,500 back in taxes, I bet I know which most would favor.

That's not to say further incentives for EVs wouldn't boost sales, but they are already generously subsidized and the masses don't want them. Some of that is due to ignorance, but consumers have legitimate financial and practical reasons to not purchase them.

I think of things like our public education when we spend more than most any other country and have comparatively poor results. The "solution" then is to pour more money into education, and we're surprised when we get the same results. We keep repeating that process without questioning if the problem really is money. Likewise with EVs, the solution to mass adoption isn't something like HOV lane access, or reduced registration fees, or massive subsidy... maybe the problem is the nature of the technology in the current state.

As our culture increasingly moves towards materialism, we increasingly misidentify root problems as materialistic in nature; solvable if only we threw more money at it. Is the cure for breast cancer just a few million dollars away? Would our depression and suicide epidemic go away if only those people had more money? It's not that easy.

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

I see switching to EVs like switching light bulbs. You could take the approach that it is worth while to switch to a more energy efficient bulb right away, saving money (and reduce pollution) now, or you can go along with the sunk cost fallacy and think you need to wait for the current one to burn out. I see the advantage of trading/selling my gas vehicle while it still has some value.

I have seen a SUV sitting in a person's yard with them trying to sell it over a year. No one wants to buy it. Every month or so, the price goes down a $100 or so. Curious as to how many years it will sit before they decide to scrap it, part it out, or it just turns into a entropy sculpture in their yard...

Switching light bulbs and switching vehicles are very different. We can very easily do the math on the ROI of an incandescent light bulb vs LED and justify the slightly higher initial upfront cost to switch. It may be harder to financially justify switching out existing fluorescent lights to LED. At any rate, lightbulbs are an insignificant purchase compared to a vehicle, which is often the #2 largest expense for most people.

Some people with long commutes may be able to financially justify an EV over ICE purchase, but not most people. The #1 cost of vehicle ownership for most people is depreciation. The way you hedge against depreciation is to purchase a cheaper vehicle to begin with, and EVs are more expensive than their ICE counterparts.

The cost of ownership calculator linked in my signature makes this point clearly.

As you've pointed out, there are other factors to purchase an EV besides financial ones. It's nice not having to stop at the petrol station, and in theory the car should be more reliable and require less maintenance. It's nice that there is practically no local pollution, and that it reduces demand for foreign oil.

Your anecdote about the guy who is bad at selling a vehicle isn't an indication that ICE values are plummeting.

As a huge tangent thought; the way to effectively contend to with reality is to perceive it as accurately as possible. Al Gore would say that we must accept an inconvenient truth. The inverse truth is to reject wishful thinking.

[Xist]

I used to run inside and go to the bathroom while filling up my tank, but I realized how much more efficient it was just to relieve myself on the pump itself! Now I can still clean my windows!

[redpoint5]

In Oregon, we've got attendants, so running to the bathroom is no big deal. Those attendants don't sit there and watch the pump though unless you're the only customer. In other states I run to the bathroom and get back before the pump clicks off. A bathroom break for me can be accomplished in 90 seconds from clicking on a pump and returning, including washing my hands. The whole stop might average 5 minutes or slightly less. I don't care what the law is on it. Not like someone sitting in a car not paying attention is safer than someone in a bathroom not paying attention.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

Hersbird,

Time to find? The car does that automatically. It is literally part of the trip you plan on the app/car. I guess I could break out a paper map to plan a trip on a computer that has more computational power than all the devices I have in my house...

And yes, there is additional time to exit and get back on... but I am not cannonballing when I take car trips. There is usually no rush or need to squeeze every second to be on the road. 110 charges like 3 to 5 miles per hour. Not great, for sure. I have not seen a concrete boat ramp not have 110... I have seen gravel boat ramps not have power. Also most parks have RV parking, which has 240 at 50 amp plugs. Charges EVs pretty decently for AC.

Two human beings, with varying bladder capacity, dietary needs, and joint issues means at two to three hours we were wanting to stop anyway. And I remember when I was more... dedicated to trying to cram as much time in the car to see how fast/quick I could get to my destination, so I get that where I am at now is not where everyone is.

I disagree about EVs and towing in concept, but do see how now in practicality it is not going to work for your case. I think that Tesla, and other manufacturers, will learn from these EV and hydrogen semis, and by the time the Tesla Cybertruck (or the Ford F150 EV) comes out, maybe they will have learned how to do it better.


I would not recommend renting. I know some people say if you do not need it 95+% of the time you might be better off, but I own a Subaru Outback and I am not sure how often I 'need' AWD.

I don't need awd, fwd would be fine but RWD like a Tesla is out. RWD sucks in Montana, I don't know why anybody wants to torture themselves to try and prove otherwise. I know it can be done, I have bought RWD cars and trucks up here plenty, all toys, and I dive a RWD truck for work everyday. I had a Subaru before the Touareg, I think having 3 cars is more expensive than 2 overall when you count liscense and insurance so I want something that has the ability to tow our camper. The Subaru a first gen manual Forester didn't get as good of MPG as the Touareg anyway and the Touraeg is 500% nicer to drive. We also have a minivan my wife uses that doesn't do as well as the Touareg. If she would take the Touareg I would go with a $5000 used Spark but she likes the minivan so oh well.

110 outlets are not common here at campgrounds and boat launches. Heck cell phone coverage isn't common.