Engineering Explained:Why Tesla's Are Bad at Towing
 

The conclusions of this video have far-reaching implications towards consumer attitudes towards battery-electric vehicles and potential bias if considering a purchase.And it deserves its own thread.
While I do believe that Jason Fenske is trying to empower viewers with information,specifically about the upcoming Tesla Cybertruck of 2021,Mr. Fenske has left the conversation open to additional insights into the world of towing that may presently elude him.And in his presentation,he has openly invited networking,for which, in this thread,we may flesh out new contributions.

I recommend all Fossil Fuel Free forum participants to watch the 'Why Tesla's Are Bad At Towing' YouTube video if they haven't already done so.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=S4W-P5aCWJs

I'm in my seventh week of preparing materials in the wake of a firestorm of controversy,following Tesla's launch of Cybertruck,and hope to have those available soon.
Please watch the video,then we'll 'talk'.Thanks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
..................................... COMMENTS.......................................... ...
*The first comment I'd like to make is,that since aerodynamic drag dominates the power equation for highway towing, if we're going to tow a trailer through the air at the same velocities at which some airplanes fly, we might want to give the process the same consideration as the aeronautical engineers.
*The second comment I'd make is,that the typical towing/towed combinations offered to us, better resemble an aircraft flying backwards,with trailing edges leading,and leading edges trailing.
*And to add insult to injury,these 'aircraft' have enormous holes punched through the middle of fuselage and wings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
............................... TOW VEHICLE BASICS..........................................
For any given trailer,the performance of the towing/towed combination will be affected by the tow vehicle:
*Vehicle type: notchback,squareback,fastback,pickup,van,SUV,CUV,f airings,air deflectors
*Length
*Height
*Width
*Ground clearance (active suspension)
*Frontal area
*Coefficient of aerodynamic drag (in the combination)
*CdA
*Tire type(P,LT),inflation pressure,Crr
*Weight
*Distance to trailer
.........................................TRAILER BASICS........................................
For a given tow vehicle,the performance of the combination will be impacted by the trailer's:
*Distance from tow vehicle (tow bar length)
*Type of trailer ('box',sloped-nose,V-nose,bullet-nose,NASA-shoebox,tongue-pull,fifth wheel,gooseneck,tapered-roof,..........)
*Length
*Width
*Height
*Ground clearance (active suspension)
*Frontal area
*Coefficient of aerodynamic drag (in the combination)
*CdA
*Excrescences (exposed-protruding wheels/fenders,vents,skylights,A/C unit,antennas,satellite dish,LP tanks,cargo boxes,bicycles,awnings,hay bales,........... )
*Weight
*Tire type,inflation pressure,Crr
...........................................TRAILER GAP............................................
*If the tow/towed combination is considered as a single,but mutilated form,any existing gap can have a profound impact upon performance.
*From Abbott and von Doenhoff's 'Theory of Wing Sections,' we know that a gap (slot) constituting only 3% of wing cord can introduce a drag penalty,from 7.9%,to 31%,depending upon location.
*NASA's Class-8 tractor-trailer research demonstrated that a gap constituting 7% of total length introduced a wind-averaged drag penalty of 17%.
*Hucho published data for a commercial tandem rig in which the gap was responsible for a drag increase of Cd 0.073 (13.7%).
*Box trucks with cab-to-box gaps of 1.2% of length can equal the drag coefficient of an Airstream trailer in train.
*Chrysler Corporation's research of the NASCAR,2-car draft, revealed that a 'trailer' of zero draw-bar length reduces the solo coefficient of aerodynamic drag of the trailer by 37.1%.
*Hucho shares similar research for buses,in which the trailing bus enjoys a 66.6% drag reduction.
*In 1982,the 'Trailer Dome',of Fibrelock Fabrics Ltd,of Dorset,England,demonstrated a drag reduction,from 32%-to-52%,by eliminating all but 2.8% of trailer gap, with an inflated bulbous nose on a caravan trailer.
*In the United States,since 1951,intracity and intercity buses have used articulated,accordion closures to completely eliminate gaps between the towing bus and trailer extension.
*Imagineers later adopted this technology for their 'Tomorrowland' monorail,at Disneyland,Anaheim,California.
*Sloped-nose and V-nose trailers have deceptive drag liabilities,as beneficial stagnation bubbles of 'blunt-nosed' trailers are absent,to the detriment of both towing vehicle,but trailer as well.Hucho illustrates the lack of any drag advantage of sloped-nose trailers.Owner testimonials relate the same observations concerning V-nose trailers.
*Presently,in the world of RVs,the least offensive gap belongs to motorhomes, pulling toy haulers of smaller frontal area,such that the trailer becomes a wake rider,stuffing the wake, approximating a solid box cavity;organizing the motorhome's wake and delivering the resulting flow to a separation point of smaller cross-section and higher base pressure.
*In the world of fully-submerged bodies,as with dolphin,fish,squid,projectiles,airships,blimps,sub marines,torpedoes,electric trolling motors,fuselage,high-speed rail cars,medium and heavy trucks,only light vehicle and trailer design remain the outlier with respect to fluid mechanics.
.................................. TRAILER DRAG REDUCTION.................................
*Anyone with Hucho's text will already have his depiction of the VW Passat and Golf/Caravan wind tunnel studies incorporating a rooftop air deflector,good for a 15% drag reduction.
*Online,an RV owner shared his experiment with a 2007 Toyota Tundra,pulling a Layton Skyline travel trailer.His original 8-MPG improved to 9-MPG with the addition of a full tonneau cover,then by tilting the tonneau up,as a air-deflector,fuel economy rose to an average 11.5 MPG.
*The 'Trailer Dome' has already been mentioned,32%-to-52% drag reduction.
*Pat Nixon of Texas Tech, put some video together for me back in 1991,when we were doing the Becker-Lyon BMW LSR Bonneville motorcycle streamliner project.It included video of the T-T truck research,in which the fifth wheel bulbous nose did about as much good as anything the crew experimented with.A lesson not lost on Airstream,Casita,SCAMP,Happier Camper,ARGOSSY,..................
*Both BamZipPow and I are running zero-gap trailers.I'll let him tell his story over at his thread.So far,with an incomplete project,I'm sitting at delta-zero mpg pulling mine.
*Trailer-Tail is out there.And they're petitioning governments to allow even longer units.
*The 'baby' template car came in at Cd 0.121 at DARKO,so there's a high probability that the boat-tailing is a sure thing, as far as drag reduction goes.
*Between the two trips to DARKO,there's enough data to show Spirit at as low as Cd 0.218,so we know pickups have some wiggle room.
........................... TOW VEHICLE/TRAILER RELATIONSHIPS.......................
*Hucho presents a sedan/box trailer combination.As a 'train',the presence of the trailer behind the sedan lowers the sedan's Cd by 43.4%,with its wake embedded within the positive pressure of the trailer's forward stagnation bubble.The trailer itself,gets a small drag reduction of 4.8% by riding in the small wake of the sedan,less dynamic pressure impinging on its forebody.
*Hucho also presents D.M.Waters research of a Morris Minor 1000 notchback and squareback pulling the same caravan trailer,both with different tow-bar lengths (gaps).Overall,the squareback demonstrates a drag advantage compared to the notchback,with the aftbody of the tow car more closely matched to the frontal area of the caravan,and trailer training inside a larger wake.
*Hucho also offers two different fastbacks towing,a Golf and Passat,which are of particular interest with respect to the Tesla Model X.Since the fastback body's flow produces the smallest wake,it imparts more dynamic pressure to the face of the trailer,while offering the face of the trailer the least shielding from the onflow.The sloped aftbody of the fastback also presents less ability to telegraph positive pressure of the trailer's stagnation bubble onto the fastback.It is the least matched configuration,frontal area for frontal area.
*Hucho also presents Romberg et al.'s NASCAR,2-car draft,of the Cd 0.315,45-degree backlight,200-mph,Dodge Charger Daytona development vehicle.Within the train,the lead car realizes Cd 0.22,a 30.15% drag reduction,with no wake,while the trailing Daytona realizes a Cd 0.198, 37.14% drag reduction,having no forward stagnation point,however ,all the wake.Representing a trailer towed at virtually zero tow-bar length.
*Hucho also shares a NASCAR,two-bus draft,which,like the Chargers, presents a similar but different drag relationship,with lead bus realizing a 15% drag reduction,while the trailing bus enjoys a 66.6% drag reduction,as with a Class-8 tractor-trailer,or railroad train,with narrow gaps.
*From Sighard Hoerner we have gap-less,streamlined railroad cars,also with streamlined,boat-tailed, tail cars.
*Additionally,Hucho offers a constellation of commercial vehicle combinations,including buses (motorhomes) and associated drag data,including aerodynamic add-on devices.
*The SAE has published entire books on fuel economy,with data for both rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag.
*Baron Reinhard von Koenig-Fachsenfeld's Aerodynamiks des Kraftfahrzeugs is a power-house of aerodynamic data, from his years with Wunibald Kamm's FKFS,next door to Daimler-Benz.
*Same for Hoerner's 1951,'Aerodynamic Drag,' in which about every imaginable geometric shape has been tested and documented,subcritical,supercritical,and supersonic.
............................. TFLcars 'Can Electric Cars Tow?................................
*First up on the Tesla Mode X tow test was the 16-foot,Cimarron,tandem axle, Showstar,V-nose,horse trailer. Some observations:
*We have no idea what the tow-mirror drag contribution is.On the Tesla owners forum,trailer widths appear to garner greater consideration.Tesla probably has the lowest drag side mirrors in the industry,and more closely matched frontal areas of trailers keep it that way.Cybertruck is 83.36-inches wide,compared to the Model X's 79-inches.
*The Showstar was towed to LOVES behind a HUMMER H2 with roof-mounted cargo carrier.We might consider the frontal area ramifications of the H2 and its wake,compared to the Model X.
*The Ram pickup which was highly praised for its towing prowess is wider,taller,and is basically a full-separation vehicle,compared to the Model X,providing a larger wake in which the Showstar may ride.
*The V-nose of the Showstar does not produce a stagnation bubble and high pressure benefit to the aftbody of the Tesla,as would a more blunt-nosed trailer.
*The wider wake of the Ram would minimize the impact of Showstar's exposed fenders,compared to the Tesla.Not an issue with Cybertruck.
*The taller Ram,and its turbulent wake exposes less of Showstar's forebody to dynamic pressure,an advantage lost on the Model X,but not Cybertruck.
*I estimate Showstar's frontal projected area at approximately 62-sq-ft,compared to an estimated Af 30.777-sq-ft for the Model X,and approx. 35.5-sq-ft for Ram.Cybertruck is approx. 38.53-sq-ft..Cybertruck would not require mirror extensions,perhaps no mirrors at all.
*If one is going to pull a trailer up the 'Gauntlet at 70-mph,it would be good to enter the incline at 70 mph.
*If your going to pull a trailer up the incline at 70-mph with an electric truck,you might want to also descend at 70-mph on account of regen.Another oversight with the testing.
*And since aerodynamic add-on devices can cut drag up to 52%,one might want to consider using the thirty-eight-year-old technology if you're going to tow at these velocities.
*Another curiosity with the TFLcars tow tests,would be the calculus that,a 4.8-mpg ICE pickup is superior to a 48-mpg-e BEV passenger car,both towing the same trailer,up the same mountain pass.
*It's 2,899-miles from New York,to San Francisco on I-80.Why does an 8-mile stretch of I-70 get to define the sum total capability of any SUV or pickup?
*And if only 5% of truck owners actually carry a load,or pull a trailer,why is towing even a problem for 95% of pickup owners? Are we obsessing over a problem which doesn't exist for most people?
*Oh,and how about beginning the test with the trailer first and get the big load out of the way while you've got most of the battery capacity available?
....................... THE BOREAS SERIES XT OFF-ROAD TRAILER ...................
Some observations:
*It's an 'off-road' trailer,and that's where it belongs.Crawling behind a 4WD,dropping mpg below 8-12 mpgs.
*Analyzed by components,as per Hoerner/Messerschmitt,I give the trailer Cd 0.924,solo in a wind tunnel,at approx. 38.18-sq-ft frontal projected area.How it performs in train,will be decided by the tow vehicle.
*A major portion of the tires are exposed to the airflow.
*The axle and suspension is completely exposed.
*The bottom of the frame is about 25.5-inches off the ground,making it's belly useless for any airflow.And with zero belly pan,it's just as well.
*The fenders extend a foot from each side,merrily shredding the air as she goes.
*The envelope which rides ahead of the spare tire is Cd 1.11.
*The spare tire basically rides in it's wake.
*Between there and the actual trailer body is a rectangular cuboid cargo/toolbox,virtually embedded in turbulence.
*The 'face' of the trailer is a full 75-inches from the tow vehicle's stern,making any hope for pressure relief a hallucination.
*The sharp leading edges spell immediate and full flow separation,which will reattach 77-inches down the driver's side (except for near the fender),however the attached storage and propane bottle on the passenger side destroy any chance of flow recovery on that side,and forcing asymmetric flow and wake.
*The roof-mounted rack,tent,vent,and tubular carrier are the coup de grace for the flow over the roof.
*At 93.25-inches in height,it's just as tall as the Cimarron horse trailer.Behind a HUMMER H2,not so offensive.Behind the Tesla it has nothing going for it.If you intentionally wanted to destroy the performance of the Tesla,I can think of no better candidate trailer.The Cybertruck will fair better.
*It's good that ICE pickups have up to 1.2-MegaWatt fuel tanks.They'll need them,pulling sky-scrapers like that around.
*If TFLcars has done one thing,it's not so much that it's illustrated the weakness of electric vehicles,as it has the inappropriateness of some contemporary trailer products sold in the USA,when paired to a Tesla Model X.
*There exists,trailer technology,which, while doubling a tow vehicle's weight,returns 100% fuel economy,and battery economy.Even better economy!This should be considered when making broad brush stroke appraisals of BEV performance.It's all in the aerodynamics.
-----------------100% mpg trailer images............................................
I located what's left of the zero-loss trailer images from Photo Bucket.
If you'll GOOGLE: Phil Knox's gap-filled full boat-tailed trailer,on the second line down you'll find a rendering based upon the 1st-gen HONDA Insight,and Alan Cocconi's EV sports car.
................... Tesla Model-X/Bowlus Road Chief NASA/MIT 'testing'.............
I modified the 1934,Bowlus-Teller Road Chief, with the 1980 NASA roof deflector,gap-filler,and added the 1987 GM Sunraycer/1990's Goro Tamai, MIT,solar racer's full wheel fairings.
*At the 'California' 55-mph speed limit,on level highway,the 'rig' returns 291.5 Wh/mi,for 103.6 mpg-e,and 316.3 miles range.
*In Denver Colorado,on the TFLcars' I-70 'loop,' and 75-mph,she drops to 393.7 Wh/mi, 234-miles range,at 76.8 mpg-e.
*We can discuss the 'Gauntlet' later.
I'm in my 14-week of Cybertruck calculations.I've been putting in 50-hour weeks,doing numbers and images which will go to AeroStealth for You-Tube.
*The most interesting 'experiments' are derived from Chrysler's R&D of the Dodge Charger Daytona,NASCAR,2-car Draft.They can produce pop-up,or telescoping trailers of negative drag coefficient,which actually increase the driving range of the towing vehicle,overcoming a 'doubling' of weight,rolling resistance penalty.
*And by retaining a battery pack,the electric heat pump,and air suspension,a Tesla-based trailer can double the range of the rig,help it up a mountain, at up to 130-mph (if the tires could take that),regen on downgrades,and supply power once to the campsite,if off-grid.There'd be no charging en route,unless you planned to drive up to over 1,000-miles in one sitting.The cheapest Cybertruck would have 500-miles towing range,away from mountain grades.
*At state and national parks,plus area RV parks,the available 220-V would handle daily loads plus recharge the rig while fishing,hiking,....whatever.
*I doubt that you could flip one on it's side in a crosswind.The whole rig would hug close to the ground,as there's no need of ground clearance on the open road
------------------Tesla/Cimarron on the 'Gauntlet'--------------------------
*I streamlined the Model-X/ShowStar combination as per NASA,MIT,GM,and was able to scale the Gauntlet without falling below 135-miles range.I entered the grade at 70-mph,letting velocity fall during the climb,to 40-mph in the climbing lane to finish the 8-miles,then resumed 70-mph.Supercharger stations are to be located 134-miles apart for the time being.Knocking 5-mph off velocity and streamlining allowed the rig to just eek by.
*At California's 55-mph speed,the Model-X/ShowStar returned 180-miles range,also doing the 7% grade at 40-mph.
*Un-modified,Cybertruck will have a slight aerodynamic advantage over the Model-X,due to it's larger frontal area,and even with a 1,100-pound penalty,should mimic the Model-X's performance pulling.Rolling resistance is essentially meaningless compared to aerodynamic drag.Streamlined,Cybertruck is essentially the same as the streamlined Model-X,as both are married to the ShowStar at identical frontal areas.With 184.484 kW-hs of usable battery capacity,Cybertruck should do the Colorado 'Gauntlet' with 271-miles range,and California's with 387-miles range.With a minimum drive time of almost 4-hours,if people continue to urinate,hydrate,and eat;there remains the opportunity to make regular 'rest' stops,while catching some kilowatts at the same time.
I'll post more as I complete it.

I skimmed that video and had a meh reaction
Felt like beating a dead and decomposing horse.

You don’t own an EV without knowing it’s capabilities,

Hyperlinked for your convenience.

The conclusion is that batteries will get better? No mention of pusher trailers?

Use case: Why won't my stanced Beemer crawl rocks?

I have watched that video 2 times weeks ago, and combined with things aerohead has said, they have given me a much better understanding of the physics involved. In my old nuclear power days the teacher would have given me a "gross conceptual error" and although my math may have been correct, the problem would have yielded me zero points toward making the grade. I'll post more here later, but I have ran a bunch of scenarios similar to Engineering Explained. My biggest grip is he constantly throws in unnecessary changes and variables. Keep everything constant so you have a better idea of what is going on. I'm working now, so like I said will post more later.

Throw out a better video of a Model X towing test vs a diesel.
https://youtu.be/bcfb5Hak78Q

This video touches better on what I was trying to figure out. Does towing effect a modern diesel vs a modern gas, vs a modern electric differently? This video seems to show exactly that, so the question is why? The only thing I'd like to see different in this is a more aerodynamic diesel. The towing penalty difference may only be due to the bigger change in aerodynamics from the X alone to the X towing.

Using the tool here on ecomodder I realized, duh, that towing the same load, on the same road, at the same speed, requires the same amount of energy assuming the tow rig weight is similar and the trailer is sized large enough to be the controlling factor in aerodynamics.

So in the video I posted say the total weight for the model X and camper is 9000 pounds, and that trailer is 49 sq ft with a .45 Cd. That means towing it at 65 mph uses about 40 kW. The only difference with say my Touareg towing that trailer would be slightly less weight (450 pounds) so it would use 39.7 Kw at 65 mph. According to the calculator and assuming say 30% engine efficiency for a 2012 3.0 VW TDI (It might actually be better than that) gives me 17.7 mpg towing. Taking off the trailer the program spits out 18.7 kW and 37 mpg at 65 not towing which is actually about what I see on the gauge on a flat steady 65 mph run. My Touareg has better aero than a Land Cruiser but not as good as a Model X. The Model X alone at 65 shows it needs just under 15 Kw to go 65.

So the Tesla goes form 15 kW to 40 kW
now figure it's overall 85% efficient at changing battery energy to the pavement.
That means it uses 17.6 kW to go 65 miles empty and 47.1 Kw to go 65 miles towing.
that 167% more used or 37% as much range available depending on how you want to look at it. Notice in the video I posted they used 48.1 kWh/100km towing which is pretty close to the calculator although I don't know what speed they were at. Their unloaded is what was much worse at 24.9 kWh/100km, I'm not sure how to account for that. Maybe the terrain, maybe A/C, maybe a model X isn't really .24 Cd as claimed real world?

My Touareg goes from 39.7 to 18.7 kW
That's only 113% more but that's all due to I need more kW unloaded because of the bad air. Plugging in an identical gas Touareg with less thermal efficiency and lower energy density fuel still makes the exact same 113% more energy needed to go from unloaded to towing because the required energy doesn't care where the energy comes from it's just the energy required.

That was one of my misconceptions. An EV doesn't take a bigger hit when towing, nor does a gas vs diesel. Or a steam vs hydrogen for that matter. In the real world there might be more difference between an 85% efficient EV still having the exact same 85% efficiency where the gas or diesel may move into a better BFSC with load, that may take a whole other post LOL! What is the case is an aerodynamic car does take a bigger hit when towing an un-aerodynamic trailer. Also a small frontal aera car will take a bigger hit when towing a big frontal aera trailer. Basically where you would see the least towing penalty in the recreational category would be a Hummer H2. It's all to do with the Hummer being bad not towing than it is that the Hummer would be any better while towing. No matter what it is doing the towing, while towing it takes that 40 kW to do it. An electric Hummer would just use 26.2 kW not towing, only a 53% increase.

So my other misconception is just how little energy a 100 Kwh battery pack contains in relation to a gallon of diesel. The model X is running on a 2.63 gallon tank. Even less if you consider you shouldn't use 100% of the energy without ruining it. Or you could say my Touareg has a 1000 kWh "battery" that weighs under 200 pounds and can be fully recharged from 0-100% in 3 mins.

Where that is amazing as aerohead points out, is the Model X really goes a long ways on just 2.63 gallons equivalent. If they could get the energy density about double and then the charge speed up about 10 times faster, there would be no problem.

The one thing I did understand is that recharge time is the real downfall. As it stands now my Touareg recharges at a 300 times faster rate on a kWh basis.

The video is excellent, only it has no surprises.

Electric powered vehicles are extremely effective. That has been known since the beginning of horseless carriages.

The problem is the battery. The battery. Always the battery.

A bigger battery pack can be charged faster.

No, you can put more watts into it faster, but it won't FULLY charge faster. The CV portion wll take longer.

If it is over sized, you can get faster charging.

It's like saying hot water freezes faster. It won't turn to ice in a faster time but it does lose more degrees per minute because the differential is greater.

Not exactly the same with batteries but charging does have to slow down at say 80% and then again at 90%, so if the bigger battery can more easily be kept below 80% then maybe it could be said it charges faster. In reality it will charge at the rate supplied by the charger big or small and the bigger it is the longer it's going to take to recharge.

Theoretically all batteries with the same Chemistry andC rating change at the same time (if you are capable of supplying the amps. From drone batteries to car batteries.

If expense and weight was not an obstacle, then having a massive battery would be a solution to the charge time problem. You have to stop ever so often, and when you do, you could dump enough kwh to drive several hours as fast as pumping gasoline.

In my Prius, I can add about 500 miles of range in 1 minute.

To do that with electricity would be roughly 7,500,000 watts. That's 7.5 megawatts of power to put 500 miles of range into a battery in 1 minute. It would be like 6250 homes appearing on the grid out of nowhere all of a sudden.

The batteries are a major limiting factor, but the chargers themselves are another limiting factor.

A Tesla you can start to “fill” walk away, take a pee, grab a drink maybe a snack, jump back in and leave...you don’t have to stand there, park, take a pee...etc. most people don’t have a 400mile bladder.

“Steady state” is all to the good in figuring HP draw. The problem is
maximizing steady state.

1). Few are the trips when towing where accel/decel events aren’t the definitory problem.

2). Whether traffic congestion or terrain, the amount of time spent opened-throttle is where the fuel reserves disappear. The only time weight matters. But IT MATTERS A GREAT DEAL,
(why empty car stunt driving has nothing to do with fuel economy despite general belief).

How to get the load to speed

How to maintain steady-state

How to minimize braking

And to do it all in a way which MAXIMIZES safety (never otherwise), will be the big difference between otherwise comparable rigs.

In commercial work, where the ONLY difference is the driver, it’s as much as a One-Third penalty between best & worst drivers. Completely about accel/decel.

The amount of time spent steady-state (engine Hours) is surprisingly lower than expected no matter the day’s total miles.

(Whine) “It’s too much work”.

“I be gettin’ runned over!!”

Etc

Half the trip — even Interstate — can be other than steady state (cruise control as definition).

Where aero REALLY matters is in handling crosswinds. These are natural AND man-made. They can be constant. Which means yet more juice to maintain headway.

But, who is the operator? Is he towing something to make his living? That’s both incentive and disincentive to maximize aero qualities. They aren’t “qualities” for a contractor covering a large metro area if “aero” reduces on-site efficiency.

As I’ve posted before — and will continue — an empty vehicle MPG is just noise. Tells us nothing worth knowing. Until proficiency in moving a FULLY loaded vehicle comprises a high proportion of annual miles, HOW to estimate, calculate towing fuel use is in the dark.

1970 or 2020 the baseline starting point for travel trailer towing is a 40% penalty. This is constant. No matter how “good” one is with the tow vehicle loaded 80%+, 40% is a fair minimum.

It’s a good deal higher (increases rapidly) with road problems of climate, terrain and congestion.

Be clear about use.

Tractor-trailers APPEAR to be a model. But how many of you expect that electric vehicle towing will be from one large metro to another, nation-wide.

Optimized conditions with experienced, motivated operator doesn’t come about motoring to & from a single metro region. One must be a minimum of 75-miles from city center before traffic spaces out.

How many miles will you cover past that point, or returning is where aero FINALLY reaches potential. And that’s assuming no adverse weather.

I see that the argument there’s no difference in power-plants. I’d recommend you read those who are towing with Tesla sedans. Electric can get penalized by virtue of what it is. Where comparative power draw is simply higher. Demand creates resistance.

The theoretical load isn’t higher, so that’s the point here. Better more carefully check the hypothetical underpinnings. Assumptions.

With diesel versus gasoline, towing MPG comes down to cylinder pressure. Highest = Winner. Every time. As it’s those transitions (degree & duration) that tell the black box story.

In ancient days — besides adding tachometer, vacuum gauge & fuel flow meter — the savvy added an airspeed indicator to modify throttle inputs versus travel set speed.

Towing an aero-inefficient load, weight & winds both matter. A CAT Scale ticket, and knowing prevailing winds foot-by-foot are the only way past NOT having a turbocharged diesel.

The only RELEVANT practice while solo is with a load factor of 85%. Aero matters little without the trailer. It’s fixed. Knowing how to maintain the glide, is the thing, and can’t be done empty.

.

.

A Tesla will yield 400 miles on a 15 minute charge?

If we're talking about P=I/E keep in mind that it's polyphase DC, so resistance becomes reluctance.

I think that the Tesla Semi will have informed Tesla and its engineers a lot about towing and how to handle many of these issues, just like building and getting data back from the Model S and X informed them how to build the Model 3, which then was rolled back into (or will be) the Model S and X (the Model 3 reluctance motor).

As they learn more from the practicals of running a semi from San Francisco to Nevada and back, I am sure they learned exactly what it will take to run an electric Semi from one city to the next... my question is why? Trains do heavy, long haul cargo better than trucks. They have smoother roads, usually the terrain (grades, curves, tunnels, etc) has been setup to be less dramatic than highways.

Anyway, if you want to haul something with an EV, there will be solutions. Look back to when automobiles first came out. If you wanted to get a load over a mountain, in bad weather, you did not use an auto, you used horses, mules, and/or donkeys. Most cars got stuck and when they did, it was one of these animals that pulled them out.

Now we are transitioning from fuel burning in ICE to batteries and electric motors. There will be segments that will say EVs will never compete with ICE... until that is not true any more. Will that be in 5 years or 10 years? Depends on the battery tech that Tesla has been paying lots of researchers to work on the last few years... and other people trying to find new battery tech to compete with Tesla. As more and more money gets poured in to this research, the more niches EVs can fill, until it is just impractical for most people to even own an ICE.

Just as some people still ride horses, some people will still operate ICE vehicles. People still read papers and listen to radio... older technologies don't just go away, sometimes they find a new niche or become hobbies.

I agree it could be so much better and every time I see the flat backend of a semi trailer, it just makes me cringe. Some of the aero forms and flaps that are added to the back help some, but I think the industry will need to adopt a standard form that is more compatible with an aerodynamic shape. Even if it is for diesel or hydrogen semis, they will need the increase in efficiency... or someone will realize that trains are just so much cheaper and money will go into developing trains (adopting some of the tech from Europe and Asia, since they have continued to invest in trains)...

Are we transitioning? I think it will happen, but 1% of vehicle sales is hardly a transition.

It's a myth to think that money spent = results. The fact that money is invested to improve technology is no guarantee that it will pay off. Look at US healthcare vs dollars spent. Look at US education vs dollars spent. Look at cancer research for "the cure". The universe has placed limitations on us, and you can't buy your way out of that.

Tractor/trailers aren't made to slip through the air; they are made to move cargo. That cargo comes on pallets. Pallets are square. The trailer has to interface with a loading dock... all this to say there is room for improvement, but solutions have to keep in mind the purpose in the first place, which is to move stuff.

Trains in the US might be fine for certain routes, but you always have to have trucks to move stuff to warehouses, and then from warehouses to stores. Ever look at train ticket prices to travel? They are comparable in price to airline travel yet much slower... and that's the subsidized price. If air travel is better, why would moving cargo via train be any better?

Plasma actuators.

[1% of US Sales, world wide sales, or something else? Not sure what your 1% number is referring to. I know in some countries, it is now over 50% of sales. (Norway)

How do you think a transition from ICE to BEV will look like? That during a transition, it would not start at a low percentage and build? And that some where during that transition it will have still less sales, but more and more manufacturers make more models available in some electrified format?

Sure the Jeep Wrangler plugin hybrid is pretty weak, but still they are making it, something some people thought would never happen...

Money spent with no guidance, limits, goals, or guiding force will result in nothing but spent money. But as companies invest in battery technology because batteries are driving so many consumer electronics right now, any advancement would be a huge payday. So, this keeps companies investing, but it has to show promise, improvements, and technology does advance. If you had not noticed, the pace of change has picked up lately.

If you want to talk about what is wrong with the US Healthcare and cancer research, I have some ideas, but that is not relevant to EVs.

Cargo goes on planes as well, and there the cargo is not always on palettes, sometimes it is in funky shaped boxes to match the curvature of the plane.

Semis have to move cargo cost effectively, which will mean competing with other forms of transport.

RE: Docks
Are you trying to be funny? I mean, the trucks will have to be used on roads as well... is that a reason it cannot be aerodynamic? Also true with docks.

There are planes that have flip-up noses, swing up or to the side tails, and there are trains that load from the side very quickly... It is kind of shocking when you look into it, you can find all kinds of examples of how to move cargo into and out of a vehicle that is aerodynamic. And some of them could even be adapted to tractor-trailers.

All warehouses used to all be on train spikes and trucks were only for local distribution...but that is not true anymore here in the US, but world wide... well, some countries kept up on keeping train technology up to date, so train is faster, cheaper, and a better way to travel in many countries.

Passenger train travel in the US is not even comparable to how competitive cargo rail. Here is a report on Train cost for cargo.

Air travel is only better for some because of the speed. If I wanted to ship iron ore or coal, by air hardly makes any sense.

Weight, density, and priority are all factors now.

1% is US sales. The Norway comment is meant to mislead people because they aren't relevant. It has the population of South Carolina, about midway in population size of our 50 states. They could all drive monster trucks and it wouldn't matter.

Slow, very slow. It's been over a decade now, and we've reached 1% sales. The problem with EV sales isn't lack of models, or lack of charging infrastructure... the problem with EVs in general is the terrible battery.



Pace of what change? Technology innovation is stagnating in general. New iPhones are 0.2mm thinner, have stupid notched screens, and eliminated stereo jacks. The Chevy Bolt EV gained 8% driving range from 2016 until now.

You've mentioned "keeping train technology up to date" several times now. What technology does the US lack that others have? There haven't been technological innovation in trains that is worth mentioning, or that would create a paradigm shift in transport. What your comments sound like to me is that you have the perfect solution to transport, and that the way the US does things is stupid.

I'm sure we'll see incremental improvement in all areas of transport, but I don't see any huge disruptions or big ideas yet to be implemented. The trucking industry is already competitive, so they have already considered aero improvements. Raw materials already ship by train.

My WAG for the nearterm automotive industry is an increase of plug-in hybrid sales. A 16 kWh battery captures the full federal tax credit, yet isn't so large that it drives the cost to manufacture way up. In fact, played correctly, there is about $300 of profit for every kWh of that 16 kWh battery, or $4,800.

Redpoint5,

I suppose Japan and Europe in general are irrelevant as well?

I have an electric car that does great as a commuter, and is actually a better than another small car I bought in the past to fill the same role. Batteries are terrible at what metric compared to what?

Current batteries do not store the same energy as fossil fuels, but with electric drive trains being so much more efficient, we actually do not need them to be. And, the amount of money spent just to get fuel out of the ground and refine it into a usable form can be eliminated, as well as all the pollution (oil spills alone, without even talking about the burn off or other pollution caused by fossil fuels).

Sales of ICE cars are dropping and EVs sales are increasing. I have not found anything that says EVs were 1% of car sales in the US for 2019. Where did you get this information? I have not even found a solid number for the number of cars sold in the US for 2019, let alone the percentage of those sales that were EV.

Hahaha, the comment about technology stagnating, now I am not sure if you are just trolling me or not...

If you think the only difference between one model of phone and the next is measured by the outside dimensions and that headphone jack was removed, either you are willfully ignorant or here to troll. Which is it?

In case you are ignorant, if you look at the battery life, computing power, and expansive amount of tasks that you can do with a phone compared to 10 years or 20 years ago, you might understand better. The fact that an iPhone would qualify as a super computer in the early 90s and has more graphics processing than special effects computers used for major motion pictures in the late 90s... and does all of that at a microscopic fraction of the power used by computers in the 90s... If that does not impress you, or atleast have you reconsider your stagnant technology, nothing will.

And just because a company does not implement technology, does not mean it is not out there and is not implemented by someone else. There is a whole other conversation about patents, time limits, and monopolies that could be had as to why it seems some market segments takes longer to innovate than others...

The US train system fell to the way side due to a combination of several things. The US being flooded by surplus trucks, mechanics, and drivers after WW2. Also, greedy train companies not wanting to spend the money on improving their infrastructure. Europe in rebuilding from WW2 got to put in new, more consolidated tracks, and when the technology came about for high speed trains, they invested (companies, countries, people) in getting those implemented.

Is inefficiency stupid? I usually think so. I understand how it came to be in the US. Cheap gas, lots of trucks and drivers, then throw in the national highway system... you have an infrastructure that is newer than trains, can get things there faster, and because the government is keeping up the roads, the trucking companies do not have to maintain the infrastructure, so with all of those costs deferred, it became cheaper to ship things fast with trucks...

Technologies not implemented in the US for trains? You want a list or do you actually not know that almost no country continues to use wooden ties for the tracks? That even older rails systems can be operated with faster trains by improving the suspension on those trains. I road in such a 'transitional' train in Sweden. It was not considered a high speed train there, as it never got up to a 100 mph, but for most of my trip from Malmo to Stockholm it was going 72 mph on unimproved tracks.

To allow for true high speed trains, the rail system has to be upgraded. Like no road/track crossings, because 100s of tons going over 100 mph and it hits a car or truck stuck on the tracks will be very bad. Curves have to be more open.. These kind of improvements to the infrastructure as well as train traffic control and trains in general.

Japan and China are building maglev trains. Magnetic Levitation. But we do not even have high speed trains here, not even long distance electric trains. The US is behind. We could implement these things, but we have not. And yes, it would cost, but would it cost as much as maintaining the national highway system? Would it cost as much as the F-22 or F-35 programs? I bring them up, as they are trillion dollar projects that we, as a nation, paid for. If the US wanted to start a program to upgrade its rail infrastructure to even just highspeed rail standards, we could do so. It might actually help the economy... but we would still be behind and not the leaders.. which right now seem to be Japan and China's maglev trains.

I do not claim to have the perfect solution, but I can look around the world, being lucky enough to have been outside the US, and see how others are doing some things better than the US. I want my native country to be better at things. When I was in Korea, the train system was better than it was where I came from... at the time atleast. It is only since then did I come to find out that Indiana actually had several commuter train systems that brought people 30 to 50 miles from the surrounding areas to Indianapolis everyday... But that was before WW2.

I used to think plugin hybrid would be good enough, but once it was pointed out that vehicles are lugging around two different systems to do the same thing, hampering both, I realized they were just not good enough. Pure EVs is the way to go. I personally think a combination of super capacitors and batteries would solve many issues and maybe allow EVs to fill even more niches currently thought of as only being able to be served by ICE engines.

Tesla, and others, have proven they can make EVs with decent range (over 200 miles).
I have an EV that during the summer is lucky to have 100 miles of real world range, and yet it works great for what we wanted it for, which is what 80% of people in the US need (a car that lets them commute to and from work, under 50 miles a day).

The tax incentive helped convince me to buy my first EV, but now that I have one I do not care anymore, I want to replace my other car with an EV, with or without tax incentive. Owning an EV is such a better experience than a gas car.

But, I also understand my prospective is not everyone else's...

Trailer gap data
 

I just added some information about trailer gap aerodynamics at #1-permalink) on page one.

trailer drag reduction data
 

I just added some data on trailer drag reduction technology,at the bottom of the original post,at #1(permalink),page-1.

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.

Model 3 on a V3 Supercharger is the maximum charge rate and it depends on how empty the battery is. According to their tests, they could add 60 miles in just under 5 minutes... Wait 11 minutes and it will have added 150 miles of range... which would cover me for another 2 hours of highway driving.

But you must be either sprinting through the gas station, or wearing a kilt or something, to get all that done in under 5 minutes. Most people cannot do all that with a gas car in 5 minutes. With an EV, you can plug in and walk away. I know a few places that is illegal with a gas car...

I have taken more than 5 minutes to put 15 gallons in my car at some gas stations due to slow pumps...

Also, after driving for more than 2 hours, I want a bit of a walk around, but maybe I will need less 'downtime' if I had active cruise control and such.

I know when I was younger, I would go like 3 to 4 hours without stopping, but then again, young does not always equal smart...

I ran the additions through MacOS Summarize Service to cut throguh the obfuscated punctuation:

With more stops you also have to consider the time to exit, find the supercharger, then connect, pay, charge, disconnect, then go back to the on ramp and get back up to speed. So now the 11 min stop is more like 1/2 hour total every 2 hours. Also if I do have the time to stop and smell the Rose's I don't want to be anywhere near the major interstates where those chargers can be found. I'm likely on some Montana back road where I'm lucky to find a simple level 2 charger and they will be few and far between. Likely I'd have to depend on the simple 110 outlets and how fast can they charge? Where I do want to stop and walk around is a fishing access or a trailhead where there won't even be a 110 outlet available.

When I do run the interstate it's likely a Missoula to Seattle run across Washington. One quick 15 minute stop in Ritzville is the norm (I actually no longer need that refeul with my new 750 mile range TDI) and maybe a 5 min rest stop outside of Ellensburg and one 5 min in Post Falls. With the rest stops they are right there with a quick exit and close parking, it's easy to get off take a pee and get back on in 5 mins.

What should be the plan would be to own a EV for day to day, then rent a ICE to go to Seattle, swap it out for an EV rental while there, and rent an ICE to get home. I just can't afford that. Not a good EV for everyday, especially a Tesla as it would have to be awd, and I would never go to Seattle if I was that deep into rentals.

PS I just realized this is all in a towing application. Then forget all the above, as pointed out the towing is just not going to work EV

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.

Also, trains are all electric prime movers, so if electric motors were bad at towing, I doubt that would be true. And if manufacturers can produce a battery (or battery and super/ultra capacitor) pack that provides 500+ miles of range for the right price, then distance and towing is more attainable.

I always liked the idea of a trailer with a battery incorporated in it and have seen that mentioned here (ecomodder forums) a few times. Yes, it lowers the amount of towed weight being cargo, but if range and time are most important, then trading range for weight would be the logical choice.

What if trailer brakes were regen braking and charging the trailer's pack? Not sure if that would be worth it for the extra weight for motors and electronics... Again, depends on if your top priority is range and lower downtime... Park the trailer in one recharging spot, park the truck in another.

Anyway, if you are always hauling something heavy (boat, rv?) and always going 500+ miles, then right this minute, there is not an EV that will do exactly that... but I think that within 5 to 10 years, you will be able to find an EV that does that.

Of course, the Touareg TDI's AWD towing capacity is like, 7,700 lbs? And you can get 700 miles towing? I mean, we got great mileage with our VW TDI wagen, but 700 miles? In 2 to 3 years, we will see what the Cybertruck is doing with its real world towing range. On paper, it seems like it should be able to tow anything your Touareg TDI AWD can tow... but the question will be, how far before it needs a recharge?

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.

Could anything I said even taken wildly out of context imply that's what I think of Japan and Europe?

Back to the context in which I responded, Norway has 50% EV sales because they massively penalize other vehicles and subsidize EVs. Drop all of those penalties/subsidies and you think we'd see 50% sales? They aren't better people, they just value liberty less. Perhaps since their largest industry is petroleum, they need to drive expensive EVs to distract us from their "sins".

No doubt. If you were a regular, you'd know I'm a huge fan of EVs and have been planning to get one for local travel.

In comparison to ICE vehicles, a battery is the equivalent of a fuel tank, and they are terrible in nearly every metric compared to a fuel tank. Batteries are like a $10,000 fuel tank that takes ages to fill, has less range, requires environmental conditioning (heating/cooling/vibration reduction), diminishes in capacity over time, is heavy, and takes up a lot of space.

I'm going to need you to show your work. US automotive sales reached 17.3M and BEV sales were around 0.26M, or about 1.5% of sales.

EV sales in the US is down 10% from last year, and global sales are also down about 10%.

https://insideevs.com/news/343998/mo...les-scorecard/

https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/bnef...00710814_l.jpg

https://ourworldindata.org/exports/f...v4_850x600.svg

Processor speed hasn't increased since 2005, and the pace of transistor shrinking has massively slowed, and is about to halt altogether in the next few years.

The law of diminishing returns means that it takes more and more effort to get less and less benefit.

Sure, we'll continue to see advances in all areas of technology, especially in bio-engineering, but there is no guarantee that batteries can be made much better than they currently are. I'd be happy to be wrong, but the fact that money is being spent to develop technology is not cause to celebrate... and in most areas of technology, the pace of innovation will slow.


You've already answered why we don't have more extensive train infrastructure and gimmicks like floating trains; cost. Even with our cheap infrastructure it's not profitable for human transport. How would making everything orders of magnitude more expensive result in profitability? Why should the US care to be a world leader in floating trains (granted, it is a neat trick)?

The highway and road infrastructure is needed regardless of how extensive the rail system is, so it doesn't make sense to talk in terms of shifting funds away from road infrastructure and into trains. I'm not taking a train from my house to all the places I travel.

National defense is among the only and greatest purposes of the federal government. Which car you drive is among the lowest. I agree that we probably spend too much on national defense, and what we spend goes towards dumb things like expensive piloted jet fighters, but the choice was never new jets, or floating trains for everyone.


South Korea has a population greater than California in the area roughly the size of Indiana, our 38th largest state. Those conditions necessitate expensive transportation infrastructure, and it becomes economically feasible since they don't have as much ground to cover, and a greater number of people use it.

Being envious of mass transit infrastructure due to very high population density seems odd to me, but some people like living elbow to elbow.

I used to believe pure EV was the way to go, then as I gained knowledge came to realize that plug-in hybrids are probably the superior bridge technology. The battery is the most expensive, worst part of an EV. Minimizing the most expensive, worst part of a vehicle makes sense. A hybrid maximizes the strengths of both power plants; the power and efficiency of electric motors, and the energy density and speed of refilling of an ICE.

While I and a few other EV purists may be content with a "pure EV", most other consumers likely aren't. We aren't 5-10 years away from pure EVs dominating the market. My best guess is 15-20.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.