stsmark
Northern CA
Senior Member
Joined: 09/09/2009
View Profile
 Offline
|
So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.
|
Groover
Pulaski, TN
Senior Member
Joined: 10/17/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
Turtle n Peeps wrote:Reisender wrote:Groover wrote:Personally, I believe that either the quoted VP doesn't have a clue what he is talking about or there is much more to the range reduction than just weight and range. Note that O'Connell never said why the trips would be shorter or why just the initial trips will be shorter. Since he used the term "initially" it is implied that the trucks will eventually be put to work on longer trips.
My personal experience with a Tesla is that weight has almost nothing to do with range. The increased rolling resistance from the extra weight is nearly negligible. There is no way that a legal load would make power consumption increase by a factor of 4.
The reason that ICE engines are affect more by load is that every time they apply the brakes momentum is turned into heat and the only way to replace that momentum is by burning more fuel. An EV turns the motor into a generator which puts the momentum back into the battery for later use. About 10% of the energy is lost as heat but 85 to 90% gets put back to useful work. You can see that in the energy graph where the range actually comes back up when going down hills. You don't see that with ICE engines.
It’s not implied, it’s stated.
Have you done the math? I have. There is a reason that other electric trucks have x amount of range / KWH and and Tesla has 2X's-X/KWH. And it's not because they have a magic battery or battery formula. All you have to do is look at electric pickups and see what they get when towing a tiny trailer and then look at the numbers that Tesla is "alluding" to. All the other truck companies state their numbers and everything is in the open. Tesla is the only company where almost no numbers are given. Funny how that works hu? ![[emoticon]](https://forums.motorhome.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/doh.gif "doh")
BTW, you must have a magic Tesla car. Because the more people I pile in my electric car the less miles I get / KWH. It's math and it works. You can't even get a sun roof in my electric car because of the weight and aero penalty.
I do know that when my son used his Model 3 to pull a trailer that was empty one direction and had 3,000lbs in it the other way his overall efficiency was about the same. The effect of the hills was more pronounced but what he lost going up the hills he got back going down.
Aero is a huge factor. It seems to me that many people here are laser focused on weight and mostly ignore the aero effects on efficiency. Weight is important when you are looking a frame strength, hitch setup, drive train cooling and brakes but when just cruising down the road it makes little difference, especially if regeneration is going to be used.
|
Groover
Pulaski, TN
Senior Member
Joined: 10/17/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
stsmark wrote:So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.
I can't blame anyone for taking a handout that is being pushed their way by the government, unless it effects their vote or political donations. The blame lies mostly with the people making the policies.
|
Grit dog
Black Diamond, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2013
View Profile
Offline
|
Groover wrote:stsmark wrote:So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.
I can't blame anyone for taking a handout that is being pushed their way by the government, unless it effects their vote or political donations. The blame lies mostly with the people making the policies.
Here here…
I’m still a little bent that not only are there no handouts but most of my tax deductions have vaporized as well!
That said, I still like Pepsi over Coke. And I especially like Pepsi over Crown Royal! And I haven’t quit drinking Crown even though Canada is socialist!
At least Pepsi guy didn’t totally drink the Musk koolaid and realizes a truck full of cellophane bags that are mostly air will go further on a charge than a truck full of aluminum cans filled with liquid in more volumetric efficient packaging!
Good to know really cause I’d hate for there to be a BEV surcharge on my BEVerages! Seattle already does that….bad enough!
2016 Ram 2500, MotorOps.ca EFIlive tuned, 5” turbo back, 6" lift on 37s
2017 Heartland Torque T29 - Sold.
Couple of Arctic Fox TCs - Sold
|
JRscooby
Indepmo
Senior Member
Joined: 06/10/2019
View Profile
Offline
|
I bet this post I'm quoting will not be considered "political" but any contrary response would be.
Groover wrote:stsmark wrote:So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.
I can't blame anyone for taking a handout that is being pushed their way by the government, unless it effects their vote or political donations. The blame lies mostly with the people making the policies.
I think that most often the government policy makers are more often influenced by the donations to help the ones making the donations at the expense of voters.
Maybe if tax policy treated oil industry same as all others as soon as they showed they could be profitable EVs would not need subsidies now?
Or maybe, if back in the '70s when government decided the economy should not be hostage to OPEC, we had done things like leave solar panels on White House, instead of letting the oil companies hold the economy hostage?
Maybe a decade of data from those panels would of spurred development of that industry/reduced fossil fuel dependence without needing the subsidies?
|
|
|
time2roll
Southern California
Senior Member
Joined: 03/21/2005
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
stsmark wrote:Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.
That implies the wrong context. Never liked the Pepsi taste. Not switching brands for having a few Semi in the fleet is what I meant.
2001 F150 SuperCrew
2006 Keystone Springdale 249FWBHLS
675w Solar pictures back up
|
stsmark
Northern CA
Senior Member
Joined: 09/09/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
Ok, sorry Time. Ah the glory of being taken out of context. What I was implying is Pepsi could have said thanks to the People of CA for the 15.1 million. I’d imagine we paid for the whole charging facilities. To me it makes it a sort of risk free project on their part and will bias the actual cost of ownership as those numbers won’t be included when they talk about it in the future.
I get that the Petro industry has been getting handouts for ever. I reviewed the grant guidelines for the billions in charge network money in the recent Fed legislation. A large portion is available to private companies for onsite charging facilities.
|
RCMAN46
NorthWest
Senior Member
Joined: 02/24/2008
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
stsmark wrote:So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.
Are you going to quit buying products from all companies that may purchase an electric truck or vehicle in the future? If so be prepared to not to be able to purchase anything in the future. EV's are in the future.
If you do not like the handouts, then make your vote count.
|
time2roll
Southern California
Senior Member
Joined: 03/21/2005
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
https://www.msn.com/frito-lay-tesla-semi-spotted-on-the-road
|
RoyJ
Vancouver, BC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/19/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
Groover wrote:Personally, I believe that either the quoted VP doesn't have a clue what he is talking about or there is much more to the range reduction than just weight and range. Note that O'Connell never said why the trips would be shorter or why just the initial trips will be shorter. Since he used the term "initially" it is implied that the trucks will eventually be put to work on longer trips.
My personal experience with a Tesla is that weight has almost nothing to do with range. The increased rolling resistance from the extra weight is nearly negligible. There is no way that a legal load would make power consumption increase by a factor of 4.
The reason that ICE engines are affect more by load is that every time they apply the brakes momentum is turned into heat and the only way to replace that momentum is by burning more fuel. An EV turns the motor into a generator which puts the momentum back into the battery for later use. About 10% of the energy is lost as heat but 85 to 90% gets put back to useful work. You can see that in the energy graph where the range actually comes back up when going down hills. You don't see that with ICE engines.
If you read the quote closely, it doesn't say actual range is cut form 425 down to 100 miles, just that they'll test on shorter 100 mile routes. Perhaps until there's data to show what's the actual range.
It likely won't be a factor of 4, or even 2. Maybe 425 down to 300 miles. Regardless, it's enough of a range reduction they're willing to test first before sending it out on the same route of a light load.
|
|
|
