C&D EV Tow Test

[shawndoggy]

34 minutes ago, IXFE said:

This is a great meme, and shows exactly why emissions are so much easier to manage from electrics.  I've seen a lot of "fully deleted" diesels for sale over the years, but not a "fully deleted" power plant.  Way easier to ensure emissions compliance from the smokestack that charges 10000 cars than from 10000 separate tailpipes. 

[IXFE]

59 minutes ago, Nitrousbird said:

1914HP, 8.58 @ 167.5 MPH in the 1/4 mile bone stock.  So lame.  

 

It is lame. What can you do with that on public streets?  

Not only is that speed unusable, but you trade off all the other exciting elements of a complete driving experience. So I get speed I can’t use and I give up everything else, and that’s before we consider the $2.4M price tag. 

Pay more and get a worse user experience… The word “lame” doesn’t even begin to describe just how lame that is.

Edit: McLaren just called, they want their design IP back… 

Edited September 8, 2022 by IXFE

[IXFE]

43 minutes ago, shawndoggy said:

This is a great meme, and shows exactly why emissions are so much easier to manage from electrics.  I've seen a lot of "fully deleted" diesels for sale over the years, but not a "fully deleted" power plant.  Way easier to ensure emissions compliance from the smokestack that charges 10000 cars than from 10000 separate tailpipes. 

What makes you think I care about “managing” emissions?  Or that I would want to pay the EV premium to let my emissions be managed?

EDIT: I have never deleted my trucks because rolling coal is also lame. 

Edited September 8, 2022 by IXFE

[shawndoggy]

12 minutes ago, IXFE said:

What makes you think I care about “managing” emissions?  Or that I would want to pay the EV premium to let my emissions be managed?

EDIT: I have never deleted my trucks because rolling coal is also lame. 

Oh I was just reacting to the meme that made is seem like electrics are worse that ice b/c emissions.

[IXFE]

5 minutes ago, shawndoggy said:

Oh I was just reacting to the meme that made is seem like electrics are worse that ice b/c emissions.

I dunno if they are better or worse. I just know they are not ZERO emissions, as so often advertised. Sounds like you acknowledge this. 

[Murphys]

2 hours ago, Nitrousbird said:

1914HP, 8.58 @ 167.5 MPH in the 1/4 mile bone stock.  So lame.  

 

Not at all practical.  But certainly not lame

[BlindSquirrel]

1 hour ago, IXFE said:

EDIT: I have never deleted my trucks because rolling coal is also lame. 

Several other reasons for deleting trucks other than rolling coal. One big one is parts availability for a silly system. I know a guy that has a 2020 Chevy with 30k miles on it and that had a bad def tank level sensor. Chevy had no problem coving it under warranty… just park it out back with the 8 others waiting on the part because it won’t run without it. His options were to wait 6 months to a year for the part to his truck that he runs his business with, or delete. Not to mention not having to buy def, better mileage, and more power. Only real reason diesel has a bad rap is because of the black color of the exhaust… wonder how good for the environment the beater cars are rolling around with no cats, but you can’t “see” the pollution.

But I agree, full electric is not the answer.

Edited September 9, 2022 by BlindSquirrel

[Steve B.]

The hate for electric vehicles is amazing, especially Tesla's. The evolution of the technology is still in infancy despite EV's being around 100 years. I applaud the folks that pursue what they see as great opportunity and advancement. Someday our boats will be the recipients of those efforts and they will be beyond amazing.

Steve B.

[Tsumi]

2 hours ago, IXFE said:

I dunno if they are better or worse. I just know they are not ZERO emissions, as so often advertised. Sounds like you acknowledge this. 

They are better. The primary reason is that power plants have inherently better efficiency than ICEs. That is where the MPGe comes in- 1 gallon of gas burned at a power plant can power a 100 MPGe EV for 100 miles. 2nd, as mentioned, they have more stringent and regulated emissions standards.

Additionally, they facilitate a transition to currently/near future economically viable renewable sources of power, while ICEs will be reliant on biofuels becoming economically viable. Biofuels likely won't ever be economically viable outside of aviation and maybe long distance towing.

There is a type of battery tech that is very interesting for rapid recharging/refueling, and that is flow batteries. They're less efficient and currently less power dense than lithium, but recharging them can be as easy as draining the depleted electrolyte and refilling with fresh electrolyte. They also do not use any rare earth metals and thus are much more environmentally friendly to manufacture and dispose of.

[Cole2001]

A diesel doesn’t necessarily need to roll coal. They tend to roll coal when too much fuel enters the system. Tune that down and there should be a very minimum amount.  At work I’ve got a diesel as a loaner until a new one arrives and it has been fully deleted and tuned. You step on it towing and oh boy is there a huge cloud of smoke. We don’t have a tuner for it and not worth the money to change it for something temporary. But not having def, the added power and fuel economy is great. 

[Slayer]

I love the talk of power plants being more efficient, etc.  But at what cost?  Billions have been poured into coal facilities to make them more clean and the consumer pays for it.  In my home state, our largest power producer is in the process of closing all coal fired plants.  Not only closing them, but doing so after 2 decades of expenditures on emissions scrubbers that John Q. Public has paid for.  Now they're being closed??  Natural gas and combined cycle are coming on line, all the while nuclear facilities are being decommissioned.  If we want to talk efficiency and environmentally friendly, then the federal government needs to get off it's lazy but and start allowing for more nuclear facilities.  The hurdles to get a new nuke facility approved are insane, costly, and needlessly so.  That tech has advanced to a point where it need not be so cumbersome to develop additional capacity. 

Then we have the aging, unstable grid.  Look at CA...Gov - "we will eliminate new ICE vehicle purchases by 2035".  Also CA Gov - "sorry, please turn your thermostats to 78* F and mitigate unnecessary electrical use to mitigate rolling blackouts'.  We are not ready.  The tech is not ready, the infrastructure can't support it....... Is it possible in 12 ish years.  Perhaps, but also perhaps not.  Is it reasonable to eliminate all ICE vehicles?  No.  As @IXFEpoints out, EV's are not zero emissions.  They can, in no way, be considered to be so.  But that's not what we're sold.  It's also why discussion on these topics, regardless of the often quoted TOU, can't occur without some relation to politics.  Sorry, mods, it's true.......

Oh, and talk of renewables......also not viable and a joke, IMO.  We have communities that so desire renewables........as long as they don't have to see the wind turbine, hear it, or have it built in the path of migratory bats.  Let's see.......we'll build a wind turbine so people can feel good about renewable energy.  Then we'll fill it with a bunch of flammable lubricants that aren't environmentally friendly because, well, it feels good to do so.  Is it sensible?? Is it economically viable??  Being on the side of constructing them, I can't validate it.  Spend hundreds of millions on fossil fuel equipment to build things that aren't 100% renewable and claim that we're carbon neutral is absolute nonsense.  Again, driven by politics. 

Discussion of towing capacity on EV's is simply a joke because nothing exists that's commercially viable.  It's all what the Government thinks should be imposed upon the masses rather than what the free market necessarily wants or needs. 

Now, is the tech that's being developed in pursuit of EV's awesome?  Without a doubt it is.  And I believe the tech being developed with benefit us tremendously in decades to come and likely in ways we don't currently realize or understand.  However, to drastically alter an economy because it makes people feel better isn't justifiable, IMO.  Ultimately, we all benefit, but we pay the price and politicians reap the monetary benefit all while limiting our freedom and liberty.  Hell.......a fully connected transportation environment under the guise of the buzzword "mobility"  seems like an awfully simple way to mitigate one's travel, or punish one by mitigate their travel because their social presence isn't desirable by the central authority. 

Anyone in the auto industry knows this to be true but won't talk about it because it's taboo.  They have all been talking about it for years.  It's been addressed in supplier conferences, hinted at in news releases, etc.  The goal, again politically motivated, is with a 100% EV future, a central authority has total control over said individual mobility.  It's going to be sold to the masses as a matter of convenience....."Go to the local county lot and you've reserved vehicle 34A for your mobility needs on 8-24-2035."  The individual now needs not own the vehicle.  It's controlled by others.  Others will "allow" you to have mobility if you fit into the mold they deem acceptable.  

Sorry for the rant......just the opinion of one individual..........I'd like to think I'm wrong, but our trajectory tells me otherwise. 

    

[Bozboat]

On 9/7/2022 at 5:28 PM, BlindSquirrel said:

 

 

58 miles. Might as well be 5 miles. Especially if you are not allowed to charge during 4pm to 9pm current restrictions. (Pun intended)

[Tsumi]

Here is my response to anyone that brings up costs, which I've already posted in this thread:

What are the costs to the next generations of not taking action now? Have you ever thought about that? Each year that we "wait for tech to get better" or "infrastructure to get better" is several years of cleanup the next generations have to deal with. Do keep in mind that the current overwhelmed power grid is due to a heat wave that is directly caused by climate change. Free market doesn't care about consequences a year down the road, let alone the next generation. That's why mandates are necessary. Is the path we're taking the absolute best path? Not by a long shot. Is it a hell of a lot better than sitting on our hands and letting the free market dictate what happens? I'm damn sure it is.

For the people who want an EV truck, can afford it, and it fits their lifestyle... absolutely, crank out as many as demand will take and use that money to fund development of better EVs.

I've also said this before: an EV truck with a removable diesel generator in the bed would be more than sufficient for our needs with current EV tech. Pure EV mode for normal work and weekend trips (0.5 miles from garage to launch ramp), hybrid diesel truck for the once a year camping trip. Such a truck would be too expensive for us to buy new, but a 5 year old used truck would totally be viable. The sooner one comes out, the sooner we can get one on the used market.

[oldjeep]

@Tsumi if you want to save the world, stop burning gas for fun - sell the boat

[Slayer]

8 hours ago, Tsumi said:

 

I've also said this before: an EV truck with a removable diesel generator in the bed would be more than sufficient for our needs with current EV tech. 

Sorry, but doesn't this defeat the purpose??  It's like the meme of the repair vehicle with a generator coming to charge an EV that's run out of power on the side of the road.  

 

Again, call it what you wish, but there isn't a viable EV solution to many things that are not even addressed in this thread that people aren't really talking about.  How to we farm?  How do we truck those goods around?  How do we move them by rail?  All of these transportation issues are reliant upon ICE and regardless of the regulatory environment, the free market doesn't want it, or feel it to be viable. 

 

Now let's consider those of us that live in cooler climates.  Say the New England area, Upper Midwest, mountain states.......Alaska........what happens in the winter??  Crappy weather, snow and ice covered roads, and accidents.  I have personally sat in my vehicle on a highway with nowhere to go for upwards of an hour before.  Others I'm sure have experienced longer.  Let's suggest I'm in an EV and it's 5* F out and I'm running out of power and then running out of heat.  What do I do???  Anyone have an answer to that one??  Sure would suck to see a sea of EV's with no power in a snow storm with their only salvation being ICE vehicles that only the government would have.  That's the trajectory in California.  No private ICE vehicle sales, but you better darn well believe the State will have them because the State knows it's not viable.    

[shawndoggy]

7 minutes ago, Slayer said:

Let's suggest I'm in an EV and it's 5* F out and I'm running out of power and then running out of heat.  What do I do???  Anyone have an answer to that one??  Sure would suck to see a sea of EV's with no power in a snow storm with their only salvation being ICE vehicles that only the government would have.  That's the trajectory in California.  No private ICE vehicle sales, but you better darn well believe the State will have them because the State knows it's not viable.    

Well that is definitely 100% a valid concern in the near term.  But to be fair that's really like a 25 years from now problem... ICE vehicles won't be banned in CA in 2035, just no new ones sold there.  Your 2034 F350 won't become illegal, and you'll be able to sell it used in 2045.  So it's really waiting till the ICE vehicles then on the road are no longer viable / there isn't enough of a critical mass of ICE vehicles to support a big network of gas stations.

If I look back at my 2009 iphone, the technology and connectivity has sure come a long way since then.  One would hope that just as the number of towers and speed of the network has improved, so will the infrastructure to support electrics.  I mean think of buying an ICE vehicle in 1910.... probably many of the same arguments were made then (where you gonna get gas for that contraption when you run out?  You're gonna need a tow to the gas station from my horse! etc etc), and those arguments were nevertheless rebutted by history.

11 hours ago, Slayer said:

jThe goal, again politically motivated, is with a 100% EV future, a central authority has total control over said individual mobility.  It's going to be sold to the masses as a matter of convenience....."Go to the local county lot and you've reserved vehicle 34A for your mobility needs on 8-24-2035."  The individual now needs not own the vehicle.  It's controlled by others.  Others will "allow" you to have mobility if you fit into the mold they deem acceptable.      

Without access to my own crude and refinery, the Man already restricts my mobility to what's in my tank now.  I'm still VERY dependent on that single resource for my ability to get anywhere, and if the taps were cut off most of us would be hosed in short order and all of us would be eventually.

Now that said, if we're gonna get into disdain for electrics... as a cyclist/mountain biker I've got strong reservations about electric bicycles.  But those light duty mopeds are clearly taking over the world.  I'm sure each of us knows someone personally who owns one.  And they seem to be pretty successful (and improving rapidly year over year... much to my chagrin).

15 hours ago, IXFE said:

I dunno if they are better or worse. I just know they are not ZERO emissions, as so often advertised. Sounds like you acknowledge this. 

10000% yes!  No more zero emissions than my phone or washing machine or my TV.  Those all get power from somewhere, and none of that power is 100% smokestack free in my area.

[Tsumi]

33 minutes ago, Slayer said:

Sorry, but doesn't this defeat the purpose??  It's like the meme of the repair vehicle with a generator coming to charge an EV that's run out of power on the side of the road.  

 

Again, call it what you wish, but there isn't a viable EV solution to many things that are not even addressed in this thread that people aren't really talking about.  How to we farm?  How do we truck those goods around?  How do we move them by rail?  All of these transportation issues are reliant upon ICE and regardless of the regulatory environment, the free market doesn't want it, or feel it to be viable. 

 

Now let's consider those of us that live in cooler climates.  Say the New England area, Upper Midwest, mountain states.......Alaska........what happens in the winter??  Crappy weather, snow and ice covered roads, and accidents.  I have personally sat in my vehicle on a highway with nowhere to go for upwards of an hour before.  Others I'm sure have experienced longer.  Let's suggest I'm in an EV and it's 5* F out and I'm running out of power and then running out of heat.  What do I do???  Anyone have an answer to that one??  Sure would suck to see a sea of EV's with no power in a snow storm with their only salvation being ICE vehicles that only the government would have.  That's the trajectory in California.  No private ICE vehicle sales, but you better darn well believe the State will have them because the State knows it's not viable.    

It would defeat the purpose of having a pure zero emissions vehicle (vehicle itself, not where it gets its power), yes, but it will still be a hell of a lot more efficient than a diesel only truck. A diesel truck doesn't have regenerative braking, so that's efficiency loss there. The generator can be run at the most optimum speed for efficiency and would only be used on long towing trips, which we do only once or twice a year. The rest of the time the truck can just use rooftop solar to charge itself. Any improvement is an improvement.

Rail is one of the worst examples you can bring up because it is one of the easiest transportation modes to electrify. Many countries have already done it; the US is lagging behind. A more robust railway network would do a lot to reduce long haul truckers and short haul trucks are just fine as EVs.

The market doesn't deem alternatives economically viable right now because gas/oil is artificially cheap. That needs to change. As for farms, farm waste (especially animal waste) produces a lot of methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We can incentivize farms to capture that methane and using it in methane (aka natural gas) vehicles.

I've already stated that the alternative for ICEs will be using biofuels, which are significantly more expensive at the moment. This also ties into fossil fuels being artificially cheap.

Any improvement is better than no improvement, and I don't understand why you insist on disparaging EVs and saying it's not viable for anyone. There are ways of making them work, and where they don't work, there are non-fossil fuel alternatives that can be utilized. Hydrogen is another such alternative but personally I think hydrogen will be a flop outside of niche scenarios.

[spikew919]

Name one thing that runs on batteries that sit in a barn for 50 years and you clean it up and it goes back to running.  I will wait 

 

 

The life span of batteries and even the motors are not a viable long term solution.  
 

 Now the hydrogen engine cummins is working on and has a working prototype working un a 60 ton rock truck working daily  is very interesting. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by spikew919

[justgary]

13 hours ago, Tsumi said:

They're less efficient and currently less power dense than lithium, but recharging them can be as easy as draining the depleted electrolyte and refilling with fresh electrolyte. They also do not use any rare earth metals and thus are much more environmentally friendly to manufacture and dispose of.

Lithium is not a rare earth metal.  Lithium is more abundant than lead, and slightly less abundant than nitrogen in the earth's crust.  Lithium is very light, so it has great energy density by volume.  We will be using lithium for battery technology for a very long time.

25 minutes ago, Tsumi said:

The rest of the time the truck can just use rooftop solar to charge itself.

Hopefully you aren't proposing the truck's rooftop.  If you are proposing home rooftop, the very same state that requires ICE vehicle sales to stop also requires rooftop solar on all home builds now.  Except you aren't allowed to have enough to run your whole home if you are grid connected, and the state now plans to tax you for every kWh of energy you produce. 

[BlindSquirrel]

20 minutes ago, spikew919 said:

Name one thing that runs on batteries that sit in a barn for 50 years and you clean it up and it goes back to running.  I will wait 

 

 

The life span of batteries and even the motors are not a viable long term solution.  
 

 Now the hydrogen engine cummins is working on and has a working prototype working un a 60 ton rock truck working daily  is very interesting. 

I don't know, I have a super old clock that I found in a barn that didn't work. Replaced the nasty corroded battery and presto, started working again.

I concur, hydrogen is... and should be the route we should take. But it makes too much sense.

[barefootpaul]

8 minutes ago, spikew919 said:

Name one thing that runs on batteries that sit in a barn for 50 years and you clean it up and it goes back to running. 

Plenty of 50 year old electric motors still rocking. I don't see a lot of 50 year old cars running 50 year old gas

Battery progress needs to be made for sure, but it can be. Who really used battery powered power tools 30 years ago? They could barely drive a screw. Today I have a decade old Makita drill with original batteries that is plenty powerful and still holds a charge. Not the same as an EV, but I suspect the trajectory will be similar.

[Slayer]

1 hour ago, shawndoggy said:

Well that is definitely 100% a valid concern in the near term.  But to be fair that's really like a 25 years from now problem... ICE vehicles won't be banned in CA in 2035, just no new ones sold there.  Your 2034 F350 won't become illegal, and you'll be able to sell it used in 2045.  So it's really waiting till the ICE vehicles then on the road are no longer viable / there isn't enough of a critical mass of ICE vehicles to support a big network of gas stations.

If I look back at my 2009 iphone, the technology and connectivity has sure come a long way since then.  One would hope that just as the number of towers and speed of the network has improved, so will the infrastructure to support electrics.  I mean think of buying an ICE vehicle in 1910.... probably many of the same arguments were made then (where you gonna get gas for that contraption when you run out?  You're gonna need a tow to the gas station from my horse! etc etc), and those arguments were nevertheless rebutted by history.

Without access to my own crude and refinery, the Man already restricts my mobility to what's in my tank now.  I'm still VERY dependent on that single resource for my ability to get anywhere, and if the taps were cut off most of us would be hosed in short order and all of us would be eventually.

Now that said, if we're gonna get into disdain for electrics... as a cyclist/mountain biker I've got strong reservations about electric bicycles.  But those light duty mopeds are clearly taking over the world.  I'm sure each of us knows someone personally who owns one.  And they seem to be pretty successful (and improving rapidly year over year... much to my chagrin).

10000% yes!  No more zero emissions than my phone or washing machine or my TV.  Those all get power from somewhere, and none of that power is 100% smokestack free in my area.

Great points.  But the Government is going to make it extremely painful and costly to own and operate ICE vehicles.  They've already said it and have been quoted as saying on various outlets that the only way to make the move to EV is to inflict pain on the populace and that's exactly what they intend to do.  Great idea.  Seems wonderful to punish the populace....s

38 minutes ago, Tsumi said:

It would defeat the purpose of having a pure zero emissions vehicle (vehicle itself, not where it gets its power), yes, but it will still be a hell of a lot more efficient than a diesel only truck. A diesel truck doesn't have regenerative braking, so that's efficiency loss there. The generator can be run at the most optimum speed for efficiency and would only be used on long towing trips, which we do only once or twice a year. The rest of the time the truck can just use rooftop solar to charge itself. Any improvement is an improvement.

1.  Rail is one of the worst examples you can bring up because it is one of the easiest transportation modes to electrify. Many countries have already done it; the US is lagging behind. A more robust railway network would do a lot to reduce long haul truckers and short haul trucks are just fine as EVs.

The market doesn't deem alternatives economically viable right now because gas/oil is artificially cheap. That needs to change. As for farms, farm waste (especially animal waste) produces a lot of methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We can incentivize farms to capture that methane and using it in methane (aka natural gas) vehicles.

I've already stated that the alternative for ICEs will be using biofuels, which are significantly more expensive at the moment. This also ties into fossil fuels being artificially cheap.

Any improvement is better than no improvement, and I don't understand why you insist on disparaging EVs and saying it's not viable for anyone. There are ways of making them work, and where they don't work, there are non-fossil fuel alternatives that can be utilized. Hydrogen is another such alternative but personally I think hydrogen will be a flop outside of niche scenarios.

Why is rail a terrible example?  Rail has been utilizing hybrid drivetrains for decades.  The point of the example is that heavy, long haul loads will not be commercially viable for decades.  And, rail is still heavily reliant upon fossil fuel ICE.  It's a wonderful example.

How is oil artificially cheap?  I don't understand that statement.  I further don't understand the suggestion that it needs to change.  That change should be driven by market forces, not a central authority, which is what it seems like you're suggesting.

20 minutes ago, spikew919 said:

Name one thing that runs on batteries that sit in a barn for 50 years and you clean it up and it goes back to running.  I will wait 

 

 

The life span of batteries and even the motors are not a viable long term solution.  
 

 Now the hydrogen engine cummins is working on and has a working prototype working un a 60 ton rock truck working daily  is very interesting. 

I agree.  There are several other manufacturers engineering and testing hydrogen ICE's as well.  I find it fascinating and I believe it's a much better solution that 100% EV. 

[Sparky450]

The UPS distribution for our area bought a fleet of like 20 brown trucks a few years back. Probably with a tax incentive from our government.  In the last few years I have not seen them around. 
My understanding is that maintenance cost were astronomical and they have been parked. They are back to the ICE trucks that they have been running for years. 
Keep in mind these trucks are the ones that seldom go more than 10-15 miles from the charging point. The outlying areas had continued using ICE 

[justgary]

39 minutes ago, Tsumi said:

The market doesn't deem alternatives economically viable right now because gas/oil is artificially cheap. That needs to change. As for farms, farm waste (especially animal waste) produces a lot of methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Please explain how gas and oil are "artificially cheap."  As an oil stock owner I see that my dividends are still rolling in, which suggests that they are selling oil at a price that allows them to make a profit.

On the farming side, I'm tickled by the studies that show that controlled (prescribed) burns in timberlands are carbon neutral, yet beef production is not.  Even more interesting is the current rush to feed kelp to cattle to reduce their methane emissions.  What does harvesting all that kelp do to the environment?

[Sparky450]

11 minutes ago, justgary said:

If you are proposing home rooftop, the very same state that requires ICE vehicle sales to stop also requires rooftop solar on all home builds now.  Except you aren't allowed to have enough to run your whole home if you are grid connected, and the state now plans to tax you for every

The state says it must be installed, but the local municipalities allow very little. 
From my understanding, 2 reasons 

1. the infrastructure won’t take it 

2. They want to sale electricity 

In our area the only one that allows large arrays is PG&E. But the state owns them.