Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Chainwright wrote:
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
There is almost 0 reason to do this. Anytime you go from one energy type (in this case mechanical to electrical) you lose efficiency. Batteries just don't have enough energy density with an RV that weighs 15, 20 30 thousand pounds.
Hmmm, Mercedes just came out with an EV truck (26 tons) and Tesla did too. Daimler owns Mercedes and Frightliner, so I guarantee you CHANGE is on the way. Question is: who'll be the 1st one to adapt.
Lets see how it works out cost wise overall including purchase price. Lets also see how range works out. EV is fine for in city stuff. When you get out on the open road and into the mountains............well..........they suck.
BTW just because someone makes something does not mean it will work out. Remember the Ford atomic car the Nucleon? Or Chryslers turbine car? How did those work out?
All valid points, but Mercedes and Tesla didn't spend thousands of hours and millions of Dollars to come this far and give up. Remember all the people hating on the Prius when it firs came out, now 1/3 of all vehicles sold are EV and or Hybrids.
Driverless Vehicles are still holding their own too despite the "man made" negativity surrounding them, and whenever they are involved in an accident, in the end they find out the it was human error.
Ford Nucleon...LOL. really? you're gonna bring that up. Well why don't you drive around with Atomic weapons grade material in your back seat for 3 months a let us know how that worked out. There's a substantial safety factor which Price and Mpg can't overshadow. Horrible analogy on your part. The Turbine, beautiful car, do you know why it was discontinued? 2 hints: "Gravy train" and politics. The turbine engine was a marvelous invention, infact it was used in other applications like Airplanes, helicopters, tanks, locomotives, busses, ships, where it "survived". Applications with "smaller" audiences, that are less "affected" by the Politics of the Auto Industry.
