RoyJ
Explorer
Joined 19 years ago
User Profile
User Widgets
All Activity
Re: EV alternative for light/medium duty trucks
Reisender wrote: The BC hydro website digs into this a bit. Essentially the province doesn’t have a problem with generating capacity. But distribution and grid will adapt in the normal course of maintenance and up keep going forward to adapt to the changing load in neighborhoods etc. Nailed it. Gen capacity is not (too much of) an issue in BC, especially once Site C comes online. We're at around 2,000 MW remaining capacity at peak usage, simplified math says 330,000 6kW home slow chargers. If charged overnight then virtually unlimited. But we have a lot of neighborhoods still fed by single phase 12kV lines, and older substations are tapped out. Upgrading the entire province to 25kV will take a long time (took 5 years just to get rid of the last 3 4kV substations). I fully support a 2-tier rate system with cheaper off-peak hours. However, if that means higher peak hour rates, then non-EV owners won't be happy.341Views0likes0CommentsRe: EV alternative for light/medium duty trucks
map40 wrote: As far as I care, I did. What is the biggest problem with EVs? Dealing with charging, finding the chargers and waiting 1 hour. I did not have to do that once. I did it by having an APU, but that is the compromise that makes it worth while. I ran the APU 5 times last year. That saved me from EVER HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT CHARGING, NOT ONCEDURING THE WHOLE YEAR. However you look at it, it eliminated the only problem I had with having an EV. Ask any EV owner, that is the biggest problem. Forget politics, preconceptions and ideologies. If I offer you a car that is more efficient, that runs on fuel at least 5 times cheaper, that you can refuel at home and that you can drive it as far as you want, wouldn't that be a good deal? As I said at the beginning, EVs are not the light at the end of the tunnel and they are not for everybody, but for the people that fit the use they are a great choice now. Trucks...I don't see it that easy... People like to rip on the i3, but I think it's the best design for an EV. A series hybrid if you will. Just a tweak in firmware like you did to allow the IC charger to run full blast and build up charge. Towing aside, that implementation would work for 99% of commuters. Charge at home, and rely on the 30hp charger. Your *average* hp consumption is far less than 30hp during commute drive. Call it whatever, hybrid, EV with IC charger, etc. But that approach can be applied to any commuter - Civics, small crossovers, hatchbacks. Way less complex than a Volt or parallel hybrid. A Honda CBR 500 type motor can be had for a $1 - 2k if mass produced.380Views0likes0CommentsRe: Tesla delivers there first semi
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.772Views0likes0CommentsRe: Overloaded or wrong truck?
valhalla360 wrote: A monster truck camper with 1000-1500lb 6-8ft behind the axle gets rocking, it can put drastically more bending force on the frame. It may visually appear that way, but the EC 1165 does NOT put thousands of pounds that far back from the axle. Google its COG: 61.5", or roughly 5' measured from the front of the bed. That puts it right on, or a hair behind the rear axle. Let's say it's 6" behind the rear axle: 6000 lbs x 6" = 36,000 in-lbs of moment. Assuming the typical hitch ball is 4' from rear axle, 36k in-lb/48" = 750lbs. So the bending stress of a EC1165 is the same as 750 lbs of hitch weight. Who'd worry about that on a modern dually?495Views0likes0CommentsRe: Overloaded or wrong truck?
Either abuse (Baja related...) or frame deterioration via rust / drilling. Even if it's overloaded, it's within a 1000 lbs of GVW. That's less then 10%. I've NEVER seen a properly designed frame fail with such a slight overload. We're not talking a Ford Ranger hauling an EC1165 here. Think about dump trucks dumping a transfer trailer - they're overloading 200 - 300% momentarily, and do this day in day out.325Views0likes0CommentsRe: 2023 Ford 40k towing, 500hp, 1200tq
Grit dog wrote: ^My point exactly. A light duty truck with as much power and towing capacity of an average OTR truck from 20 years ago is still the wrong vehicle to use primarily for that purpose (towing 40klbs). But with that kind of power and as stout as new pickemup trucks are, it will handle the occasional “big rig” duty. My concern is the GVW to trailer axle weight, i.e. tail wagging the dog syndrome. Assuming 6500 truck, 8000 pin weight, 32000 trailer axle weight. That's 14,500 truck GVW controlling 32,000 trailer axle weight. A standard 80k semi has 12k steer, 34k drive, 34k trailer. That's 46,000 of truck GVW controlling 34,000 trailer. That's 3x better ratio than the pickup687Views0likes0CommentsRe: 2023 Ford 40k towing, 500hp, 1200tq
4x4ord wrote: I think if I was going to be tugging around even 20-25k on a regular basis I'd want a doolie, but, I've had 11k on the pin of my little SRW and nothing broke. 11k trailer weight, not pin weight, correct? If that's pin weight, I'd be concerned about the tires!686Views0likes0CommentsRe: 2023 Ford 40k towing, 500hp, 1200tq
IdaD wrote: Nah, you can go lighter than that and be fine. People on this site don't tow much other than campers so they don't know how cargo trailers are loaded. A gooseneck loaded at 10% on the pin, which is typical for a TT camper, will be a lot more stable than the aforementioned TT given the hitch location over the axle. While I agree with the last sentence, I feel as we approach semi-trailer weights, more weight on the driver is needed for traction. At 10% (4k lbs) pin weight, starting on a steep wet hill may be an issue. At 20% / 8k lbs, it'll be much better. A single axle tractor towing a 40k trailer (Pepsi trailer, etc.) would have close to 20k on the drive axle.424Views0likes0Comments
Groups
Travel Trailer Group
Prefer to camp in a travel trailer? You're not alone.Mar 05, 202544,027 Posts
