Truck EV towing weights

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by CWSWine

This is what I said " I would treat the miles per charge the same as I would the mile per gallon on the window sticker." I never said ignore it.

You need to follow some other poster because there lot of people doing EV range testing in real world driving without a load or going up an incline.

You missed my point; Ignore it meaning, ignore the "distance/mpg" advertised on window stickers, because it is never accurate, in my experience. From what I have read/watched in video tests, neither is the EV "referenced" distance per charge, except perhaps on flat ground with no loads...and you made my last point with your comment about not testing with a load or going up an incline. Not the real world, right?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

You missed my point; Ignore it meaning, ignore the "distance/mpg" advertised on window stickers, because it is never accurate, in my experience. From what I have read/watched in video tests, neither is the EV "referenced" distance per charge, except perhaps on flat ground with no loads...and you made my last point with your comment about not testing with a load or going up an incline. Not the real world, right?

I am not sure I yet understand your point completely, but I definitely don’t understand the relevance of the claim that EPA ranges don’t match real world testing. They aren’t intended to, and assuming that they should misses the point of them. They are a comparison shopping tool, not a route planning tool. Vehicle A vs vehicle B. Not whether it is possible to make it to the next charging station.

Look at the EPA range test drive cycle. The city portion averages 20 mph. The highway portion averages 48 mph. The test is on a dyno. Acceleration is equivalent to a 0-60 time of 18 seconds. When they get the number, they apply a 30% correction factor because of how unrealistic the cycle is. Just to make it a little closer. They could apply a different correction factor if they wanted to.

Now look at a typical real world test. 70 mph. Wind resistance. Faster acceleration. They get a number. It is lower than the EPA number. Of course it is. The conditions and testing parameters are completely different.

Now look at a typical towing test. It is generally like the second example, but with a trailer. The testers don’t usually compare it to the non towing real world number, but to the EPA number. Which is silly.

[CWSWine]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

You missed my point; Ignore it meaning, ignore the "distance/mpg" advertised on window stickers, because it is never accurate, in my experience. From what I have read/watched in video tests, neither is the EV "referenced" distance per charge, except perhaps on flat ground with no loads...and you made my last point with your comment about not testing with a load or going up an incline. Not the real world, right?

There is not IGNORE in that statement I just stated that " I would treat the miles per charge the same as I would the mile per gallon on the window sticker." and I will explain for you - I don't think you can count on the numbers being what you get in real life driving. I didn't say ignore them I just don't count what the sticker says.

[CWSWine]

Originally Posted by jcl

I am not sure I yet understand your point completely, but I definitely don’t understand the relevance of the claim that EPA ranges don’t match real world testing. They aren’t intended to, and assuming that they should misses the point of them. They are a comparison shopping tool, not a route planning tool. Vehicle A vs vehicle B. Not whether it is possible to make it to the next charging station.

Look at the EPA range test drive cycle. The city portion averages 20 mph. The highway portion averages 48 mph. The test is on a dyno. Acceleration is equivalent to a 0-60 time of 18 seconds. When they get the number, they apply a 30% correction factor because of how unrealistic the cycle is. Just to make it a little closer. They could apply a different correction factor if they wanted to.

Now look at a typical real world test. 70 mph. Wind resistance. Faster acceleration. They get a number. It is lower than the EPA number. Of course it is. The conditions and testing parameters are completely different.

Now look at a typical towing test. It is generally like the second example, but with a trailer. The testers don’t usually compare it to the non towing real world number, but to the EPA number. Which is silly.

I would treat the miles per charge the same as I would the mile per gallon on the window sticker.

That is what I'm saying those numbers are not what you are going to get just like the numbers that manufactures are quoting mileage on EV are using the same equipment to doing the test. When I hear that this super truck is going to 400 miles I take grain of salt just like I do the ICE numbers. Look on EPA site and it has pictures and talk about both ICE test and EV testing on a dyno style machine in a building and how the test are conducted.

[richard5933]

Unless I'm totally missing something here, miles per charge is not the same as miles per gallon. It's the same as miles per tank.

Miles per gallon is all about the fuel efficiency, where as miles per charge is all about the storage capacity, so miles per tank would be the batter parallel.

[RickBullotta]

Originally Posted by DrivingDan

Disclaimer: This thread is purely to discuss technical details of towing an Airstream with one of the present (or announced) EV trucks. It is not a discussion about EV’s in general or other issues.

I’ll start with the Silverado EV as that’s what I’ve been looking at. As mentioned elsewhere I have a reservation for Summer ‘24 and would much prefer towing with this vehicles than alternatives, if at all possible. One of our early trips (the Airstream isn’t purchased yet) is to northern New Mexico from California, so I’ve means tested this trip with the vehicle. Specs

• 400mi/212 kWh battery
• 800V 350KW DCFC (charge in about 20 minutes)
• 10,000 lb towing capacity
• 1300 lb carrying capacity
• Assuming 25%-50% range loss (depending on road/speed/conditions) this gives a range of 150-180miles, which for us translates to a single charge during driving days, most of the time.

Running the numbers carefully on this trip, which basically runs from Southern California through Arizona with stops at the Grand Canyon/Petrified Forest and other places, turns out charging is absolutely not the problem. With todays infrastructure its covered with this range, Tesla is soon opening up their Supercharger network, and I looked at detail in the NEVI plans for those states. The issue appears to be down to hauling or carrying capacity.

Running the numbers on the above for us and the AS but leaves no room for baggage. We’re getting the back hatch option so can put, for example, bikes in the back of the Airstream during transport. Thoughts on this? I understand the flooring can be easily damaged.

If I could just get an extra 300 lbs off that tongue weight it would be perfect.

Based on real world data, your 25-50% range loss for towing seems pretty far off, particularly on the higher and of the towing capacity scale. Throw in some headwind, hills, and the need to run the A/C and range anxiety becomes range terror.

[CWSWine]

This is why I take the EPA ratings with grain salt the same way I take the EV range ratings. Yes you can compare them but probably not going to get the same results unless you drive like they tested it. I think most people understand that concept.

I would treat the miles per charge the same as I would the mile per gallon on the window sticker.

"The "city" program is designed to replicate an urban rush-hour driving experience in which the vehicle is started with the engine cold and is driven in stop-and-go traffic with frequent idling. The car or truck is driven for 11 miles and makes 23 stops over the course of 31 minutes, with an average speed of 20 mph and a top speed of 56 mph. The "highway" program, on the other hand, is created to emulate rural and interstate freeway driving with a warmed-up engine, making no stops (both of which ensure maximum fuel economy). The vehicle is driven for 10 miles over a period of 12.5 minutes with an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph. Both fuel economy tests are performed with the vehicle's air conditioning and other accessories turned off.

"Ironically, the results of ongoing operating tests conducted by the EPA of a dozen hybrid cars in its own fleet significantly contradict their posted fuel-economy ratings. According to a report we found on a government website, the best the EPA's fleet could muster was a cumulative average of 37.7 mpg for the Civic, 45.7 mpg for the Insight, and 44.8 mpg for the current-generation Prius. While this is certainly admirable fuel economy, it's still far below the cars' EPA ratings that run as high as 51, 66, and 60 mpg, respectively, for the model years tested."

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-...-explained.htm

[DrivingDan]

Originally Posted by RickBullotta

Based on real world data, your 25-50% range loss for towing seems pretty far off, particularly on the higher and of the towing capacity scale. Throw in some headwind, hills, and the need to run the A/C and range anxiety becomes range terror.

What real world data? Are you saying towing is 75% loss? The other choice is 100% which is ridiculous, but I’ve not seen either anywhere, whereas 50% is the worst I’ve seen measured/cited, and 25% the best case.

Look lets get out of the way the following

1. Towing loss varies by conditions - obviously it does (which is why you use a range).
2. EV towing is more efficient than ICE, due to greater aerodynamics and regeneration
3. All else being equal range loss is otherwise the same for ICE and EV as it’s physics. Both are effected equally by aero, and ICE is affected more by weight as there’s no regen

As for hard numbers, they’re hard to find. I’ve looked at the EPA, DOE and national lab studies. There’s nothing on EV towing yet, and little on consumer towing. The best towing info I’ve found is from the Semi truck companies. Makes sense, fuel cost = business case for their customers so they’ve looked deeply into it.

Summing all that together, I found that 25%-50% the best range estimate for towing loss. There are outlier use cases - such as an example of essentially 0% loss with a Ford EV Lightning towing a popup trailer at <50mph, and >50% from those TFL guys towing 6klbs SOB trailer up a mountain at whatever speed they felt like. FWIW -

[CWSWine]

Originally Posted by richard5933

Unless I'm totally missing something here, miles per charge is not the same as miles per gallon. It's the same as miles per tank.

Miles per gallon is all about the fuel efficiency, where as miles per charge is all about the storage capacity, so miles per tank would be the batter parallel.

Hard to believe a statement that says that I won't trust EPA Gas Mileage rating being any accurate than the EGP EV range ratings. This is what cause all this.

I would treat the miles per charge the same as I would the mile per gallon on the window sticker. LOL

But lets use storage capacity. My buddy with DRW replaced his factory tank with a 50 gallon tank and when diesel prices were on the raise he put 55 gallon aux tank. That gives him a 105 gallons and get around 20 not towing so that means his travel 1890 miles per tank of diesel. How does that compare to EV?

[DrivingDan]

Originally Posted by CWSWine

My buddy with DRW replaced his factory tank with a 50 gallon tank and when diesel prices were on the raise he put 55 gallon auxtank. That gives him a 105 gallons and get around 20 not towing so that means his travel 1890 miles per tank of diesel. How does that compare to EV?

That his range increases but efficiency drops, since gallons weigh more than electrons But further, with Ultium you can upgrade battery modules as you wish, each has a wireless BMS and is designed for mix-and-match. So in a few years when they go to Ultium Chemistry II, you can upgrade half your pack, one, or all 24 modules.

Additionally EV’s have been getting OTA updates that increase range or performance. Teslas have done this a bunch of times, and other mfgs.

Otherwise I’ve said its well known that GM under specs their ranges, other mfgs are hit or miss, but for what its worth the range is fine. And anybody that drives and EV knows that just a teensy bit of hypermiling will make all the difference. I do it regularly just for fun and you can see the difference.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by DrivingDan

That his range increases but efficiency drops, since gallons weigh more than electrons But further, with Ultium you can upgrade battery modules as you wish, each has a wireless BMS and is designed for mix-and-match. So in a few years when they go to Ultium Chemistry II, you can upgrade half your pack, one, or all 24 modules.

Additionally EV’s have been getting OTA updates that increase range or performance. Teslas have done this a bunch of times, and other mfgs.

Otherwise I’ve said its well known that GM under specs their ranges, other mfgs are hit or miss, but for what its worth the range is fine. And anybody that drives and EV knows that just a teensy bit of hypermiling will make all the difference. I do it regularly just for fun and you can see the difference.

Getting back to the point of this discussion?? 1) is anyone actually towing an AS with an EV yet? 2) if not, what is the point with no actual data towing.

This thread is ripe to be similar to the other post below they just stopped...all just "speculation",... until the "engineers" start to argue again!

https://www.airforums.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=238985

[jcl]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Getting back to the point of this discussion??

1) is anyone actually towing an AS with an EV yet? 2) if not, what is the point with no actual data towing.

This thread is ripe to be similar to the other post below they just stopped...all just speculation.... until the engineers start to argue again!

https://www.airforums.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=238985

Not with a Silverado AFAIK, but with an EV, yes. Best data is probably from CanAm, with over 50 customer Tesla vehicles set up for towing. Trip data with consumption for an AS 27 has been reported, including long trips and mountains. Pretty good data, IMO.

The other thread was closed due to the drift into cults and Nazis, IMO. Let's not do that. The other discussion moved to PM, so you just don't see it.

[DrivingDan]

In addition to the Tesla mention above, for reference using ABRP (EV route planning app) for the Ford Lightning with extended range battery. Arbitrary trip from LA to South Padre Island Tx. Reference consumption was doubled to account for worst case towing, and includes the 10%-90% or 20%-80% range rule. Orange legs are getting to the bottom end (e.g. 10%) of the range.

Some notes

• The Lightning has a much smaller battery and range than the Silverado
• The Lightning is a ICE retread and is very probably not as efficient as the Silverado
• This doesn’t include the NEVI buildout of DCFC every 50 mi, which will rollout over the next five years
• This models a flat 60mph and no attempt at hypermiling
• The interstates are already well served, you might not think Texas is a big EV state, well ignoring the Tesla Gigafactory presence, spot checking shows EVSE’s literally everywhere. In addition Texas is getting the largest allocation of NEVI funding, even more than California.
• ABRP is generally quite accurate in range and charging estimates.

My opinion: over the next few years the orange legs will turn to blue, not that it matters, you can make the trip just fine right now with the Lightning. Also I think efficiency will be somewhat better than the 50% worst case. Finally when you swap a Silverado for the Lightning I think the number of stops will reduce, I don’t know by 25% say.

[DrivingDan]

Originally Posted by jcl

Not with a Silverado AFAIK, but with an EV, yes. Best data is probably from CanAm, with over 50 customer Tesla vehicles set up for towing. Trip data with consumption for an AS 27 has been reported, including long trips and mountains. Pretty good data, IMO.

And to get really on topic Teslas only have about 800-1000 lbs carrying capacity, but it is being done all the time with Airstreams and other TT’s. Tesla owners feel a little more comfortable due to the Supercharger network, but Tesla is opening that up soon to all EV’s so as to qualify for NEVI dollars, and probably just $$ in general.

You know all those old-timey Airstream photos show cars from the 50’s-60’s whatever on pulling duty, I doubt those cars had much hauling capacity (did they even specify it back then?)

For example in 1964 they were pushing the Ford Falcon as a good pairing for the AS. The world tour shows pics of lots of sedans, while the Director (Wally I guess) had a 250 of some kind, Ford probably.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DrivingDan

And to get really on topic Teslas only have about 800-1000 lbs carrying capacity, but it is being done all the time with Airstreams and other TT’s. Tesla owners feel a little more comfortable due to the Supercharger network, but Tesla is opening that up soon to all EV’s so as to qualify for NEVI dollars, and probably just $$ in general.

We have used Superchargers, Tesla destination chargers, and public chargers when travelling. On a recent trip, there was an L2 charger across the street from our overnight stop, but it also had several L3 chargers, just not with a Tesla plug. We don’t own the Chademo adaptor and don’t want one, it is big and clunky. Just looked at the new Tesla CCS adaptor, nice and compact and half the price, so we will have one before our next road trip. That will further expand our charging options when travelling.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by DrivingDan

In addition to the Tesla mention above, for reference using ABRP (EV route planning app) for the Ford Lightning with extended range battery. Arbitrary trip from LA to South Padre Island Tx. Reference consumption was doubled to account for worst case towing, and includes the 10%-90% or 20%-80% range rule. Orange legs are getting to the bottom end (e.g. 10%) of the range.

.....

My opinion: over the next few years the orange legs will turn to blue, not that it matters, you can make the trip just fine right now with the Lightning. Also I think efficiency will be somewhat better than the 50% worst case. Finally when you swap a Silverado for the Lightning I think the number of stops will reduce, I don’t know by 25% say.

I haven't used ABRP, but will try it out. I typically use Plugshare, when I am not using the built in charging maps in the vehicle. I know the thread is about towing with an EV truck, but I think the following data will apply to an EV truck as well.

A standard trip for us is just over 1000 km each way. Vancouver to Calgary, then return. Some side trips. Lots of mountain ranges, including the continental divide. Great camping through the Shuswap, around Banff, and so on. We have a nominal 500 km range, and estimate 250 km range for towing, consistent with CanAm reported data. We have been in conditions where we had only 250 km of range, and completed this trip fine.

When we started doing it, two years ago, there were 7 Superchargers to pick from, and we called in at two or three of them. Now, there are 75 L3 DC chargers within 3 km of the highway, with 23 in the city along the route to start, and then 52 outside the urban area, all along the Trans Canada Hwy. Those are stations, not plugs. A single rural charging station in Hope, a small town, has 24 250 kw plugs, and the station across the street has another 10 150 kw plugs.

We would likely use six of these charging locations. The average spacing is around 20 km (100 urban km, then 900 rural km, divided by 52 charging stations). Note that the longest run is 107 km, apart from the detour in place at the moment for road construction in Kicking Horse Pass, so 150 km right now.

The photo below shows only L3 chargers, not all the L2 chargers along the way. When we occasionally overnight at the halfway point, we fully charge overnight.

Range anxiety is a real thing. What isn't always understood is that it primarily afflicts those who are not driving an EV. These threads are typically non EV owners saying that range is an issue, and EV owners explaining how they deal with it. I am not saying that towing with an EV is for everyone, at least not yet. But when a 1000 km trip in the mountains, towing an AS27 as an example, can be completed without even using 90% of the available fast charging locations, it is clear that it isn't the insurmountable hurdle some imagine it to be.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by DrivingDan

...You know all those old-timey Airstream photos show cars from the 50’s-60’s whatever on pulling duty, I doubt those cars had much hauling capacity (did they even specify it back then?)

For example in 1964 they were pushing the Ford Falcon as a good pairing for the AS. The world tour shows pics of lots of sedans, while the Director (Wally I guess) had a 250 of some kind, Ford probably.

Not really a good comparison - the Airstream trailers back in the 50s-60s were very light compared to the models from today. It's very unlikely that any car from back then would have been very happy pulling a modern Airstream loaded up like most do nowadays.

Conversely, if you tried to tow a 50s-60s Airstream with a modern EV the results would probably be quite good.

Originally Posted by jcl

...Range anxiety is a real thing. What isn't always understood is that it primarily afflicts those who are not driving an EV. These threads are typically non EV owners saying that range is an issue, and EV owners explaining how they deal with it. I am not saying that towing with an EV is for everyone, at least not yet. But when a 1000 km trip in the mountains, towing an AS27 as an example, can be completed without even using 90% of the available fast charging locations, it is clear that it isn't the insurmountable hurdle some imagine it to be.

Not sure this is a fair statement.

If you're seeing non-EV owners talking about range and the problems finding suitable charging points, it might be because we've done the homework and came to the conclusion that where WE want to travel there simply aren't enough (or any) charging points.

I detailed out a really simple long weekend trip we took this summer to a Pow Pow in northern Wisconsin. The nearest charging point to our dry camping spot for the weekend would have been 30 miles before arriving, meaning that upon arriving 60 miles of our range would have been spent already, leaving the remaining range for a long weekend of adventuring.

This was just one trip which I checked out this year of many to see if we could have done it in an EV, even assuming a 300 mile tow range. About half our trips would not have been possible.

Before you go making assumptions of us non-EV owning people simply wanting to poo-poo the idea of owning one, realize that there are many who would love to own an EV if only they made one which would meet our needs. They will, eventually. And then we'll buy one.

[DrivingDan]

I forgot PlugShare does routes, but looks like you have to manually add stops? Ugh, yeah ABRP does that for you. Otherwise you drive a Tesla? I didn’t know EVing was that easy in BC, I spent summers up yonder as a kid and really want to go back.

[DrivingDan]

Originally Posted by richard5933

If you're seeing non-EV owners talking about range and the problems finding suitable charging points, it might be because we've done the homework

I detailed out a really simple long weekend trip we took this summer to a Pow Pow in northern Wisconsin. The nearest charging point to our dry camping spot for the weekend would have been 30 miles before arriving, meaning that upon arriving 60 miles of our range would have been spent already, leaving the remaining range for a long weekend of adventuring.

You’re probably the exception to be fair. Actually the first non-EV driver I’ve seen who actually ran the numbers FWIW.

But I don’t quite follow, the nearest charge is 30 miles from the campsite? So when you say a 60 miles loss, you mean that using a 50% range loss that is what you end up with? If that is what you meant some questions …

• What is the drive between EVSE and camping spot? Speed and so forth on what kind of road? If <50mph what loss would you use? I’d recommend 30% as a safe answer. If freeway, is it possibly to take a more leisurely route or speed to go easy on the range?
• If you have a Silverado, that would be 400mi-60mi=340miles. Local adventuring is surely <50mph which is where EV’s excel, and you’d be doing it w/out trailer - is this a fair assessment? How much range do you realistically need for adventuring?
• Depending on time spent at spot, driving a half hour to gas or charge up (or get groceries) isn’t an option?

Just trying to understand the example

[RedSHED]

... and oddly, I routinely exceed window sticker MPG by about 20% with 2 exceptions: a 90's F150 and a Hyundai I rented several years ago. The old GMs with the 3800 (old Le Sabres) were ridiculously easy to nudge into the mid 30's while keeping up with traffic. Just had to be smooth.


Anyway, it's almost certainly _possible_ to tow most places with and EV. It won't be the _same_, but it will be possible. I.E. if someone wants to be able to do it, they'll find a way to make it work. If someone doesn't, they won't. Lots of people cross the country every year by bicycle at the rate of 60-120 miles per day. In non-revenue mode - especially retired mode - this shouldn't be an issue.



What's less clear is whether or not the battery electric wins out as the prime mover for mid-size and up hauling. Only thing to be sure of there is that any absolute claims of which "wins" are wildly premature.



But weight ... Is it about camping or is it about a specific manner of camping. Technologies change and drive changes in how we interact with them.



Listening to Foghat on 8 track is qualitatively different than on MP3 or LP. It's ... well, if you're in the mood and the connectors are right, hook up the TV and charge it all night. It's a slow ride, take it easy.