Free 7 Day Trial RV GPS App RV Trip Planner Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-07-2021, 03:55 PM   #641
Rivet Master
 
kscherzi's Avatar
 
2013 27' FB International
El Dorado Hills , California
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,679
Images: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayouBiker View Post
The problem is that the driver for electric vehicles is entirely, 100% based on the climate change narrative. The two topics are inseparable. You are correct that eventually a more efficient and productive mode of transportation will eventually replace IC engines despite all the failed predictions of catastrophe coming home to roost. The problem with failed predictions are that even young people eventually wake up to the inevitable truth.
I think today there's more than the climate change argument compelling people to switch to electric vehicles, though there's probably a bit of feel good virtue signalling mixed in.

My guess is the vast majority of the driving population could care less what power source is under the hood, as long as the vehicle meets their needs. The daily commute, which for a fat percentage of the population is 30 miles one way or less. It costs less to fill a electric car battery than a gas tank for the same trip, and it can be filled at home. Annual maintenance for an electric vehicle is almost zero, no oil changes, no transmission, no complex emission equipment. As electric cars become priced the same as equivalent gas vehicles people may go that route for price and convenience alone.

Long distance towing is another matter. Yet for local trips and commute, the main reason for most vehicles, an electric is getting to be a real viable choice.
kscherzi is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 04:01 PM   #642
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by primepower View Post
I have trouble believing it is about the planet or I may be misinformed. If it was really about the planet the Keystone pipeline would not be shut down.
Keystone was shut down because is isn't necessary, not so that people could use tankers instead.

Keystone was about expanding the oil sands production, not about shipping current production other ways. Build the pipeline, and people could still use rail and truck to supplement it.

The goal is to reduce fossil fuel usage. To leave it in the ground. Expanding production is going the wrong way. The penny hasn't dropped on that point for everyone yet.
jcl is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 04:14 PM   #643
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daquenzer View Post
The problem with EV’s is not the concept, rather it is the government mandate and manipulation of the market. The government didn’t DEMAND motor vehicles when they came into existence, and DEMAND that horse drawn carriages must be eliminated. They became available when industrial output made them cheap enough that the average person could buy one. Ford understood this.

I think GM’s pronouncement they will be all EV in 15 years is frankly a bit more political than anything. That means they will have to create a market when there essentially isn’t one. They will have to do with the EV what Ford did with the Model T. 15 years is not a long time.

1. There is no way that the demand for EVs will be there when they cost 50% or more than a gas vehicle.
2. There is no way that the demand for EVs will be there until they have essentially the same range and convenience as a gas vehicle. This may not be true for some parts of the country, but I can’t even imagine it will be there in the midwest and rural areas. Unless people can drive an EV much like they do a gas vehicle I think broad acceptance will be difficult.
3. Then there are the maintenance issues. I researched about getting a Tesla and there are few places that sell them, plus if something goes wrong with one you just can’t order a part and put it in. An entire network of people qualified to work on these vehicles must occur. No small task. My son works as a supervisor at a large Metro Transit station. I asked him about EV buses, and he says they don’t have the range, it takes longer to charge them to get back on the road, and they don’t have the mechanics to work on them because of the danger of repairing vehicles with high voltage. So they are actually moving away from them. They simply aren’t cost effective. And this is in a very liberal progressive city.

As to standardizing the battery as mentioned above. There is an excellent video article in the Wall Street Journal about this. And it weighs the pros and cons. The main problem is there has to be all kinds of changing stations (not cheap). AND the battery that GM uses must be the same that FORD uses. It is a nifty idea, because in watching the video it takes about 5 minutes to switch a fully charged battery. But standardization is very difficult to do with competing companies. But it would solve the long charging issue. About the only way this would happen is by government mandate, and government mandates by definition result in pretty dumb decisions. It would have to be such an overwhelmingly good idea that others would adopt. Not saying it couldn’t happen. We do have standardized batteries already for flashlights, etc. But I can’t use my Lithium Dewalt tool batteries in any other tool. Would be nice, though.
There isn't a government mandate for EVs IMO. There are government mandates to reduce emissions. The market can decide how to do that. So far, they are deciding to move away from diesels, and to develop BEVs. There are government incentives for EVs, but they haven't (yet) removed the incentives for fossil fuel vehicles. When they do, let's revisit.

You suggest that GM is creating a market. I don't agree with that. I think the market demand is already there. Look at the sales figures for competing ICE and BEV products, eg product classes where there are BEV alternatives. What GM is doing is abandoning a market for ICEs that it sees as a sunset industry. And trying to get some advertising credit as they do it. It will mean more when they introduce more BEV products, and make them available in reasonable quantities. I read that GM is going to announce a BEV Corvette SUV. They would cash in on the Corvette name, the same as Ford did with the Mustang name. What we need to see is these products out there, not just teaser announcements.

BEVs are getting cheaper, very quickly. Fuel is going to get more expensive. The comparison needs to be between two types of products, considering total cost of ownership, in the future. Not today.

Range anxiety is a real thing. However, I think it is a much more real thing pre purchase, than post purchase. I thought about it a lot before buying an EV. I don't think about it now that I have my charging routine. I can comfortably do 1000 km trips, not towing. That suggests I could comfortably do 500 km trips pulling something like a 22 foot Airstream. I can't yet pull a large Airstream. But the bar is moving continually higher as charging infrastructure, and battery technology, improves.
jcl is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 04:39 PM   #644
Rivet Master
 
2018 25' International
Slidell , Louisiana
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherzi View Post
I think today there's more than the climate change argument compelling people to switch to electric vehicles, though there's probably a bit of feel good virtue signalling mixed in.

My guess is the vast majority of the driving population could care less what power source is under the hood, as long as the vehicle meets their needs. The daily commute, which for a fat percentage of the population is 30 miles one way or less. It costs less to fill a electric car battery than a gas tank for the same trip, and it can be filled at home. Annual maintenance for an electric vehicle is almost zero, no oil changes, no transmission, no complex emission equipment. As electric cars become priced the same as equivalent gas vehicles people may go that route for price and convenience alone.

Long distance towing is another matter. Yet for local trips and commute, the main reason for most vehicles, an electric is getting to be a real viable choice.
Those future predictions of end to end efficiency and cost savings have not happened yet so it can't be driving today's buying decisions. People are making buying decisions today based on the what is available and real today. They are viable only because of tax incentives, for both income and use taxes. Tax payers are being compelled to pay to make EV's attractive, otherwise they would be be nearly unsellable. Tax incentives are entirely based on the global warming scare.

It's seems likely future electric vehicles will have more than a single speed gear reduction, they very well may have multiple speed transmissions. EV's are not maintenance free now nor will they ever be, they have plenty of wearing parts and plenty of components that fail. In the not too distant future use tax will be applied to electricity used on the road and supply and demand will bring energy prices in line so there will not be a discrepancy as there is today.
__________________
Brian
BayouBiker is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 04:59 PM   #645
4 Rivet Member
 
2018 30' Classic
Williamsburg , VA
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
Keystone was shut down because is isn't necessary, not so that people could use tankers instead.

Keystone was about expanding the oil sands production, not about shipping current production other ways. Build the pipeline, and people could still use rail and truck to supplement it.

The goal is to reduce fossil fuel usage. To leave it in the ground. Expanding production is going the wrong way. The penny hasn't dropped on that point for everyone yet.
IF that is true, it still doesn't solve the problem. If our demand exceeds our production we will purchase and transport the fuel from overseas leaving us vulnerable to other countries and increasing emissions. Just like the coal example I gave, it doesn't help the environment, it hurts it more.

I'm not anti EV, I just don't believe the current strategy to address climate change is appropriate or efficient. My next car may be an EV. It will be along time before I replace my TV with one though.
__________________
2018 Classic 30
2012 F250 6.7l
US Army Watercraft Engineering Officer
primepower is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 05:09 PM   #646
Rivet Master
 
2018 25' International
Slidell , Louisiana
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,477
primepower, it's not true. Worldwide energy demand and fossil fuel use is increasing as you indicate. The Alberta Oil Sands will be produced at higher rates when it again is economic to do so unless government dictates prevent it. Lack of need is not going to keep it in the ground, that's just silly talk.

A pipeline does not create demand for oil, but it does efficiently and safely bring it to market.
__________________
Brian
BayouBiker is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 06:07 PM   #647
1 Rivet Member
 
2008 19' Safari
Wake Forest , NC
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 13
Do people not realize that fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the federal government and therefore "manipulated" so to speak?

Gas and diesel would easily cost over a dollar more a gallon without those subsidies.

Every EV proponent understands the electricity still comes from dirty sources. Do people not believe that refining crude is a super efficient process? It takes a ton of energy to turn crude into the various useful fuels and lubricants. It then takes a ton of energy to move those fuels somewhere that a customer can obtain it. Then, the engines that burn those fuels only turn about 30% of that energy into motion. The rest is lost to heat. That's a super inefficient process.

Electric motors are 80-90% efficient in turning energy in to motion. Way less heat. Less energy lost getting to the vehicle too. The only drawbacks are storing that energy and storing it quickly.

I own a Tesla model 3 for commuting to work and for going on trips that I don't bring the Airstream. It is a revelation. 100% torque from no throttle to full throttle is amazing. I start every morning with a full tank, and never have to worry about filling up on my way to work or home. I've owned it for 7 months and put 12k miles on it. The only maintenance I've had to do is a tire rotation. Stopping on a long trip to supercharge only takes 20 minutes to go from 15%-80% charge. We watch Netflix in the car or stretch our legs during that time.

I have a pre-order for a Cybertruck (even though it's ugly as sin) with the longest range. That 500+ miles will turn into about 220 useable miles when towing. That's enough for me on the east coast. There's no where I can go where I can boonedock for weeks on end. I can drive anywhere I need, set up camp and charge at the campsite. All while spending maybe 20 bucks at home on "gas." It won't be as convenient on long trips as my F150, but it also won't cost 80-100 bucks each time I fill up.

Progress is weird and can be difficult to understand. 20 years ago, we couldn't imagine that we were just about to experience a technological revolution in cell phones where we went from calling only to literal computers/cameras/video streaming machines. In 15 years, battery technology will absolutely be better than it currently is. In all honesty it probably won't be as convenient and quick as fossil fuels. But is that not what some camping is about? Pushing the limits of what technology is? Not staying in a hotel, but going out further and still staying comfortable.

Look, right now EVs aren't for everyone, and especially not everyone who tows a lot. They will get there. Technology moves ahead that way, but only when there is demand, and there is demand for electric trucks.
Buglermcd is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 07:05 PM   #648
Rivet Master
 
2018 25' International
Slidell , Louisiana
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buglermcd View Post
Do people not realize that fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by the federal government and therefore "manipulated" so to speak?

Gas and diesel would easily cost over a dollar more a gallon without those subsidies.
Completely and utterly false. This is a just so story, a lie to make it seem like wind and solar subsidies are justified. Each year in the US nearly 7 billion barrels of petroleum products are consumed. Subsidized at $1 per gallon that's $294 billion dollars in taxpayer money given away?

Let's look at it another way. Spot market prices in the past months have been hovering around $50 per barrel. Are you suggesting the federal government pays oil producers enough to nearly double the producers revenue? Why does none of this money show up in the profit and loss statements? Also how is it that globally oil prices are the same less transportation and quality adjustments?

Does the US government subsidize oil globally to keep prices consistent?

net per gallon taxes for petroleum in the US is currently about $0.55 are you suggesting it should be $1.55? How can this be justified when electricity is for transportation is taxed at zero?

This subsidy farce is nonsense at so many levels.


Quote:
Every EV proponent understands the electricity still comes from dirty sources. Do people not believe that refining crude is a super efficient process? It takes a ton of energy to turn crude into the various useful fuels and lubricants. It then takes a ton of energy to move those fuels somewhere that a customer can obtain it. Then, the engines that burn those fuels only turn about 30% of that energy into motion. The rest is lost to heat. That's a super inefficient process.
Solar energy produces 300 times more toxic waste than a nuclear plant per energy unit. Is that a clean energy source? Solar panels are less than 20% efficient. Wind turbines are about 35% efficient. Modern fossil fuel power plants are 77-80% efficient.

Quote:
Look, right now EVs aren't for everyone, and especially not everyone who tows a lot. They will get there. Technology moves ahead that way, but only when there is demand, and there is demand for electric trucks.
Why then do you have to figure in the tax subsidies to make them worth purchasing and why is it without them, the entire industry would not exist?
__________________
Brian
BayouBiker is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 07:20 PM   #649
1 Rivet Member
 
2008 19' Safari
Wake Forest , NC
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayouBiker View Post
Completely and utterly false. This is a just so story, a lie to make it seem like wind and solar subsidies are justified. Each year in the US nearly 7 billion barrels of petroleum products are consumed. Subsidized at $1 per gallon that's $294 billion dollars in taxpayer money given away?

Let's look at it another way. Spot market prices in the past months have been hovering around $50 per barrel. Are you suggesting the federal government pays oil producers enough to nearly double the producers revenue? Why does none of this money show up in the profit and loss statements? Also how is it that globally oil prices are the same less transportation and quality adjustments?

Does the US government subsidize oil globally to keep prices consistent?

net per gallon taxes for petroleum in the US is currently about $0.55 are you suggesting it should be $1.55? How can this be justified when electricity is for transportation is taxed at zero?

This subsidy farce is nonsense at so many levels.




Solar energy produces 300 times more toxic waste than a nuclear plant per energy unit. Is that a clean energy source? Solar panels are less than 20% efficient. Wind turbines are about 35% efficient. Modern fossil fuel power plants are 77-80% efficient.



Why then do you have to figure in the tax subsidies to make them worth purchasing and why is it without them, the entire industry would not exist?
I didn't mention solar...

Here's a good article on oil subsidies: https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin...gas-subsidies/

BTW, I received no tax breaks on my Tesla. There are no federal tax breaks available on Teslas currently, and my state offers no incentives. Tesla sold more cars in 4Q than any previously, and that was well after federal tax incentives expired. EVs have enough demand without government involvement and other automakers see that too.
Buglermcd is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 07:22 PM   #650
Rivet Master
 
2017 23' Flying Cloud
Bartlett , Tennessee
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherzi View Post
I think today there's more than the climate change argument compelling people to switch to electric vehicles, though there's probably a bit of feel good virtue signalling mixed in.

My guess is the vast majority of the driving population could care less what power source is under the hood, as long as the vehicle meets their needs. The daily commute, which for a fat percentage of the population is 30 miles one way or less. It costs less to fill a electric car battery than a gas tank for the same trip, and it can be filled at home. Annual maintenance for an electric vehicle is almost zero, no oil changes, no transmission, no complex emission equipment. As electric cars become priced the same as equivalent gas vehicles people may go that route for price and convenience alone.

Long distance towing is another matter. Yet for local trips and commute, the main reason for most vehicles, an electric is getting to be a real viable choice.
An excellent argument for letting the free market decide when EV's replace ICE's. Government mandates are completely unnecessary.

Precisely how the automobile replaced the horse and buggy.
__________________
Bobbo and Lin
2017 F-150 XLT 4x4 SuperCab 3.5l EcoBoost V6
2017 Flying Cloud 23FB "BobLin Along"
Bobbo is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 07:28 PM   #651
4 Rivet Member
 
2018 30' Classic
Williamsburg , VA
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 334
I'm not sure I read that article the same way you did. Those "subsidies" are tax breaks and even with those they pay much higher taxes than other industries listed.
__________________
2018 Classic 30
2012 F250 6.7l
US Army Watercraft Engineering Officer
primepower is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 07:45 PM   #652
Rivet Master
 
2018 25' International
Slidell , Louisiana
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 3,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buglermcd View Post
I didn't mention solar...

Here's a good article on oil subsidies: https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillin...gas-subsidies/

BTW, I received no tax breaks on my Tesla. There are no federal tax breaks available on Teslas currently, and my state offers no incentives. Tesla sold more cars in 4Q than any previously, and that was well after federal tax incentives expired. EVs have enough demand without government involvement and other automakers see that too.
You mentioned dirty energy. Solar is a so called clean energy that turns out is remarkably dirty.

The good article on oil subsidies is just a list of tax policies that apply to any industry, the cumulative effects applied to oil and gas simply added up. Tax policies that are uniformly applied to other industries like in one example from the article, allowing an expense that generates no capital value to be expensed is not a subsidy. Reductions in tax rates where positive net taxes are still paid on that activity is setting a tax rate, not offering a subsidy. Unlike the actual cash and grant subsidies paid to the EV industries over the recent years.

I realize subsidies are currently mostly suspended thanks to more sound judgement but that is likely to change again soon. That does not in anyway change the statement I made which is that without subsidies it is not worth the additional cost to purchase a EV which does not payout the extra costs.
__________________
Brian
BayouBiker is offline  
Old 02-07-2021, 10:38 PM   #653
Rivet Master
 
2017 28' International
Jim Falls , Wisconsin
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,652
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcl View Post
There isn't a government mandate for EVs IMO. There are government mandates to reduce emissions. The market can decide how to do that. So far, they are deciding to move away from diesels, and to develop BEVs. There are government incentives for EVs, but they haven't (yet) removed the incentives for fossil fuel vehicles. When they do, let's revisit.

You suggest that GM is creating a market. I don't agree with that. I think the market demand is already there. Look at the sales figures for competing ICE and BEV products, eg product classes where there are BEV alternatives. What GM is doing is abandoning a market for ICEs that it sees as a sunset industry. And trying to get some advertising credit as they do it. It will mean more when they introduce more BEV products, and make them available in reasonable quantities. I read that GM is going to announce a BEV Corvette SUV. They would cash in on the Corvette name, the same as Ford did with the Mustang name. What we need to see is these products out there, not just teaser announcements.

BEVs are getting cheaper, very quickly. Fuel is going to get more expensive. The comparison needs to be between two types of products, considering total cost of ownership, in the future. Not today.

Range anxiety is a real thing. However, I think it is a much more real thing pre purchase, than post purchase. I thought about it a lot before buying an EV. I don't think about it now that I have my charging routine. I can comfortably do 1000 km trips, not towing. That suggests I could comfortably do 500 km trips pulling something like a 22 foot Airstream. I can't yet pull a large Airstream. But the bar is moving continually higher as charging infrastructure, and battery technology, improves.
1. There may not be FED mandates, but there are state mandates. California being one.
2. Manipulation of the market has been occurring through subsidies to buy electric vehicles. These subsidies don’t last forever and end after a producer sells a certain number of vehicles. These subsidies are regressive, since they favor people who are the highest earners and can afford the cars. Nevertheless subsidies manipulate the market.
3. Every product producer creates a market. Why do you think they advertise? That’s economics 101. GM has to CONVINCE the public that buying an EV is to their benefit especially an economic benefit, since people will buy EV’s only when they perceive it to be desirable to own and EV OVER a gas powered vehicle.
4. This market creation is different than moving from horses to cars. The difference is self-evident. Now one has to convince the public that getting from A to B is better and more cost effective in an EV than a gas powered vehicle that essentially does the same thing.
5. If GM is going to encourage EV use why are they building EV’s for only high end consumers? They need to be focusing on product development to the middle class. This is how FORD sold cars to the masses.
6. As to incentives for gas powered vehicles those have been far and few between; and typically for those that use vehicles for work. But that is a very small portion of demand.

But here is what auto-makers want:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/15/auto...-vehicles.html

Why do you think they want subsidies and government help? Answer: They realize it won’t be profitable without them because the demand isn’t there.

I have generally been an early adopter of technology from computers to cell phones. But unless I see a clear utility enhancement, significant cost of operation reduction, and repair infrastructure in place, I’m not going to buy one. And I believe this is the way most in the general public will react.

And this is especially the case for towing vehicles which require huge power plants. I wonder how THAT is going to affect payload?

There will probably be hard core climate change types that will buy EVs because they believe they help the environment; something I’m not totally convinced of. And I would say a large percentage of the populace are in that category.
Daquenzer is offline  
Old 02-08-2021, 10:37 AM   #654
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daquenzer View Post
1. There may not be FED mandates, but there are state mandates. California being one.
2. Manipulation of the market has been occurring through subsidies to buy electric vehicles. These subsidies don’t last forever and end after a producer sells a certain number of vehicles. These subsidies are regressive, since they favor people who are the highest earners and can afford the cars. Nevertheless subsidies manipulate the market.
3. Every product producer creates a market. Why do you think they advertise? That’s economics 101. GM has to CONVINCE the public that buying an EV is to their benefit especially an economic benefit, since people will buy EV’s only when they perceive it to be desirable to own and EV OVER a gas powered vehicle.
4. This market creation is different than moving from horses to cars. The difference is self-evident. Now one has to convince the public that getting from A to B is better and more cost effective in an EV than a gas powered vehicle that essentially does the same thing.
5. If GM is going to encourage EV use why are they building EV’s for only high end consumers? They need to be focusing on product development to the middle class. This is how FORD sold cars to the masses.
1) Good point. California's mandate is for 14 years in the future, but it does signify a clear direction.

2) You are referring to US subsidies. There is a whole world outside the US border. While you may not be purchasing vehicles in the rest of the world, the ROTW can provide some indication of the effect of subsidies.

3) When you consider advertising of vehicles, remember to consider that Tesla doesn't advertise. They don't have an advertising budget, or a PR budget. Yet they can outsell every other EV, and in some jurisdictions, every other vehicle. In the US, they have the most popular vehicle, in some product classes, and that is after subsidies ended. GM is an interesting case. They aren't advertising to sell electric vehicles. They don't have any to sell. They are advertising to support their share price. They are telling people that it is worth staying with them, because in the future they plan to have BEV products.

5) Many suggest that most traditional automakers (I would exclude VW here) don't want to sell EVs. The BEVs that they have announced have been limited production vehicles, so called compliance vehicles. Just enough to show that they can do it, but not so many that they threaten their established business model. That will change over time. Or they will go out of business. This relates back to the point about GM advertising what they will do in the future. It isn't about selling BEVs. It is about pleading with consumers for a chance to stay in business.
jcl is offline  
Old 02-08-2021, 10:52 AM   #655
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayouBiker View Post
The Alberta Oil Sands will be produced at higher rates when it again is economic to do so unless government dictates prevent it. Lack of need is not going to keep it in the ground, that's just silly talk.

A pipeline does not create demand for oil, but it does efficiently and safely bring it to market.
That ignores the current move to fossil fuel divestment. Public companies are making decisions not to invest in short term dirty fuels. Pension funds are selling off fossil fuel stocks. The "free market" is deciding. Just the same way as power producers are closing coal power plants.

Some governments haven't figured out which way this is going yet. Here, we saw a federal government buy a pipeline project (the private investors were struggling to calculate a return) and a provincial government invest $1.5 billion in the Keystone project (they called it an equity investment) to prop up the companies that were losing their investors.

The groups promoting pipelines in Alberta are not producers, according to a recent article. They are representatives of the exploration and development industry. The producers don't want more capacity, as they have too much, and that keeps the prices low. The ones that promote more pipeline capacity are perpetuating a pyramid scheme. That is how they are creating demand.

Just say no.
jcl is offline  
Old 02-08-2021, 11:19 AM   #656
Rivet Master
 
2009 34' Panamerica
2005 28' Classic
Still , in the thick of it
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayouBiker View Post
The problem is that the driver for electric vehicles is entirely, 100% based on the climate change narrative.
Really? That's sort of a broad generalization isn't it? I drive an electric vehicle, but the climate narrative had zero to do with it.

I drive about 35 miles a day. It was time to retire my V8 powered daily driver. Sure I could have got an econobox that go 40+ mpg or a Prius that got 50mpg, but was totally utilitarian and lacked any type of enjoyment.

Electric vehicle subsidies along with the reality that as my daily driver I have saved over $10,500k (roughly 3,825 gallons of gas) in fuel costs in 9 years compared to what I did drive. Sure I could have gotten boring Prius, and the savings would still have been decent, but the Prius just didn't appeal to me and still would have spent $442 +/- per year on gas and in the same 9 years spend just under $4k in fuel for the Prius for the same daily trip. So between the federal and state subsidy and the $10k in fuel costs, I basically got a $45k car for $26k and ROI increasing every trip, so maybe I'm not the norm, but the environment was not foremost on my mind when I purchased the commuter car. Though it is true that unlike it's ICE counterparts, an EV or PHEV's get cleaner as the power grid continues to clean up...but again, not the reason I bought into it.

Of course towing is a bit different story in terms of EV...range, charging, etc have different considerations with 2-5 tons of RV in tow.

....and before folks start to bemoan subsidies, please take into account that the fossil fuel industries have been subsidized for decades and wars fought over fossil resources. No one is fighting over my local coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and hydro plants.


https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fac...societal-costs


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy


https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climat...ergy-subsidies


https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...report-833035/
panamerican is offline  
Old 02-08-2021, 11:33 AM   #657
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,950
Getting back to the original question in this thread, "when to go electric for a tow vehicle," and leaving aside the climate change and fossil fuel subsidy debate.....

Most of the discussion has focused on range, particularly due to concerns with higher combination weights when towing, and greater air resistance with bigger trailers. Fair enough. But here are some other factors that we may want to consider:

1) The vehicle purchase business model. Lots of discussion on this board on purchasing a new vehicle, and dealing with dealers. The largest EV producer (who has plans to introduce a larger truck late this year) doesn't use a dealer model. Direct purchase. Delivery can be complicated in some states by franchise dealer protection laws, designed to perpetuate the dealer sales model. (side discussion: maybe it is time to let the market decide, and open up sales channels for other brands). This point also relates to the current automotive dealer business model whereby dealers often lose money on vehicle sales, break even or close to it on service revenue (due to the required investment in physical infrastructure) and make money on parts and accessories sales. It isn't such a big thing to lose service business for some dealers, but it is a big thing to lose the ability to balance the income and profit stream. And of course, BEVs require much less scheduled maintenance, and parts sales. Tire stores will still do OK, and wipers will continue to need replacing, as will cabin air filters. Door hinges should be lubricated. But not much else.

2) Model Years. There is a lot of discussion about new models, eg whether the '21 of some brand will have some new feature. Tesla (for one) doesn't use model years. They have a continual improvement model. Features are added when they are ready, not when the marketing department says it is a new model year (which doesn't often relate to a calendar year in any case)

3) Marketing. Some manufacturers of EVs don't advertise. This is disruptive to the advertising industry. It also makes the vehicle less expensive. Some groups pushing back on BEVs are not interested so much in the vehicles, but rather in perpetuating advertising revenue streams.

4) Charging infrastructure specific to one BEV manufacturer. If one wants to take advantage of Superchargers (to use that one example) one currently needs to select a Tesla. There have been discussions about whether Tesla will give other manufacturers access to their network. (side note: In addition to vehicle and battery factories being expanded or built in China, German, and throughout the US, Tesla just built a Supercharger factory) For other manufacturers, it isn't just about their battery technology, but also about their charging network. If one wants to go longer distances with more charging, eg when towing, there is only one option at the moment. When to buy a (non Tesla) tow vehicle will relate as much to charging infrastructure for that specific vehicle, as to the battery capacity on board and the fast charging rate.

5) OTA Updates. It seems that most owners of ICE vehicles don't think about this one. Updating a navigation system (new maps) and the occasional fix to a bug are about it, and require a dealer visit most of the time. Over the air updates is a game changer. And most traditional manufacturers have their hands tied due to their vehicle architecture. Once an owner sees regular updates (eg monthly feature additions, at no additional cost) then it is hard to go back.

The above five points are in addition to the obvious one, what is the range. Some of the issues aren't strictly ICE vs BEV, but more traditional manufacturer vs new manufacturer. It will be interesting to see where new manufacturers such as Rivian fall on the spectrum.
jcl is offline  
Old 02-08-2021, 11:35 AM   #658
Rivet Master
 
2009 34' Panamerica
2005 28' Classic
Still , in the thick of it
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 580
I think in 3-5 years, provided that charging infrastructure is avail and the range is on par.

Up until about 6 mos ago, I was dead set on a Duramax/Allison pickup. I haven't totally rules it out, but I also find I haven't ruled out and EV to do the job.
panamerican is offline  
Old 02-08-2021, 11:49 AM   #659
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,950
Continuing on the topic of the original question in this thread, "when to go electric for a tow vehicle," how will trailers change, or how should they change, as part of this decision tree?

1) Trailers with less air resistance would be good. This means narrower, not wider, and with no protruding air conditioners. Length isn't as important.

2) Less weight would be good. Perhaps the factory could have delete options, so that those who don't want all the added equipment that seems to be standard these days can be left off. TVs, sound systems, power awnings, power jacks, etc.

3) Dexter (or another axle supplier) needs to get with the program and offer a self contained power assist axle, coupled with a trailer mounted battery pack. It would provide propulsion assist, and regen braking, and activate either power or braking based on a sensor in the coupler that sensed load, exactly as surge brakes work today. This would make it more universal in terms of the vehicles that could tow a trailer equipped with it. The battery mounted very low under the trailer would support this type of trailer not requiring WD equipment for normal use, which would concurrently support the use of a coupler sensor, and further reduce weight.

None of these would be targeted at just BEVs. They would all benefit any tow vehicle that was more efficient than some traditional choices.

There would obviously still be a market for larger heavier Airstreams, just as there is a market today for park model trailers that require heavy trucks to move them. But this would be a premium product, targeted more at traveling, not staying.
jcl is offline  
Old 02-08-2021, 04:02 PM   #660
4 Rivet Member
 
2018 30' Classic
Williamsburg , VA
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 334
I almost purchased an Audi e-tron instead of my ICE Cadillac. However when I compared insurance rates the Audi would costs over $1k more per year. We already own one Audi, it's the EV part that jacked up my insurance quote. I'm a nerd and had an excel sheet tallying up 10 year costs included fuel and type of fuel, insurance, etc. The EV was much more expensive for me. Insurance is an afterthought to some and they may be in for a surprise. Cost of repair on EV's at this point is really weighing heavy with me. Less maintenance for sure, but I perform my own maintenance so that cost is not high for me. Even with two diesels and two german autos.
__________________
2018 Classic 30
2012 F250 6.7l
US Army Watercraft Engineering Officer
primepower is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Electric tow vehicle.... Silvertwinkie Tow Vehicles 33 09-24-2009 05:29 PM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.