BCSnob
Middletown, MD
Senior Member
Joined: 02/23/2002
View Profile
|
RVing comes in many flavors. It seems when discussing EVs as tow vehicles the only flavor of RVing many people want to focus on the hauling a >6000lbs TT/5th wheel on a multi day cross country trip. An EV is currently not a good TV for this flavor of RVing.
Another flavor of RVing is hauling a <6000lb TT or an even lighter PU a few hrs from home to a campground for a weekend camping trip using their daily commuting vehicle as the TV. Is everyone willing to bet the current EVs could not fulfill this function? Don’t forget most of the population won’t be towing “the Ike” on a weekend camping trip.
* This post was
edited 01/14/23 05:15am by BCSnob *
|
JRscooby
Indepmo
Senior Member
Joined: 06/10/2019
View Profile
 Offline
|
BCSnob wrote:RVing comes in many flavors. It seems when discussing EVs as tow vehicles the only flavor of RVing many people want to focus on the hauling a >6000lbs TT/5th wheel on a multi day cross country trip. An EV is currently not a good TV for this flavor of RVing.
And I bet 95% of working people that spend 2 weeks a year dragging their spare house around the country have another vehicle that 95% of trips are home and back, less than 50 miles round trip. I'm not saying run out buy EV just because it might be better, but accept that when you get ready to replace that car it is very likely a EV will be best idea.
BTW, really want to help the environment? Most things can be repaired for much less mining and energy than it takes to make them. Bic lighter idea ruined more than Zippo.
Quote:Another flavor of RVing is hauling a <6000lb TT or an even lighter PU a few hrs from home a weekend camping trip using their daily commuting vehicle as the TV. Is everyone willing to bet the current EVs could not fulfill this function? Don’t forget most of the population won’t be towing “the Ike” on a weekend camping trip.
Not just about EVs, but I fail to understand how most RVers, at least on internet, think if they can't keep up with cars on the Ike their TV is not up to task. Even if you go that way, and it takes a extra 2 minutes to make that climb it you spend extra minute pumping fuel, then pay for fuel pumped in that minute, you ain't much ahead.
|
map40
Florida
Senior Member
Joined: 01/15/2005
View Profile
|
BCSnob wrote:RVing comes in many flavors. It seems when discussing EVs as tow vehicles the only flavor of RVing many people want to focus on the hauling a >6000lbs TT/5th wheel on a multi day cross country trip. An EV is currently not a good TV for this flavor of RVing.
Another flavor of RVing is hauling a <6000lb TT or an even lighter PU a few hrs from home to a campground for a weekend camping trip using their daily commuting vehicle as the TV. Is everyone willing to bet the current EVs could not fulfill this function? Don’t forget most of the population won’t be towing “the Ike” on a weekend camping trip.
pianotuna wrote:map40,
Define long distance?
Define heavy loads.
OK, it is all relative. The heavier the load and the longer the distance, the more inconvenient EVs are. For example:
Towing a small trailer (3500-5000#) with a F150 lightning extended range will do close to 200 - 225 miles at highway speeds. At that point you have to find a charging station, but most won't accommodate a truck and trailer, so you may have to drop the trailer, charge for 1 hour, hook up again and get on your way.
Add to that "range anxiety" and the fact that CCS chargers are not the most reliable network, I would not wait until I have 25 miles left in the tank to charge, so now the range goes down to a usable 175 miles.
If you go bigger (think Tesla Semi) you have a 900KWs and can do 500miles at 62mph. But to recharge you need a special charger (1000V) or 10 hours in a supercharger WITHOUT your trailer, and that is if your semi cab fits in the charger parking lot. So the Tesla Semi can only work between predetermined locations.
Let's go smaller, you have a small trailer or a pop-up and you are towing with a Tesla, you range may go down between 30-50%, you may have around 180 miles of range, but being a small car you can drop the trailer and charge in a supercharger.
Also where you live affects the equation. Fuel prices and temperatures affect the calculation. EVs excel in stop-and-go and low speed driving because of the high efficiency and regenerative braking.
EVs work when they are less expensive and the savings justify the inconvenience (or the inconvenience is non-existent). For example, I drive an I3. I can drive my daily drive on battery, but if I ever have to go longer, I have a built-in generator that allows me to go as long as I need without ever charging. I very rarely use the generator, but it eliminates range anxiety and gives me complete freedom with no limitation.
Every case is different, but in general terms, the heavier the vehicle and the longer the distance, the more problematic it becomes for the EVs.
Hopefully this explains my point. The EV market today is not ruled by environmentalists, it is ruled by people who want a lower cost of ownership or want some of the advantages of the EVs (Speed, acceleration, charge it at home, etc)
Alfa SeeYa
Life rocks when your home rolls
|
way2roll
Wilmington NC
Senior Member
Joined: 10/05/2018
View Profile
 Online
|
Lantley wrote: Why do you think all auto manufacturers world wide have suddenly committed to EV?
After taking a ride in a Tesla you will have a much better understanding of the EV debate. You will understand why Elon is the richest man in the world and can afford to buy Twitter!
He single handily changed the game!
First, not all auto manufacturers world wide have committed to EV's. Second, the ONLY reasons US manufactures switched was due to state and federal regulations to do so coupled with subsidies. And at a cost. Ford alone cut 3,000 + jobs. Lastly, Elon is not the richest (or was) man in the world from selling Teslas. It's because the US gave him Billions in funding from taxpayer dollars. We won't delve into the fact that he nearly ran twitter in the ground in the first month.
Again, I am not anti EV, but facts are facts. Sure Teslas might be fun to drive, great for a certain market and packed with a lot of technology. But they are not the climate and ecological silver bullet they were touted as and they aren't thriving from a free market.
2023 FR Sunseeker 2400B MBS
|
shelbyfv
TN
Senior Member
Joined: 02/18/2006
View Profile
|
way2roll wrote: Elon is not the richest (or was) man in the world from selling Teslas. It's because the US gave him Billions in funding from taxpayer dollars. I'm not fan of Musk, just another entitled rich guy IMO. Slams gov't subsidies for others while lobbying hard for his own. However his net worth has been as high as $320 Billion while his companies have received about $7 Billion from the Feds. To be fair, it wasn't all subsidies. Much of it was payment for work done on space stuff, misguided though it may have been. You are probably right that he didn't make his fortune from selling Teslas but he didn't get it from US taxpayers either. Facts can be inconvenient when they are so easily checked.![[emoticon]](https://forums.goodsamclub.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/rolleyes.gif "rolleyes")
* This post was
last
edited 01/14/23 07:47am by shelbyfv *
View edit history
|
|
|
ronharmless
The far side
Senior Member
Joined: 12/15/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
map40 wrote:way2roll wrote:Why are EV's better again?
That happens when you forget what you were writing about half way into the paragraph, which explains most of your posts.
EVs are better when they have a lower cost of ownership.
Forget all the bull-**** politics and skirt, skirt, skirt and cherry pick that you are writing, I'll make it simple for you: If an electric car means I will spend less money overall, that is what I drive. I have been doing it for 10 years. That is why an EV is better for a some application. I primarily care about my pocket, like most people in this world (or at least the ones who use reason over politics) If EV’s are so cheap to own and operate, why do they spend billions of dollars of our money to subsidize them?
|
pianotuna
Regina, SK, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 12/18/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
What about the billions of subsidies to the oil companies?
What about Exxon (and likely others) knowing in the 1970-80ties about global climate change? All the while spending money to cast doubt on their own results?
* This post was
edited 01/14/23 09:05am by pianotuna *
Regards, Don
My ride is a 28 foot Class C, 256 watts solar, 556 amp-hours of Telcom jars, 3000 watt Magnum hybrid inverter, Sola Basic Autoformer, Microair Easy Start.
|
RambleOnNW
Pacific Northwest
Senior Member
Joined: 08/06/2010
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
|
ronharmless wrote:map40 wrote:way2roll wrote:Why are EV's better again?
That happens when you forget what you were writing about half way into the paragraph, which explains most of your posts.
EVs are better when they have a lower cost of ownership.
Forget all the bull-**** politics and skirt, skirt, skirt and cherry pick that you are writing, I'll make it simple for you: If an electric car means I will spend less money overall, that is what I drive. I have been doing it for 10 years. That is why an EV is better for a some application. I primarily care about my pocket, like most people in this world (or at least the ones who use reason over politics) If EV’s are so cheap to own and operate, why do they spend billions of dollars of our money to subsidize them?
To level the playing field. US fossil fuels get $20 Billion annually in direct subsidies.
|
pianotuna
Regina, SK, Canada
Senior Member
Joined: 12/18/2004
View Profile
Offline
|
map40 thanks for the confusing answer
|
shelbyfv
TN
Senior Member
Joined: 02/18/2006
View Profile
|
Speaking of subsidies, looks as if $2 Trillion of our money has been spent on post 9/11 wars. Pretty obvious subsidy to "Big Oil." Where do the, as Grit calls them, "goat fookers" get the $ to attack us and other advanced countries? Oil, maybe?
|
|
|
|
