Electric car and towing

[elbekko]

[NRS91]

On 8/22/2020 at 11:11 AM, Cornish Rattler said:

Hi guys

Just curiouse really and with being stuck in the house and the weather hammering it down here and seeing adverts on the box about electric cars it got me thinking has anyone on here got an electric car or know someone who has one that use it for towing a caravan or boat or something, what are they like towing, can they tow as with an engined powered car not all but a lot of peeps tow with cars and i don't just mean landy's it can be any electric car 🤔

Getting back to the original question, check out TFL (The Fast Lane) on Youtube, they did a range test of a Tesla towing a box van trailer... after the popularity of that video they also took a camper trailer away for the weekend into a woodland with one to see if it was viable.

Basically they are capable but the range when towing is hopeless...

(To make life easier I dug out the links)
 

 

 

 

[Escape]

12 hours ago, missingsid said:

Diesil Electric trains?

Aren't they Engine-Generator-Electric Motor?

The main reason trains use diesel-electric drive, or diesel-hydraulic, is because it's much easier to have drive on multiple axles, spread over the entire length of the train. That would be very complex with a mechanical drive, and you do need to spread the tractive effort because of the very low friction of the steel wheels on steel rails. Preferably without much intrusion in the passenger compartment (flat floors, low entrances etc). For the manufacturers it has the added advantage they can use many parts like drive bogies from their electric trains instead of having to design new gearboxes. In theory you could use regenerative braking with a diesel-electric drive, but in practice most such trains don't have batteries. It just becomes to heavy and complicated.

I'm involved in a study for battery powered trains, but so far it doesn't look like it's a good option. Charging takes too long and puts too much strain on the catenaries and grid. The only viable option at the moment seems to be an electric train using catenaries most of the time, with batteries to allow it to reach some stations on a non-electrified line or to overcome non-electrified stretches (like bridges, tunnels or connections between main lines). In those cases and with low frequency transport it would be cheaper than having to build catenaries. 

In (freight) locomotives electric or hydraulic drive helps to provide the torque to get a heavy train moving, without having to worry about wear and tear of the gearbox(es). Pretty much the same reasoning as in large size dumptrucks. Most nowadays are diesel-electric (with batteries for regenerative braking) or diesel-hydraulic (you need a strong hydraulic system anyway). Some like Cat keep offering mechanical transmissions though, they claim it offers a higher power density and better efficiency.

[Ed Poore]

9 minutes ago, Escape said:

Pretty much the same reasoning as in large size dumptrucks.

There's a mine in Russia where the dump trucks are free to run. The trucks come down full, go back up empty so they actually regen more power than they need.

[Snagger]

17 hours ago, missingsid said:

The out of control offensive nutter who owns it puts me off.

I’m torn on him - he behaves terribly at times, crashing his own share prices with stupid comments, calling a hero a peado, challenging Depp to a fight and giving his new child a ridiculous name that is just child abuse, but then he has also shown extraordinary determination and guile in transforming the car industry, renewables, and most impressive of all, restarted the space programme which had long since stalled.  I see him as a great man tainted by bouts of madness.  I doubt he’s any pleasure to work for!

[Escape]

2 hours ago, Ed Poore said:

There's a mine in Russia where the dump trucks are free to run. The trucks come down full, go back up empty so they actually regen more power than they need.

Yeah, I've heard about that one. Aren't they using the big Belaz trucks?

How I wish I could study those, instead of trains... Could make for an interesting testdrive!

@Snagger so you're saying Musk is either a good-meaning Bond-villain (he does have all the traits, reminds me especially of Gustav Graves) or a mad Targaeryen who wants to be a good king but burns the city in the process. 😄

Filip

[Gazzar]

He's like Mick O'Leary. A driven disrupter. And has an unusually clear vision of how it should be. Narrowly avoids being an arēshole by being incredibly successful.

Also able to drive innovation in his workforce.

I respect him, but would not be able to work for him.

Best wishes to spacex.

[steve b]

My biggest grumble with EM is the Skynet project that is already underway and will change the night sky forever . It seems the principle of " it will work so we must do it without any restrictions" is still at the forefront of Powerful Ego's .

For the greater good of mankind.... 

Steve

[Arjan]

"..How I wish I could study those, instead of trains.."

What's wrong with trains ?

Love trains 😃

(and they help me to pay the bills...)

[Snagger]

2 hours ago, Gazzar said:

He's like Mick O'Leary. A driven disrupter. And has an unusually clear vision of how it should be. Narrowly avoids being an arēshole by being incredibly successful.

Also able to drive innovation in his workforce.

I respect him, but would not be able to work for him.

Best wishes to spacex.

O’Leary didn’t innovate and didn’t improve anything; he merely acts ruthlessly and often illegally to drive down costs.  He is nothing more than an adept money man.  If he managed to properly duplicate the Southwest model he based RYR on, he’d make an awful lot more money through loyalty and good will of staff and customers alike, but instead he wastes that potential revenue by bullying and turning everyone against him and the business. His success comes only through navigating financial loopholes and being completely psychopathic.  It’s not down to high intelligence, insight or invention.

[Bowie69]

4 hours ago, Snagger said:

 I see him as a great man tainted by bouts of madness.  I doubt he’s any pleasure to work for!

Personally I find those two statements entirely incongruent.

 

[SPendrey]

2 hours ago, Bowie69 said:

Personally I find those two statements entirely incongruent.

 

I find myself having to use a dictionary to find out what "incongruent" means 😕

[Escape]

20 hours ago, Arjan said:

"..How I wish I could study those, instead of trains.."

What's wrong with trains ?

Love trains 😃

(and they help me to pay the bills...)

Totally agree on the last part, trains pay my bills as well. 😉

But I have no love for them at all. I avoid riding them whenever possible, the fuel cost of driving the gaz-guzzling 4.6 Rangie to work instead of taking a free train doesn't even come close to pushing me towards rail. It doesn't help that my job mostly involves reports no one reads, studies that lead to nothing, a lot of number crunching and all that steered by the political tendencies of the moment. Rarely do I get to leave the office, but when we do visit a building site or even better a rolling stock workshop I must admit I feel a lot more at home, and can marvel at both the technology of the trains and the equipment used for maintenance etc.

But I still wont admit to liking them. 😛

Filip 

[FridgeFreezer]

So you still love your job then?

[miketomcat]

@Escape If it makes you feel better I restore classic wooden power boats and love my job but the pay is rubbish and couldn't run a 4.6 even if I wanted to. 

Back vaguely on topics if you think electric cars are bad have a little look at electric boats....now what could possibly go wrong there. 

[deep]

On 8/25/2020 at 9:52 PM, steve b said:

My biggest grumble with EM is the Skynet project that is already underway and will change the night sky forever . It seems the principle of " it will work so we must do it without any restrictions" is still at the forefront of Powerful Ego's .

For the greater good of mankind.... 

Steve

Exactly.  What a scumbag.  Pollutes the sky seen by nearly everyone on earth, turning something inspiring deep philosophy and great wonder into a reminder that people with lots of money treat the earth and its surrounds as being theirs to possess.  Did he ask us if it would bother us?  Of course not.  

If my reaction seems strong, it's because I've been watching big money destroying large areas of native forest, in a reserve, in a supposedly civilised country that has laws in place to prevent such a thing.  My job is on the line because I care.  And how does this juggernaut justify this massive, fossil-fuel burning and tree killing project?  By advertising how environmentally friendly electric cars are!  I am quite bitter about the bulldozer effect of big money and the gullibility of people who worship prosperity, without recognising they are already prosperous enough.  They are the fuel that drives that big money in the first place.

Electricity has its place, of course, but there are is a lot of smoke and more than a few mirrors around the advantages of electric vehicles.  I'd say stick to fossil fuels for that towing mission until people can make that much electricity without cutting down forest, drowning farms, villages and natural areas, producing nuclear waste or, ironically, burning fossil fuels to produce it.

Good to get that off my chest...

[steve b]

Agree completely and keep up the good work , it all counts . 

..I could have been a lot more forthright in my post , it really bugs the F out of me .

Steve

[miketomcat]

@deep unfortunately the problem is only going to get worse. I'm going to say this but I know it will upset some, the single biggest problem with with all technology including cars in general is demand. There are simply to many humans on this planet now, we are screaming towards self destruct. If we reduce to the population level of 1900 half of the supply issues go away (granted they don't disappear completely but we add time). With the best will in the world until we can see the problem is our population numbers nothing is going to change and we'll continue to head towards extinction. I pitty my children and my children's children....

Mike

[Stellaghost]

21 minutes ago, miketomcat said:

 There are simply to many humans on this planet now, we are screaming towards self destruct. If we reduce to the population level of 1900 half of the supply issues go away (granted they don't disappear completely but we add time). With the best will in the world until we can see the problem is our population numbers nothing is going to change and we'll continue to head towards extinction. I pitty my children and my children's children....

Mike

Agree with this totally you have to think long and hard about bringing children in the future , Ive forgotten which book but the Author Michael Crichton wrote a few facts in one of his books and it is quite chilling to read,think it could be state of fear anyway around 2050 we are going to be getting up the creek without a paddle the world cannot sustain the population explosion God , don't get me started regards Stephen

[mad_pete]

Population is slowing down, 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/%3famp=1

Get some robot helpers, ease up on the emissions a bit more and good to go for another 100 years.

[Snagger]

1 hour ago, Stellaghost said:

Agree with this totally you have to think long and hard about bringing children in the future , Ive forgotten which book but the Author Michael Crichton wrote a few facts in one of his books and it is quite chilling to read,think it could be state of fear anyway around 2050 we are going to be getting up the creek without a paddle the world cannot sustain the population explosion God , don't get me started regards Stephen

There is a very good series of Sci-fi novels, now being made into Tv series, called “The Expanse” which touches on it - an Earth population of 30bn, not enough resources and nowhere near enough jobs, most people living on basic support and in slums or tent cities.  That is the future.  For all the political rhetoric about pollution, climate change and resources, nobody mentions the elephant in the room that is not just the cause of so much pollution, but also famines, disease, war, extinction of other species.  It’s peculiar that the worst behaved nation of all was the only nation to have a temporary attempt at limiting population growth.

[FridgeFreezer]

19 hours ago, miketomcat said:

couldn't run a 4.6 even if I wanted to. 

If you sold all your other daft projects and cut down to just one unreliable Land Rover product you could afford to run a rolls royce mate

[deep]

14 hours ago, miketomcat said:

@deep unfortunately the problem is only going to get worse. I'm going to say this but I know it will upset some, the single biggest problem with with all technology including cars in general is demand. There are simply to many humans on this planet now, we are screaming towards self destruct. If we reduce to the population level of 1900 half of the supply issues go away (granted they don't disappear completely but we add time). With the best will in the world until we can see the problem is our population numbers nothing is going to change and we'll continue to head towards extinction. I pitty my children and my children's children....

Mike

Depressing as the topic is, it's refreshing to see some people (even on a Land Rover forum!) have big enough vision to see what's really going on.  The logical extrapolation of what has happened over the last few centuries is that, one day, the only thing left for rich people to eat will be poor people.  While that sounds ridiculous, it is inevitable that anything that stops the rampaging effects of of increasing human populations (and their increasing levels of indulgence) will be very painful at best.  Wars, famines and natural disasters are swallowed up with barely a bump in growth or activity.  Even the dreaded CoViD19 pandemic is thought to have reduced the death rate here by around 1,200 this past Winter, as lockdown protected vulnerable folk from the flu and respiratory infections.

I almost sneer at the panic around global warming - as big an issue as it is, it's like fixing a broken hinge on the barn door a year after the horse bolted.  Deforestation, desertification, mass extinctions, soil salination etc. etc. don't need mathematical models for us to see the effects.  And still we claim our rights to have as many children as we like, to have as big a house as we like, to commute as far as we like, to indulge as much as we like and live in horror that anybody should actually die.  Even though it all comes with a nightmare burden of rules and regulations, increasing numbers of broken families, increasing levels of depression and suicide and no evidence of increased happiness, humanity has agreed to stick to its rights and not take responsibility (beyond a modest nod at climate change).

So, yup, I also pity your children and their children, Mike.  I never actually had children, because I have always been concerned about over-population.  I'm 59, less than six years from retirement, and grateful not to be growing up and entering the workforce today!

What a gloomy post!  Sorry.  I think it may explain my underlying objection to the new Defender.  The first half century of Land Rovers was about producing a functional tool (used for better or for worse) that would continue functioning for decades. The new one is entirely about indulging the wealthy, with a heavy dose of Big Brother directing that indulgence.  I don't like that at all.  Even though I am an indulgent hypocrite...

Edited August 27, 2020 by deep
grammar

[FridgeFreezer]

[Sheffield]

I agree fully with all that has been said. I am glad to be reaching the end of my life rather than just starting, as it seems to me that the future is not at all rosy.

But mankind is fundamentally a selfish nasty creature who always wants more than he has.

Not surprising really; we are descended, so I am told, from a couple who did not know when they were well off, stole the one thing they were told not to touch, and lied about it.