Tesla Model 3 and a glider

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 05:54:54 -0800, uneekcowgirl wrote:

Me too I will stick with my F250 diesel 4x4, gets around 17pmg hauling ,
has near 500 mile range and when, not if, I land out in the toolies, she
can get to me and haul me out.

I still sometimes miss the Series 2 long wheelbase 2.4l petrol Landrover
I had in the '70s. Fitted with full length roof rack, better seats and an
extra 10 gallon tank for longer range, it took four of us and a load of
camping gear from the UK to India and back, with basically only tyre
problems and a clutch change, though it did eat three speedometer heads
along the way.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

My bad. I did mean 3 miles per kWhr when not towing, and 2 miles per kWhr when towing the glider trailer. Other considerations mentioned. Wind is a factor: headwinds hurt, tailwinds help, but I checked winds before I made a trip and factored it in when charging. I was usually running the A/C while towing. I didn't notice any effect on range, although logically there is some effect. I was not traveling in 100 degree heat, but 90s were not uncommon. I did have to unhook the trailer about 1/2 the time at charging stations. We tend to spread out total trip time over more days (luxury of being retired), so a few extra minutes at a stop to unhook/rehook the trailer was not an issue. Traveling mostly north/south through the eastern U.S. I didn't have to deal with a lot of terrain. By the way, the Tesla navigation system does factor in elevation changes when calculating the energy required for a proposed route. The most dramatic elevation change in a short period of time was a 1000 ft ridge in Tennessee. The climb occurred over about 7 miles and the energy consumption on the way up went off the chart. On the flats, while towing, the Model X uses about 400-450 watt-hrs/mile. Climbing the ridge saw values well over 900 watt-hrs / mile. To minimize consumption on the way up, I got in line with the semis and drove at 35 mph (minimized aerodynamic drag). On the 7 mile trip down the other side, the regenerative braking (no need to use the actual brakes) returns more than 1/2 of what was required to climb the ridge (descent at about 55 mph). Another point of reference, for safety sake, we came to traveling in the right lane with the professional truck drivers, moving along at about 5 miles under the posted limit at a steady pace, so about 65 mph most of the time. Besides being safer, right lane travel was much more relaxing and often entertaining as we calmly watched the neurotic behavior of those to our left. Tesla's adaptive cruise uses the maximum distance to the vehicle ahead setting when in trailer mode. Tesla's automatic lane tracking (auto-steer) is disabled in trailer mode.

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 7:42:37 AM UTC-8, Scott Manley wrote:
My bad. I did mean 3 miles per kWhr when not towing, and 2 miles per kWhr when towing the glider trailer. Other considerations mentioned. Wind is a factor: headwinds hurt, tailwinds help, but I checked winds before I made a trip and factored it in when charging. I was usually running the A/C while towing. I didn't notice any effect on range, although logically there is some effect. I was not traveling in 100 degree heat, but 90s were not uncommon. I did have to unhook the trailer about 1/2 the time at charging stations. We tend to spread out total trip time over more days (luxury of being retired), so a few extra minutes at a stop to unhook/rehook the trailer was not an issue. Traveling mostly north/south through the eastern U.S. I didn't have to deal with a lot of terrain. By the way, the Tesla navigation system does factor in elevation changes when calculating the energy required for a proposed route. The most dramatic elevation change in a short period of time was a 1000 ft ridge in Tennessee. The climb occurred over about 7 miles and the energy consumption on the way up went off the chart. On the flats, while towing, the Model X uses about 400-450 watt-hrs/mile. Climbing the ridge saw values well over 900 watt-hrs / mile. To minimize consumption on the way up, I got in line with the semis and drove at 35 mph (minimized aerodynamic drag). On the 7 mile trip down the other side, the regenerative braking (no need to use the actual brakes) returns more than 1/2 of what was required to climb the ridge (descent at about 55 mph). Another point of reference, for safety sake, we came to traveling in the right lane with the professional truck drivers, moving along at about 5 miles under the posted limit at a steady pace, so about 65 mph most of the time. Besides being safer, right lane travel was much more relaxing and often entertaining as we calmly watched the neurotic behavior of those to our left. Tesla's adaptive cruise uses the maximum distance to the vehicle ahead setting when in trailer mode. Tesla's automatic lane tracking (auto-steer) is disabled in trailer mode.

It's interesting how much different the power consumption is, 23%, between the glider and the travel trailers, which must be due to the larger frontal area. Correcting for a correspondingly shorter charging time, the cross country trip speed will jump to an eye-popping 27.6 mph. Ely, NV, however, would be out of the question.

Tom

This is the critical point. Energy density, it is really the limiting factor of electric versus fossil fueled vehicles.

I'm really looking forward to new battery technology that can bring electric storage to be even relatively close to that of fossil fuels. Not to mention the battery deterioration, disposal, and replacement aspects.

I like leading edge technologies. I think Tesla has done great things to push the technology forward.

However I personally cannot afford the cost of being an early adopter of electric vehicles. Despite the the technogy advancement in e-vehicles made in the last 10 years, we are still in the infancy of this new breed of transportation. F

I am really waiting for a larger hybrid mini SUV platform to come to maturity.

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:24:50 PM UTC-8, Mike N. wrote:
This is the critical point. Energy density, it is really the limiting factor of electric versus fossil fueled vehicles.

I'm really looking forward to new battery technology that can bring electric storage to be even relatively close to that of fossil fuels. Not to mention the battery deterioration, disposal, and replacement aspects.

I like leading edge technologies. I think Tesla has done great things to push the technology forward.

However I personally cannot afford the cost of being an early adopter of electric vehicles. Despite the the technogy advancement in e-vehicles made in the last 10 years, we are still in the infancy of this new breed of transportation. F

I am really waiting for a larger hybrid mini SUV platform to come to maturity.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but auto manufacturers have tried and abandoned hybrid vehicles - they add a lot of cost for a small incremental benefit. The Tesla 100D already weighs in at a whooping 5400 lbs, about twice what an ICE sedan weighs. Adding an engine and transmission to that would bring it up to around 7000 lbs, more than my Super Duty F250 weighs.

Tom


Tom

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 4:36:02 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:24:50 PM UTC-8, Mike N. wrote:
This is the critical point. Energy density, it is really the limiting factor of electric versus fossil fueled vehicles.

I'm really looking forward to new battery technology that can bring electric storage to be even relatively close to that of fossil fuels. Not to mention the battery deterioration, disposal, and replacement aspects.

I like leading edge technologies. I think Tesla has done great things to push the technology forward.

However I personally cannot afford the cost of being an early adopter of electric vehicles. Despite the the technogy advancement in e-vehicles made in the last 10 years, we are still in the infancy of this new breed of transportation. F

I am really waiting for a larger hybrid mini SUV platform to come to maturity.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but auto manufacturers have tried and abandoned hybrid vehicles - they add a lot of cost for a small incremental benefit. The Tesla 100D already weighs in at a whooping 5400 lbs, about twice what an ICE sedan weighs. Adding an engine and transmission to that would bring it up to around 7000 lbs, more than my Super Duty F250 weighs.

Tom

Tom hasn't been to a Toyota dealer lately.

T8

On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 2:16:45 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 4:36:02 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, December 15, 2019 at 12:24:50 PM UTC-8, Mike N. wrote:
This is the critical point. Energy density, it is really the limiting factor of electric versus fossil fueled vehicles.

I'm really looking forward to new battery technology that can bring electric storage to be even relatively close to that of fossil fuels. Not to mention the battery deterioration, disposal, and replacement aspects.

I like leading edge technologies. I think Tesla has done great things to push the technology forward.

However I personally cannot afford the cost of being an early adopter of electric vehicles. Despite the the technogy advancement in e-vehicles made in the last 10 years, we are still in the infancy of this new breed of transportation. F

I am really waiting for a larger hybrid mini SUV platform to come to maturity.

Maybe you didn't get the memo, but auto manufacturers have tried and abandoned hybrid vehicles - they add a lot of cost for a small incremental benefit. The Tesla 100D already weighs in at a whooping 5400 lbs, about twice what an ICE sedan weighs. Adding an engine and transmission to that would bring it up to around 7000 lbs, more than my Super Duty F250 weighs.

Tom

Tom hasn't been to a Toyota dealer lately.

T8

So it seems. Take a look at the RAV4 (available in both gas only and hybrid):

Gas only:
$25,850
28/35 mpg (city/highway)

Hybrid:
$28,100
35/38 mpg (city/highway)

Cost difference: $2,250
Fuel savings (National average 8,500 mi/yr @ $2.65/gal): $255/$51 per year
Years to recoup cost: 9/44 years

Few of us keep cars for 9 years (I do), but virtually none of us keep them 44 years. And that doesn't factor in the higher maintenance costs of the hybrid. If you do, I am sure you will lose money on the hybrid. This is why people stopped buying hybrids - you need much higher fuel costs to justify it.

Regenerative braking does work but, like other things in life, there's
no free lunch.Â* There are losses (heat, friction, induction, hysteresis)
in any system, electrical or mechanical, so you don't recoup all you
spent going up hill by going down hill.



On 12/14/2019 7:09 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:54:36 -0800, 2G wrote:

The answer is yes, you can tow a glider trailer with a Tesla X (to some
locations), but would you want to?

Very interesting: thanks.

I'd wondered if hill-climbing impacted range, so that's clarified, but it
does raise another point: I thought that the extra energy needed to climb
a hill would be mitigated by regenerative braking on down-hill stretches,
but evidently not.

I also hadn't factored in the costs of running aircon, but over here we
do have cooler summers than almost all of your side of the pond has.

I suppose the an electric gets bitten in winter too, in the sense that an
IC car gets heating for free, while an electric needs to suck on the
battery to keep the cabin warm.



--
Dan, 5J

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:54:44 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

Regenerative braking does work but, like other things in life, there's
no free lunch.Â* There are losses (heat, friction, induction, hysteresis)
in any system, electrical or mechanical, so you don't recoup all you
spent going up hill by going down hill.

Yes,I understand that (Chemistry degree, so allegedly I have/had a decent
grasp on basic physics). So, I understand that you don't get back all the
energy spent in getting higher when you come down again.

What I don't understand is what proportion of that energy you get back,
given the current state of automotive engineering. This is why I'm asking
questions about it.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Ah...Â* Someone previously mentioned getting about 50% back going down a
hill from what he used going up.Â* I'm sure that's variable, too.

I think these electric cars are terrific and, for a lot of folks, work
out great.Â* But, for me and others who live out in the wilderness, they
just can't /_yet_/ compete with gasoline or diesel over the spectrum of
use.Â* There will come a day, however, when the state of the art will
announce the demise of internal combustion engines.Â* I hope I'm around
to see it.

On 12/15/2019 4:26 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:54:44 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

Regenerative braking does work but, like other things in life, there's
no free lunch.Â* There are losses (heat, friction, induction, hysteresis)
in any system, electrical or mechanical, so you don't recoup all you
spent going up hill by going down hill.

Yes,I understand that (Chemistry degree, so allegedly I have/had a decent
grasp on basic physics). So, I understand that you don't get back all the
energy spent in getting higher when you come down again.

What I don't understand is what proportion of that energy you get back,
given the current state of automotive engineering. This is why I'm asking
questions about it.



--
Dan, 5J