Overlanding with an EV

  • HTML tutorial

bgenlvtex

Rank V
Launch Member

Member III

2,268
Texas and Alaska
First Name
Bruce
Last Name
Evans
Member #

19382

None for me thanks, but this is where using a loosely defined term like "overlanding" will make all the difference in applicability.

My style of "overlanding" which has in some cases found me sweating availability of gasoline rejects EV by nature. Charging stations won't ever be there. Someone else style they may work just fine.

I am however highly suspicious of the efforts made to push EV on the consumer. History shows us that there are very, very few things that the government has "promoted" to the degree of Ev's that ended well for Joe Consumer.

If it's so damned good to/for you that you have to be coerced/forced to participate in it, there is no less than 100% chance that in the end it is not for your benefit, whatever it is.
 

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
None for me thanks, but this is where using a loosely defined term like "overlanding" will make all the difference in applicability.

My style of "overlanding" which has in some cases found me sweating availability of gasoline rejects EV by nature. Charging stations won't ever be there. Someone else style they may work just fine.

I am however highly suspicious of the efforts made to push EV on the consumer. History shows us that there are very, very few things that the government has "promoted" to the degree of Ev's that ended well for Joe Consumer.

If it's so damned good to/for you that you have to be coerced/forced to participate in it, there is no less than 100% chance that in the end it is not for your benefit, whatever it is.
Valid points. If your ICE overlanding adventures push you past a 400 petrol range as well as a few jerry cans more then an EV won’t cut it for you in 2023. Nonetheless, government conspiracies aside (that is another discussion) I suspect that some combination of lithium ion or fuel cell will make ICEs obsolete within 10-20 years. EVs are the obvious choice in the city, a good option for 200 mile trips and light overlanding, and not there yet for remote Alaskan treks. That we agree on. Once we get to 500 mile range for EVs the lines will be more blurred. There is one company soon to deliver a 600 mile range EV called the “Zeekr” . An SUV version of that car would make a 4Runner less desirable for remote locations.
 

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
Bit off the topic of overlanding in one, but I have to say that the "disconnection" between vehicle and operator isn't in the motor, it's in the computers controlling the motor.

I used to have an electric go-kart and it had zero tech between the pedal and the motor. Wasn't even analog. Push the pedal to the metal, and it pushed a button that closed the circuit and powered the wheels. Boy, it was a hoot.

Modern road-worthy vehicles, ICE or electric, have extremely sophisticated tech to prevent the user from experiencing the full power of the motor, or "accidentally" over-exerting the motor and breaking traction. Electronic control units, electronic fuel injection managed by drive-by-wire, and all of that being drowned under traction control and a 12-speed automatic transmission will kill the fun in any car, regardless of what makes the wheels spin.

A driver simply can't connect to a car when there are 5 layers of computer tech separating the two. Remove all that, and I promise you that I could have as much fun with an electric car as a gas one.

Still doesn't solve the fuel issue, though.
I am confident that we will solve the fuel issues so to speak as we are about halfway there already barring any politics or range anxiety that still persists. I think the more interesting point you raise is in regard to driver feel. You are absolutely correct that there is a driver connection with some electric vehicles (think 60mph electric go carts). But it will take public interest to push the EV manufacturers to develop tighter suspension and less sedated power steering. The hummer EV and Rivian are getting there but still rather expensive and sedate.

Don't forget that most modern vehicles (ICE or EV) also have lane change assist, traction control, and blind spot avoidance. These safety features are nice on the highly but would be an annoyance on the trails. Thankfully these can be switched off.

We might always miss the sound of a V8 exhaust or turbo spinning up (although on my latest adventure I did hear some nice tire on gravel noise with the EV that would have been lost with most ICE vehicles). I'm sure that many people in the 1930's also really missed the sound of the steam locomotives that were replaced by diesel and electric. I do feel your pain on this aspect. Nonetheless, a simple software upgrade and push of a button would allow performance EVs to spin tires and drift ferociously through a technical dirt course with every bit of throttle control you expect and more. If they build it we will come..
 
Last edited:

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
As battery technologies continue to improve range anxiety will no longer be an issue and there may even be electric vehicles in a few years with a greater theoretical daily driving range than their gas powered counterparts. At that point it would make no sense to have a charging facility in remote wilderness just like it wouldn’t make sense to have a gas pump there today.
There may be some truth to that once EV range exceeds ICE which is probable coming very soon (see Zeekr for example with >600 mile range). Nonetheless, a remote solar charging station would be pretty handy in some cases and have less impact on nature than a petrol station.

Jeep is starting to go that way although admittedly this might be the one EV where is makes the least sense. The EV jeep is a hybrid with only 21 mile range on pure electric. Makes more sense for an IONIQ 5, Rivian or VW ID4 that are exclusively electric.

 

socal66

Rank V
Launch Member

Advocate I

1,421
Covina, CA, USA
First Name
Carl
Last Name
Sampson
Member #

24109

I can’t argue with that logic although keep in mind

a) having a charge point or petrol station within 100 miles is never an inconvenience for the driver, b) remote solar stations are cheaper, require less maintenance, and have less negative environmental impact than a gas station, c) remote solar charge station can easily be moved and does not require a human being at checkout.
Capital investments are only done where there is a profit to be made not just to make things more convenient. The more remote a charging station is the less revenue will be made to offset the investment. The more remote a station is also significantly increases the amount of vandalism that will occur to that station. The more easily moved a remote station is the more easily someone will score themselves some free solar panels.

Before we see stations situated on remote trails there needs to be a business case developed for their deployment in more heavily travelled and monitored land areas such as adjacent to park entrances, visitor centers, and some ranger stations. Many of these areas are also already powered reducing the need for solar installs in areas where a full day of good sunshine exists.
 

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
This trip that FLT did up to Alaska with an F150 Lightning was not inspiring for this idea.
No this is not inspiring at all! That being said, these guys really pushed the limit. They used a heavy Ford Lightening, drove to the most remote region of the continent in cold weather, and charged using an 8kW power station. It would take 15hrs to charge an extended range 113kW Ford Lightening with that charge station! As mentioned earlier, EVs may not be ready for rural camping in deep Wyoming or Alaska. Best to stick with a 200 mile radius of a fast charger for now. Those guys would have been better off bringing along 20 portable 600W solar panels as they would have been able to charge faster. Granted, 20 of the 600W portable solar panels would cost about $6,000 (on amazon) and they would all together weigh about 400lbs so that needs to be considered. But if they are trying to prove a point they might have wanted to stack the odds a little better in their favor!
 

Tundracamper

Rank VI
Launch Member

Influencer I

3,068
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
First Name
Steve
Last Name
Shepard
Member #

22670

True for the portable solar panels unless you purchased ten of them at $300 each! More realistic is to have a few solar charging stations installed in strategic remote areas. Remote solar charging station like PairedPower would fully charge EV in 1 hour. These charge at 60kW and have battery backup for charging at night. They are a good idea for emergency scenarios as well where 120v are required eg charging dead cell phone or laptop. The stations have a gps, an emergency call box and would support an emergency defibrillator. Put water collection tank there as well and it could save some lives before a helicopter arrives.
One visit to a remote national forest vault toilet will show how that will work out!
 

DintDobbs

Rank V

Advocate III

1,412
First Name
Daniel &
Last Name
the Vulture
@socal66 said it. That's where Uncle Sam stepped in to incentivize what nobody asked for.

Obsoletion should come from consumer demand. Even so, there will always be the sticks in the mud who liked the old ways better. It's a free nation. You can do what you like, how you like.

@EV-offroad All those layers of tech separating the driver from the machine are what keeps me away from new vehicles. The DBW on my 2014 had a learning curve, after driving a '03 and a '99 for almost a decade. All that other extra tech junk, I don't want. It has nothing to do with the motor / power source / fuel, and every thing to do with the separation between driver and machine.

Such tech is largely incorporated to prevent lawsuits (major concern for manufacturers) and increase final product price. Charge them for a feature they didn't want, and advertise the desirable feature to turn it off "On Sport Models Only!" Which also come at an increased price. Separate discussion.

The big hate on EV's largely comes from the infrastructure needing to be built, and the government's involvement. I have rarely seen an actual complaint about an electric vehicle itself. This is concerning, because there are very real issues that everybody is ignoring.

For example, the idea that electric vehicles are cleaner. They still use a lot of machine oils and refrigerants and the various substances in the batteries. In the event of a roll-over, fire, or other heavily-damaging occasion, the "Save the Trees" boys all hate on ICE's because differential fluid gets leaked every time an axle breaks... yet they somehow ignore the possibility that in any collision of significant force, on or off road, a battery can be damaged and leak hazardous chemicals onto people and animals, and into the ground. Many of these chemicals require extremely careful handling in order to prevent personal injury. Exposure to some can be deadly.

Fires started on some of these chemicals can be close to impossible to actually put out, which increases other risks significantly both on and off road.

These are issues that concern me as a consumer. Until I am forced to give them up, by either government or economy, I will always have one or several ICE vehicles.

Overlanding in an EV is becoming more possible with each advancement, but due to power consumption and torque management, loaded EV's consume much more fuel than their ICE counterparts. Charge time versus tank filling time is a major concern for most as well.

Once these issues are addressed, supply and demand come to a balance, and the infrastructure has been put in place, then we will see ICE's and EV's living in harmony on long road trips, just as we see them now around town. Perhaps they will replace ICE's just as ICE's replaced horses. Not everyone agreed with that process either, but the battle has been forgotten as the generations passed. And some people still ride horses, but not to work every day.
 

smritte

Rank V
Launch Member

Member III

2,827
Ontario California
First Name
Scott
Last Name
SMR
Member #

8846

Ham/GMRS Callsign
KO6BI
In order for all this to work, we need to get away from lithium batteries. I wont list all the problems supplying power and batteries to the world (were not the only country wanting mostly electric cars). Most of us are already aware of these issues. In order to drive the distances I do with electric means the total battery weight I need to add makes this a no go for me. Being able to solar charge properly means we need to evolve solar a bunch. Currently, most high end solar isn't past 25% efficiency and its only good if you can keep them pointed properly.

There's an area out by me (Barstow) which is a middle ground for travelers across the desert. They installed a huge charging station. When its full, the charge times lower due to the draw being more then can be supplied, not everyone can fast charge and wait times for a charger start hitting several hours. Things like this have been reported all over. Add a huge solar bank and battery back up? That's fine but now were back to the battery problem and what happens during the fall/winter during cloud cover. The number of vehicles doesn't change. This is with a very small percentage of electric vehicles.

As was stated, a remote charging station isn't profitable, will require maintenance and someone to keep an eye on it. If I had electric and lived remote, I would do this but would need wind power as well as solar.

Then there's the weight problem. I'm not sure if anyone has seen the concerns regarding parking structures. When you add 30%-40% more weight to a vehicle, a multilevel parking structure cant hold as many vehicles. This seems to be a concern with a number of people and not just our country.

Coming full circle.
Battery availability as the entire world wants them.
Considerably more added weight.
Issues charging that are already surfacing and the vehicles are still niche.
The power grid not handling what we use now.
Pound for pound, petrol is still way more efficient.

These are the reasons I wont own an electric vehicle as an overlanding toy and until I get my home solar array finished, I wont have one as my back and forth to work vehicle let alone my travel vehicle.
 

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
Capital investments are only done where there is a profit to be made not just to make things more convenient. The more remote a charging station is the less revenue will be made to offset the investment. The more remote a station is also significantly increases the amount of vandalism that will occur to that station. The more easily moved a remote station is the more easily someone will score themselves some free solar panels.

Before we see stations situated on remote trails there needs to be a business case developed for their deployment in more heavily travelled and monitored land areas such as adjacent to park entrances, visitor centers, and some ranger stations. Many of these areas are also already powered reducing the need for solar installs in areas where a full day of good sunshine exists.
These are excellent points. We are already well stocked with fast charging EV stations along the east and west coast. Semi rural and suburban areas are pretty well covered in most areas as well. But just like petrol stations, fast charging EV stations are rare in remote locations. A few more strategic fast chargers at National Park entrances makes a lot of sense. I was pleased to see on a recent trip to Hawaii'sr emote Mauna Kea obseravtory there was an EV charge station about an hour out. Too bad I was on holiday with a jeep rental for the 14,000 foot climb. Long offroad trips for an EV only work if there is access to a fast charger (ie 15-20 minute full charge). Otherwise one would need to stop for a half day every 250 miles. See the map below shows where there are holes in the charging network across the US. Rural Wyoming is not well served.

 

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
@socal66 said it. That's where Uncle Sam stepped in to incentivize what nobody asked for.

Obsoletion should come from consumer demand. Even so, there will always be the sticks in the mud who liked the old ways better. It's a free nation. You can do what you like, how you like.

@EV-offroad All those layers of tech separating the driver from the machine are what keeps me away from new vehicles. The DBW on my 2014 had a learning curve, after driving a '03 and a '99 for almost a decade. All that other extra tech junk, I don't want. It has nothing to do with the motor / power source / fuel, and every thing to do with the separation between driver and machine.

Such tech is largely incorporated to prevent lawsuits (major concern for manufacturers) and increase final product price. Charge them for a feature they didn't want, and advertise the desirable feature to turn it off "On Sport Models Only!" Which also come at an increased price. Separate discussion.

The big hate on EV's largely comes from the infrastructure needing to be built, and the government's involvement. I have rarely seen an actual complaint about an electric vehicle itself. This is concerning, because there are very real issues that everybody is ignoring.

For example, the idea that electric vehicles are cleaner. They still use a lot of machine oils and refrigerants and the various substances in the batteries. In the event of a roll-over, fire, or other heavily-damaging occasion, the "Save the Trees" boys all hate on ICE's because differential fluid gets leaked every time an axle breaks... yet they somehow ignore the possibility that in any collision of significant force, on or off road, a battery can be damaged and leak hazardous chemicals onto people and animals, and into the ground. Many of these chemicals require extremely careful handling in order to prevent personal injury. Exposure to some can be deadly.

Fires started on some of these chemicals can be close to impossible to actually put out, which increases other risks significantly both on and off road.

These are issues that concern me as a consumer. Until I am forced to give them up, by either government or economy, I will always have one or several ICE vehicles.

Overlanding in an EV is becoming more possible with each advancement, but due to power consumption and torque management, loaded EV's consume much more fuel than their ICE counterparts. Charge time versus tank filling time is a major concern for most as well.

Once these issues are addressed, supply and demand come to a balance, and the infrastructure has been put in place, then we will see ICE's and EV's living in harmony on long road trips, just as we see them now around town. Perhaps they will replace ICE's just as ICE's replaced horses. Not everyone agreed with that process either, but the battle has been forgotten as the generations passed. And some people still ride horses, but not to work every day.
Some great points. Let me comment/address a couple:

Such tech is largely incorporated to prevent lawsuits (major concern for manufacturers) and increase final product price. Charge them for a feature they didn't want, and advertise the desirable feature to turn it off "On Sport Models Only!" Which also come at an increased price. Separate discussion. - AGREED

The big hate on EV's largely comes from the infrastructure needing to be built, and the government's involvement. I have rarely seen an actual complaint about an electric vehicle itself. This is concerning, because there are very real issues that everybody is ignoring. - AGREED

For example, the idea that electric vehicles are cleaner. They still use a lot of machine oils and refrigerants and the various substances in the batteries. In the event of a roll-over, fire, or other heavily-damaging occasion, the "Save the Trees" boys all hate on ICE's because differential fluid gets leaked every time an axle breaks... yet they somehow ignore the possibility that in any collision of significant force, on or off road, a battery can be damaged and leak hazardous chemicals onto people and animals, and into the ground. Many of these chemicals require extremely careful handling in order to prevent personal injury. Exposure to some can be deadly. - WHILE EV's ARE NOT 100% CLEAN IT WOULD BE HARD TO LEGITAMITELY ARGUE THAT ICE CARS HAVE A SMALLER CARBON FOOTPRINT OR SOMEHOW POLLUTE LESS IN A COLLISION.

Fires started on some of these chemicals can be close to impossible to actually put out, which increases other risks significantly both on and off road. - HAVING USED LITHION ION BATTERIES FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS I CAN SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT THAT HARD TO PUT OUT AS YOU MIGHT THINK AND MORE IMPORTANTLY A FIRE RARELY HAPPENS. IF A FIRE DOES HAPPEN IT STARTS SLOWLY UNLIKE A GASOLINE TANK THAT CAN EXPLODE ON IMPACT AND KILL EVERYONE IN THE VEHICLE BEFORE THEY HAVE TIME TO EXIT. SADLY, ONCE EV's GO MAINSTREAM WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENJOY MOVIES THAT FEATURE A HERO RUNNING FROM A CAR JUST BEFORE IT EXPLODES.

These are issues that concern me as a consumer. Until I am forced to give them up, by either government or economy, I will always have one or several ICE vehicles. - I AGREE THAT EV'S SHOULD NOT BE FORCED ON ANYONE. THEY SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS THE CONSUMER SEES THE NEED. LET THE CAR MANUFACTURERS INNOVATE AND DAZZLE US UNTIL THE ICE TAKES ITS PLACE NEAR ROTARY DIAL PHONES AND VINYL RECORDS WHICH ARE MOSTLY HELD NOW FOR NOSTALGIC PLEASURE.

Overlanding in an EV is becoming more possible with each advancement, but due to power consumption and torque management, loaded EV's consume much more fuel than their ICE counterparts. Charge time versus tank filling time is a major concern for most as well. - "FUEL" CONSUMPTION AND CARBON USE OF AN EV DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU CHARGE YOUR VEHICLE. IF YOU CHARGE FROM A SOLAR GRID OR WIND POWER THE EV IS ALMOST CARBON NEUTRAL. CHARGE FROM A LOCATION WHERE ELECTRICITY IS DERIVED FROM COAL OR OIL AND THEY ARE LESS GREEN. ACROSS THE US AN EV WILL AVERAGE THE EQUIVALENT OF ABOUT 100MPG OF GASOLINE. REGARDING CHARGE TIME, THAT IS A FACTOR IN SOME SCENARIOS BUT HONESTLY THE 20 MINUTE CHARGE TIME OF AN IONIQ 5 HAT IS REQUIRED EVERY 250 MILES IS NEGLIGIBLE COMPARED TO THE OTHER GAINS IMO.

Once these issues are addressed, supply and demand come to a balance, and the infrastructure has been put in place, then we will see ICE's and EV's living in harmony on long road trips, just as we see them now around town. Perhaps they will replace ICE's just as ICE's replaced horses. Not everyone agreed with that process either, but the battle has been forgotten as the generations passed. And some people still ride horses, but not to work every day. - AGREED
 

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
In order for all this to work, we need to get away from lithium batteries. I wont list all the problems supplying power and batteries to the world (were not the only country wanting mostly electric cars). Most of us are already aware of these issues. In order to drive the distances I do with electric means the total battery weight I need to add makes this a no go for me. Being able to solar charge properly means we need to evolve solar a bunch. Currently, most high end solar isn't past 25% efficiency and its only good if you can keep them pointed properly.

There's an area out by me (Barstow) which is a middle ground for travelers across the desert. They installed a huge charging station. When its full, the charge times lower due to the draw being more then can be supplied, not everyone can fast charge and wait times for a charger start hitting several hours. Things like this have been reported all over. Add a huge solar bank and battery back up? That's fine but now were back to the battery problem and what happens during the fall/winter during cloud cover. The number of vehicles doesn't change. This is with a very small percentage of electric vehicles.

As was stated, a remote charging station isn't profitable, will require maintenance and someone to keep an eye on it. If I had electric and lived remote, I would do this but would need wind power as well as solar.

Then there's the weight problem. I'm not sure if anyone has seen the concerns regarding parking structures. When you add 30%-40% more weight to a vehicle, a multilevel parking structure cant hold as many vehicles. This seems to be a concern with a number of people and not just our country.

Coming full circle.
Battery availability as the entire world wants them.
Considerably more added weight.
Issues charging that are already surfacing and the vehicles are still niche.
The power grid not handling what we use now.
Pound for pound, petrol is still way more efficient.

These are the reasons I wont own an electric vehicle as an overlanding toy and until I get my home solar array finished, I wont have one as my back and forth to work vehicle let alone my travel vehicle.
GOOD POINTS. THIS THREAD HAS BEEN FUN TO NAVIGATE AND RESPOND. WHEN I POSTED THE ORIGINAL VIDEO IT WAS MORE ABOUT INSPIRING THOSE WHO DRIVE/CONSIDER EV'S TO THINK ABOUT UPGRADING OVERLANDING CAPABILITIES. I DID NOT ANTICIPATE DEFENDING THE EV IN GENERAL. BUT THINKING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE OVERLANDING COMMUNITY AND THE FACT THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST TECHNICAL FRONTIER FOR EV MANUFACTURERS TO TACKLE IT MAKES SENSE. LET ME RESPOND TO A COUPLE POINTS.

In order for all this to work, we need to get away from lithium batteries. I wont list all the problems supplying power and batteries to the world (were not the only country wanting mostly electric cars). Most of us are already aware of these issues. In order to drive the distances I do with electric means the total battery weight I need to add makes this a no go for me. Being able to solar charge properly means we need to evolve solar a bunch. Currently, most high end solar isn't past 25% efficiency and its only good if you can keep them pointed properly. - LITHIUM AND OTHER MINERALS ARE NOT AS SCARCE AS SOME MAY THINK. SEE LINK BELOW. NO DOUBT WE CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER THAN LITHIUM ION AT SOME POINT BUT STILL MUCH MORE CARBON FRIENDLY THAN GAS, OIL OR COAL. FUEL CELLS ARE ANOTHER OPTION BUT LITHIUM ION WILL MOVE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR QUITE A WHILE. THE WEIGHT ISSUE FOR LITHIUM IS ONLY A FACTOR IF WE NEED 500 MILE RANGE. WITH A 250 MILE RANGE ITS LESS OF A PROBLEM. THE ISSUE THEN BECOME HAVING ENOUGH FAST CHARGERS TO SUPPORT TOPPING OFF EVERY 250 MILES. IT WOULD BE NICE IF SOLAR PANELS WERE MORE THAN 25% EFFICIENT ALTHOUGH THEY DO STILL WORK. YOU JUST NEED MORE OF THEM. A $10,000 ARRAY ON YOUR ROOF WOULD CHARGE YOUR VEHICLE AND POWER YOUR HOUSE.

There's an area out by me (Barstow) which is a middle ground for travelers across the desert. They installed a huge charging station. When its full, the charge times lower due to the draw being more then can be supplied, not everyone can fast charge and wait times for a charger start hitting several hours. Things like this have been reported all over. Add a huge solar bank and battery back up? That's fine but now were back to the battery problem and what happens during the fall/winter during cloud cover. The number of vehicles doesn't change. This is with a very small percentage of electric vehicles. - SAME ISSUE AS ABOVE IN TERMS OF SOLAR PANEL EFFICIENCY. ONE JUST NEEDS ENOUGH SOLAR AND WIND TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEMAND. THE NOTION OF STORING A CHARGE WHEN NOT IN DEMAND FOR EXAMPLE DURING THE WEEK TO ACCOMODATE WEEKEND TRAVELERS CAN BE DONE WITH MORE THAN JUST BATTERIES. OPTIONS INCLUDE PUMPING WATER UP HIGH TO TURN TURBINES (LIKE A DAM) OR PUMPING COMPRESSED AIR TO COMBINE WITH NATURAL GAS TO SPIN A GAS TURBINE. LOTS OF OPTIONS HERE ON THE HORIZON.

As was stated, a remote charging station isn't profitable, will require maintenance and someone to keep an eye on it. If I had electric and lived remote, I would do this but would need wind power as well as solar. - I DONT KNOW THAT A REMOTE CHARGING STATION WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE. IT COSTS $60K TO INSTALL A MEDIUM SIZED STATION. RUN A CREDIT CARD FOR $10 FOR A FULL CHARGE. EIGHT CUSTOMERS A DAY WOULD GENERATE $30K PER YEAR. STATION WOULD PAY FOR ITSELF IN 2-3 YEARS. AGREED REGRADING PUTTING A SOLAR PANEL ON THE ROOF IN A REMOTE LOCATION TO LIVE OFF THE GRID.

Then there's the weight problem. I'm not sure if anyone has seen the concerns regarding parking structures. When you add 30%-40% more weight to a vehicle, a multilevel parking structure cant hold as many vehicles. This seems to be a concern with a number of people and not just our country. - INTERESTING POINT I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT. THIS MAY COME BACK TO THE SAME COMMENT ABOUT BATTERY WEIGHT VS RANGE VS ACCESS TO DC FAST CHARGERS.

 
Last edited:

EV-offroad

Rank II

Enthusiast III

443
Baltimore, MD, USA
First Name
Jody
Last Name
Tversky
Not everyone on the forum is in the cult of Jeep/Toyota/ ICE.

Nice rig, glad to see you are making it your own.
Yay. I don't feel as alone anymore. Love your Rivian. Heck I love me some 4 Runner ICE action too but they all may be relgated to the hoarse and carriage barn at some point in the not so distant future. Times is a changin.
 
Last edited:

leeloo

Rank V
Launch Member

Advocate I

1,778
Luxembourg
First Name
Mihai
Last Name
Doros
Member #

19403

EV penetration is a lot higher in Europe ( 14 % market share vs US about 5% ) and I can tell you few things. Long story short - the tech is not there yet.

In Europe there are a lot of problems already with charging stations. Not enough for the high numbers now selling. Plenty of charging stations was the story in Europe as well until about 2 years ago. If the trend in US continues, you will have the same issues. The price to charge on public stations is very high now, on par with gas, and gas is not cheap in Europe. In US is the same situation. So for long distance travel there is no cost advantage. Couple that with the high purchase cost- not atractive yet. Many years ago we were told that they will have the same price with ICE in 2019. We are still far from it.
Like any vehicle, including ICE, EV's will suffer from weight, off road tires, and speed. Go empty at 65 mph and special low resistance tires and you will get that 400 miles range. Put some AT or MT tires on - it will go to 350. Put a roof rack on - 300. This is with ideal weather. With ICE, you stop more often for 5 min. Go over 65 mph and that is it. You might have 200 miles suable range. What will that make in stops just to reach the start of the fun lets say 600 miles away ? So you have to drive a lot slower, and charge 3 times, at minimum.
I have 24 days off per year. What makes you think I want to spend even half of day charging just to get to the start of the fun out of this 24 days.

Can you do it ? maybe in the First world, some parts of it. Fun ? well if you like to spend your time waiting for chargers and having range anxiety non stop - sure go for it. Are they feasible for a week-end outing close to home ? - definitely.
Fuel cell - while there is an argument to be made that EV's are not that green and most green nutters I heard lack basic math skills ( the amount of mining need it to be done is mind-blowing- literally mountains will have to be razed , assuming all the grid is green ) . The fuel cell are even more idiotic. There is no green hydrogen to speak off. Right now the production of green hydrogen is at about 1% of the total hydrogen. Ok so we use solar and wind to make it. It is a very idiotic way to waste energy. You want to go green - fine, use the energy to replace the current fossil fuel us in energy generation, and when you are done, and have spare capacity go for it, go for the vehicles.
Now you are just moving pollution from the city to where the Hydrogen factory is.
Also the fuel cell construction now is extremely costly. Unless you start mining asteroids for Palladium and Platinum, I don't see them going cheaper.
I own a Jeep 4xe - all of this seen it and experienced it. I also try to chat every time with EV owners when I use a public station just to find out out their experience. In Europe there are plenty of dealerships with EV's with 5000 km on it and less than a year old, returned by the very happy customers...
Second thing - the moment they removed the incentives and tax breaks - sales drop like a stone. If they are a good option they will need no help to be sold, who in their right mind would pay more for an inferior product. The Wrangler 4xe is a success story in the US - mostly because of the tax break. Remove it - nobody will buy it, but now it is attractive -you get a 370 HP jeep at the price of a V6 or 2.0T. IN Europe there is no incentive. With the fuel saved from the daily commute and annual tax it will take me 6 years to break even :) . But I got it because it can replace 2 vehicles, so for me it makes sense, but is not the case very often.
 

bgenlvtex

Rank V
Launch Member

Member III

2,268
Texas and Alaska
First Name
Bruce
Last Name
Evans
Member #

19382

Doesn't matter what forum, these threads all follow the same basic pattern

Botman with new account and transparent username posts feel good propaganda .
People living in reality post reasonable and actual objections to the technology and point out critical flaws.
Botman starts each reply the same, then posts a bunch of hopes and dreams and projects technological changes that are unattainable using known technology and dismisses contrary points of view as "conspiracies"
More people living in reality stop by and voice concerns.
Botman regurgitates more of the same, injects HUMAN LIKE CHARACTERISTICS INTO THE REPLIES.
Somebody who bought "safe and effective" stops by to declare anyone rejecting the propaganda a "cultist" and gives Botman a hug
No ones opinion changes, no lessons are learned