? Tesla Truck Kinda Edgy Tho - Tesla releases oddly polygonal pickup truck

[TechyBen]

39 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

cant you just not "pedal to the metal"? having it on tap doesnt mean you will neccesarly use it. does mean you need to be better with throttle control

Even better, do they realise all this is tuned in the computer? Same as in the computer in their ICE car.

 

Like, arguing "electric" cars are useless, is like saying a boat is stupid because it cannot fly, or an aircraft stupid because it cannot go through the subway tunnels.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

cant you just not "pedal to the metal"? having it on tap doesnt mean you will neccesarly use it. does mean you need to be better with throttle control

The problem is low end torque. Electric motors have more torque with the less RPM you have, meaning it'll insanely easy to overtorque on sand and mud, turning your wheels into excavators.

 

2 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Even better, do they realise all this is tuned in the computer? Same as in the computer in their ICE car.

Can't tune out the torque curve inherent to electric motors.

[GoldenLag]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The problem is low end torque. Electric motors have more torque with the less RPM you have, meaning it'll insanely easy to overtorque on sand and mud, turning your wheels into excavators.

hence throttle control. 

 

not to mention all of this can be adjusted in software. having something doesnt mean its allways on. 

[Drak3]

Just now, GoldenLag said:

hence throttle control. 

 

not to mention all of this can be adjusted in software. having something doesnt mean its allways on. 

Throttle control isn't going to fix the issue. You have a heavy vehicle forcing your wheels down, while your electric motor is going to send the maximum or near the maximum amount of torque, on ground that will easily give to outside influence. A heavy truck, with high torque (not horsepower) is going to be more prone to digging up earth.

 

And trying to tune for this would require a massive hit to early acceleration, significant cut in current to the motor(s) (which could easily run into start up voltage issues), and probably changing the drive line to one that eats that torque.

To rely only on software is a halfassed solution. And given that we're dealing with Tesla, we'll get a quarter assed solution and be told that it's two whole asses.

[Blademaster91]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

hence throttle control. 

 

not to mention all of this can be adjusted in software. having something doesnt mean its allways on. 

Not sure what would be controlled, other than making the wheels spin faster to get past peak torque which usually doesn't help on dirt or sand either.

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Even better, do they realise all this is tuned in the computer? Same as in the computer in their ICE car.

 

Like, arguing "electric" cars are useless, is like saying a boat is stupid because it cannot fly, or an aircraft stupid because it cannot go through the subway tunnels.

Pointing out the practicality of real world use isn't saying electric cars are useless, people insisting "oh just get a solar or wind generator, you'll never need to go further than 400km either" are ignoring the whole point of having a truck to get work done. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Blademaster91 said:

people insisting "oh just get a solar or wind generator, you'll never need to go further than 400km either" are ignoring the whole point of having a truck to get work done. 

They're also ignoring that more range also equals needing to refuel less often, even if it takes a tad longer per refuel.

[GoldenLag]

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

To rely only on software is a halfassed solution

It would be one of the few solutions. 

 

13 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

And trying to tune for this would require a massive hit to early acceleration,

That depends on how the software is done. 

15 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

sure what would be controlled, other than making the wheels spin faster to get past peak torque which usually doesn't help on dirt or sand either.

I would involve managing how much torque you get on standstill. 

 

Which would need to be configured in software. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

It would be one of the few solutions. 

 

That depends on how the software is done. 

I would involve managing how much torque you get on standstill. 

 

Which would need to be configured in software. 

The only way to limit torque on an electric motor in software is to limit current (and heavily if you want to reliably get out of burying your vehicle), which may not be viable if the motors' startup voltage pushes too much torque.

[GoldenLag]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The only way to limit torque on an electric motor in software is to limit current (and heavily if you want to reliably get out of burying your vehicle), which may not be viable if the motors' startup voltage pushes too much torque.

In other words. 

 

If they manage to do it, there will be a lot of strain on the mechanism that will control it. 

 

 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

In other words. 

 

If they manage to do it, there will be a lot of strain on the mechanism that will control it. 

 

 

Basically.

 

Whereas the 6.7 Cummins in my truck can get out of mud with just idle torque 9 times out of 10. That other time requires, maybe, an additional 200-300RPM.

Many other trucks can manage this as well.

[RedRound2]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The only way to limit torque on an electric motor in software is to limit current (and heavily if you want to reliably get out of burying your vehicle), which may not be viable if the motors' startup voltage pushes too much torque.

Do you have any evidence of this issue in real life? Because I've seen Model X going on a desert safari with ease. That would be a scenario where your claim of 'too much torque' come into play.

 

33 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Not sure what would be controlled, other than making the wheels spin faster to get past peak torque which usually doesn't help on dirt or sand either.

Pointing out the practicality of real world use isn't saying electric cars are useless, people insisting "oh just get a solar or wind generator, you'll never need to go further than 400km either" are ignoring the whole point of having a truck to get work done. 

Let's go through argue with yourself journey here

 

Please tell me, the number of people travelling 400km everyday? And, what would be the solution for that? Oh right, you could get the 300 or 500 mile version. Or are going to tell me there are people who travel 500 miles everyday? Hmm, then even ICE engines would obviously need refueling and the driver would also need to take rests, have bathroom breaks and meal breaks. Too bad, there aren't any superchargers with restaurants or bathrooms on the way. Sad.

 

Solar and wind generations is an option. You can completely untethere yourself from with an EV if you have those power sources, unlike gas cars where you'll always need to goto fuel pumps (unless of course, you mine your own petroleum, refine it to diesel and use it)

[TechyBen]

53 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Throttle control isn't going to fix the issue. You have a heavy vehicle forcing your wheels down, while your electric motor is going to send the maximum or near the maximum amount of torque, on ground that will easily give to outside influence. A heavy truck, with high torque (not horsepower) is going to be more prone to digging up earth.

 

And trying to tune for this would require a massive hit to early acceleration, significant cut in current to the motor(s) (which could easily run into start up voltage issues), and probably changing the drive line to one that eats that torque.

To rely only on software is a halfassed solution. And given that we're dealing with Tesla, we'll get a quarter assed solution and be told that it's two whole asses.

You do know the biggest trucks in the world sometimes have electric motors? What are you even going on about here?

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You do know the biggest trucks in the world sometimes have electric motors? What are you even going on about here?

If you’re taking construction, like large dump trucks, they also have better weight distribution on the ground, as well as being heavy enough to compact the ground underthem AND have off road wheels designed for them.

 

Now that we’re done with the game of false equivalences, pickups, what the Tesla is, sometimes get stuck. What the ones good at getting unstuck have is moderate low end torque. Enough to move the truck, but not enough to consistently spin the wheels and send mud flying.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

Please tell me, the number of people travelling 400km everyday? And, what would be the solution for that? Oh right, you could get the 300 or 500 mile version. Or are going to tell me there are people who travel 500 miles everyday? Hmm, then even ICE engines would obviously need refueling and the driver would also need to take rests, have bathroom breaks and meal breaks. Too bad, there aren't any superchargers with restaurants or bathrooms on the way. Sad.

 

Solar and wind generations is an option. You can completely untethere yourself from with an EV if you have those power sources, unlike gas cars where you'll always need to goto fuel pumps (unless of course, you mine your own petroleum, refine it to diesel and use it)

Please, no need to be so smug about making generalizations with how you think everyone uses their vehicle.

There are plenty of modern gas/diesel trucks that get 300-400 miles of range on a single tank. The Ford Ranger goes up to around 400 miles on a tank,a Ram 1500 crew cab with the 5.7L can go over 500 miles on a single tank.

And yes I've had to travel 500 miles in a day, stopping for 10 minutes to have lunch is fine but not everyone wants to or can wait an hour for the car to charge. And while not everyone has to having the option of being able to get in the car and just travel without worrying about having to stop and let the batteries charge for hours is nice to have, also not everyone lives in California where you can just go down the street to a fast charging station or find a charger more than every 50 miles.

Solar and wind? Yeah just pay up extra for a Tesla solar unit, or have a wind generator installed sure because everyone can afford that. With a gas car, you spend 5-10 minutes filling it up and you can take a fuel can with you if needed.

[EarthWormJM2]

On 11/22/2019 at 11:38 AM, Drak3 said:

The thing doesn’t rethink the basics, it is basic. The overall design is very much in line with cars like the DMC-12 and Lotus Espirit S2. The silhouette resembles a Lamborgini Huracan that’s been lifted with a small, flat side skirt added

So if I squint when looking at it with blinding lights behind it it may look like a supercar... cool. First off, this is supposed to be a truck. Not a car. Second off, those cars were designed using a 'wedge-shape' for aerodynamics and handling as well as being sculpted to look good. Not using an actual wedge for the design.

 

Granted it is clearly not the final design (I mean it is missing a TON of stuff to make it road legal), but no one who needs a truck to do truck stuff is going to buy this, and people that want a truck, want it because of how it looks. A handful of tech enthusiasts and car reviewers will be the main customer. And that is nowhere near the # of customers with the needs or wants of a 'real' truck.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

12 hours ago, amdorintel said:

...110v charging is a joke

No, it is not. A friend of mine recently got a Chevy Bolt and she charges it from 110v and doesn't need to charge it every day.. She uses it for a grocery getter and commuting to and from work.

11 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Sort of. 110v is One phase. 220 is 2 phase.  Old areas like mine have 2 phase power. 2 110v cables running to the house from the pole along with a ground, so three wires.

Wrong on everything. 120v and 240v are single phase (120v and 240v have replaced 110-220v in most places and is the standard voltage per the NEC). There is no such thing as two phase in actual use. 120V is derived from splitting 220V. The three cables that come into 99 and 44/100ths of residences are single phase with two hot legs and one neutral leg. When a load is connected to a hot leg to the other hot leg, you get 240v (pure 240v loads do not need the neutral leg but will still need a ground which iis normally derived from and actual Earth ground). When the load connected hot leg to neutral leg, you get 120v. Neutral is supposed to always at ground potential (0V) but does carry some current, depending on how balanced the overall load is).

 

Long distance three phase transmission lines is higher voltage three phase (usually 220kv or 500kv) in a three wire delta connection (all three legs are hot; there is no need for a neutral). These are the power lines that usually run on steel single leg towers (aka poles) or the old style lattice towers (which are beiing phased out, pardon the pun) although older transmission lines were run on wood poles (also beeing phased out. In urban areas, lower voltage three phase (usually 69kv) is run on the upper part of poles (wood or steel) and frequently have 12kv distribution lines underbuilt (lower on the pole). The actual voltages may carry in different locations (many of the transmission lines going to mines, mostly copper, in parts of AZ are stlll 128kv but those are antiques).

 

Three phase distribution, on the other hand, have four legs-- three hots and a neutral--with most being a wye connection and are almost always used with industrial commercial loads (factories, stores, large office buildings, etc.) although residential loads occasionally will be three phase (usually larger homes, such as mansions although, when I was a child, the neighbors behind us had a three phase service even though it was overkill for a home that size).

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

If you’re taking construction, like large dump trucks, they also have better weight distribution on the ground, as well as being heavy enough to compact the ground underthem AND have off road wheels designed for them.

 

Now that we’re done with the game of false equivalences, pickups, what the Tesla is, sometimes get stuck. What the ones good at getting unstuck have is moderate low end torque. Enough to move the truck, but not enough to consistently spin the wheels and send mud flying.

And Tesla get to set the motor and torque curve. So, false equivalences?

Or is this something that can be done in the power delivery to the motor, or the stator/rotor control via "software" (in an ICE engine, we'd say fuel/air mix and "timings" which is also SOFTWARE these days)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4766332

[Bombastinator]

49 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

No, it is not. A friend of mine recently got a Chevy Bolt and she charges it from 110v and doesn't need to charge it every day.. She uses it for a grocery getter and commuting to and from work.

Wrong on everything. 120v and 240v are single phase (120v and 240v have replaced 110-220v in most places and is the standard voltage per the NEC). There is no such thing as two phase in actual use. 120V is derived from splitting 220V. The three cables that come into 99 and 44/100ths of residences are single phase with two hot legs and one neutral leg. When a load is connected to a hot leg to the other hot leg, you get 240v (pure 240v loads do not need the neutral leg but will still need a ground which iis normally derived from and actual Earth ground). When the load connected hot leg to neutral leg, you get 120v. Neutral is supposed to always at ground potential (0V) but does carry some current, depending on how balanced the overall load is).

 

Long distance three phase transmission lines is higher voltage three phase (usually 220kv or 500kv) in a three wire delta connection (all three legs are hot; there is no need for a neutral). These are the power lines that usually run on steel single leg towers (aka poles) or the old style lattice towers (which are beiing phased out, pardon the pun) although older transmission lines were run on wood poles (also beeing phased out. In urban areas, lower voltage three phase (usually 69kv) is run on the upper part of poles (wood or steel) and frequently have 12kv distribution lines underbuilt (lower on the pole). The actual voltages may carry in different locations (many of the transmission lines going to mines, mostly copper, in parts of AZ are stlll 128kv but those are antiques).

 

Three phase distribution, on the other hand, have four legs-- three hots and a neutral--with most being a wye connection and are almost always used with industrial commercial loads (factories, stores, large office buildings, etc.) although residential loads occasionally will be three phase (usually larger homes, such as mansions although, when I was a child, the neighbors behind us had a three phase service even though it was overkill for a home that size).

Re: wrong on everything:

perhaps in your area.  I know a great deal about how the electrical in my house works.  I assure you that where I live that is exactly how it is done.  I can provide pictures and meter readings if necessary.  Now in YOUR area it may be different.  My neighborhood is exceptionally primitive.  I was providing myself as a low end scenario.  1932 technology.  It may be much better elsewhere.  The point I was trying to make and apparently failed at was that even though my house uses tech from near 100 years ago I can still do phase 2 charging.  This “only a few places can charge electric vehicles” thing is demonstrably bogus.

[Drak3]

Just now, TechyBen said:

And Tesla get to set the motor and torque curve. So, false equivalences?

An electric motor’s torque curve is higher at lower RPM. You can’t change that.

 

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Or is this something that can be done in the power delivery to the motor,

As I’ve already said, it might be possible. But Likely not, I doubt that hitting the sweet spot of being able to move the truck and not turning the tires into soft earth saw blades is going to align with the current needed to get the motor turning.

 

9 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

in an ICE engine, we'd say fuel/air mix and "timings" which is also SOFTWARE these days)

And? ICE torque curves start at their low end at low RPMs. You can’t change that either.

[EarthWormJM2]

On 11/22/2019 at 8:14 PM, Drak3 said:

1. Not everyone cares about towing. Some people want trucks for off roading, racing,  ricing, or hauling more than a car.
2. Plenty of people prefer enclosed beds with easy access only being from the back. Tonneau covers and bed caps exist for a reason.
3. Some people just want a bed for things like ATVs or dirt bikes, not tool boxes. I removed mine because it was not practical for my needs.
4. Trucks aren’t only for work.
5. Some people don’t want passengers in their trucks, me being one of them. What this thing offers is fine for us.
6. See #1
7. See #3
8. Not everyone wants an intimidating truck.
9. Too early to really know.
10. See #6. Some people also only care about going short distances. The only problem this thing has is refills, which some people don’t care about.

 

If your list was absolute, the Tacoma, Ranger, Dakota, Colorado/Canyon, and other light half tons and smaller wouldn’t exist. But they do, because some people don’t need an F150 or bigger.

So everything you keep arguing about is that there are SOME people out there that this vehicle would be for. I agree that SOME people will buy it, but MOST people will not, which is what Tesla is after, the mass market. Ford sells an F-150 almost every 30 seconds (almost 1.1mil in 2018), and that is just ONE model of a truck from a single company. Add up all the rest of the 'traditional' trucks on sale and those 200k pre-orders (which doesn't guarantee a sale) looks pretty insignificant. The reasons that the person you responded to gave are all most of the reasons people buy those trucks in the first place. No not ALL the reasons, but the vast majority. If you are trying to bring electric alternatives to the massive truck industry, you need to have at least a handful of the same features from all those 'traditional' designs, there's a reason they are there. Otherwise you are only gonna get the enthusiasts or random handful of purchases.

[Bombastinator]

Complaints about electric vehicles I have seen so far on this thread (I may miss one or two.  I’m doing it from memory)

 

“electric vehicles are worse for the environment than gas cars” -proven false. This then changed to “electric vehicles are just or nearly as bad for the environment as gas cars” -proven false, though they are also not as good as some claims have made.

take home:  Worst case half as bad as gas cars.  Possibly even less.
 

“electric vehicles cost too much” - proven false

 

”electric vehicles cannot be charged most places” -proven false.  This then changed to “electric vehicles can be charged but not charged fast enough” -proven false in the vast majority of cases but not all of them.  This then changed to “electric vehicles cannot be charged by apartment owners” -proven false in many but not all cases.  
Take home: electric vehicle charging is imperfect and there are some situations where it is not viable.  It is by no means the majority or even a large minority though, even without any expansion.  Though expansion is happening.

 

”electric vehicles are unreliable and explode”.  - proven false. Gas engines are actually worse.  This then changed to “electric vehicles explode gas cars don’t” -proven false. 
Take home: electric car explosions are more pyrotechnic than gas car explosions but they happen more rarely, and there is tech to prevent them from happening at all.
 

“electric vehicles have too much torque and will get stuck easier than gas engines”  -not yet proven false.  It seems likely that it will though.

 

 

[Drak3]

@EarthWormJM2 Are you going to keep rehashing early parts of arguments?

 

I need to know so I can expect a higher number of nothingburger notifications.

[grayperview]

It looks like something out an early 80's Si-fi movie set in 2020. 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, grayperview said:

It looks like something out an early 80's Si-fi movie set in 2020. 

Ah. That’s right.  This was actually about the cyber truck, not electric vehicles in general.  Thankyou.  

Complaints about the cyber truck:

-Various complaints about its looks.

Art is subjective.  It often says more about the feelings of the poster than the vehicle though.

-Various complaints about projected safety.  All made using specific quotes from Musk’s speech. Not impossible, but unknown.  They in any case will be addressed by relevant authorities.  If they’re not false they will be before it is released.

 

-Various complaints about functionality.

these proved to be mostly effectively false or niche situations.  It will not be useful for absolutely everything a more traditional design is.  The cyber truck can be considered a truck with permanent bed side extensions.  This does limit it for some things though not very many.

[TechyBen]

51 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

An electric motor’s torque curve is higher at lower RPM. You can’t change that.

 

As I’ve already said, it might be possible. But Likely not, I doubt that hitting the sweet spot of being able to move the truck and not turning the tires into soft earth saw blades is going to align with the current needed to get the motor turning.

 

And? ICE torque curves start at their low end at low RPMs. You can’t change that either.

Did you read my links? These things were sorted in the 80s.

 

You are still acting as if ICE cars never had to solve an engine limitation problem. You are still complaining a boat cannot fly, or aircraft cannot ride the subway.

[Edit]

Found one in mud:

"But, but, air is too light, and metal too heavy, you'll never have heavier than air flying machines"... it's a solved "problem" already. Stop trash talking.

 

Will it be "as cheap"? Possibly not. Will it be the *same* as an ICE engine/car? Nope. Does not mean it's "useless" or "stupid" or "gonna get stuck in the mud"