TW200 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

Okay, sorry for the clickbait, but that number IS out there (the guy in the video states it and I'm not sure if he's trolling or genuinely missed it...I actually didn't catch it for a second until I stopped to actually think for one second...), so it's not my fault. I claim innocence ;) Obviously, it's 1,000 foot pounds...someone fudged a number somewhere and put 14,000 Newtonmeters in the spec sheet instead of 1,400...maybe they thought they were funny, but more likely a careless mistake. Honestly, it's kind of a big deal as far as I'm concerned. That sort of thing does NOT look good. But if the company delivers, I can forgive, haha. Also, I'm not sure if that number is even accurate. I read somewhere else that it has 826 foot pounds (probably the more accurate figure, I would guess, although I haven't really looked into it).

*14 inches of ground clearance
*0-60 in 3 seconds...
*Project's head engineer is ex-McLaren/designer from Grand Cherokee project...

Watch the video. This could well be that "the very near future" I've talked about in recent posts. In one sense, it is a bit lamentable that we seem to have reached the end of an era (death of the diesel and of the internal combustion engine relatively shortly thereafter).

But, looking at the spec sheet and performance numbers for things like this, and some of Tesla's stuff, electric hypercars, electric Zero Motorcycles, etc.... Perhaps the future is not so bleak afterall :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
He asked at the end of the video which I skipped to "let me know what you think":

Internet eye-candy. Please call me when you see one on a showroom floor. No one is going to be using one of those on a farm or to haul anything. But definitely very pretty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,350 Posts
He asked at the end of the video which I skipped to "let me know what you think":

Internet eye-candy. Please call me when you see one on a showroom floor. No one is going to be using one of those on a farm or to haul anything. But definitely very pretty.
i bet there were more than a few people saying the same thing 100+ yrs ago when that silly ford fellow wanted to replace the horse...

ask 6000 GM workers about modernization... and or corporate motives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,866 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
So with 750 hp and 1400 N-M of torque, why not make a real truck. Those number are better than any of the 3 diesel 1-tons out there.

Another question is how is California going to charge all those electric vehicles?
Do they have the Solar, Wind or Tidal electric infrastructures in place?
63% of the electric power in the USA is DIRTY; it is generated from Coal(30%) and Natural Gas(32%) thermo electric plants. (1% from petroleum thermo electric plants) (Reference)
17% comes from renewable and 20% from nuclear (I would prefer seeing CANDU as the source of this energy)

In BC we can not even keep up with our electric needs via our Hydro Electric Dams - Hence the Site C Dam is being constructed.
Vancouver has a natural gas thermo electric plant that runs a lot considering it is supposed to be a back up.

By 2040 there are to be no more "petroleum run" vehicles sold in BC.
I am all for clean energy, but it needs to be clean from the start.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,865 Posts
Wow cool truck! With the new battery tech that is coming down the pipeline vehicles like this are going to be more of a reality sooner than we think. I like that there is some big experienced engineers working on this vehicle. A jeep engineer worked on it and it has four-wheel-drive I like that. Gary L this truck isn’t much different than my 2015 Toyota tundra except that it has better performance numbers and 4 wheel drive and my truck doesn’t .

Ford started making autos and many people probably said where are
we going to get gas for them and then you see four gas stations on the corners all over the place. The same will happen with the electric charging station.

Efrance probably 40% of the houses in my neighborhood in CA and now including me have solar on the roof top. There’s a lot of things that aren’t really made green but solar power even if it is dirrty to make is a really clean source of power that goes on and on for years and years just like hydroelectric power. If you look at Germany Norway and many countries they are mandating solar power for their countries. Imagine for a second if the US didn’t spend 60% of its budget on military an if that money was used differently it could be used to create infrastructure that’s green and self sustainable.

It’s a dream but change has to start some somewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
He asked at the end of the video which I skipped to "let me know what you think":

Internet eye-candy. Please call me when you see one on a showroom floor. No one is going to be using one of those on a farm or to haul anything. But definitely very pretty.
I must beg to differ. It is rated to tow 11,000 pounds IIRC. This truck wasn't designed to tow heavy loads, but rest assured, HD electric trucks are coming soon, and they should be able to easily compete with current diesel models. Also, the company employs 600 people, and it is already taking preorders for the R1T. If Rivian is smart, there won't even be a traditional showroom floor. Maybe one available for display/test drives, but that antiquated sales model is not the best for today's market. Online orders just like Amazon or Ebay...that's the future. Younger buyers don't put up with sleazy car salesmen anymore. That's history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,643 Posts
Tweaker, all I am trying to say is that a lot of the electricity out there actually created more pollution in its production than petroleum powered vehicles produce. If the electricity comes from a renewable source, then electric vehicles are a good choice. If you are driving an electric vehicle and charging it from electricity generated from a coal powered electric plant then you are actually generating more pollutants than the guy driving his vintage car.

I recently read (I have not researched it) that an Austrailan company in Squamish, BC is doing a proof of concept on pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and creating fuels to run in gas, deisel and jet engines. They are also claiming that the CO2 could also be stored under ground to actual create a carbon deficit. The energy to run this plant would need to come from a renewable resource, but our transportation infrastructure would not need to change - assuming this is not a lot of malarkey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,346 Posts
Wow cool truck! With the new battery tech that is coming down the pipeline vehicles like this are going to be more of a reality sooner than we think. I like that there is some big experienced engineers working on this vehicle. A jeep engineer worked on it and it has four-wheel-drive I like that. Gary L this truck isn’t much different than my 2015 Toyota tundra except that it has better performance numbers and 4 wheel drive and my truck doesn’t .

Ford started making autos and many people probably said where are
we going to get gas for them and then you see four gas stations on the corners all over the place. The same will happen with the electric charging station.

Efrance probably 40% of the houses in my neighborhood in CA and now including me have solar on the roof top. There’s a lot of things that aren’t really made green but solar power even if it is dirrty to make is a really clean source of power that goes on and on for years and years just like hydroelectric power. If you look at Germany Norway and many countries they are mandating solar power for their countries. Imagine for a second if the US didn’t spend 60% of its budget on military an if that money was used differently it could be used to create infrastructure that’s green and self sustainable.

It’s a dream but change has to start some somewhere.
According to the congressional budget office, the US spends roughly 17% of it's annual budget on defense. This is well below half of what is spent annually on welfare/entitlement programs.



Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,865 Posts
On the mandatory budget which includes Social security which is 100% funded by payroll taxes yes the military budget seems small as a percentage. But discretionary budget shows it a higher percentage.


7B8C1E93-4B59-4037-9643-9FBA94C70494.png


According to the congressional budget office, the US spends roughly 17% of it's annual budget on defense. This is well below half of what is spent annually on welfare/entitlement programs.



Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,346 Posts
On the mandatory budget which includes Social security which is 100% funded by payroll taxes yes the military budget seems small as a percentage. But discretionary budget shows it a higher percentage.


View attachment 186998
Yes BUT discretionary spending Only accounts for a touch more than 25% of total budgetary spending. Classic example of "lies of omission" don't you think? The chart you show frequently pops up on left leaning articles. The sole purpose of which is to deceive the low information crowd and it works! Too few people comprehend what they are actually seeing and most will not take the time to research the whole truth. Unfortunately I believe this stuff is done intentionally to sway public opinion by stoking outrage in the ill informed masses. NONE OF THIS IS DIRECTED AT YOU Tweaker. Just my observation on the fall of journalism in general.



Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
A while back I am pretty sure I posted an article about the cost of wind turbines and the value of the energy they produce. It began with the material cost from the mine where the ore for steel, aluminum and copper was mined and the energy to get the material out of the ground. Moved on to the costs of manufacturing and forming all the various materials, parts and pieces including fiberglass and plastics plus the paint and cement and the total costs of construction which all use fossil fuels for their processes. It turned out that a wind turbine costs more to build from the ground to the finished product producing wind power than any wind turbine will ever produce from the wind over it's entire life expectancy. The only way a wind turbine can pay for it's own cost is by substantially raising the value and subsequently the cost of the electricity it produces. The study did not even take into consideration the cost of the man hours it took to mine the materials and construct the entire wind mill. Every worker involved drove to their work site in fossil fuel vehicles, drove fossil fueled vehicles in their jobs and every factory ran on fossil fuels in the process. In the end the wind turbine would have to generate 3 times their current generating output at the current costs of both electricity and fuels just to break even.
When we drive up to my wife's family along NY route 390 just below Dansville NY we see an array of probably 20-30 wind turbines scattered over the hill tops. More often than not a good number of these giant wind mills are not even spinning for one reason or another. The land owner of the property I care for here in NY is a greenie who lives in California. He had a giant array of solar panels installed a few years back to supposedly off set the cost of electricity to run his home here. Looks to be around 30 to 40 4' X 6' panels that stretch at least 120 feet across his back yard line. According to his latest figures it will take 10 years to pay off the cost of the solar panels before he ever realizes any savings from them. I fully agree that renewable energy is a necessity however I disagree that it is anywhere close to being a cost effective reliable source at this point in time. When we have a full week of rain, clouds and overcast skies his solar energy production goes down to near zero and when we have an abundance of sun his panels produce more than necessary which the power company pays him a pittance for. If he were to spend the massive money for a massive battery storage bank in his basement he might see some return quicker but even this is undetermined for it's cost effectiveness.

GaryL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,302 Posts
Tesla may be bringing their truck to market this year, as well as a crossover, since those are so popular now. The torque is otherworldly, and the idea of riding a bike through the woods in relative silence is kinda nice.

Regarding carbon footprints and economics, it's projected that it'll cost more to extract oil than it's worth by 2050 (the magical year of predictions lately). It's likely that at least as a temporary solution, we will need more nuclear energy plants. Harnessing tidal forces will go a long way as well. There has been research demonstrating that nuclear energy has saved more lives than it has taken, and less than fossil fuel or pollution-related deaths. The waste is much easier to contain than carbon capture and storage, as well. Clearly it's not perfect but neither are the batteries we currently use, however renewable energy and battery technology are advancing every day, whereas petroleum engineering must not be expected to keep up with the costs of extraction, given the projections' assumptions.

Or the experts are morons and some wingnuts on a motorcycle forum have it pinned down :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
Other than the year predictions I think a lot of this could be accurate. When/If renewable energy technology catches up the world will be all the better for it. Certainly not in the remainder of my lifetime but future generations may very well benefit. Battery technology must take a giant step in the very near future because everywhere I look around my home I have AAA, AA, D and countless other batteries from 1.5 volts to 18 volts and in various forms like lead acid, wet cells, AGM and lith ion and every one of them need replacing on a regular basis. Wind, sun, water and nuclear may very well be the saviors but they are a long way off IMO. If I had a pre teen child I would want him/her to study electricity in all it's forms as I do see it as the future. This may seem a bit strange to many here but when I was born TV was a very new concept that many in rural areas simply did not or could not have. The remote control for changing between our 3 TV stations was as simple as "Gary, turn the dial and adjust the rabbit ears". That would be just 60 years ago when telephones were screwed to the walls and we had no such thing as voice mail or even answering machines. Our very first phone number I remember was TU8-44. We were the 44th home in the Turner 8 phone exchange to have a land line phone. At that time there was only about 140 homes in our town many of which did not yet have telephone lines strung from poles to them.

GaryL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,432 Posts
If one takes Gary's long term view and looks at energy and financial budgets over the service life of alternate energy sources then nuclear is the real loser. I used to work in the industry and should be a proponent because that was where my bread was buttered, but I am not. Just the taxpayer burden for superfund clean-up at Moab's UMTRA will exceed the revenue generated by the private sector uranium sales and subsequent energy production sales from the uranium ore processed there. This does not even begin to address the financial and energy costs of the custodial care of waste from the power plants for the next 80,000 or so years. Even Chernobyl's sarcophagus is ready for a second make-over and that is expected to a short 50 year service life. Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Strontium-90 and of course Plutonium are the gifts that just keep on giving for longer than Homo Sapiens have been, or likely will be around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
If one takes Gary's long term view and looks at energy and financial budgets over the service life of alternate energy sources then nuclear is the real loser. I used to work in the industry and should be a proponent because that was where my bread was buttered, but I am not. Just the taxpayer burden for superfund clean-up at Moab's UMTRA will exceed the revenue generated by the private sector uranium sales and subsequent energy production sales from the uranium ore processed there. This does not even begin to address the financial and energy costs of the custodial care of waste from the power plants for the next 80,000 or so years. Even Chernobyl's sarcophagus is ready for a second make-over and that is expected to a short 50 year service life. Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Strontium-90 and of course Plutonium are the gifts that just keep on giving for longer than Homo Sapiens have been, or likely will be around.
That's a perfect example Fred. Every form of energy does have some real drawbacks associated with them. Depending upon how the resource is obtained, drilling, mining, fracking or damming our rivers they all do some harm and of course the left over remnants such as C02 and other emissions, stripped lands and blocked rivers all play a part. The phony claim of nuke power being the clean energy is just that, Phony. Wind, solar and tidal capture does have some promise but even they have drawbacks. I pretty much doubt we will come up with any real answers here on the TW forum but it is pretty important that we all look at the Total Picture of any and all energy sources. What appears to be clean might be a lot dirtier in the long run.

GaryL
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top