Need 200kWh and 280kWh options + 350kW charging to kill the anti-EV truck arguments!

[Blainestang]

Personally, I think it's dumb to try and cater to such uncommon use cases at this point. EVs don't have to work for everyone, yet. All the manufacturers combined can't possibly make enough EVs for that, anyway, and probably not any time in the next several years.

I think just throwing a huge battery into it is the least efficient way to do it, too, IMO.

Better first steps would be more chargers (so stops can be more optimized), better charger location design (pull-throughs), and better charge rate. ~170kW for a 131kWh battery is nothing special (though the curve is fairly good). I'd much prefer faster charging to a bigger battery, personally, so the 360 days/year that I'm not towing, I won't be dragging around a bunch of battery I'm not using.

There are a relative handful of people who are frequently towing long distances, but I don't think it's enough to justify offering a 280kWh pack (or even >200kWh), yet, and I feel like it's almost worse PR to have a 9000 lb truck hogging all the battery cells when you have plenty of demand for the 230-300 mile trucks that are perfectly fine for many, many use cases.

Sponsored

 

[BennyTheBeaver]

I think just throwing a huge battery into it is the least efficient way to do it, too, IMO.

Completely agree.

The next gen of Lightning should worry more about making the truck more efficient via aerodynamics and design. Throwing extra batteries at it will only make the current design less efficient.

With the current issues in sourcing battery materials, it really behooves the manufacturers to try and scrape as much efficiency out of these vehicles in every aspect other than the battery. Getting more range out of each kW should be up at the top of the priority list. With this 1st gen Lightning, it was clearly sacrificed to allow Ford to get these trucks out ASAP.

Increase the efficiency, increase the towing range. Now, when they figure out how to have a secondary battery hooked via your hitch (whether as a towable, add-on or incorporated into your trailer) that'll be the gamechanger.

 

[swngdncr]

I think that the ultimate solution to the towing challenge will be trailers designed for Ev’s … would love to have one of these…so cool…. https://www.lightshiprv.com/

The biggest (and true) argument against the Lightning is that it can't tow for long distances.

This is because 100kWh battery is roughly equivalent to 12 gallons of gas in the comparable ICE truck. (People incorrectly say that 33kWh = 1 gallon of gas, that's a theoretical energy number and doesn't take into account the 80% thermal efficiency loss in a gas engine.)

So, the ER battery is roughly equivalent to 16 gallons of gas.

Towing something big like a 8000lb Airstream can be a 60% range loss which is an equivalent loss in gas or EV.

For gas, if we had 16 gallons and assume 20mpg unloaded, towing we get 8mpg * 16g = 128 mile range which is very close to what people are reporting with the Lightning @ 1.0m/kWh = 131 mile range.

So, under heavy towing scenario:
- 200kWh is roughly 24 gallons of gas or 200 miles of range towing, 480 miles unloaded.
- 280kWh is roughly 34 gallons of gas or 280 miles of range towing, 672 miles unloaded.

This is very close to the gas tank options in the gas F150 (26g and 36g) and there would be zero reason to complain about range under towing.

Of course, the last part is recharging which 350kW charge rate would make very reasonable. Depending on the charge curve, perhaps 30 minutes for 10 to 90% charge with the 200kWh battery and 45 minutes for the 280kWh battery. Yeah that's still worse than buying gas, but it's not crazy worse.

The next 10 years of EVs is going to be pretty amazing.

 

[lightspeed]

Yes I think that's a great long term solution. Have a standard connector for trailers that bring extra battery so the truck can pull from them and charge them. I also agree with what people said about faster charging and reliable chargers (like Tesla superchargers). I'm not sure about better aero. A significant increase would require a radical shape change like the Cybertruck and that design is polarizing.

280kWh is probably not realistic at current battery weights, but 200kWh is feasible since GM has said the Silverado will have 200kWh.

I still think that a true 240 mile usable range @ 80mph, regardless of wind/some hills/rain/snow/etc. would be the sweet spot (assuming that trailers will someday bring more battery with them). But 131kWh doesn't quite work for that.

Silverado will have 167kWh and 200kWh options.

Anyway, we have what we have, the future will continue to improve things...

 

[ExCivilian]

Putting batteries in a trailer sounds like a great idea until you think through recreational trailer usage. Even if you took your trailer to a campsite every weekend, and I don't know anyone who has really ever done that other than full-time RVers, it would still only be used roughly 50 times a year while sitting somewhere for the other 300 days.

 

[BennyTheBeaver]

Putting batteries in a trailer sounds like a great idea until you think through recreational trailer usage. Even if you took your trailer to a campsite every weekend, and I don't know anyone who has really ever done that other than full-time RVers, it would still only be used roughly 50 times a year while sitting somewhere for the other 300 days.

Except travel trailers could now have 100kW+ in batteries that they can also use instead of an on-board generator. Having a smart EVSE charger incorporated that can charge the truck while driving could allow you to offload X% of battery to the truck.

Making it a $8k-$10k add-on...people spend outrageous amounts on their travel trailers, there would be takers.

Also, the surface area of the roof of RVs/enclosed trailers could make solar recharging viable as well.

All pie in the sky stuff.

 

[Kev12345]

Putting batteries in a trailer sounds like a great idea until you think through recreational trailer usage. Even if you took your trailer to a campsite every weekend, and I don't know anyone who has really ever done that other than full-time RVers, it would still only be used roughly 50 times a year while sitting somewhere for the other 300 days.

great for the $100k + trailer crowd. not exactly affordable for the occasional weekend warrior. although you could make the argument that your expensive trailer sitting in the driveway 90% of the year now acts as solar/battery backup for your house?

 

[ExCivilian]

The problem isn't affordability it's the fact that leaving batteries sitting in storage for a year or years wastes resources and results in damaged cells.

It's an esoteric solution looking for a problem to fix--garbage can theory.

 

[GarageMahal]

Putting batteries in a trailer sounds like a great idea until you think through recreational trailer usage. Even if you took your trailer to a campsite every weekend, and I don't know anyone who has really ever done that other than full-time RVers, it would still only be used roughly 50 times a year while sitting somewhere for the other 300 days.

But theses batteries would be perfect for V2G and home backup!

 

[PrivateJoker]

The GMC Hummer has a 210 KWh battery. That battery weighs 2923 pounds which is nearly 1/3 of the Hummers 9063 pound empty weight. The Hummer only gets 350 miles of range so there are inherent losses with installing huge batteries in a vehicle.

That's true because of the pack density. If we were talking Tesla 4860 pack densities, the hit on weight wouldn't be too bad. A 200kW pack with 800V charging would be reasonable for most RV'ers and is achievable in the short term.

It's not gas, but we have a ways to go before we can get there. But 200 miles with a trailer, and pull through 350kW charging would be bearable for me. 2.5 -> 3 hours driving with a 30 minute stop is pretty close to what I do anyhow. I'm too old to sit in around for much longer than that at my age.

 

[daveross1212]

I've always thought that the future of EVs was wireless charging infrastructure built into major roadways - e.g. charging *as* you drive. Seems like that's just as feasible and more forward thinking then just bigger denser batteries. Why carry around 2500lbs of battery when I can have a smaller lighter battery being constantly topped up by the road itself.

 

[daveross1212]

e.g. this https://www.ttnews.com/articles/first-us-mile-wireless-ev-charging-road-coming-detroit

 

[lightspeed]

Hmm sounds like a bad idea overall. Inductive charging is very inefficient and at the scale needed for cars it will generate HUGE electro-magnetic fields that will disrupt all kinds of things.

 

[Zprime29]

Hmm sounds like a bad idea overall. Inductive charging is very inefficient and at the scale needed for cars it will generate HUGE electro-magnetic fields that will disrupt all kinds of things.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/09/whats-the-state-of-wireless-ev-charging/

I don't know about on the move charging, but the company discussed in this article claims they have the same efficiency as plugging in, as well as no limit to charge speed. Some exciting possibilities if what they claim come to fruition.

 

[Kev12345]

I've always thought that the future of EVs was wireless charging infrastructure built into major roadways - e.g. charging *as* you drive. Seems like that's just as feasible and more forward thinking then just bigger denser batteries. Why carry around 2500lbs of battery when I can have a smaller lighter battery being constantly topped up by the road itself.

do you know how expensive it is to repair asphalt roads? now multiply that by 1000. never gonna happen.

Sponsored