Switchblade: Kinda cool concept in progress

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Charging on 120 is a joke, I’ve never done it but have heard you get 1 mile range per hour of charge

"Up to 6 MPH" is what I read, but that could be 1.0.

[Andy95W]

For all the naysayers who love to poo-poo on EVs and the associated technologies, take a look at the 1903 Wright Flyer.  It was a crap airplane, but they kept at it and barely 10 years later the first scheduled airline service started (January 1, 1914.).  Only 15 1/2 years after its invention, Alcock and Brown flew across the Atlantic Ocean (June 14, 1919).

If the Wrights, Curtiss, Bleriot, etc. had listened to the naysayers and stopped pushing the technology forward, we never would have made it to the moon in 1969 and I certainly wouldn’t be flying my 1964 M20C.

Or, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Asking what is useful about electricity is like asking what is useful about a newborn baby.”  (I paraphrased.)

[Hank]

Imagine if the government, in say 1907, had tried to outlaw trains and force everyone to travel by Wright Flyer. That's where EVs are, and what D.C. is trying to do.

[Schllc]

The real problem is not the EV, or innovation, it’s the fact that government, which is the one entity in the world least suited for efficacy is trying to jigger society through myopic goals. 
Reducing pollution and protecting our environment is not a bad thing, but making decisions and mandates without really understanding the consequences is just stupid. 
An easy example is washing machines. The energy regulations regarding water usage have created machines that do not work as well as they use to, cost triple what they used to, and the life span is usually under five years. 
all of the energy, and impact of those things ending up in the trash makes it difficult to believe that the net environmental impact is positive. 
These decisions are never evaluated and measured for efficacy. Some nameless bureaucrat just decrees it’s better because it uses less water, end of discussion peons…

EV’s are amazing technology, but it’s painfully obvious our grid is not capable of the transition.  When you factor in the manufacturing impact, the disposal of the cars, and the never ending need to produce and dispose of the batteries, there is little evidence that the net benefit to the environment is there with EV’s, and electricity is not generated by unicorn farts or rainbows  

 

[A64Pilot]

10 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

"Up to 6 MPH" is what I read, but that could be 1.0.

In all honesty I don’t know, it wouldn’t be hard to calculate as I know our WH per mile we use, as level 2 charging is very efficient (I think Supercharging is less, it has to generate heat and heat reduces efficiency of course)

We use at around 45 MPH about 220 WH per mile, you can in theory pull about 1700W from a 15 amp plug, but lets use 1500 because I know 1500W appliances are common

1500 x .95 for efficiency loss is 1425 div by 220 = 6.8 so if we drove at about our most efficient speed and if charging is 95% efficient then we could get 6.8 miles per hour of charge. Higher speeds or stop and go traffic would be less of course. I think stop and go is mostly less because of the HVAC draw, unlike ICE which is generating massive amounts of heat sitting still.

I’ve never considered pulling out the travel charger to be worth it, but if I could get 72 miles or more in a q2 hour period it just might, besides if you go visit for the weekend you usually sit for far longer than 12 hours, 24 hours would take me from 30% to 80% charge using 6MPH charge rate.

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, Schllc said:

The real problem is not the EV, or innovation, it’s the fact that government, which is the one entity in the world least suited for efficacy is trying to jigger society through myopic goals. 
Reducing pollution and protecting our environment is not a bad thing, but making decisions and mandates without really understanding the consequences is just stupid. 
An easy example is washing machines. The energy regulations regarding water usage have created machines that do not work as well as they use to, cost triple what they used to, and the life span is usually under five years. 
all of the energy, and impact of those things ending up in the trash makes it difficult to believe that the net environmental impact is positive. 
These decisions are never evaluated and measured for efficacy. Some nameless bureaucrat just decrees it’s better because it uses less water, end of discussion peons…

EV’s are amazing technology, but it’s painfully obvious our grid is not capable of the transition.  When you factor in the manufacturing impact, the disposal of the cars, and the never ending need to produce and dispose of the batteries, there is little evidence that the net benefit to the environment is there with EV’s, and electricity is not generated by unicorn farts or rainbows  

 

You either believe in technology, innovation and the American way or you don’t. I believe that just like current auto’s batteries will be recycled, hopefully not by government mandate but because they are full of valuable minerals and there is money in it, just like current lead acid batteries are. The automobile due to the sheer number of the things is the recycling success story.

I agree with you believe it or not, my first act when we get a new shower head is for me to pull it apart and drill the thing out so it will work. I’m on a well, I take water out of the ground and return it to the ground, whether I use 10 gls to shower or 1 the amount of soap is the same, why do I need to save water? In truth it’s probably better that I don’t, it’s likely better that I heavily dilute the soap. Does a water saving toilet thst you have to flush three times really save water? 

We have figured out how to override the water saving washer so it uses more water and actually cleans clothes. 

But I’m a fan of high efficiency heat pumps, lights and highly insulated houses etc. not to save the Earth, but to save my wallet. That’s how in my opinion you reduce energy consumption by free enterprise making it so the consumer want to, but not by tax breaks to only the wealthy, because face it, the average hourly worker won’t benefit from a tax rebate they don’t pay enough taxes to begin with.

Always, always if the Government stays out of it Free Enterprise has reacted and given us whatever it is we want and are willing to pay for, whether it be fossil fuel or electricity, water or whatever. Live on the coast where over use of the wells to irrigate golf courses has dropped the water table enough to bring salt water in, there is Reverse Osmosis, sure it’s not as cheap as just pumping it out of the ground but technology can give you pure water to drink. Works great I used to “make” all our water on the boat from seawater.

Technology made faster than the speed of sound travel possible, but we weren’t willing to pay for it, yet Governments subsidized it for years as a waste of tax money.

Not everything that’s doable is worth paying for.

See I think the amount of money in fossil energy is unimaginable. I’m certain it’s higher than most nations GDP.

It’s my opinion that this war on fossil fuel in truth may not be to save the Earth, it may be to transfer an almost unimaginable amount of money from the current energy suppliers to someone else. Who that someone else is isn’t talked about, but to me it’s pretty obvious.

What is the source for almost all Lithium batteries, Solar panels and I’d bet windmill components etc? That’s who stands to gain unimaginable profit.

Musk is the outlier, he builds his own just about everything and interestingly enough he fell from grace very quickly from the people who are pushing hard for this transition when you would think they would have him on a pedestal as he’s the ONLY one who has made a success of EV’s. 

So what’s up with that?

Think about that for a sec, no one has ever made money from Space, not without HUGE taxpayer subsidies. I’m sure Space-X is getting those too, and in fact wouldn’t have made it without them, but he’s putting in place with Starlink something that could just possibly fund his dream for Mars, something that I was sure was nonsense, not because it isn’t technologically possible but because no single nation could afford it.

I used to not think much of him, thought he was just another .com Millionaire lucky and somehow hit the jackpot but it wasn’t going to last. Many of his businesses were nuts, that when “real” auto manufacturers stated building EV’s that they would quickly put him under. No way could someone who’s never actually manufactured anything possibly compete with the big three? Many have tried, none have been successful. There is a long list of those that have tried.

But you know he did something I’m sure wasn’t possible, actually landed an orbital booster using its own thrust and I started to maybe believe a bit. This year so far and the year is pretty much over but of all the mass that all the countries in the world have tossed into space, 80% of it has ridden on a Space-X rocket, He’s making money on something that has always been done at a HUGE loss paid for by taxpayers, if it weren’t for him we would still be bumming rides from Putin, how well do you think that would have worked?

So I ask again why isn’t this guy being paraded around on a pedestal by the save the world end fossil fuel types? Something is fishy.

If anyone is interested look up Tesla Master Plan number 3. It’s a 42 page document detailing exactly how we could transition from Fossil to sustainable energy source, he even lays out the cost. Now in my opinion where it breaks down is it’s doesn’t factor in the gross mismanagement, graft and greed of the Givernment you know how many non contributing board members etc need to be paid millions per year etc. how many palms need greasing, how else can an elected official become fabulously rich buy mansions on Martha’s Vineyard, only travel by Biz Jet etc? Yeah I know the usual answer is they had a book ghost written for them, sure that’s it, books sales funded all this, writers are fabulously wealthy right?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-3

Master plan 1 and 2 are interesting reading too, nothing like a 42 page report, but it’s interesting to see how close to reality the plans were, somehow he’s pulled off what I though just wasn’t possible. Those are old plans, first one wax 2006 but they lay out what he’s trying to do with Tesla. It’s interesting to read the plan from 06 and see how it’s been applied and what the intent was.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Schllc said:

An easy example is washing machines. The energy regulations regarding water usage have created machines that do not work as well as they use to, cost triple what they used to, and the life span is usually under five years. 
all of the energy, and impact of those things ending up in the trash makes it difficult to believe that the net environmental impact is positive. 

It has been maddening to adjust to “new” appliances made under the latest regulations. Our brand new Samsung washers are fine for someone that never actually gets dirty. They are a big step down for actually cleaning clothes but at least it takes 3 times as long to get the lousy results. Forget about bulky items. 
I hacked the water level switch which has helped marginally but for all the new tech, a 30 year old top loader yields cleaner clothes. I know because I use an old Whirlpool for well soiled items.

The stuff is way less durable as well, which is why the warranties are so lousy. 

The net result is extra cycles to do the same job and appliances with a shorter lifespan.

 The Fed is now considering a mandate that will reduce max usage from 5 gals per cycle to 3 gals and a 30% reduction in energy usage. 

It will be bad for every including the environment.

[A64Pilot]

A problem is the parts to maintain the old stuff isn’t available. When we Retired on the boat we gave our Son the washer and drier, I think the drier is now dead and parts no longer can be had, he replaced brushes in the motor some time ago but something else is gone now.

Our current Fridge that came with the house is an LG inverter fridge, now I’m a big fan of inverter driven compressors because they are variable frequency drives and can adjust the compressors output to meet demand and save a bunch of energy which is money, but LG in this one to save money didn’t put a drier in the system and the capillary tube gets clogged from debris that the drier is put there to filter out, there is some kind of recall so I’m waiting for it to die. They replace the compressor and cap tube, but as they don’t install a drier it’s not a fix, but gets it through warranty which I’m sure I’m past so a new fridge is imminent.

In the hangar is an old Sears big fridge, I got rid of ours when the outside rusted, over the 25 years or so we had it, it went through a couple of ice makers and one thermostat. This old one in the hangar a neighbor was throwing away is old as Hell, has rust and I replaced the thermostat this Summer, but works great. I have it set so that sometimes the beer freezes when you open the bottle, just perfect.

My Wife’s Grandmother when we were dating replaced her honest to God 1940’s Frigidaire, you know the rounded one with the kid killer handle and the round condenser on top only when the door seal was gone and couldn’t be replaced in the early 80’s, but other than the door seal it still did it’s job as good as it did when new.

We could build I’m sure better appliances now than we did, build ones that would last literally for a lifetime, look at how long car engines last now. Our Prius had 250,000 miles on it and didn’t burn a drop of oil for example.

But there is money in planned obsolescence more money than making appliances that last a lifetime. Same with autos, the industry is based on your buying new every couple of years but I suspect they are pricing themselves out of that model.

[dkkim73]

49 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Our brand new Samsung washers are fine for someone that never actually gets dirty.  

...

It will be bad for every including the environment.

Remember the consumer base is changing. They watch videos of people driving through mud in the jeeps they only drive in suburbia. I had to laugh the first time i saw a hi lift jack on a super shiny jeep in Bellevue.

Appliances: It's new, it's green, it looks shiny and has Wi-Fi! Must be better. 

Not all are bad eg miele dishwasher was new to us several years ago and had a long design lifetime. Selected for that reason after i fixed whirlpool for the fifth time. But it's the exception to the rule.

Enviro impact is terrible of trashing all this. But govt mandates and product lifecycles drive it.

My take is that real critical thinking about science and engineering are hard to find. There is superficial familiarity and a worship of the new, a "scientism". We saw the divergence more in the last few years publicly. 

My concern about GA is that there are sound reasons for established practices. Old fashioned might be better. Changes need to be tested and proven over time, not driven by ideology. 

I read years ago about how popular the old American fridges and cars were in Cuba. Just kept them going for years. 

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

Remember the consumer base is changing. They watch videos of people driving through mud in the jeeps they only drive in suburbia. I had to laugh the first time i saw a hi lift jack on a super shiny jeep in Bellevue.

Appliances: It's new, it's green, it looks shiny and has Wi-Fi! Must be better. 

Not all are bad eg miele dishwasher was new to us several years ago and had a long design lifetime. Selected for that reason after i fixed whirlpool for the fifth time. But it's the exception to the rule.

Enviro impact is terrible of trashing all this. But govt mandates and product lifecycles drive it.

My take is that real critical thinking about science and engineering are hard to find. There is superficial familiarity and a worship of the new, a "scientism". We saw the divergence more in the last few years publicly. 

My concern about GA is that there are sound reasons for established practices. Old fashioned might be better. Changes need to be tested and proven over time, not driven by ideology. 

I read years ago about how popular the old American fridges and cars were in Cuba. Just kept them going for years. 

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

If they wanted to have a positive impact, they would mandate a marginal efficiency increase, and require them to support completely for 20 years.

[A64Pilot]

I believe there’s a requirement to provide support for x numbers of years, but don’t know what x is nor do I know if it’s enforced.

Without enforcement you don’t have a requirement.

[whiskytango]

I will add to the "improve it until it is worse than before" discussion with my beef about ECMs (Electronically Commutated Motors).  These are the replacement for PSC (Permanent Split Capacitor) motors used in HVAC systems, and can operate as variable speed, constant CFM or constant torque fan motors.  ECM motors do save energy by matching motor output to actual load.  The  problem is that the integral module that controls the motor seems to have a very short lifespan (at least in my case).  I installed a new HVAC system in 2018.  The air handling unit fan ECM motor module failed in 2021.  I replaced it, and it is now failing again in 2023 (2 months after the end of the warranty, of course).  The motors are ridiculously expensive compared to PSC motors, so people are now replacing failed ECM motors with "inferior" PSC motors.  ECM motors are supposed to last for 10 years, versus 8 years for PSC.  That has not been my experience.

[Schllc]

2 hours ago, whiskytango said:

I will add to the "improve it until it is worse than before" discussion with my beef about ECMs (Electronically Commutated Motors).  These are the replacement for PSC (Permanent Split Capacitor) motors used in HVAC systems, and can operate as variable speed, constant CFM or constant torque fan motors.  ECM motors do save energy by matching motor output to actual load.  The  problem is that the integral module that controls the motor seems to have a very short lifespan (at least in my case).  I installed a new HVAC system in 2018.  The air handling unit fan ECM motor module failed in 2021.  I replaced it, and it is now failing again in 2023 (2 months after the end of the warranty, of course).  The motors are ridiculously expensive compared to PSC motors, so people are now replacing failed ECM motors with "inferior" PSC motors.  ECM motors are supposed to last for 10 years, versus 8 years for PSC.  That has not been my experience.

Exactly!

i owned a commercial building with 9 a/c units. 
in the last 20 years all but 2 of the units have been changed between 2-6 times.  This isn’t counting all the controller board replacements which seem to last about 2 years at the tune of about $1500 a pop. 
the two that have not needed changing are original 1984 units with r20.

now is one r20 unit that lasts 40 years worse on the environment and than 6 with 134a?

I would submit no!

[A64Pilot]

Don’t look now but I think R-134A is being phased out, because, wait for it, it’s bad for the environment.

R-12 was phased out because it was ozone depleting. R-134A apparently is a greenhouse gas? 1,430 times worse than CO2

https://www.epa.gov/mvac/acceptable-refrigerants-and-their-impacts

HFC-134a: a Potent Greenhouse Gas

• Most common refrigerant used in MVAC systems since the 1990s
• Potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential that is 1,430 times that of CO₂
• Use of HFC-134a in MVAC systems accounts for an estimated 24% of total global HFC consumption. It is the most abundant HFC in the atmosphere.  
• The restriction of HFC-134a will occur under a broader prohibition of any substances with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) higher than 150 in the MVAC sector.
  • HFC-134a will no longer be allowed in nonroad vehicles as of January 1, 2028.
  • Servicing of existing vehicles using HFC-134a with HFC-134a will not be impacted and will continue to be allowed.

 

[mike_elliott]

20 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

critical thinking about science and engineering are hard to find

bean counting, science and engineering are often at odds. First principle thinking usually suffers defeat

[A64Pilot]

In the past and I believe in the future if allowed the consumer has voted with their wallet on what to buy, and was I think the reason things were the way they were. Eventhough they didn’t actually manufacture them Sears appliances had a very good reputation for reliability and sold well. 

What has changed is Government mandates on just about everything removing the consumers vote. For instance you can’t buy a shower head that will rinse soap out of my Wife’s hair, you have to take the thing apart and remove the restrictor. Time will come I’m sure where the diameter of the pipe won’t be big enough for you to remove a restrictor.

Found out the other day that it’s a federal law that a hot tub can’t be heated over 104F. Sat in ours last night, on a cold night 104 isn’t enough. I bet Arizona pools hit that in the summer. That law is apparently 40 years old.

Oh, and besides the Loons who have mandated only EV cars will be allowed to be sold after some date, which is ridiculous because they have no plan on creating the power required to charge them, I have heard no other Government requirement to mandate EV’s, yet.

In my opinion they will continue their war on fossil fuel’s use and production though and one way to kill fossil fuel cars is to continue to strengthen emission regulations, eventually the cost to meet those restrictions will price them out of reach of the common buyer, and it’s likely EV’s will be cheaper to buy, fuel and maintain.

But so far as out right bans, that’s only the Loons and it’s certain to fail I hope 

 

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

In my opinion they will continue their war on fossil fuel’s use and production

To play devil's advocate, I'll point out that fossil fuels are the largest contributor to greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses are the largest contributor to climate change.  We can argue about whether the climate is changing, but the evidence is growing.  Going after fossil fuels is just a decision to pluck the low hanging fruit first.  If cow farts were the largest contributor, that would be the first target.

[Andy95W]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Found out the other day that it’s a federal law that a hot tub can’t be heated over 104F.

 

That didn’t sound right to me, so I did a little digging.  Other than a recommendation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, I couldn’t find any “law” like you suggested.

That CPSC recommendation was adopted by the Underwriters Laboratory.  Reputable hot tub manufacturers follow that UL guidance- probably due to company lawyers wanting to avoid lawsuits.

If you have specific information proving such a law exists, please post it.

[McMooney]

another thought, when we go to war with another major power, the first thing they are taking out are supply lines and refineries, with an ev i might still be driving while everyone else walks

Edited January 4 by McMooney

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, McMooney said:

another thought, when we go to war with another major power, the first thing they are taking out are supply lines and refineries, with an ev i might still be driving while everyone else walks

We don't have too many coal-fired electricity factories left, so that may not work.

[A64Pilot]

21 hours ago, Andy95W said:

That didn’t sound right to me, so I did a little digging.  Other than a recommendation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, I couldn’t find any “law” like you suggested.

That CPSC recommendation was adopted by the Underwriters Laboratory.  Reputable hot tub manufacturers follow that UL guidance- probably due to company lawyers wanting to avoid lawsuits.

If you have specific information proving such a law exists, please post it.

I may have misrepresented it out of ignorance, All I know is you can’t buy a hot tub heater that will heat above 104F, If you can it’s not likely to be UL listed.

What got me is of you google it there will be several hits saying it’s a law, but apparently not.

I can take a bath as hot as I want to, why aren’t water heaters set to 104f? Isn’t a bathtub as dangerous as a hot tub?

 

[A64Pilot]

23 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

To play devil's advocate, I'll point out that fossil fuels are the largest contributor to greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses are the largest contributor to climate change.  We can argue about whether the climate is changing, but the evidence is growing.  Going after fossil fuels is just a decision to pluck the low hanging fruit first.  If cow farts were the largest contributor, that would be the first target.

You may be right, I for one believe climate change is real, it’s logical from even merely the unbelievable amount of heat we dump into the environment, years ago we discovered city’s are heat islands for instance and that in fact Sea Lanes have far more thunderstorms than the rest of the Ocean etc etc.

However whenever you try to start a logical discussion about the relative efficiency of a particular item, the Prius for instance 20 years ago if you bring up anything about environmental impact a large segment of the population just turn off. Or they start completely unfounded allegations of how terrible for the environment the new technology is.

There was actually an over 400 page report “proving” that the Hummers were more energy efficient and environmentally friendly than a Prius. 

It was of course pure BS with a lot of untruths taken as facts like an average Hummer would last over 30 years and drive almost 400,000 miles but the Prius would drop dead in 12 years or 100,000 miles or some such nonsense, but it made the talk shows as “proof”.

You have to look it up yourself to believe it, just search Hummer more environmentally friendly than a Prius report.

Took this picture years ago, why do people even care?

On edit, I disagree with the way “we” are going after fossil fuel, the best way is to produce a superior technology, one that will save me money and last longer, then I’ll happily adopt it.

Not to attack and punish current technology and try to prop up inferior technology and corporations with Government give aways.

Musk has said publicly that GM and Ford have it wrong, that the reason EV’s aren’t selling is the average consumer can’t afford them, that if you want to sell EV’s you have to make them more affordable, and if you look at his pricing, it’s come down significantly, not increased, and he’s selling cars

Supposed his next car yet unnamed but people are calling it the Model 2 is targeted to be a $25,000 EV and Musk is projecting he will sell more of them than all his other cars combined.

If you could but a new quality EV for $25K and drive it for a fraction of what it costs to even drive a Prius, then people that want an affordable car more than an Ego boost will likely buy lots of them. We will see. He’s done most of what he’s set out to do, not everything self driving being one glaring example but we will see.

 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Supposed his next car yet unnamed but people are calling it the Model 2 is targeted to be a $25,000 EV and Musk is projecting he will sell more of them than all his other cars combined.

At the end of the day, price wins every time -- at least for the masses.  That's why we are addicted to inferior products from all over the world that can be manufactured, shipped here, and still sold below what we can make them for on our own soil.

On a slightly different topic, I saw an article this morning about someone with a Tesla who was thinking about replacing his factory brakes with only 235,000 miles on them.  Not only does that save the consumer money, but it also saves time.  Whether you do it yourself or hire someone, it takes a chunk of time.

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

At the end of the day, price wins every time -- at least for the masses.  That's why we are addicted to inferior products from all over the world that can be manufactured, shipped here, and still sold below what we can make them for on our own soil.

On a slightly different topic, I saw an article this morning about someone with a Tesla who was thinking about replacing his factory brakes with only 235,000 miles on them.  Not only does that save the consumer money, but it also saves time.  Whether you do it yourself or hire someone, it takes a chunk of time.

If and this is a big if, but if both a Prius and a Tesla are driven “correctly” the brakes will last just about forever, the Prius guys who used to hypermile that were up North had to adopt a habit of using the brakes a couple times a week because they corroded if they didn’t.

The Prius brake regen stopped at something like 8 mph as it just couldn’t work below that speed, I’m sure the Tesla does at some speed  too. The Prius brakes are very complex, there is no master cylinder but a “stroke simulator” and the car seamlessly will use brakes when regen reaches its limit. Tesla has I believe conventional brakes, but goes into max regen whenever you lift off of the go pedal.

The Prius is a phenomenally complicated vehicle, it’s amazing that they are so reliable.

Actually the most efficient way to drive both cars is to not use regen, but to coast, and believe it or not but the most efficient way to drive a Prius was to not use the battery, but the engine. The source of ALL the power in a Prius battery is the gas tank so it’s most efficient to use the engine directly.

[Fly Boomer]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The Prius brakes are very complex, there is no master cylinder but a “stroke simulator” and the car seamlessly will use brakes when regen reaches its limit.

It's a strange design.  I remember being slightly alarmed when I learned that, regen or not, my brake pedal is in no way mechanically connected to the brakes.  Weird.