InterMechanico
Well-Known Member
Nice summary! So much more concise!! Our building is like this, lower commission.
Driving an EV pickup
- Thread starter sly_karma
- Start date
Max123
Well-Known Member
Not a cyber truck fan at all, but not sure if this tells us much. I can't see any scenario where force is applied to a hitch in this manner when you are towing.
Think about how a trailer is framed. Typically x2 side rails coming together in a Y at the tongue. If you are going to apply a 10,000 lbs tongue weight to a hitch it has to come from somewhere, meaning that you would have to come up with a scenario (say heavy braking) where a load shifts and transfers through the tongue beam and applies a 10,000lbs load downward on to the hitch. That's just not how towing forces are applied - the trailer tongue beam would bend into a noodle. Force is transferred straight through the trailer frame and applied to the hitch in a forward direction. The rear might squat a bit under braking, but its the forward force that the truck needs to manage.
Compare it to something reasonable like an F150: Max towing capacity starts at around 7500lbs, with nothing fancy - once you start going through the engine/tow packages you can option it up to 14,000lbs. That's about the max a 2" receiver can take in any configuration. In that setup, max tongue weight according to Ford is 10% / 1400lbs - that is absolute limit, typical recommended tongue weights are in the 500-800lbs range. In no scenario are you getting 10,000lbs of tongue weight applied directly to the hitch in the manner shown in the clip.
If you were seeing a 1000lbs static tongue weight turn into a 10,000lbs tongue weight under heavy braking you would be popping tires, bending trailer frame, cracking springs.
If you want to beat on a cyber truck with an excavator - just do it for fun / monetize the clickbait - don't cosplay scientist.
Think about how a trailer is framed. Typically x2 side rails coming together in a Y at the tongue. If you are going to apply a 10,000 lbs tongue weight to a hitch it has to come from somewhere, meaning that you would have to come up with a scenario (say heavy braking) where a load shifts and transfers through the tongue beam and applies a 10,000lbs load downward on to the hitch. That's just not how towing forces are applied - the trailer tongue beam would bend into a noodle. Force is transferred straight through the trailer frame and applied to the hitch in a forward direction. The rear might squat a bit under braking, but its the forward force that the truck needs to manage.
Compare it to something reasonable like an F150: Max towing capacity starts at around 7500lbs, with nothing fancy - once you start going through the engine/tow packages you can option it up to 14,000lbs. That's about the max a 2" receiver can take in any configuration. In that setup, max tongue weight according to Ford is 10% / 1400lbs - that is absolute limit, typical recommended tongue weights are in the 500-800lbs range. In no scenario are you getting 10,000lbs of tongue weight applied directly to the hitch in the manner shown in the clip.
If you were seeing a 1000lbs static tongue weight turn into a 10,000lbs tongue weight under heavy braking you would be popping tires, bending trailer frame, cracking springs.
If you want to beat on a cyber truck with an excavator - just do it for fun / monetize the clickbait - don't cosplay scientist.
Last edited:
sly_karma
Crew Member
OK this is why I keep a detailed log of driving and costs: end of the quarter = payday.
You'll see the total business use for 2025 Q1 is 5405 km. CRA gave me a raise this year, the new rates are used below. My corp will pay me the vehicle allowance amount in lieu of salary this period. Tracking for a $14-15K reduction in taxable personal income over the year.
5000 km @ $0.72/ km = $3600.00
405 km @ $0.66/km = $267.30
vehicle use amount Q1: $3867.30
Now add the total charging costs for those three months: $97 + $199 + $139. That $3867 payment only cost me $435 in running costs. And a client reimbursed my company $550 for a return trip to Vancouver during Q1, covering that outlay for the quarter.
I do, of course, have to pay for the financing and insurance costs out these funds.
Ford Canada payments: $476 x 26 = $12,376
Insurance/registration $2654
Maintenance (2 cabin air filters): $50
Energy costs (projected): $1400
Total cost of ownership: $16,480
km reimbursement from clients (est.) -$1600
Net cost of ownership: $14,880
So it seems reasonable to claim that my cost of ownership in 2025 will be paid for with tax-free dollars.
You'll see the total business use for 2025 Q1 is 5405 km. CRA gave me a raise this year, the new rates are used below. My corp will pay me the vehicle allowance amount in lieu of salary this period. Tracking for a $14-15K reduction in taxable personal income over the year.
5000 km @ $0.72/ km = $3600.00
405 km @ $0.66/km = $267.30
vehicle use amount Q1: $3867.30
Now add the total charging costs for those three months: $97 + $199 + $139. That $3867 payment only cost me $435 in running costs. And a client reimbursed my company $550 for a return trip to Vancouver during Q1, covering that outlay for the quarter.
I do, of course, have to pay for the financing and insurance costs out these funds.
Ford Canada payments: $476 x 26 = $12,376
Insurance/registration $2654
Maintenance (2 cabin air filters): $50
Energy costs (projected): $1400
Total cost of ownership: $16,480
km reimbursement from clients (est.) -$1600
Net cost of ownership: $14,880
So it seems reasonable to claim that my cost of ownership in 2025 will be paid for with tax-free dollars.
Alex_c
Well-Known Member
They did a similar test with a Dodge in that video and it handled it ok. So the experiment is still sort of relevant
sly_karma
Crew Member
Not much to report in the past quarter! Just driving, past 46,000 km now.
I recently brought the boat back from its time at the Sunshine Coast. This year's trip was a bit different from last, due to being able to use the Tesla Supercharger network. The adapter supplied by Ford is easy to use and the chargers are fast, reliable and plentiful. BC Hydro, Flo, Chevron, PetroCanada installations typically have 2-4 chargers. I've yet to see a Tesla facility that had fewer than 8. Most have 12 units or more. No fiddling with apps or cards, you just plug in and walk away. Ford emails a receipt at the end of the session.
I do have a couple of critiques, though. The main one is space. Tesla has to lease land for its facilities, and usually they go for mall parking lots. These can be pretty tight if you're towing. You have to nose in to the charger then jacknife the trailer to leave room for vehicles to get around. All Teslas have their charge port at the drivers side rear corner, so it's easy for them to get close enough to the Supercharger. But with the port on the Lightning just in front of the driver's door, the cord is barely long enough to reach. You have to nose the bumper up really close, 1-2 inches max from the base of the charger.
This one in Chilliwack is typical. My boat is a mere 19 footer, bigger rigs would probably be thinking about unhitching unless it's a quiet time of day and mall traffic is light.
The more recent installation at the lodge in Manning Park is much better, straight pull-in format and loads of space behind. And there's a nice pub there for a meal while replacing all the electrons consumed hauling that load from sea level to 1300 m.
I still like the gas station charger concept best. They have toilets, coffee, snacks, convenience store, garbage cans, windshield cleaning stuff, air for tires. In other words, all the things vehicles and their occupants need. Some of the standalone charger setups I've used don't even have a garbage can, let alone a washroom. And gas stations usually have a decent amount of room, I've only seen one so far where you'd have to unhitch.
Gotta hand it to Tesla though for their reliable, fast chargers. At Manning, I glanced at the Ford app after I ordered dinner to see what charge rate it was getting. 151 kW, wow! Ford's standard range battery spec says its max acceptance is 125 kW. It dropped down to 120-125 kW after this.
Nice downhill run to the Okanagan after Manning. The Ford software is quirky, it showed distance home 204 km, but available range at 90% was only 178 km (de-rated due to trailer and route). But despite an apparent deficit of 26 km, it didn't insist on adding a charging stop like it usually would. The software obviously knew there was almost 1000 m of elevation loss coming, but didn't know how to display this. I got home with 30% battery, or about a 60 km surplus.
Last thing about Tesla: price fluctuates from location to location. I encountered pricing ranging from $0.49/kWh (Hope) up to $0.78/kWh (Chwk) - 60% more! I guess rent is steep at Cottonwood Mall. As usual, when on the road you take what you get, to some extent. I guess in time there'll be an EV version of Gas Buddy (maybe there already is?). Southern BC is approaching the point where EV users have lots of options for charging in all the major corridors and price competition will start to become a thing.
Overall trip cost was $144. Based on past consumption numbers, my Silverado would have burned about 175L for a cost of $259 (based on $1.50/L). So Tesla definitely bumps the cost, last year my trip was half the gas price.
I recently brought the boat back from its time at the Sunshine Coast. This year's trip was a bit different from last, due to being able to use the Tesla Supercharger network. The adapter supplied by Ford is easy to use and the chargers are fast, reliable and plentiful. BC Hydro, Flo, Chevron, PetroCanada installations typically have 2-4 chargers. I've yet to see a Tesla facility that had fewer than 8. Most have 12 units or more. No fiddling with apps or cards, you just plug in and walk away. Ford emails a receipt at the end of the session.
I do have a couple of critiques, though. The main one is space. Tesla has to lease land for its facilities, and usually they go for mall parking lots. These can be pretty tight if you're towing. You have to nose in to the charger then jacknife the trailer to leave room for vehicles to get around. All Teslas have their charge port at the drivers side rear corner, so it's easy for them to get close enough to the Supercharger. But with the port on the Lightning just in front of the driver's door, the cord is barely long enough to reach. You have to nose the bumper up really close, 1-2 inches max from the base of the charger.
This one in Chilliwack is typical. My boat is a mere 19 footer, bigger rigs would probably be thinking about unhitching unless it's a quiet time of day and mall traffic is light.
The more recent installation at the lodge in Manning Park is much better, straight pull-in format and loads of space behind. And there's a nice pub there for a meal while replacing all the electrons consumed hauling that load from sea level to 1300 m.
I still like the gas station charger concept best. They have toilets, coffee, snacks, convenience store, garbage cans, windshield cleaning stuff, air for tires. In other words, all the things vehicles and their occupants need. Some of the standalone charger setups I've used don't even have a garbage can, let alone a washroom. And gas stations usually have a decent amount of room, I've only seen one so far where you'd have to unhitch.
Gotta hand it to Tesla though for their reliable, fast chargers. At Manning, I glanced at the Ford app after I ordered dinner to see what charge rate it was getting. 151 kW, wow! Ford's standard range battery spec says its max acceptance is 125 kW. It dropped down to 120-125 kW after this.
Nice downhill run to the Okanagan after Manning. The Ford software is quirky, it showed distance home 204 km, but available range at 90% was only 178 km (de-rated due to trailer and route). But despite an apparent deficit of 26 km, it didn't insist on adding a charging stop like it usually would. The software obviously knew there was almost 1000 m of elevation loss coming, but didn't know how to display this. I got home with 30% battery, or about a 60 km surplus.
Last thing about Tesla: price fluctuates from location to location. I encountered pricing ranging from $0.49/kWh (Hope) up to $0.78/kWh (Chwk) - 60% more! I guess rent is steep at Cottonwood Mall. As usual, when on the road you take what you get, to some extent. I guess in time there'll be an EV version of Gas Buddy (maybe there already is?). Southern BC is approaching the point where EV users have lots of options for charging in all the major corridors and price competition will start to become a thing.
Overall trip cost was $144. Based on past consumption numbers, my Silverado would have burned about 175L for a cost of $259 (based on $1.50/L). So Tesla definitely bumps the cost, last year my trip was half the gas price.
Will the Ford Lightning become a viable City commuter for taller drivers?
I was talking with a friend who is 6'11 i am 6'4" and we were bemoaning that decreasing supply of vehicles that will accommodate taller folks. The other problem is that two people both 6'4" could be drastically different in where their body height is distributed. I have a 32" inseam another friend a pal who is 6'1' has a 36 inch inseam. What fits me is, not likely comfortable for him.
Neither of us need a pickup and yet ergonomics are sort of driving (pun intended) us that way. I noticed driving my sedan in Vancouver how much more my forward and lateral vision is being taken away by so many more SUV's/minivans on the road.
Then it dawned on me how that happened.
I have been retired now for nearly two years so until retirement I spent nearly 40 years going to and from work in Vancouver in the early morning /later day rush hour over the Lion's Gate and and most of the cars in the commute traffic were and still are 2 and 4 door sedans.
Now I am nearly always driving in the Mommy /Nanny traffic and that is a SUV/ Minivan world.
Perhaps the Lightning is a viable vehicle for retired taller people. I am always hauling crap around these days .
Are they a total pain in underground parking lots.?
I was talking with a friend who is 6'11 i am 6'4" and we were bemoaning that decreasing supply of vehicles that will accommodate taller folks. The other problem is that two people both 6'4" could be drastically different in where their body height is distributed. I have a 32" inseam another friend a pal who is 6'1' has a 36 inch inseam. What fits me is, not likely comfortable for him.
Neither of us need a pickup and yet ergonomics are sort of driving (pun intended) us that way. I noticed driving my sedan in Vancouver how much more my forward and lateral vision is being taken away by so many more SUV's/minivans on the road.
Then it dawned on me how that happened.
I have been retired now for nearly two years so until retirement I spent nearly 40 years going to and from work in Vancouver in the early morning /later day rush hour over the Lion's Gate and and most of the cars in the commute traffic were and still are 2 and 4 door sedans.
Now I am nearly always driving in the Mommy /Nanny traffic and that is a SUV/ Minivan world.
Perhaps the Lightning is a viable vehicle for retired taller people. I am always hauling crap around these days .
Are they a total pain in underground parking lots.?
sly_karma
Crew Member
Definitely plenty of room in F150 for taller drivers. I'm long in the arms and legs too, but have yet to use all the travel available in the driver's seat.
Underground parking is a handful, I won't lie (same goes for any full size pickup these days, of course). I took it right into downtown back in March while staying at the Hyatt on Burrard. The hotel's parking lot minimum clearance was too low, as were several close by. I ended up parking the next block over, below the cathedral. Cost over $50 for 36 hours, but charging was free.
One thing that helps, a lot, is the cameras festooned all over modern vehicles. A 2014 Silverado was my first experience with a backup camera, and I thought that was pretty good, but the 2023 Ford is a leap far forward. Being able to see the limiting distances on the front corners of a big truck is a real blessing. And the composite of all cameras to make a virtual overhead view is (a) amazing, and (b) very useful. Hooking up a trailer solo is a breeze, with a camera specifically positioned over the hitch. Also, a good rearview camera makes reversing an empty trailer way easier. I haven't bothered putting towing mirrors on this truck because the cameras are so good.
Final note on parking a bulky vehicle: you can fit into tight places in reverse a lot more easily than in forward.
Funny you should mention that. I was going to say in my post that nearly every Pickup I see parked in a downtown lot is backed in to the spot.
Flat back end of a Pickup makes more sense and it would be better to kiss the wall with a flat bumper that a "real purty" front grill
Thanks for explaining that phenomena. I back my car in because It is generally safer to drive out of than back out of a spot with YVR Drivers
The Hyatt on Burrard has the best motorcycle parking lot. I know that because years ago I worked in that building
I rode a lot to work in those days and the Parking Manager asked me what a good motorcycle parking spot would look like. I gave him this article.
You still have to duck when riding up and down the ramps in the Hyatt
Review of Parking Design Practices for Motorcycles
Wayne D. Cottrell waynecottrell@advancedtransit.netView all authors and affiliationsVolume 2194, Issue 1
https://doi.org/10.3141/2194-12
Abstract
Motorcycle parking design practices in the United States and abroad are investigated. Numerous agencies and jurisdictions have developed codes and policies on stall and bay dimensions, motorcycle-to-automobile parking space ratios, parking demand rates as a function of land use, and motorcycle–automobile equivalence factors, but the values in use lack consistency. This paper suggests that stall dimensions be based on regional assessments of the sizes of motorcycles being driven. The number of motorcycle parking spaces provided should be developed from demand surrogates, such as total motorcycle registrations and motorcycle registrations as a percentage of noncommercial vehicle registrations. The following are recommended when motorcycle size data are not available: a 5-ft (1.5-m; alternatively 7.5-ft or 2.3-m for the disabled) × 8.2-ft (2.5-m) stall and 60° parking angle (90° in low-traffic environments). The development of uniform motorcycle parking signs should be considered, to inform motorcyclists of legal parking locations. The installation of rails, hoops, or posts adjacent to parking stalls for motorcycle security is also recommended.
Last edited:
sly_karma
Crew Member
Backing out of a space is less risky than it used to be, due to the advent of the cross-traffic alert feature in modern vehicles (although this feature is disabled while a trailer is connected). But there's another critical reason for reversing in: steering is quicker when at the rear of a vehicle. This is why warehouse forklifts are rear wheel steer, and why boats with directable drive (outboard, I/O) can turn quickly at low speed. It's scary at anything above walking speed, so motor vehicles don't have rear wheel steering, but they can apply the concept when needed by reversing. You'll sneak into tight spots with fewer back-and-forths than going in forward.
