3 ms·

DC fits fleet of EVs with bogus gadget promising 60% range boost

20 points by barbazoo 3y ago

housemusicfan 3y ago
They should have purchased a TK-421 modification from the dealer instead.
yuppie_scum 3y ago
Is it maybe doing input control stuff? Aka, prevent drivers from going full throttle from stop, maybe cap the max speed, stuff like that?
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  The inventor, who has a fraud conviction from 2001, claims it "rejuvenates the battery" so I'm gonna go ahead and guess that it does exactly bupkiss.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    If it's anything like ICE "range boosters", it's a blinking light in a pound of potting compound. Or a ferrite bead that "aligns the electrons for maximum efficiency"
    - K0balt 3y ago
      Sounds like that ferrite bead would go great with my MILs crystal collection.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        Tell her its a crystal of magnetite.
lesuorac 3y ago
> Thankfully, someone somewhere down the line was awake—the contract states that DC will only pay the $680,000 once all 40 units have been shown to be working. Would be interesting to see what the contract literally states. Although even if DC doesn't pay out (for non-performance) installation of random stuff can damage other things.
- fy20 3y ago
  That really should have been at the start, as if you look at it from that point of view it doesn't sound bad at all. Governments should be trying to support technology startups, and handing out contracts with conditions like this seems a pretty fair way to do it. It's basically a grant that needs to be proven. The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology is, but a simple "we want to see it does X% better" is easy to measure for someone without a scientific background.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    >The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology Sure, but just common sense tells you this is nonsense. If you had a device which could do this you wouldn't be negotiating with some state government over some half a million. You would be in talks with various EV and battery manufacturers over licensing fees worth billions. Especially bad since it apparently was sold by a convicted fraudster. If that minimum of effort isn't put in, do you expect the government to do rigorous testing? Also, who is going to pay for removing those devices? Is it certain they aren't harmful or even dangerous?
  - MBCook 3y ago
    It’s impossible. They’re wasting time and money installing it even if they get it for free. Then once it doesn’t work they’ll have to waste time and money uninstalling it. It should’ve been tried on one car, not a real part of the fleet. And it should’ve come with some kind of clawback. If it doesn’t work they should have to pay $100,000 or something to make up for all the lost time.
rpdillon 3y ago
Reminds me of the ADE-651, a fake bomb detector used by the Iraqi military at vehicle checkpoints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
lttlrck 3y ago
Non-performance clause or not - why wouldn't they trial it in one vehicle first?

20 points by barbazoo 3y ago

They should have purchased a TK-421 modification from the dealer instead.

Is it maybe doing input control stuff? Aka, prevent drivers from going full throttle from stop, maybe cap the max speed, stuff like that?

MostlyStable 3y ago
The inventor, who has a fraud conviction from 2001, claims it "rejuvenates the battery" so I'm gonna go ahead and guess that it does exactly bupkiss.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  If it's anything like ICE "range boosters", it's a blinking light in a pound of potting compound. Or a ferrite bead that "aligns the electrons for maximum efficiency"
  - K0balt 3y ago
    Sounds like that ferrite bead would go great with my MILs crystal collection.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Tell her its a crystal of magnetite.

lesuorac 3y ago

> Thankfully, someone somewhere down the line was awake—the contract states that DC will only pay the $680,000 once all 40 units have been shown to be working. Would be interesting to see what the contract literally states. Although even if DC doesn't pay out (for non-performance) installation of random stuff can damage other things.

fy20 3y ago
That really should have been at the start, as if you look at it from that point of view it doesn't sound bad at all. Governments should be trying to support technology startups, and handing out contracts with conditions like this seems a pretty fair way to do it. It's basically a grant that needs to be proven. The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology is, but a simple "we want to see it does X% better" is easy to measure for someone without a scientific background.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >The government doesn't have the resources to investigate how scientifically plausible every new technology Sure, but just common sense tells you this is nonsense. If you had a device which could do this you wouldn't be negotiating with some state government over some half a million. You would be in talks with various EV and battery manufacturers over licensing fees worth billions. Especially bad since it apparently was sold by a convicted fraudster. If that minimum of effort isn't put in, do you expect the government to do rigorous testing? Also, who is going to pay for removing those devices? Is it certain they aren't harmful or even dangerous?
- MBCook 3y ago
  It’s impossible. They’re wasting time and money installing it even if they get it for free. Then once it doesn’t work they’ll have to waste time and money uninstalling it. It should’ve been tried on one car, not a real part of the fleet. And it should’ve come with some kind of clawback. If it doesn’t work they should have to pay $100,000 or something to make up for all the lost time.

rpdillon 3y ago

Reminds me of the ADE-651, a fake bomb detector used by the Iraqi military at vehicle checkpoints. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651

lttlrck 3y ago

Non-performance clause or not - why wouldn't they trial it in one vehicle first?