7 ms·

> Otherwise, they seem eeringly similar. Any sort of sound and feel is "generated". They all have the same problem. The battery technology isn't particularly

> Otherwise, they seem eeringly similar. Any sort of sound and feel is "generated". They all have the same problem. The battery technology isn't particularly great so to get any appreciable range they have to be made with certain materials and with certain concessions. Wind is apparently a big factor in route planning so that also impacts the exterior design criteria as well. > I don't want to get a non-EV vehicle anymore For those who use their vehicles to do repair and other types of field or farm work the verdict is not at all clear. I'd also prefer Fire, Ambulance and Police to stay on gasoline and diesel for probably the next 25 to 50 years, given the abysmal rate of infrastructure development that happens in this country. > But then, I'd rather get somehow excited for a product I am going to buy. Pretend I made a new magic gasoline that pollutes, but does so "entirely outside the environment." It works with all actual gasoline vehicles without modification. Which one on the market right now would you want to drive?

pjc50 3y ago
> a new magic gasoline that pollutes, but does so "entirely outside the environment." I don't understand what this could possibly mean? Pollution is by definition damage to the environment. I think if you had a magic nonpolluting fuel that would be a massive hit; that's what people are trying to fake with hydrogen and LPG/CNG fuel ideas, which are less polluting but still release some CO2.
- akira2501 3y ago
  It's a reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
vegardx 3y ago
> Wind is apparently a big factor in route planning so that also impacts the exterior design criteria as well. Wind is a big factor for all vehicles. The big difference is that combustion engines need a lot of cooling, so there's not that much that can be done in regards to aerodynamics on that front. They still experience the same losses with headwind, arguably even more. > For those who use their vehicles to do repair and other types of field or farm work the verdict is not at all clear. Then don't get a battery-electric vehicle? There are plenty of completely reasonable cases where currently battery-electric vehicles isn't the solution. But the vast vast vast majority of trucks on the road has never had anything in their truck bed that wouldn't fit inside a Fiat Punto. > I'd also prefer Fire, Ambulance and Police to stay on gasoline and diesel for probably the next 25 to 50 years, given the abysmal rate of infrastructure development that happens in this country. I mean - sure? I imagine the people actually driving these vehicles are more than capable of choosing something that gets the job done. How you're able to look 25-50 years into the future is beyond me.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > They still experience the same losses with headwind, arguably even more. Which is why having more total energy available in the fuel system is significant and means that EVs are not a "drop in" replacement for ICE. Which is what the assumption in these threads seem to be. > Then don't get a battery-electric vehicle? Sure.. I'll just move to a state where it's not mandated, then. Why are you going out of your way to pretend that there aren't actual impacts to real people when these decisions get made? > How you're able to look 25-50 years into the future is beyond me. Oh.. experience and training. You'll notice I used the word "probably" and invoked "abysmal rate of infrastructure development" as part of an effort to avoid this type of mindless bullying. Some of us are actually trying to navigate reality successfully without prefect information. It requires reasonable compromises that everyone should be plainly familiar with.
bluGill 3y ago
Ambulances should be EVs already. They have a lot of equipment on board that needs power, and they spend 99% of their life sitting in a garage plugged in to power all that stuff without running the engine. The worst case for them is they is a rural ambulance needs an urgent transfer of someone to a big city hospital 150 miles away (more than that it either isn't urgent or they need a helicopter to get the required speed). Now this does require extra large batteries as those transfers are done at 90mph (which uses more power), but the total trip distance is limited by the fact that urgent transfers have a time limit and so the ambulance doesn't need to stop for a charge on a long trip. Police cars are never used for trips that are urgent and long. Everything else is a short chase (many modern police are trained to not get into high speed chases, there are better options so if your local police force does high speed chases you need to get them trained better - it won't make high profile news though which is why they resist) When doing prisoner transfers they can run a relay where they meet some other charged car on the way. Or if the prisoner is not a flight risk stop at any normal charger and let the prisoner get some exercise - which is what they do now. Fire trucks need to be able to handle the 10 hour fire (this doesn't happen often, but you have to buy for the worst case), so I'm not sure if EVs can handle them or not. We can do a battery swap at the scene, but that is tricky logistics, so I'm willing to agree they shouldn't be EVs yet. While I expect emergency departments to be cautious about EVs, I think they make a lot of sense and all emergency departments in large cities should have a few already. (in small towns they don't buy new often, but they should already be in planning)
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Ambulances should be EVs already. They have a lot of equipment on board that needs power, and they spend 99% of their life sitting in a garage plugged in to power all that stuff without running the engine. No, they really shouldn't. I've been a paramedic for 15 years. Hybrid, perhaps, but not EV. It's not uncommon for our ambulances to put 4-500 miles on them in a shift (911 doesn't factor into this so much but then you have transfers - around Seattle, getting your patient to mental health inpatient can involve a 150 mile round trip to an available bed). > The worst case for them is they is a rural ambulance needs an urgent transfer of someone to a big city hospital 150 miles away (more than that it either isn't urgent or they need a helicopter to get the required speed). Now this does require extra large batteries as those transfers are done at 90mph (which uses more power), but the total trip distance is limited by the fact that urgent transfers have a time limit and so the ambulance doesn't need to stop for a charge on a long trip. That just sounds like an accident waiting to happen. If it's not urgent, you don't transfer a patient at 90mph - these rigs are heavy (and EVs would be heavier still) - handling is really not great, and people freak out at sirens and lights, regardless. Doing that trip at 90mph takes 1h40m, lowering your speed to 70mph takes 2h8m. If your patient is stable, that's 28 minutes (and this is at the high end). And if they're not stable, fly them. (That's leaving aside the fact that, for better or worse, most private ambulance companies are not known for great / proactive vehicle maintenance. I'd be frankly scared for my life in the back of many of the rigs I've been in if we were at 90mph). I have to imagine that the range of an ambulance at 90mph, entirely non-aerodynamic (even our ambulance vendor describes them as "having the aerodynamics of a brick"), pulling 15,000-20,000lb is going to be garbage. The thing that makes response faster? Opticom (traffic light pre-emption). If you're in a city and staying in town but not toooo busy, maybe there's a case for EVs, but I definitely think hybrid would be the better option. Or even similar to Audi's Dakar "EV", that has a small gasoline engine that is not used for driving, but just charging the batteries (IIRC). > Fire trucks need to be able to handle the 10 hour fire (this doesn't happen often, but you have to buy for the worst case), so I'm not sure if EVs can handle them or not. We can do a battery swap at the scene, but that is tricky logistics, so I'm willing to agree they shouldn't be EVs yet. Agreed. We will 'hot refuel' engines on large events as needed. But when the pump is engaged, it's typically going to have the engine running at a high RPM (for a large diesel... I want to say like 2, 2.5K?) and doing so for hours. There's no regeneration possible, so it's just a high draw. Plus you add in scene lighting (LEDs make that a lot less painful now) and potentially other tools. For a while we had some (fire) engines that carried a small generator to enable turning off the (IC) engine while on scene but not needing to pump (emergency lights at an MVA, etc). They were plumbed in to the same fuel source, but ended up being less efficient than just keeping the engine running (however they did have - though questionable - benefits in suburban areas with lower noise - but still, you have lights and other activity).

pjc50 3y ago

> a new magic gasoline that pollutes, but does so "entirely outside the environment." I don't understand what this could possibly mean? Pollution is by definition damage to the environment. I think if you had a magic nonpolluting fuel that would be a massive hit; that's what people are trying to fake with hydrogen and LPG/CNG fuel ideas, which are less polluting but still release some CO2.

akira2501 3y ago
It's a reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

vegardx 3y ago

> Wind is apparently a big factor in route planning so that also impacts the exterior design criteria as well. Wind is a big factor for all vehicles. The big difference is that combustion engines need a lot of cooling, so there's not that much that can be done in regards to aerodynamics on that front. They still experience the same losses with headwind, arguably even more. > For those who use their vehicles to do repair and other types of field or farm work the verdict is not at all clear. Then don't get a battery-electric vehicle? There are plenty of completely reasonable cases where currently battery-electric vehicles isn't the solution. But the vast vast vast majority of trucks on the road has never had anything in their truck bed that wouldn't fit inside a Fiat Punto. > I'd also prefer Fire, Ambulance and Police to stay on gasoline and diesel for probably the next 25 to 50 years, given the abysmal rate of infrastructure development that happens in this country. I mean - sure? I imagine the people actually driving these vehicles are more than capable of choosing something that gets the job done. How you're able to look 25-50 years into the future is beyond me.

akira2501 3y ago
> They still experience the same losses with headwind, arguably even more. Which is why having more total energy available in the fuel system is significant and means that EVs are not a "drop in" replacement for ICE. Which is what the assumption in these threads seem to be. > Then don't get a battery-electric vehicle? Sure.. I'll just move to a state where it's not mandated, then. Why are you going out of your way to pretend that there aren't actual impacts to real people when these decisions get made? > How you're able to look 25-50 years into the future is beyond me. Oh.. experience and training. You'll notice I used the word "probably" and invoked "abysmal rate of infrastructure development" as part of an effort to avoid this type of mindless bullying. Some of us are actually trying to navigate reality successfully without prefect information. It requires reasonable compromises that everyone should be plainly familiar with.

bluGill 3y ago

Ambulances should be EVs already. They have a lot of equipment on board that needs power, and they spend 99% of their life sitting in a garage plugged in to power all that stuff without running the engine. The worst case for them is they is a rural ambulance needs an urgent transfer of someone to a big city hospital 150 miles away (more than that it either isn't urgent or they need a helicopter to get the required speed). Now this does require extra large batteries as those transfers are done at 90mph (which uses more power), but the total trip distance is limited by the fact that urgent transfers have a time limit and so the ambulance doesn't need to stop for a charge on a long trip. Police cars are never used for trips that are urgent and long. Everything else is a short chase (many modern police are trained to not get into high speed chases, there are better options so if your local police force does high speed chases you need to get them trained better - it won't make high profile news though which is why they resist) When doing prisoner transfers they can run a relay where they meet some other charged car on the way. Or if the prisoner is not a flight risk stop at any normal charger and let the prisoner get some exercise - which is what they do now. Fire trucks need to be able to handle the 10 hour fire (this doesn't happen often, but you have to buy for the worst case), so I'm not sure if EVs can handle them or not. We can do a battery swap at the scene, but that is tricky logistics, so I'm willing to agree they shouldn't be EVs yet. While I expect emergency departments to be cautious about EVs, I think they make a lot of sense and all emergency departments in large cities should have a few already. (in small towns they don't buy new often, but they should already be in planning)

FireBeyond 3y ago
> Ambulances should be EVs already. They have a lot of equipment on board that needs power, and they spend 99% of their life sitting in a garage plugged in to power all that stuff without running the engine. No, they really shouldn't. I've been a paramedic for 15 years. Hybrid, perhaps, but not EV. It's not uncommon for our ambulances to put 4-500 miles on them in a shift (911 doesn't factor into this so much but then you have transfers - around Seattle, getting your patient to mental health inpatient can involve a 150 mile round trip to an available bed). > The worst case for them is they is a rural ambulance needs an urgent transfer of someone to a big city hospital 150 miles away (more than that it either isn't urgent or they need a helicopter to get the required speed). Now this does require extra large batteries as those transfers are done at 90mph (which uses more power), but the total trip distance is limited by the fact that urgent transfers have a time limit and so the ambulance doesn't need to stop for a charge on a long trip. That just sounds like an accident waiting to happen. If it's not urgent, you don't transfer a patient at 90mph - these rigs are heavy (and EVs would be heavier still) - handling is really not great, and people freak out at sirens and lights, regardless. Doing that trip at 90mph takes 1h40m, lowering your speed to 70mph takes 2h8m. If your patient is stable, that's 28 minutes (and this is at the high end). And if they're not stable, fly them. (That's leaving aside the fact that, for better or worse, most private ambulance companies are not known for great / proactive vehicle maintenance. I'd be frankly scared for my life in the back of many of the rigs I've been in if we were at 90mph). I have to imagine that the range of an ambulance at 90mph, entirely non-aerodynamic (even our ambulance vendor describes them as "having the aerodynamics of a brick"), pulling 15,000-20,000lb is going to be garbage. The thing that makes response faster? Opticom (traffic light pre-emption). If you're in a city and staying in town but not toooo busy, maybe there's a case for EVs, but I definitely think hybrid would be the better option. Or even similar to Audi's Dakar "EV", that has a small gasoline engine that is not used for driving, but just charging the batteries (IIRC). > Fire trucks need to be able to handle the 10 hour fire (this doesn't happen often, but you have to buy for the worst case), so I'm not sure if EVs can handle them or not. We can do a battery swap at the scene, but that is tricky logistics, so I'm willing to agree they shouldn't be EVs yet. Agreed. We will 'hot refuel' engines on large events as needed. But when the pump is engaged, it's typically going to have the engine running at a high RPM (for a large diesel... I want to say like 2, 2.5K?) and doing so for hours. There's no regeneration possible, so it's just a high draw. Plus you add in scene lighting (LEDs make that a lot less painful now) and potentially other tools. For a while we had some (fire) engines that carried a small generator to enable turning off the (IC) engine while on scene but not needing to pump (emergency lights at an MVA, etc). They were plumbed in to the same fuel source, but ended up being less efficient than just keeping the engine running (however they did have - though questionable - benefits in suburban areas with lower noise - but still, you have lights and other activity).