Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Electro-pickup truck maker 'reschedules' its debut, continues crashing   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Bloomberg L.P., Chief executive officer, Michael Bloomberg, Stock, Stock market, Pickup truck, Nikola Corp., Executive officer  
•       •       •

992 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Sep 2020 at 5:05 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-30 5:14:27 PM  
Trevor Milton is the Elizabeth Holmes of Fyre Festivals.
 
2020-09-30 5:46:16 PM  
 
2020-09-30 6:35:59 PM  
Narrator: they don't have anything to show us.
 
2020-09-30 7:34:19 PM  
This whole thing makes GM look like complete idiots: hand over $2 billion without looking behind the curtain?
 
2020-09-30 7:43:17 PM  
 
2020-09-30 7:50:02 PM  
I am not an expert on electric trucks, but is this stupid or what?

Battery vehicles are supposed to be designed for mobility. It is my considered opinion that they work in their most efficient mode in urban and tight suburban environments. The big challenges are range, which is being solved with bigger, bulkier, pricier, and heavier batteries, and flexibility, which is having some troubles. Both problems can be solved, today, by using plug in hybrids instead of more kluged fixes.

So what is up with electric trucks? Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric? Can it do twice as much work? Or is it that people just do not want an aerodynamic vehicle? Either trucks should be designed for mobility, or not. If they are not designed for mobility, why apply electric technology to them? If they ARE designed for mobility, why are they trucks? Has anyone bothered to ask these questions? Or maybe we just trusted the "smart" people.

How many billions were lost in this debacle? Seed corn of the next generation thrown down a hole as a sacrifice to the gods of dumb ideas. I assume everyone knows how the Nikola Tesla story ended. Tucker? DeLorean? All frauds.
 
2020-09-30 8:06:50 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This whole thing makes GM look like complete idiots: hand over $2 billion without looking behind the curtain?


Doing it AFTER cancelling Bolt/Volt development makes it 20 times worse.

They could have bet on themselves with the 2 billion OR they could have bet on an untried rookie with opaque accounting. They chose poorly and had no reason to expect a good outcome.

But they already CHOSE not to bet on themselves. So saying it was an either/or decision is still giving them too much credit. They made TWO stupid decisions using flawed logic in BOTH cases. WOW!
 
2020-09-30 8:18:14 PM  
Seems like you put the quotation marks around the wrong word.

Are you really a maker if there's no product?
 
2020-09-30 8:29:02 PM  
Introducing.. The Moller Electric Truck! (tm)
 
2020-09-30 8:34:02 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This whole thing makes GM look like complete idiots: hand over $2 billion without looking behind the curtain?


That's the thing though. GM didn't put up squat. They were scheduled to get $2 billion (at the time) worth of NKLA stock just for entering  supply agreements.  They'll take a PR black eye from this but wouldn't have lost a dime even if the deal had closed.
 
2020-09-30 9:06:58 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This whole thing makes GM look like complete idiots: hand over $2 billion without looking behind the curtain?


They didn't pay for that equity, they were just going to take it in exchange for investment later. If you look at the deal, it seems very much like it was designed to drown Nikola in the bathtub. It reeked of desperation on Nikola's part. Like Nikola can't use their own batteries in the US, GM manufactures the Badger at cost plus, and they get an 11% stake in exchange for some possible investment in the future (and I believe it was only $700M). It was so bad that most EV investing communities were warning to bail on Nikola the day after the deal was announced. The stock price reflects that. Retail investors jump in blindly on the news and everyone else jumps off the ride.

My take is that GM thought they were taking advantage of this struggling EV start up and they underestimated how dire the circumstances really were.
 
2020-09-30 9:13:07 PM  

2fardownthread: cancelling Bolt/Volt development


That's really depressing because it's a great vehicle. The most underrated EV ever. But nobody wanted it. They tried to make a really practical EV, but they forgot to make it desirable. The Model 3 is just a sexier car. If GM had made an EV around the the size of an Equinox, I think they would have sold like hotcakes.
 
2020-09-30 9:47:19 PM  

2fardownthread: Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric?


zero emissions.
 
2020-09-30 9:57:28 PM  

Likwit: 2fardownthread: cancelling Bolt/Volt development

That's really depressing because it's a great vehicle. The most underrated EV ever. But nobody wanted it. They tried to make a really practical EV, but they forgot to make it desirable. The Model 3 is just a sexier car. If GM had made an EV around the the size of an Equinox, I think they would have sold like hotcakes.


I am not depressed. I get curious about these things. Objectively, it IS a great vehicle. I have owners in my family. It is a plug in hybrid, basically, and it appears to be near a sweet spot for the American market. I assume it found its biggest market as a useful practical vehicle. Objectively, it did not sell.

And the first part of your analysis contradicts the second. If GM had made an EV the size of an Equinox, it would not have been sexy. In fact, GM does not make sexy cars anymore. So no matter WHAT GM would have done, people would have stayed away in droves. GM cancelled their whole effort to make more money on trucks.

The bigger truth that you touched on is sex. Tesla makes sex and sells sex. As long as everyone understands that, they can forget nonsense like electric trucks and practical EV vehicles and range anxiety. Practical EVs will not sell. They don't sell. People want the sex, not the car. They want to thrust and consume. "Take that mother Nature!!!!" The salesmen push that. It is not a bug, it is a feature.

People who just want a great car that is green and economical? They bought Leafs and Bolts and Volts and Priuses. In the long run, when the fads fade and baby boomers stop caring so much about sex, things will adjust. People will emphasize practicality. And GM will rush to catch up again. And stupendous amounts of capital will have been wasted.
 
2020-09-30 11:37:38 PM  

Ishkur: 2fardownthread: Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric?

zero emissions.


Seriously. The only reason? Amazing.

I guess camels, elephants and horses are just too low tech. And then there is the methane.

Well. Thank deity for offsets. I don't know why people should have to pay twice as much to haul something just to achieve zero emissions instead of reduced emissions.
 
2020-10-01 12:14:44 AM  

2fardownthread: Ishkur: 2fardownthread: Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric?

zero emissions.

Seriously. The only reason? Amazing.

I guess camels, elephants and horses are just too low tech. And then there is the methane.

Well. Thank deity for offsets. I don't know why people should have to pay twice as much to haul something just to achieve zero emissions instead of reduced emissions.


Also far cheaper to run, less maintenance, on-board power, frunk, safer, etc.

Even if you're silly enough to dismiss the idea of the lower carbon footprint, there are still plenty of reasons.
 
2020-10-01 12:38:06 AM  

2fardownthread: Seriously. The only reason? Amazing.


Yes.

Electric vehicles are here, they are the future. California wants every internal combustion engine off its roads by 2035. This is a very doable proposition, and every other state will follow. Many countries have similar mandates. The revolution is on. It's not an if, it's a when, and the when is within your lifetime, quite possibly sooner.

We absolutely must do this anyway and we must do it fast for the sake of climate change. We're dangerously rounding the corner of no return.

2fardownthread: I guess camels, elephants and horses are just too low tech.


They're also a lot slower and can't haul freight.

Seriously -- stop being a dumbass. If you have a counter argument, let's hear it.

2fardownthread: I don't know why people should have to pay twice as much to haul something just to achieve zero emissions instead of reduced emissions.


First of all, that's a small price to pay for saving the planet. It really is.

Secondly: Twice as much? Where did you get that from? Hyliion, Lordstown, Rivian, not even Fisker charges that much.
 
2020-10-01 6:29:59 AM  
The fact that this company is still worth &7.7B and not, you know, zero, tells you everything you need to know about "investing" in 2020.
 
2020-10-01 7:12:12 AM  

Ishkur: 2fardownthread: Seriously. The only reason? Amazing.

Yes.

Electric vehicles are here, they are the future. California wants every internal combustion engine off its roads by 2035. This is a very doable proposition, and every other state will follow. Many countries have similar mandates. The revolution is on. It's not an if, it's a when, and the when is within your lifetime, quite possibly sooner.

We absolutely must do this anyway and we must do it fast for the sake of climate change. We're dangerously rounding the corner of no return.

2fardownthread: I guess camels, elephants and horses are just too low tech.

They're also a lot slower and can't haul freight.

Seriously -- stop being a dumbass. If you have a counter argument, let's hear it.

2fardownthread: I don't know why people should have to pay twice as much to haul something just to achieve zero emissions instead of reduced emissions.

First of all, that's a small price to pay for saving the planet. It really is.

Secondly: Twice as much? Where did you get that from? Hyliion, Lordstown, Rivian, not even Fisker charges that much.


Hey. Seriously. Get serious. Dont call me a dumbass. I have been there and done that as a practicing environmentally conscious person for 30 years, which might be longer than you have been alive. One point against you for ad hominem. If you are older than 30 years, then you should write without calling people a dumbass. Judging by your attitude, I think hybrids have been around longer than you have.

Not only do I have the gadgets and gizmos as a hobby, I study them constantly. I make them. I analyze them. I adapt them. I pay for them and repair them. I have taught on social and technological topics related to renewables at the university level. I have watched the green websites and green commerce and Tesla and others from their infancy. I know where the bodies are buried. Lets get that out of the way first.

I do not have time for arguments, but this "save the planet" is really tired. It is a naive appeal. It does not work on me or a lot of people. I have two groups of points.

First, EV trucks seem so gimmicky and dumb to me because, frankly, if I cant be convinced, who can be? I am an easy mark, but I do not know why people should pay high prices for no extra functionality whatsoever. Why not use diesel and just use offsets rather than kidding ourselves that another Panasonic product is going to "save the planet" while hauling tons of dirt at a jobsite? Or more likely as a daily commuter. But it is sexier than carpooling, and really, fark carpooling and public transit, right? That is the EV spirit!

There is my broadside. I know the PR avalanche is touting EVs as the future. Whatever, I have had a plug in hybrid for years before it was first sold in the states. EVs are not the future for me. They are the past already.  I predict that the sexy EV makers are going to create an environmental disaster. And that includes EV trucks. I see a niche for small, light, sane EVs worldwide, and other technologies. America? Conspicuous consumption to save the planet is an oxymoron in motion.

And by the way, your truck prices for all those manufacturers are including depreciation for a new battery every, what, 5 years? 10 years? Come on man.

Now to my other group of points.

California is not behind green measures. The American people arent either. Lobbyists for EV and other gimmick companies are. Michael Moore has recently called foul on the whole neo-liberal green model. His latest documentary calls many aspects of corporate greenitude an out and out scam. Is he right? Well as long as people think that buying more expensive consumer goods with questionable functionality is seen as "saving the planet," then yeah. They are getting scammed.

My main gripe is a little different from Mr. Moore's. If Americans can not get excited about green vehicles unless they are sexy, if they can not be bothered to sort their garbage and dispose of it correctly, if they cant raise gasoline prices AND gasoline taxes, if their utilities can not support roof top solar, if they cant be part of the Paris Accord, if they do not carpool, and compost, and recycle and a whole lot of etcetera, then Americans are just a bunch of poseurs shopping at whole foods. All of the gimmicky stuff can not seriously be supported by the snob appeal market, can it?

One more EV gimmick might make people feel good and look sexy, but green consumerism a la the American consumer model is accomplishing very little while enriching its cheerleaders.
 
2020-10-01 7:23:18 AM  

2fardownthread: Hey. Seriously. Get serious. Dont call me a dumbass. I have been there and done that as a practicing environmentally conscious person for 30 years, which might be longer than you have been alive. One point against you for ad hominem. If you are older than 30 years, then you should write without calling people a dumbass. Judging by your attitude, I think hybrids have been around longer than you have.

Not only do I have the gadgets and gizmos as a hobby, I study them constantly. I make them. I analyze them. I adapt them. I pay for them and repair them. I have taught on social and technological topics related to renewables at the university level. I have watched the green websites and green commerce and Tesla and others from their infancy. I know where the bodies are buried. Lets get that out of the way first.

I do not have time for arguments, but this "save the planet" is really tired. It is a naive appeal. It does not work on me or a lot of people. I have two groups of points.

First, EV trucks seem so gimmicky and dumb to me because, frankly, if I cant be convinced, who can be? I am an easy mark, but I do not know why people should pay high prices for no extra functionality whatsoever. Why not use diesel and just use offsets rather than kidding ourselves that another Panasonic product is going to "save the planet" while hauling tons of dirt at a jobsite? Or more likely as a daily commuter. But it is sexier than carpooling, and really, fark carpooling and public transit, right? That is the EV spirit!

There is my broadside. I know the PR avalanche is touting EVs as the future. Whatever, I have had a plug in hybrid for years before it was first sold in the states. EVs are not the future for me. They are the past already.  I predict that the sexy EV makers are going to create an environmental disaster. And that includes EV trucks. I see a niche for small, light, sane EVs worldwide, and other technologies. America? Conspicuous consumption to save the planet is an oxymoron in motion.

And by the way, your truck prices for all those manufacturers are including depreciation for a new battery every, what, 5 years? 10 years? Come on man.

Now to my other group of points.

California is not behind green measures. The American people arent either. Lobbyists for EV and other gimmick companies are. Michael Moore has recently called foul on the whole neo-liberal green model. His latest documentary calls many aspects of corporate greenitude an out and out scam. Is he right? Well as long as people think that buying more expensive consumer goods with questionable functionality is seen as "saving the planet," then yeah. They are getting scammed.

My main gripe is a little different from Mr. Moore's. If Americans can not get excited about green vehicles unless they are sexy, if they can not be bothered to sort their garbage and dispose of it correctly, if they cant raise gasoline prices AND gasoline taxes, if their utilities can not support roof top solar, if they cant be part of the Paris Accord, if they do not carpool, and compost, and recycle and a whole lot of etcetera, then Americans are just a bunch of poseurs shopping at whole foods. All of the gimmicky stuff can not seriously be supported by the snob appeal market, can it?

One more EV gimmick might make people feel good and look sexy, but green consumerism a la the American consumer model is accomplishing very little while enriching its cheerleaders.


The Great Wall of Derp.
 
2020-10-01 7:30:22 AM  

Likwit: 2fardownthread: Ishkur: 2fardownthread: Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric?

zero emissions.

Seriously. The only reason? Amazing.

I guess camels, elephants and horses are just too low tech. And then there is the methane.

Well. Thank deity for offsets. I don't know why people should have to pay twice as much to haul something just to achieve zero emissions instead of reduced emissions.

Also far cheaper to run, less maintenance, on-board power, frunk, safer, etc.

Even if you're silly enough to dismiss the idea of the lower carbon footprint, there are still plenty of reasons.


Look what you have done here. You are taking projections of how cheap somebody who wants to sell a product says  the product might be. All of the claims you are citing as fact are speculative and claimed for a PRODUCT THAT DOES NOT EXIST.  Are you skeptical at all? Do you think the company we are talking about should produce a product first so we can question the claims?

Someone who would just accept the claims and defend them against a reasonable query would be really naive and dumb and gullible. We are making fun of GM for being gullible with billions of dollars, but WOW. Go to the head of the class. I guess this is due diligence these days.

So then you say it is silly to what... "dismiss a carbon footprint"?  Well that is just false and a disingenuous accusation on your part because my mention of an OFFSET is right there in the text you quoted. Why would you just claim I dismiss something when I specifically mention it? Google, Apple, and all the other companies that are claiming they are green are using offsets. Are they "dismissing their carbon footprint"?

You see. This is what GREEN is resorting to these days. Just a gang of marauders repeating the mantra and ridiculing people who happen to question unproven technologies. That is so sad. It is awful. That is not how respect for the environment started. I find that the movement has been corrupted it with dollar signs and online bullying.

MIchael Moore says the green movement is being bought off by slick PR people shilling for purportedly green companies. He says they want to claim the whole space for technologies that are not green at all. They use spurious and unproven claims to squeeze out legitimate and proven technologies and processes.

Was Michael Moore right? I think he has good points.
 
2020-10-01 7:35:09 AM  

Likwit: 2fardownthread: Hey. Seriously. Get serious. Dont call me a dumbass. I have been there and done that as a practicing environmentally conscious person for 30 years, which might be longer than you have been alive. One point against you for ad hominem. If you are older than 30 years, then you should write without calling people a dumbass. Judging by your attitude, I think hybrids have been around longer than you have.


You can call it derp. I hope you read it. It is free.

You know, I am one of the people getting out and talking to regular people and setting an example and making a difference. My opinions matter. I encourage people to be reasonable, skeptical and do the math. I have made millions in this industry by creating value for people.

You do you. Good luck.
 
2020-10-01 7:46:50 AM  

2fardownthread: Likwit: 2fardownthread: Ishkur: 2fardownthread: Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric?

zero emissions.

Seriously. The only reason? Amazing.

I guess camels, elephants and horses are just too low tech. And then there is the methane.

Well. Thank deity for offsets. I don't know why people should have to pay twice as much to haul something just to achieve zero emissions instead of reduced emissions.

Also far cheaper to run, less maintenance, on-board power, frunk, safer, etc.

Even if you're silly enough to dismiss the idea of the lower carbon footprint, there are still plenty of reasons.

Look what you have done here. You are taking projections of how cheap somebody who wants to sell a product says  the product might be. All of the claims you are citing as fact are speculative and claimed for a PRODUCT THAT DOES NOT EXIST.  Are you skeptical at all? Do you think the company we are talking about should produce a product first so we can question the claims?

Someone who would just accept the claims and defend them against a reasonable query would be really naive and dumb and gullible. We are making fun of GM for being gullible with billions of dollars, but WOW. Go to the head of the class. I guess this is due diligence these days.

So then you say it is silly to what... "dismiss a carbon footprint"?  Well that is just false and a disingenuous accusation on your part because my mention of an OFFSET is right there in the text you quoted. Why would you just claim I dismiss something when I specifically mention it? Google, Apple, and all the other companies that are claiming they are green are using offsets. Are they "dismissing their carbon footprint"?

You see. This is what GREEN is resorting to these days. Just a gang of marauders repeating the mantra and ridiculing people who happen to question unproven technologies. That is so sad. It is awful. That is not how respect for the environment started. I find that the movement has been corrupted it with dollar signs and online bullying.

MIchael Moore says the green movement is being bought off by slick PR people shilling for purportedly green companies. He says they want to claim the whole space for technologies that are not green at all. They use spurious and unproven claims to squeeze out legitimate and proven technologies and processes.

Was Michael Moore right? I think he has good points.


There's plenty of precedent to make those claims. I'm not sure why you're so glued to the idea that an electric truck has "no added benefits." They will have the same benefits all EVs have over their ICE cousins.

Bigger crumple zones in the front.
A frunk.
Fewer moving parts.
Fewer fluid changes.
Lower cost of operation (this is huge for fleet buyers)
On board power for tools.
Less complex, but more capable 4 wheel drive.

There's also benefits that should be boosted on work trucks. Big vehicles that frequently carry heavy loads chew through brake pads rather quickly (25,000 to 40,000km). Not having a transmission is good as well. Maybe not huge expenses, but those are added benefits.
 
2020-10-01 7:52:01 AM  

2fardownthread: The bigger truth that you touched on is sex. Tesla makes sex and sells sex. As long as everyone understands that, they can forget nonsense like electric trucks and practical EV vehicles and range anxiety. Practical EVs will not sell. They don't sell. People want the sex, not the car. They want to thrust and consume. "Take that mother Nature!!!!" The salesmen push that. It is not a bug, it is a feature.

People who just want a great car that is green and economical? They bought Leafs and Bolts and Volts and Priuses. In the long run, when the fads fade and baby boomers stop caring so much about sex, things will adjust. People will emphasize practicality. And GM will rush to catch up again. And stupendous amounts of capital will have been wasted.


Tesla drivers (particularly in the US Midwest) are like the Vice dudebro answer to the BMW drivers of the world. Obnoxious, aire of forward thinking but deep down regressive, and utterly superficial.
 
2020-10-01 7:59:18 AM  

2fardownthread: I am not an expert on electric trucks, but is this stupid or what?

Battery vehicles are supposed to be designed for mobility. It is my considered opinion that they work in their most efficient mode in urban and tight suburban environments. The big challenges are range, which is being solved with bigger, bulkier, pricier, and heavier batteries, and flexibility, which is having some troubles. Both problems can be solved, today, by using plug in hybrids instead of more kluged fixes.

So what is up with electric trucks? Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric? Can it do twice as much work? Or is it that people just do not want an aerodynamic vehicle? Either trucks should be designed for mobility, or not. If they are not designed for mobility, why apply electric technology to them? If they ARE designed for mobility, why are they trucks? Has anyone bothered to ask these questions? Or maybe we just trusted the "smart" people.


Electric trucks are a good idea because they have all the torque available at the outset and are great for in city construction. Since you're not going hundreds of miles a day (usually) on construction projects, you get all the benefits of an electric vehicle, plus an increased towing capacity. I haul horses and would love to have an electric truck. I'm not going hundreds of miles in a jaunt, so i don't need to worry about range. If you want an electric truck to succeed, give it a 300 mile range and a massive towing capacity.

On the consumer side, most people who own trucks don't use them like trucks, they use them like a commuter vehicle with the occasional trip to the hardware store. You're not going to sell electric trucks to rural owners, it's just not practical, but you can sell a ton of them to suburbanites looking to replaces their four year old Tundras that they drive to work every day.
 
2020-10-01 8:33:09 AM  

2fardownthread: First, EV trucks seem so gimmicky and dumb to me because, frankly, if I cant be convinced, who can be? I am an easy mark, but I do not know why people should pay high prices for no extra functionality whatsoever. Why not use diesel and just use offsets rather than kidding ourselves that another Panasonic product is going to "save the planet" while hauling tons of dirt at a jobsite? Or more likely as a daily commuter. But it is sexier than carpooling, and really, fark carpooling and public transit, right? That is the EV spirit!


EV trucks aren't being created to be used as "trucks".  They're being created to be used like 90% of the other trucks for the consumer market - as commuter vehicles that look totally badass.  Elon figured this out perfectly.  He made a "future" looking 4 door on big tires.
 
2020-10-01 9:03:43 AM  

Rapmaster2000: 2fardownthread: First, EV trucks seem so gimmicky and dumb to me because, frankly, if I cant be convinced, who can be? I am an easy mark, but I do not know why people should pay high prices for no extra functionality whatsoever. Why not use diesel and just use offsets rather than kidding ourselves that another Panasonic product is going to "save the planet" while hauling tons of dirt at a jobsite? Or more likely as a daily commuter. But it is sexier than carpooling, and really, fark carpooling and public transit, right? That is the EV spirit!

EV trucks aren't being created to be used as "trucks".  They're being created to be used like 90% of the other trucks for the consumer market - as commuter vehicles that look totally badass.  Elon figured this out perfectly.  He made a "future" looking 4 door on big tires.


Now I want to address this. I am just a fair person, I think. I can GET that they are being used as commuters, but really, isnt this what surrender looks like?

Why make a vehicle that is overpowered with huge heavy batteries and claim it is for hauling and construction when it isnt, and then give it an entirely non-aerodynamic shape that will just waste power when you know it will be used for a commuter? I mean... cool man, and all that, but does anyone see the absurdity here? Sure the absurdity exists for a Ford 150, but is the goal to just ignore weight and drag reduction and a reasonable power plant and just go for repeating all the old mistakes with EVs?

This is the hypocrisy of the overpowered EV model that is being copied by BMW and other manufacturers who dont give a crap about the environment.

And this is what M Moore is talking about. People will drool for a sexy Tesla or an overpowered truck and will give up on getting a Leaf or a BOLT or even a Prius, all of which are engineered as GREEN, not as sexy. This conspicuous consumption is crowding out reasonable vehicles in favor of excess and waste.
 
2020-10-01 9:09:03 AM  

2fardownthread: Now I want to address this. I am just a fair person, I think. I can GET that they are being used as commuters, but really, isnt this what surrender looks like?


No, man.  It's not surrender.  It's saying to the world, "Check out my Nerd Porsche!"
 
2020-10-01 9:16:11 AM  

LoneCoon: 2fardownthread: I am not an expert on electric trucks, but is this stupid or what?

Battery vehicles are supposed to be designed for mobility. It is my considered opinion that they work in their most efficient mode in urban and tight suburban environments. The big challenges are range, which is being solved with bigger, bulkier, pricier, and heavier batteries, and flexibility, which is having some troubles. Both problems can be solved, today, by using plug in hybrids instead of more kluged fixes.

So what is up with electric trucks? Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric? Can it do twice as much work? Or is it that people just do not want an aerodynamic vehicle? Either trucks should be designed for mobility, or not. If they are not designed for mobility, why apply electric technology to them? If they ARE designed for mobility, why are they trucks? Has anyone bothered to ask these questions? Or maybe we just trusted the "smart" people.

Electric trucks are a good idea because they have all the torque available at the outset and are great for in city construction. Since you're not going hundreds of miles a day (usually) on construction projects, you get all the benefits of an electric vehicle, plus an increased towing capacity. I haul horses and would love to have an electric truck. I'm not going hundreds of miles in a jaunt, so i don't need to worry about range. If you want an electric truck to succeed, give it a 300 mile range and a massive towing capacity.

On the consumer side, most people who own trucks don't use them like trucks, they use them like a commuter vehicle with the occasional trip to the hardware store. You're not going to sell electric trucks to rural owners, it's just not practical, but you can sell a ton of them to suburbanites looking to replaces their four year old Tundras that they drive to work every day.


Thank you for mentioning torque. I have heard that. I kind of get that. But... really? I wont knock anyone for buying one if they really think that they are going to get value from special situations, and like you, I see the range issue being a problem.

So I come back to wondering if selling people a battery in a box with no streamlining or weight reduction is going to "save the planet."

I guess I am becoming impatient with people who think that the answer to "saving the planet" is NOT a problem of getting people to change themselves, even if only a little. For two decades, the Prius was  given to people so that they could keep doing what they do, but use half the gas or less. Great idea. Right thing to do. The claim is that an EV is a sea change... a revolution... but it isnt, is it? Much more expensive, and uses a little less gasoline. And it is not a change in the consumption mindset. If anything, it is accelerating it.

And put bluntly, the people buying Tesla vehicles are NOT the people composting for their gardens, separating their garbage, and recycling. The whole Tesla phenomenon, and Nikola too apparently,  is a virtue signalling free for all.

There are other problems, but this glares at me.
 
2020-10-01 9:59:34 AM  

2fardownthread: Rapmaster2000: 2fardownthread: First, EV trucks seem so gimmicky and dumb to me because, frankly, if I cant be convinced, who can be? I am an easy mark, but I do not know why people should pay high prices for no extra functionality whatsoever. Why not use diesel and just use offsets rather than kidding ourselves that another Panasonic product is going to "save the planet" while hauling tons of dirt at a jobsite? Or more likely as a daily commuter. But it is sexier than carpooling, and really, fark carpooling and public transit, right? That is the EV spirit!

EV trucks aren't being created to be used as "trucks".  They're being created to be used like 90% of the other trucks for the consumer market - as commuter vehicles that look totally badass.  Elon figured this out perfectly.  He made a "future" looking 4 door on big tires.

Now I want to address this. I am just a fair person, I think. I can GET that they are being used as commuters, but really, isnt this what surrender looks like?

Why make a vehicle that is overpowered with huge heavy batteries and claim it is for hauling and construction when it isnt, and then give it an entirely non-aerodynamic shape that will just waste power when you know it will be used for a commuter? I mean... cool man, and all that, but does anyone see the absurdity here? Sure the absurdity exists for a Ford 150, but is the goal to just ignore weight and drag reduction and a reasonable power plant and just go for repeating all the old mistakes with EVs?

This is the hypocrisy of the overpowered EV model that is being copied by BMW and other manufacturers who dont give a crap about the environment.

And this is what M Moore is talking about. People will drool for a sexy Tesla or an overpowered truck and will give up on getting a Leaf or a BOLT or even a Prius, all of which are engineered as GREEN, not as sexy. This conspicuous consumption is crowding out reasonable vehicles in favor of excess and waste.


So are you saying that construction companies shouldn't be offered a product that will help the environment just because people who don't need it for work will use them to commute? Or maybe that they should offer only bare bones no creature-comfort versions just to force people to avoid buying them for daily use? I get what you're saying about people who pretend to be green, but what is your point about the trucks? So what if Joe Schmoe buys one for his commute to work if it helps support all the construction sites not having 6 trucks idling all day on a jobsite? Isn't a dudebro lifted 4x4 that's electric still a help?

As for the benefits, torque baby. Torque to the mooooon. Electric motors are amazing when it comes to torque. It's all right down there at the bottom end too, where you need it to get a load rolling, not up at 4k rpm where all the modern gas engines have it. Don't forget that every fossil fuel vehicle has its emissions set when it's built. Any electric vehicle will be as clean as the powerplants it gets it's electrons from. That means that as coal plants go offline and get replaced by renewables, the emissions for ALL electric vehicles get better.
 
2020-10-01 10:11:41 AM  

2fardownthread: I am not an expert on electric trucks, but is this stupid or what?

Battery vehicles are supposed to be designed for mobility. It is my considered opinion that they work in their most efficient mode in urban and tight suburban environments. The big challenges are range, which is being solved with bigger, bulkier, pricier, and heavier batteries, and flexibility, which is having some troubles. Both problems can be solved, today, by using plug in hybrids instead of more kluged fixes.

So what is up with electric trucks? Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric? Can it do twice as much work? Or is it that people just do not want an aerodynamic vehicle? Either trucks should be designed for mobility, or not. If they are not designed for mobility, why apply electric technology to them? If they ARE designed for mobility, why are they trucks? Has anyone bothered to ask these questions? Or maybe we just trusted the "smart" people.

How many billions were lost in this debacle? Seed corn of the next generation thrown down a hole as a sacrifice to the gods of dumb ideas. I assume everyone knows how the Nikola Tesla story ended. Tucker? DeLorean? All frauds.


Why is a construction or work vehicle better off if it's all electric? It won't generate emissions as it runs/idles, you can use it in an enclosed area without poisoning people, it will be cheaper and less ecologically damaging to run on electricity vs gas, our electricity supply is less subject to disruption/price fluctuation than gas, it will require less maintenance (no oil changes, no transmission fluid, fewer brake changes etc), the vehicle can power a remote worksite's lights/tools etc, it's quieter, lower center of gravity increases stability, etc.

You talk in another post about batteries needing replacement after five or ten years as if it's a maximum limit, but Tesla batteries still average 85% capacity after 200,000 miles, and the rate of degradation slows as batteries age. And a used battery can be repurposed or recycled, while the thousands of gallons of gas an ICE burns in its lifetime is just gone. And battery technology and affordability are advancing MUCH faster than ICE tech. You seem to have a personal hangup with the idea that something newer might have advantages.
 
2020-10-01 10:23:33 AM  

2fardownthread: So I come back to wondering if selling people a battery in a box with no streamlining or weight reduction is going to "save the planet."

I guess I am becoming impatient with people who think that the answer to "saving the planet" is NOT a problem of getting people to change themselves, even if only a little. For two decades, the Prius was given to people so that they could keep doing what they do, but use half the gas or less. Great idea. Right thing to do. The claim is that an EV is a sea change... a revolution... but it isnt, is it? Much more expensive, and uses a little less gasoline. And it is not a change in the consumption mindset. If anything, it is accelerating it.

And put bluntly, the people buying Tesla vehicles are NOT the people composting for their gardens, separating their garbage, and recycling. The whole Tesla phenomenon, and Nikola too apparently, is a virtue signalling free for all.

There are other problems, but this glares at me.


Tesla vehicles are very aerodynamic while still looking good. Even the cybertruck is forecast to be way more aerodynamic than a regular truck (though the aesthetics of the thing are... divisive). But I do have to laugh at your idea that an electric truck is worse than a gas truck because not all people who buy trucks recycle efficiently. No, an electric truck won't make someone sort their garbage, but at least they won't be getting 12 MPG rolling coal on the highway. Don't be intentionally obtuse. Or are you incapable of making a coherent argument? If your claim of lecturing at university level is true, you should be capable of making a much better case for whatever your point is supposed to be.
 
2020-10-01 10:55:56 AM  
I just want to say this is probably the stupidest thread I've seen outside the pol tab in a good long while
 
2020-10-01 11:09:07 AM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: This whole thing makes GM look like complete idiots: hand over $2 billion without looking behind the curtain?


I think there were enough provisions that GM is essentially out nothing. I might be wrong though.
 
2020-10-01 11:32:57 AM  

2fardownthread: I am not an expert on electric trucks, but is this stupid or what?

Battery vehicles are supposed to be designed for mobility. It is my considered opinion that they work in their most efficient mode in urban and tight suburban environments. The big challenges are range, which is being solved with bigger, bulkier, pricier, and heavier batteries, and flexibility, which is having some troubles. Both problems can be solved, today, by using plug in hybrids instead of more kluged fixes.

So what is up with electric trucks? Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric? Can it do twice as much work? Or is it that people just do not want an aerodynamic vehicle? Either trucks should be designed for mobility, or not. If they are not designed for mobility, why apply electric technology to them? If they ARE designed for mobility, why are they trucks? Has anyone bothered to ask these questions? Or maybe we just trusted the "smart" people.

How many billions were lost in this debacle? Seed corn of the next generation thrown down a hole as a sacrifice to the gods of dumb ideas. I assume everyone knows how the Nikola Tesla story ended. Tucker? DeLorean? All frauds.


I've always wondered why they don't do a diesel-electric hybrid, like locomotives have done for over half a century. It would get rid of the transmission entirely. And with newer battery tech, use regenerative braking and downhill momentum to help charge those batteries. It may not make a huge difference on long distance trucking, but I would think for local deliveries and truck traffic at the ports (Which in California already has some of the strictest truck emissions standards in the world), this would work well.

Any actual engineers want to tell me what's wrong with that idea?
 
2020-10-01 11:46:13 AM  

2fardownthread: Hey. Seriously. Get serious. Dont call me a dumbass.


If you don't want to be called a dumbass, don't write stupid posts like one.

I didn't read the rest of your prattle.
 
2020-10-01 11:54:11 AM  

H31N0US: I just want to say this is probably the stupidest thread I've seen outside the pol tab in a good long while


Hey -- the guy's new. Give him a chance.
 
2020-10-01 5:01:41 PM  

2fardownthread: Hey. Seriously. Get serious. Dont call me a dumbass.



ok.
 
2020-10-01 6:22:21 PM  

SoCalChris: 2fardownthread: I am not an expert on electric trucks, but is this stupid or what?

Battery vehicles are supposed to be designed for mobility. It is my considered opinion that they work in their most efficient mode in urban and tight suburban environments. The big challenges are range, which is being solved with bigger, bulkier, pricier, and heavier batteries, and flexibility, which is having some troubles. Both problems can be solved, today, by using plug in hybrids instead of more kluged fixes.

So what is up with electric trucks? Why is a construction vehicle or work vehicle better off if it is all electric? Can it do twice as much work? Or is it that people just do not want an aerodynamic vehicle? Either trucks should be designed for mobility, or not. If they are not designed for mobility, why apply electric technology to them? If they ARE designed for mobility, why are they trucks? Has anyone bothered to ask these questions? Or maybe we just trusted the "smart" people.

How many billions were lost in this debacle? Seed corn of the next generation thrown down a hole as a sacrifice to the gods of dumb ideas. I assume everyone knows how the Nikola Tesla story ended. Tucker? DeLorean? All frauds.

I've always wondered why they don't do a diesel-electric hybrid, like locomotives have done for over half a century. It would get rid of the transmission entirely. And with newer battery tech, use regenerative braking and downhill momentum to help charge those batteries. It may not make a huge difference on long distance trucking, but I would think for local deliveries and truck traffic at the ports (Which in California already has some of the strictest truck emissions standards in the world), this would work well.

Any actual engineers want to tell me what's wrong with that idea?


They kind of are making that, but with RNG rather than diesel. I've always thought a diesel series hybrid would be cool too, but there must be a reason they don't do that specifically.

Having electric motors on a big rig makes way too much sense. Better braking with less wear on the pads, better acceleration, no need for a transmission, etc. We going to see it more and more.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.