Tesla pick-up camper

[pchast]

Theres another point to the debate.... Using electric batteries is different from gassing up.

I plug my motorcycle in at lunch stops and meetings and top off. I'm never dealing with the max mileage restriction because there's usually a way to keep the charge topped up. With a truck or auto and higher level charge stations toping up can take minutes instead of the greater time with my 110v charger.

My son and his family make regular trips with his tesla auto from Ohio to visit us here. We've talked about it often. He has stated the 750 mile trip takes them about an hour longer than it used to with their gas model. With the children they tend to stop a lot...

[Tom&Shelly]

Well, I guess that's OK if you deny climate change.

Ya know Bill, I don't want to get into a debate, and don't want to argue, but I've worked with climate scientists, and there's a VAST difference between the climate science that they practice, and climate politics as discussed and reported by activists, politicians and the media. Much of the climate politics seems to me to be simply a repackaging of the environmental movement of the 60's with many good points and many simple-minded feel good ideas that don't pass a better than superficial examination.

So, if you seriously want to save the climate what should you do?: 1) Not camp at all--You don't use energy travelling between your home and campsite. All energy use, gasoline, electrical, etc. ultimately changes the environment. That's one of the few things about the issue that can be scientifically proven. 2) Camp all the time, without traveling between campsites--saves the energy of modern living, just like our ancestors did out of necessity. Well, except for the energy used to can your food (or dehydrate, or whatever), unless you are really into it and hunt and fish for all your food. (PS, for the really hard core, you should also give up all modern medical care, which may shorten your lifespan considerably.) 3) Camp, but only where you can conveniently walk from home--A good compromise between the first two, and you may live longer for the exercise. But you probably won't get to see much along the way. 4) Compromise, just like (except perhaps for degree) a certain breed of folks who drive their SUVs to climate change protests. 5) Ignore the issue. After all, modern humans didn't start the decline of the last ice age, the decline started us. Are we responsible for accelerating the decline? Maybe.

If we're building and using our own campers, we are all, quite frankly, either in categories 4 or 5. If you want to try doing it with an electrical TV, somehow thinking that's significantly better for the environment than bringing your energy highly concentrated in a liquid, that's your privilege, but I beg you not to preach to the rest of us, or to call us names like "climate denier" to reinforce that deeply flawed world view. To be blunt, I don't believe for one minute you can credibly argue your case to knowledgeable scientists and engineers, and anyway that's not what this forum is about.

Tom

[QueticoBill]

Everyone will have to decide for themselves if there is climate change occurring and if human activity is a major cause, and whether or not using less carbon based energy and more renewables will slow or reverse the changes if any. I have made up my mind, and have completely changed from 20 years ago.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[QueticoBill]

One writers opinions on Tesla Cybertruck vs. Ford Lightning.
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/07/24/fo ... omparison/

[nbcarey]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1411527955981901824


I suspect if you have to ask how much, its not for you. I know it's not in my future.

As "designed", it's not street-legal — the lack of standard-height numbers, headlights, tail lights, the lack of rear-view mirrors, ... the list goes on.

It can't be legally sold or purchased anywhere in the USA. And certainly not for the claimed sale price. Or anywhere in that vicinity. A pretty bare-bones F-150 will set you back well north of that supposed $40k price.

Nothing more than an[other] Elon Musk wet dream.

[QueticoBill]

I posted the original link because of the multi axis telescopic cabin. Didn't know it would be a lighting rod for electric vehicle animosity.

[tony.latham]

As "designed", it's not street-legal — the lack of standard-height numbers, headlights, tail lights, the lack of rear-view mirrors, ... the list goes on.

I get the lack of mirror thing, but how hard is it to add mirrors to a prototype? (I can't quite see that being a challenge to Musk & company.)

What's illegal about the lights?



Tony

[nbcarey]

As "designed", it's not street-legal — the lack of standard-height numbers, headlights, tail lights, the lack of rear-view mirrors, ... the list goes on.

I get the lack of mirror thing, but how hard is it to add mirrors to a prototype? (I can't quite see that being a challenge to Musk & company.)

What's illegal about the lights?



Tony

No mirrors. Law requires rear-view mirrors on both sides, and the location is likewise mandated. Law also requires a rear-view mirror. And a camera doesn't not cut it.

No bumpers. Also required by law.

Lights?

Law requires 2 headlights and 2 tail lights. Big stripes are not street legal. Also headlamp height is constrained within a specific range. And they must be mechanically amiable.

It's not street-legal, and can't be made street-legal without either losing its design aesthetic, or changing Federa law, as well as the law in all 50 states ('cause they have their own requirements).

[QueticoBill]

And if someone told me that SpaceX would launch 124 successful space missions, including manned missions, in the following 11 years I might have said not possible. Same person behind SpaceX and Tesla. Enough time and money, almost anything is possible.

[Socal Tom]

Well, I guess that's OK if you deny climate change.

Ya know Bill, I don't want to get into a debate, and don't want to argue, but I've worked with climate scientists, and there's a VAST difference between the climate science that they practice, and climate politics as discussed and reported by activists, politicians and the media. Much of the climate politics seems to me to be simply a repackaging of the environmental movement of the 60's with many good points and many simple-minded feel good ideas that don't pass a better than superficial examination.

So, if you seriously want to save the climate what should you do?: 1) Not camp at all--You don't use energy travelling between your home and campsite. All energy use, gasoline, electrical, etc. ultimately changes the environment. That's one of the few things about the issue that can be scientifically proven. 2) Camp all the time, without traveling between campsites--saves the energy of modern living, just like our ancestors did out of necessity. Well, except for the energy used to can your food (or dehydrate, or whatever), unless you are really into it and hunt and fish for all your food. (PS, for the really hard core, you should also give up all modern medical care, which may shorten your lifespan considerably.) 3) Camp, but only where you can conveniently walk from home--A good compromise between the first two, and you may live longer for the exercise. But you probably won't get to see much along the way. 4) Compromise, just like (except perhaps for degree) a certain breed of folks who drive their SUVs to climate change protests. 5) Ignore the issue. After all, modern humans didn't start the decline of the last ice age, the decline started us. Are we responsible for accelerating the decline? Maybe.

If we're building and using our own campers, we are all, quite frankly, either in categories 4 or 5. If you want to try doing it with an electrical TV, somehow thinking that's significantly better for the environment than bringing your energy highly concentrated in a liquid, that's your privilege, but I beg you not to preach to the rest of us, or to call us names like "climate denier" to reinforce that deeply flawed world view. To be blunt, I don't believe for one minute you can credibly argue your case to knowledgeable scientists and engineers, and anyway that's not what this forum is about.

Tom

I disagree with just about everything in this post. I don't necessarily see camping as a negative climate experience. I believe when I camp, I'm using net less resources that when I sit at home. Within the next year I'll be getting a hybrid vehicle. Its my hope that it becomes my next tow vehicle. That should bring my climate impact down even further. What really bugs me is the argument that the extra hour or two for charging an electric vehicle every 300 miles is too much to ask to reduce the real impact that global warming is having on the US and the world.

[QueticoBill]

I sure think the way the camper unfolds and telescopes is neat.

[Squigie]

No mirrors. Law requires rear-view mirrors on both sides, and the location is likewise mandated. Law also requires a rear-view mirror. And a camera doesn't not cut it.

No bumpers. Also required by law.

Lights?

Law requires 2 headlights and 2 tail lights. Big stripes are not street legal. Also headlamp height is constrained within a specific range. And they must be mechanically amiable.

It's not street-legal, and can't be made street-legal without either losing its design aesthetic, or changing Federa law, as well as the law in all 50 states ('cause they have their own requirements).

It is a prototype.
Production versions will differ slightly - mostly in ways that comply with Federal law.

It will have mirrors.
It does have bumpers.
The lights are fine. It will be worked out.
You're pounding a drum that is full of Spaghetti-Os.

Say it with us:
"Pro"-"toe"-"type". Prototype.

Code: Select all

pro·to·type
/ˈprōdəˌtīp/
noun
a first, typical or preliminary model of something,
especially a machine, from which other forms are developed or copied.

[MickinOz]

I still reckon the cyber truck is the coolest vehicle I've seen for years.

As for climate change:
Do I reckon its real?
Yep.

Do I think human activity is accelerating it?
Yep.

Will phasing out fossil fuels fix it?
No flaming idea really, but I sincerely doubt it.
If it does, probably not without causing a whole new set of issues.

I saw a few Youtube videos of what is in a Tesla.
Motor and battery, I mean. Coming from a mining and smelting background, my mind boggled at the energy and pollution that must be intrinsic to the production of these machines.
Lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper - production of these is in no way non-polluting, and quite dependent on fossil fuels.

Where the balance lies, I have no idea.
Who should give up what?
Should we in the developed countries give up our transportation and our air conditioners?
What about air travel? Should we ban that?
How about giving up those other fossil fuel sucking monsters - cell phones and the internet?
Should those in developing countries never aspire to our standard of living?

Its all too complicated for me.

[Socal Tom]

We've gone off topic greatly on this thread. The answers to your questions have been determined, and electric vehicles are net less polluting to the petroleum powered alternates.

As to the topic, I'm not a fan of the shape of the Tesla truck. I think it will have a market, and I think electric vehicles for around town are a really good thing. Im not sure the infrastucture is in place for longer trips are. If you park at someplace with electricity, you can charge at the site, but for boondocking you need another option. I read an article recently that someone had packaged a system for a "portable" charger. Its essentially a charging device that you can use with up to 3 tesla batteries for charging a vehicle that has drained its battery. If the price is right, it might be an "extra tank" that could be used for longer trips.
Tom

[QueticoBill]

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos- ... eks-2021-8

$80m in camper pre-orders. Wow.