The ICE Winnes start at... ~$150K. For that price I could get a fully kitted out F150 Lightning, a nice lightweight travel trailer, and still have the same awful range while towing it but have a useful vehicle once I'm not towing it.
I'm heavily considering a class B despite currently having an SUV plus 15' trailer combo.
The nicest part about having an integrated unit is the ability to navigate most road infrastructure and parking lots. There are a lot of places where it's either no fun or literally impossible to navigate with a trailer. For instance parking in any city-like environment. That includes dinky "cities" of 20k people.
I agree but the downside of a class C or B is unless you are towing a toad, anytime you want to leave your camp site, you'll need to pack up your camper, versus parking and setting up your temporary home, and being able to come and go effortlessly. It's all tradeoffs though and just depends on how you plan to use it.
A truck camper is a bit of a unicorn - class B level flexibility (modulo a higher roof clearance), with the ability to dismount the camper at a campsite if needed.
Some of my friends have trucks with pop up campers on them. Advantage is cheapish and you can put them on a 4WD truck. They are pretty good if you're going away for a weekend to some off road place.
As someone that camps otherwise stock van with a sofa bed every type of camping system has it's advantages, disadvantages, and costs. Show me any type of camping setup and I can tell you why it's non starter for a lot of people. And perfect for others. My take about electric RV's is essentially RV's are all built on a van, truck, or bus chassis. When those become available with enough range you'll see RV's built on them as a standard option.
With the lightning, you are dealing with having to worry about charging and range. Towing, as has been noted across a few of the automotive periodicals, be it a lightweight trailer or not, also impacts range.
I have a class-b sprinter RV (4x4). It wasn't cheap and diesel isn't particularly cheap either. However, I can camp a number of places that would be next to impossible with the setup you mention. I will grant you, some of the places I am thinking aren't the ones you would be taking a winnebego...
On another note, RV parks, which you would probably be camping at in order to have access to a power outlet, have extremely varying quality of their 30 and 50amp outlets.
Stealthing is also a thing. It's challenging to stealth-mode (not look like a camper / home when you really are one) with a trailer, less so when you've got a single integrated vehicle.
Not that there aren't strong arguments in favour of trailers as well (you note several).
It's insane how many people think stealthing is a thing. No, your randomly parked commercial van does not magically blend into a neighborhood. Everyone knows that someone is sleeping in it.
Yeah but then you remember that that van was 200k so the person in the van is probably richer than you. Like nobody is going to say anything if you are sleeping in the Ferrari or raptor either.
Let Stealthing be the proposition p. If p is the case and ¬p the case, then the negation of ¬(p ∧ ¬p) is unsatisfiable.
QED there is a dude sleeping in that van for whom Stealthing is the case, and an observer outside the van for whom it is not the case; for all values of dude, van, and observer.
The F150 Lightning pricing seems great, but can you buy it at that price? (No) I think that the prices put out in press releases mean nothing if the manufacturers have no intention to deliver a meaningful amount, sold at MRSP, within a year.
The good news is, the interior doesn’t look like a refugee from a 1970s porn movie the way so many RVs still do. The bad news is, it looks like a 1980s dentist office.
As far as I'm aware, all Winnebago vehicles are based on third-party chassis. Ford (F53, XCS, Freightliner, Transit), Mercedes-Benz (Sprinter), and Dodge RAM ProMaster are listed at Wikipedia:
Now is a good time to interject a lament that VW has not brought the California/Grand California to North America. Given that people buy $150k vans from garage upfitters like they're going out of style, I think VW would absolutely clean up in this market, and could hit a significantly lower price point (California starts at GBP60k, Grand California at GBP80k in the UK)
I was looking at the photo wondering why they used the cheapest flimsy laminated particle board garbage on the cabinetry instead of real wood. For the prototype. That they use to try to sell the thing.
But no, they’re not actually being cheap. They chose painted cardboard instead of real construction materials because it is biodegradable.
For EVs, the typical challenges are 1) cramming enough battery into the vehicle, 2) managing that battery effectively (a major win of Tesla AFAIU), and 3) lightweighting the ever-loving ship out of everything.
For aircraft, there's the additional aim of eliminating the on-board pilot through automation, remote control, or both, to increase passenger / cargo / payload capacity. You see this in drones as well as it being a clear goal in short-haul (< 300km typically) "commuter" aircraft proposals.
In the case of Winnebago, I suspect that there are the dual goals of hitting maximum vehicle curb weight goals (batteries are heavy) and reducing overall vehicle mass to maximise range.
"Biodegradable" is all but certainly a secondary or incidental consideration and/or marketing hype. Though reducing waste-stream is a Good Thing™.
Fitting a battery won't be an issue in larger RVs. Look at a c class, you can use the entire underside. So you have way more space than even the a semi tractor has.
The skateboard design of evs should work great in RV. More space, lower center of gravity, more storage.
You can probably take the base battery I'm the platform and strap an additional range extension battery in the back, that would likely be a lot more upgradeable, and just charge the driving battery with the extension battery for more range.
Or you could choose between an extension battery or an ice generator / range extender, or have both.
Matching the battery size to the necessary capacity is a probable issue, especially where GVW and drag coefficient increase.
In the case of tractor-trailers, effective range remains on the order of single-digit miles / km, though I suspect keeping total vehicle weight within limits is a major part of that as well.
Yes, the undercarriage affords a large potential battery storage volume, but that's not the only consideration.
Range-extending battery trailers is a concept I've been suggesting for a number of years --- that would apply to standard passenger vehicles as well, and would also make for shorter charge-stops as the entire trailer could be swapped out. Battery condition and the usual issues of distributed / common ownership would of course be factors.
I had precisely the same idea. The range extending trailer can be ICE generator, hydrogen-whatever color fuel cell, batteries. Precharged for fast swap. Common ownership is not that hard, they are for range extension, so you have a network of swap sites where you swap the trailer you rented.
I don't understand what you mean by the single-digit miles/km. I know demonstrations in EV land are to be viewed with skepticism, but Tesla did demo a near-megawatt Tesla semi tractor that took a full gross weight load 500 miles. Granted that was a flatbed trailer with some concrete barriers so presumably better aerodynamics.
An RV made from the Tesla semi as a platform doesn't need to haul anywhere near that amount of weight, doesn't have the problematic boundary between tractor and trailer (it will be one vehicle, not towing an RV).
So one would expect a megawatt-sized tesla tractor as a platform, then about 12-20,000 more pounds for the RV portion... that is WAY underneath an 80,000 GVM even if the tractor is 20-30,000 lbs alone. So if a Tesla semi-derived RV has better aerodynamics that then overall tractor-trailer demonstration, that implies 600-700 miles range if the RV is half of 80,000lbs from the demonstration.
Re: electrified overland cargo. I'm not fully current on details, but my understandings are that:
- High range usually occurs at low speed and over carefully-selected (e.g., flat) routes. There was a bus range-record set a while back which involved a stripped empty bus running at about 20 kph / 13 mph constant speed. Problem being of course that this is almost the precise opposite of a typical operation cycle especially for urban transit. Commute transit (with its dual morning/evening cycle) or intercity (presuming reasonable range) might be viable. Trolly busses which draw current from fixed infrastructure remain the presently viable electrification option, though perhaps with a small onboard battery capacity to move between conductor segments.
- High-load electrified cargo seems to be based on moving loads consistently downhill while relying on electrified traction for the return, unloaded, uphill segment. I'm aware of a quarry which operates such vehicles, and proposals for lumber shipments. These are effectively gravity powered with regenerative braking and electric storage. Again, a special use case.
- I vaguely recall a European trial using an EV cargo lorry for short-haul deliveries on the order of 4--6 km, which is where my "single-digit" range comment comes from. Not turning up a reference, though I believe that was by either Volvo or BMW.
- Gross vehicle weight is a major constraint for trucking, cuts directly into revenue-generating cargo margins (literally, load that pays), and remains a critical concern for EVs. Again, private passenger vehicles which already have a poor payload/vehicle mass ratio are an easy problem to solve here, and despite that, passenger EVs run heavy compared to ICE vehicles. For either mass transit or cargo freight, where payload mass is far higher relative to vehicle mass, there's far less latitude.
- Aerodynamics are the other concern. Drag increases with the square of speed, and options are for low-profile high-mass loads (e.g., flatbeds and plate-steel or concrete barriers), or low-mass high-profile loads (consumer electronics, light bulk materials, etc.). Each run into issues with cargo.
And with all that, there's what EV-based overland non-tracked cargo competes with: rail, trolly-bus or trolly-truck designs, barge or shipping traffic (where available), etc.
In particular, there's been remarkably little R&D in the conventional rail sector best I can tell (outside high-speed rail). It seems to me that there ought to be considerable opportunity for much greater efficiencies in flexible, dynamic, trainset assembly and re-routing, which would provide for the efficienies of rail transport (energy consumption reduced by a factor of 5x or more per tonne/km) without the consequent challenges of battery-based transport. (This is presuming freight rail is electrified, itself a point in which the US is notably lagging.)
Rail is efficient in terms of energy but not flexibility. Melding that efficiency with the flexibility of last-mile delivery (or last 50-mile delivery) afforded by conventional trucks seems to me a real game-changer. It seems odd that nobody seems to be working on this. Large logistics operators (Amazon, WalMart, UPS, FedEx, possibly existing rail or trucking organisations) might be potential candidates, but again, there's nothing that I'm aware of.
Part of the strong push for the highway self-driving especially in trucking is that you can utilize superhighways late at night for more truck transport, and since there is vastly less consumer traffic inter-city in the US, you COULD drive the vehicles at 40 mph rather than 55-75mph.
People bash Tesla, rightly so, for their exaggerations in timelines and AI bullshit, but one place they have generally kept to their projections is battery engineering, drivetrain efficiency, performance of the vehicles. Tesla says the car does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds? Well, it does. Tesla says the car goes XXX miles in normal temperature, wind, 65 mph? Well, it does.
Here's a teslarati story about the 500 mile trip (teslarati is about as pro-tesla as it gets, but what I care about it the route and battery levels that are there:
There are youtubes as well. Now, it is an EV land demo, so time will tell if there was a hidden fuel cell or a single-use battery. They probably played some games with tailwinds, but there are big climbs in there. And "highway speed" for a semi is different than for a car. On the climb, the Tesla probably gets to do what ICE trucks do: drive at 30-40mph even though the torque in the Tesla can handle climbs far better.
If they were in Colorado, they could be playing some games with the altitude. BEVs don't have the oxygen / thin air problems that ICEs do at altitude, and get the benefit of the reduced drag.
That was allegedly a megawatt-hour battery, aka 10x a Model S battery, probably cobalt/nickel. However, 200-230 wh/kg LFP is coming to mass production next year, and since those chemistries are far safer they don't need active cooling, they are a lot closer to NMC chemistries in overall pack density. So a 500 mile truck with NMC might be 400 miles with LFP, and that would be a big thing too.
The trucks are going to delivery with early pilot customer (PepsiCo) and while NDAs will likely about, if the truck range is total bullshit it will get out.
The GVW should be reduced by the heavier semi, but what is critical to remember is that electricity is cheaper than fuel, and with wind/solar continuing to drop in price by almost 10-20% per year, operating costs will drop. IN THEORY the BEV drivetrain has far less components and should be cheaper to maintain. Battery costs will drop substantially in the future (The Lithium and Sodium Sulfur chemistries may double the range of semis or more, or alternatively drop the weight of the semi with smaller batteries).
Rail has pretty good efficiencies with diesel-electric, maybe the sulfur chemistries will allow the trains to switch to all-electric. I am definitely NOT a hydrogen enthusiast, but hydrogen may be the way to go with trains since the refueling infrastructure is so much more concentrated. But rail may be waiting for solid state, sodium-sulfur, or lithium-sulfur technologies, which may deliver densities and cost advantages that even the mature diesel-electric locomotives can't compete with.
Anyway, safe to say that the Tesla will be at least a 300 mile functional tractor for a semi, and that's the 1.0 version. We'll see.
Yeah but if it’s not durable, depending on the type of use it’ll need to be replace sooner which is bad for the customer (and doesn’t help the environment)
I dunno. I know lots of people living in their van conversions, and every one of them uses nice looking, lightweight wood for all those surfaces.
In addition to weighing less than plastic coated particleboard, you can actually run a router along the edges so you don’t bark yourself on the corner of that table every time you walk past.
But this way saves four dollars and looks modern, so mass produced RVs use it.
This new prototype is based on a Lightning Motors Transit to get useful range, rather than the Ford Transit EV that has a very limited range. Ford’s Transit EV design spec is for a local delivery/work van - a bigger battery in that case would increase cost and weight.
I’m pretty pro-EV but i’m having a tough time figuring out why we need an EV RV other than for marketing reasons?
Is the pitch going to be to provide the missing “grid battery” for our energy strategy, you have a battery that only leaves home 10-12 times a year on average so use a bunch of these spread out across the nation to provide short term energy stores?
The normal EV benefits - moving tailpipe emissions out of population centres, reducing maintenance costs, extending vehicle service life, etc etc - these don’t jump out as problems for diesel RVs today.
- Fuel cost when traveling is significant. And the whole point of owning such a thing is covering some distance. So, it's nice if you can travel long distances without having to worry about that
- Evs are pretty comfortable to drive, have lots of torque, and are easy to operate. All great stuff for e.g. elderly/retired drivers.
- Having a huge battery is nice when you are not driving. Basically you can cook, have all sorts of appliances, have hot water, etc. and use that for days before you need to charge the battery. So, you can go off grid with this thing and live in relative comfort. It's also a reason that the new F150 is extremely popular.
- Maintenance is a big deal with RVs. Plenty of people drive really old and crappy ones and they can break down at inconvenient times (i.e, while traveling). And when that happens it's a lot of hassle and also costly. And even when that doesn't happen, you still need to deal with costly inspections, repairs, etc. EVs have a lot less of those issues. More reliable, less moving parts that can break, etc. Nice to not have to worry about that as much when you are traveling.
- For the same reason, the second hand value of electric vehicles is pretty good; they don't depreciate as much. And if the battery isn't used that much, the vehicle can last quite long. So you buy one, use if for some years and then you sell it on and get a good portion of your money back all while having enjoyed the benefits of all of the above. Doesn't sound like a bad deal.
Don't forget storage space. I don't know about the E-Transit in the fine article, but typically EVs are better at providing truck capacity at the ends of the vehicle because there are no ICE or fuel tank there. That sounds great for an RV.
It's an interesting design challenge. Can you make an all-electric RV, what do you have to sacrifice in doing so, what new technologies can be trialed / exploited in the design, etc.
And as you note, marketing. We're discussing it here, after all.
Travel is increasingly expensive. Eating out, RV parks, campgrounds, etc - it's all more expensive than even just a few years ago. Boondocking and cooking in your vehicle can be very cheap, leaving fuel as a considerable cost if you are regularly moving any sort of distance.
Recently, we took a 2-3 month trip in our 25' vehicle and at some points we were averaging $100-150/day on fuel (10 mpg, $6/gallon). I'd love to see the price of electric van/bus chassis come down.
For more and more people, this is their way of life rather than just a little annual trip. Not everyone is going to buy a new RV, but a reasonable number are looking at financing a van for conversion rather than slave over a DIY project with limited skills.
I have great memories of traveling around the US in an RV as a kid. We never owned one. There are RV rental companies with huge fleets servicing these kind of cross country vacations. It’s something I’d love to do with my own family when we’re ready for it and I’d love to make the trip in some sort of EV
Plenty of very rich people in that group. I personally know of at least one couple whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions who live in an RV. Lots of that group are retirees who want to travel full-time, but opted for land transport instead of a yacht.
Keep in mind that right now, with gas or diesel motors, there’s winnebagos which almost reach half a million dollars new.
I'm in that group, and could afford (and am interested) in owning one of these.
Many offset the downsides of the generator with solar, which is increasingly viable, but having it all in a EV especially considering fuel prices is a dream. Even then, using the generator only applies with boondocking. When i'm working full time on a project on the road, I just go to a campground or RV park with full hookups.
Yeah, I really feel like we should be pushing plug in hybrids more. If you have a 30-50 mile EV range you cover the daily commute for the vast majority of people so you can drastically reduce emissions. Meanwhile the gas engine covers the “oops I forgot to plug in” factor as well as the freedom to do long trips without being bound to charging infrastructure. Both of which would help ease the transition away from pure ICE, IMO. Hybrids might not be the sexy solution but they buy us time to build out the electric grid, chargers, etc. as well as (hopefully) figuring out better battery tech.
Me too! I'm really hoping Mazda comes out with their rotary based range extender SUV. The power to weight ratio of rotaries is amazing, and their biggest weakness - the seals - is dramatically mitigated when the engine can run at a constant, fixed speed like it would be if paired to a generator and not mechanically linked to a drivetrain/transmission.
Hybrids main use are stop and go urban vehicles, on the highway at constant speed nothing beats a diesel. In gasoline vehicles you can go Atkinson cycle so that the gas engine approaches diesel efficiency with a loss of torque which is made up with electric motor. However if you're driving long distance all time might as well just go diesel like all other long haul vehicles.
Math does not work out, series hybrid will be around 80% efficient while mechanical direct drive is 95%+. This is why nearly all hybrids are parallel and at highway speeds directly connect engine to wheels.
Trains do diesel electric for precise traction control not efficiency, they make up the efficiency loss with low rolling resistance and aero drag.
All the disadvantages of an ICE vehicle (emissions, maintenance, fuel cost, etc.) without most of the advantages of EVs (no emissions, lower fuel cost, less moving parts and complexity, etc.). There's a reason lots of EV only manufacturers from China and elsewhere are growing market share very rapidly at the cost of manufacturers still building hybrids and ice vehicles: they are better cars, cheaper to manufacture and you can sell them with nice juicy margins.
400 miles is 640km, which, at 5km/kw (Vanagon) gives you 128kwh.
2 weeks is 14 days, in a sunny climate you can reckon on 5 solid solar hours so 70 charging hours.
128kwh / 70 charging hours is 1.82 kw.
You can probably fit a 480w panel on the roof of said reference Vanagon so you will need to get 4 and stack em 4 high. Maybe fold them out like an awning?
In the van-life world, where photovoltaic electronics frequently supply house power on a conventional ICE vehicle, you will occasionally see either static-deployable panels (i.e., stored aboard the vehicle in transit, but staged on the ground when camped), or fold-out panels (which remain fixed to the vehicle but deploy outward, often providing additional shading).
There's also an advantage in warm climates / seasons to a stand-off roof --- air-gap between panels and the actual surface of the vehicle) which provide effective shading and reduce cooling load --- either to permit passive cooling via fans or as an assist to an air-conditioning unit (fairly rare on vans).
There's also a pretty frequent use of fuel-based house services: space heat (e.g., Webasto heaters, by Cummins: <https://www.cummins.com/na/sales-and-service/webasto-heating...>), stovetops (often propane), and hot water, though you'll also see electric (induction cooktop, microwave or electric oven, electric hot-water, resistance strip heating in floors). Latter require a pretty beafy electrical system, generator, and/or "shore power" (connection to grid mains).
(I've looked into the van-life thing for a while. Ultimately it's expensive for the nicer rigs and/or involves a lot of sacrifices, and combines risks of a residence and vehicle. Not to say it can't work, but there are major considerations, and the postcard view often provided is not the whole story.)
Electric minivans will sell like hotcakes but why EV carmakers are not onto this idea I don’t know. The large bottom alone could accommodate more cells. 400 EPA miles would be easy. The VW Buzz is probably the closest but it won’t come to the US soon enough. Toyota and Honda make excellent minivans that would be perfect in an EV platform.
I really want Tesla to release a large vehicle platform that I could use as a motorhome. FSD/Autopilot for long roadtrips is an indescribably game changer.
I recently got an ICE motorhome for long cross country trips and will be no longer taking my Model Y around the country. I'm going to miss the Autopilot quite a bit.
Tesla semi is the seminal EV RV event, when it actually hits mainstream.
This thing has a hundred mile range? Probably costs 150k before customization/ outfit?
A Tesla semi will probably be 250k for a 400-500 mile range(remember the RV is lighter than a semi load) and will support much wider ranges of customization. So 250k for a hundred mile range or 400k for a 500 mile Tesla RV?
And while so much of Tesla self driving is smoke and mirrors, based on watching various supportive/critical videos, it would be enormously useful for highway driving
I've driven two c class RVs long range, and wow is it mentally exhausting, RVs require a lot more attention than a car on the highway, I can see a L2 self driving system very useful.
The other thing that is very annoying in RVs is the lack of torque, in rolling Midwest you have to build up speed downhill then bleed it off, otherwise the RV downshifts very annoyingly.
And the heavy battery lowering the center of gravity will be great too, the RVs are always a bit unstable.
And the torque for EVs going up mountains will be incredibly useful.
Why two batteries in the water Winnebago? Probably because they don't have the knowhow to tap into the transit battery. That seems pretty slapdash.
One thing this crappy range RV design may be alleviated with is if they can make some fuel cell or rotary generator that can charge the battery/ extend the range. If RVs can be all electric while plopped at a site and electric for 50-80% of driven range, that would still be a big improvement.
And again, much like the professed total lifecycle economics of the semi, an EV RV or PHEV RV should improve the transit costs significantly. So if the idea is serious driving distances, the initial capital outlay for aN EV drivetrain becomes more palatable with fuel cost savings.
Those inside our rotary patents so far haven't gone anywhere. Mazda is finally looking into PHEV rotary, which if the rotary is doing ng constant power output for recharge duty only seems to resolve a lot of issues with Wankels in variable torque output situations, but we'll see.
But I have maybe a half million I'd drop on a Tesla semi derived RV with decent highway self driving or driving assist, a compact ICe generator for emergency range extension or backup, solar panels for all electric power, mobile starlink for comms.
All of that is very feasible once the semi releases, but I doubt the current RV industry will do it.
Tesla is allegedly "visionary" and RVs like this represent attainable housing for the next generation, so maybe Tesla will get into that business.
Other auto manufacturer's highway driving is exactly what most people need, keeps you in the lane and avoids accidents. FSD was always a hope, but they can't deliver it, and now they've stopped using most of the sensor gear that makes it accurate
What do you mean? All EVs, including the E-Transit this RV is based on, have heat and AC. People are already camping in vehicles like the Model Y, leaving the climate control on all night.
There's also typically ventilation to reduce moisture/condensation build-up in cold climates. Even with heat-exchange air circulation, the incoming air does require additional heating.
I mean that trying to heat with electricity is not feasible for a van. You need 2-4 kilowatt of heat to stay warm in winter. In summer, AC is another unsolved problem: most of these RVs hang in campgrounds on shore power because this is the only way to get consistent AC in warmer locales.
IME RV heat pumps are not worth much below around 10C. They’re okay to take some chill out of the air in temperate weather. The propane/diesel furnace is a much better option for heating below 10C.
What's special about RV heat pumps which makes them so bad compared to regular heat pumps? Heat pumps have gotten significantly better lately, and house-models are effecient down to -25C. Maybe the RV models you have tried are mostly older models?
RV heat pump are not that sophisticated because there doesn't seem to be much demand, they simply flip over to furnace. They are the same on the cooling side, they are no where near as advanced as a modern variable speed mini split.
There is no reason they could be more advanced with lower temperature support, they would just cost more. Many people put mini splits when making their own RV's because they work better and want to run off battery as much as possible.
What are you talking about. EVs can afford to have absolutely massive AC and heat for that matter because that big battery is multipurpose. Well big battery in good EVs at least, not in this prototype, but I’m sure they’ll up it if they do a real product.
And also, as you say, they will usually be on power (also because they’ll want to charge up for their next leg, which solar will not be sufficient for) so I’m twice over not seeing a reason for concern here.
I just own a camper van. In current state of affairs, heat is a solved problem with diesel. Air conditioning still does not have a viable solution, aside from shore power. You can't practically use electric for heating or anything really beyond powering the lights and the heater fan.
Most vans max out around 3kWth. I have seen people use a used Tesla battery, but only have seen one report.
I guess we are talking past each other. You seem to be expressing perfectly valid conclusions based on the current state of RVs, and I am thinking about what will be possible in the future when instead of a gas or diesel tank, some RVs will have a massive, massive, battery as current EVs do.
According to the Winnenbago rep that I heard talking when I saw it in person they are just working out the systems and design issues so they are ready when the range catches up.
This van had a 48v house battery that ran air conditioner and inverter and some DC-DC converters for step down from 400v traction battery to 48v house to 12v systems, they had the electrical system layed out on a board which was interesting. Most RV systems are 12v or 120v at this point in the US.
>Bigger issue is the current range limit of 108 miles
If that’s 108 highway miles, it would cover about 80% of my RV trips. Even when I go on a long trip, I usually don’t drive much more than 200 miles in a day, so with a charge stop in the middle, this could work even for a long trip. Assuming, of course, that I can find a DC fast charger so a charge stop is 45 minutes and not 8 hours.
But RV parks will need time to prepare and put in metered chargers, since most aren’t going to be able to handle many eRVs charging at 240v/50a all night long, many already have trouble keeping up with AC loads on a hot day.
Electric RVs would have tens of kwh of battery storage. You'd be able to run heating, AC, warm water, dishwashers, whatever for quite some time without charging. If you have a full charge and you really need 4KW, a 60kwh battery would last for 15 hours. That would be a really tiny battery for an RV of course. You'd likely want something a bit bigger. Maybe a 100kwh (25 hours) or even more. You get my point, it's not going to be an issue for most people. You can still plug it in or drive to the fast charger once a day or conserve a bit of power and maybe don't run the AC 24/7 on full blast.
12 kilowatt hours of battery storage gives you 3 hours of heat at 4 kilowatts. In 3 hours you freeze, literally (it's -0F/-18C outside, around Antero, Colorado).
12 kilowatt hours of battery is close 10 $10K in cost and takes 6 feet by 6 feet area and weighs 200lb.
Whatever you may think, in RV world:
1. Heat only can be done with gas/diesel/propane
2. AC consistently only on shore power
3. Cooking on propane
4. You will still be not living consistently in cold areas (like the Rockies) or warm areas (like FL).
5. Most of those long term rviers just hang on campgrounds for the electric power reasons (and sewer hookup).
So, electric RV is a dumb idea and will never be here.
Nonsense, it's already here. You can buy this or other vehicles like it. Or buy some electrical van and convert it.
Anyway, a lower end Tesla can be bought for around 40-50K. It comes with 60kwh of battery and they make a nice profit on them and you are obviously buying a whole car, not just the battery. So your battery cost argument is simply wrong
Cost of batteries actually dropped below 100$/kwh probably quite some time ago for them. So the cost for 100kwh battery would be less than 10K at this point. You are off by an order of magnitude.
These are not light vehicles obviously. But an RV is way bigger than a Tesla and you could probably easily fit 200kwh of batteries in there. Or more. Which is nice for range but overkill for just running the AC or heating. People drive EVs in the arctic circle in Norway. -18C is a nice warm winter day over there. You'd want the heating on, obviously. This is not a problem. It's a solved problem.
The new tesla semi probably has close to a mwh. I think the F150 has 130 kwh and you can run your house on it for days.
Most electric vans have around 60-70 kwh. Which is pretty modest and enough for a modest range. And yet it's plenty for a recreational vehicle although a bit limiting in range probably. If you are going out camping in extreme conditions, you might want a bigger battery than that. But otherwise, it's completely fine for recreational use for normal people as is.
60 kwh at 4 kilowatt gives you 15 hours of heat in a van in cold weather. Granted, you may not need full 4 kilowatt of heat at all tines, so let's say it's one full day. You drive to BigSky Montana to ski and after two days your RV is frozen solid, including all the water and everything is dead and leaking. All you can do at this point is to try and find a shore hookup or an EV charger. But of course the batteries won't even charge because they are too cold.
I’ve used a Prius as a heated camper, sleeping in the back. Doesn’t use much gas and it’s very comfortable. The motor comes on sporadically.
Ever since, I’ve wished for a hybrid RV that was basically a gas powered generator putting power into batteries, running the drive train when you need to move and powering everything else (heat, ac, computer, etc.) when you’re parked.
For whatever reason, no such vehicle seems to exist.
Yeah, it’s unfortunate that it hasn’t come to market. Ford has the eco boost 3.5L engine in the Transit but not its Powerboost hybrid cousin from the F150. It would be an ideal engine for a camper van.
The US rockies region get to negative F all the time. The area around Antero Reservoir gets to -20F -30F all the time. Winter Park overnight parking is commonly around -10F overnight.
Camping in a car is not an issue at all. Living in a van or an RV is an entirely a different game. For that you need from 2 to 4 kilowatts of heat, for days on end. If you let the temps inside drop below freezing even once, you are dead, all the plumbing is frozen and batteries are out of commission until you warm them up.
Solar is useless in winter. Finding shore power is hard.
There are solved problems in van life and unsolved ones. The heat is solved with gas/diesel. The AC is not solved at all.
As far as the range, I drive a disel van with a range of 400+ miles. It's okay but often times I wish I had more.
Forget it, EV RV is a dumb idea and is never coming. It does not mean they won't be selling one. There's always a sucker to buy.
I've slept in my Model S a number of times at -20°C at 1000 m altitude in the Dovre region of Norway. It's not merely possible it is perfectly practical and plenty warm enough while not really using very much range.
One does not need heat to sleep in a car (slept dozens of nights at ski resorts). This does not mean that you can heat up a van/rv with electricity.
(I have lived for a month in a van in Montana/Colorado/Wyoming. Camped in a Forester for months all over. Lived and worked in a van for 30 days in PNW in spring).
And have over $50,000 in extra change to boot.