Ev Delay

[J Alynn]

I fully expect Scout to get 350 miles on the BEV. That’s such a well-known number by now that they have to have a trim that gets at least 350 miles or they will disappoint everybody. I think this is likely more important than base price.

Can they get 400 miles? Absolutely. How much money do you want to spend?
Will they get 400 miles? How much money do they want to spend?

They could “easily" decide to offer an upgraded battery, low-rolling-resistance All-season, 31” or 32” tires on 22” wheels, and a requirement to use “eco mode" to get 400 miles. The frame has plenty of space for a bigger battery, the GAWR of their axles will easily be able to handle a little extra weight (a few % more). The question is whether they can get the higher asking price if they offer it and whether they need to offer a lower towing capacity with that higher range. They would have to do a fair amount of engineering and testing to be sure they could consistently get that extra range. That’s not free.

The towing capacity of the Harvester is at least partially dependent on where they put the Harvester engine. If it’s over the rear axle or aft of the rear axle, then tongue weight becomes a limiting factor. If it’s between the rear axle and the front axle, GAWR matters more than tongue weight (but you increase noise, vibration, and harshness by moving the engine nearer the passengers).

I’ve done the math elsewhere in this forum. The basic idea is that for every 100 pounds of extra weight over or aft of the rear axle, you lose about 1000 pounds of towing capacity. To get the numbers exact, you would need to know the real weight and distance from the rear axle. Some of that can be mitigated, of course. All it would take is various upgrades to suspension, frame, axle GAWR, brakes, tires (LTs instead of softer tires) etc. I suspect the Harvester is already going to cost more than the BEV, and if it does some people are going to be unhappy—imagine even more cost related to the upgraded parts.

And if you’re upgrading parts, why not upgrade them on the BEV too so Scout only has to purchase one set of parts that are interchangeable between the BEV and the Harvester. But then you’re talking an HD/2500/3500 truck instead of a 1500 truck, you’ve harshed the ride beyond acceptability, and you’ve added $20k to the base price.

There’s also the concern about thermal management. With the massive amount of waste heat coming from the Harvester that needs to be managed, Scout’s thermal management system will probably have to be upgraded on the Harvester. If they separate the engine from the battery/motor thermal management, then it might allow DIYers to upgrade to higher tow capacities (see below).

I think the compromise is:
Harvester: max 7500 pounds
BEV: max 10,000 pounds.

Note that they will almost certainly use the same frame and axles for the BEV and Harvester. If that’s the case, and you know for a fact that the Harvester engine doesn’t push you beyond a safe GAWR, braking capacity, or thermal capacity it might be "simply" a matter of upgrading the suspension, switching to LT tires, beefing up the sway bars, increasing brake size, and a few other upgrades to push the Harvester to 10,000 pounds towing ability. But you’ll still have the lower towing capacity rating on the official VIN and door jamb sticker.

You DA Man!

 

[cyure]

You DA Man!

Well he is!

 

[dumbdork]

I fully expect Scout to get 350 miles on the BEV. That’s such a well-known number by now that they have to have a trim that gets at least 350 miles or they will disappoint everybody. I think this is likely more important than base price.

Can they get 400 miles? Absolutely. How much money do you want to spend?
Will they get 400 miles? How much money do they want to spend?

They could “easily" decide to offer an upgraded battery, low-rolling-resistance All-season, 31” or 32” tires on 22” wheels, and a requirement to use “eco mode" to get 400 miles. The frame has plenty of space for a bigger battery, the GAWR of their axles will easily be able to handle a little extra weight (a few % more). The question is whether they can get the higher asking price if they offer it and whether they need to offer a lower towing capacity with that higher range. They would have to do a fair amount of engineering and testing to be sure they could consistently get that extra range. That’s not free.

The towing capacity of the Harvester is at least partially dependent on where they put the Harvester engine. If it’s over the rear axle or aft of the rear axle, then tongue weight becomes a limiting factor. If it’s between the rear axle and the front axle, GAWR matters more than tongue weight (but you increase noise, vibration, and harshness by moving the engine nearer the passengers).

I’ve done the math elsewhere in this forum. The basic idea is that for every 100 pounds of extra weight over or aft of the rear axle, you lose about 1000 pounds of towing capacity. To get the numbers exact, you would need to know the real weight and distance from the rear axle. Some of that can be mitigated, of course. All it would take is various upgrades to suspension, frame, axle GAWR, brakes, tires (LTs instead of softer tires) etc. I suspect the Harvester is already going to cost more than the BEV, and if it does some people are going to be unhappy—imagine even more cost related to the upgraded parts.

And if you’re upgrading parts, why not upgrade them on the BEV too so Scout only has to purchase one set of parts that are interchangeable between the BEV and the Harvester. But then you’re talking an HD/2500/3500 truck instead of a 1500 truck, you’ve harshed the ride beyond acceptability, and you’ve added $20k to the base price.

There’s also the concern about thermal management. With the massive amount of waste heat coming from the Harvester that needs to be managed, Scout’s thermal management system will probably have to be upgraded on the Harvester. If they separate the engine from the battery/motor thermal management, then it might allow DIYers to upgrade to higher tow capacities (see below).

I think the compromise is:
Harvester: max 7500 pounds
BEV: max 10,000 pounds.

Note that they will almost certainly use the same frame and axles for the BEV and Harvester. If that’s the case, and you know for a fact that the Harvester engine doesn’t push you beyond a safe GAWR, braking capacity, or thermal capacity it might be "simply" a matter of upgrading the suspension, switching to LT tires, beefing up the sway bars, increasing brake size, and a few other upgrades to push the Harvester to 10,000 pounds towing ability. But you’ll still have the lower towing capacity rating on the official VIN and door jamb sticker.

I think you're dead on, but I'm curious about one quibble:

You mention tongue weight being the limiting factor due to how far back the ICE is placed (which makes sense from a leverage perspective). However, doesnt that chew into payload moreso than towing capacity? Or are you equating towing capacity based off of the "10% of towing capacity == max hitch weight" that I see a lot of?

I ask this cause I know with the RV industry (specifically bumper pull travel trailers), you run out of payload notably faster than tow capacity.

Can you help me understand where you're getting the reduced tow capacity numbers from (what I'm presuming is) reduction in payload? (or link me to a previous post where you discuss it)

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

I think you're dead on, but I'm curious about one quibble:

You mention tongue weight being the limiting factor due to how far back the ICE is placed (which makes sense from a leverage perspective). However, doesnt that chew into payload moreso than towing capacity? Or are you equating towing capacity based off of the "10% of towing capacity == max hitch weight" that I see a lot of?

I ask this cause I know with the RV industry (specifically bumper pull travel trailers), you run out of payload notably faster than tow capacity.

Can you help me understand where you're getting the reduced tow capacity numbers from (what I'm presuming is) reduction in payload? (or link me to a previous post where you discuss it)

Payload doesn’t care about weight distribution (much). If you put 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. anywhere into the Harvester model, your available payload decreases by 300 pounds. You could put it all under the frunk or between the axles or hanging off the rear end (this is when weight distribution starts to matter because now you’re changing more than just the weight, you’re changing the stability dynamics). The Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR), which is about the truck and trailer, is also impacted by 300 pounds.

Tongue weight cares about weight distribution. If you place 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. into the Harvester model under the frunk, your payload capacity decreases by 300 pounds, but the available tongue weight might not change by much at all. The GCWR is again impacted by 300 pounds no matter where you put the weight. But if you place the extra 300 pounds aft of the rear axle, this extra weight applies to the tongue weight capacity as well as the payload capacity. Because, yes, the lever arm starts to play a role. Because the tongue weight standard is not more than 10% of the trailer weight, if you lose 300 pounds of tongue capacity to the Harvester genset, then you lose 3000 pounds of towing capacity.

 

[dumbdork]

Payload doesn’t care about weight distribution (much). If you put 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. anywhere into the Harvester model, your available payload decreases by 300 pounds. You could put it all under the frunk or between the axles or hanging off the rear end (this is when weight distribution starts to matter because now you’re changing more than just the weight, you’re changing the stability dynamics). The Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR), which is about the truck and trailer, is also impacted by 300 pounds.

Tongue weight cares about weight distribution. If you place 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. into the Harvester model under the frunk, your payload capacity decreases by 300 pounds, but the available tongue weight might not change by much at all. The GCWR is again impacted by 300 pounds no matter where you put the weight. But if you place the extra 300 pounds aft of the rear axle, this extra weight applies to the tongue weight capacity as well as the payload capacity. Because, yes, the lever arm starts to play a role. Because the tongue weight standard is not more than 10% of the trailer weight, if you lose 300 pounds of tongue capacity to the Harvester genset, then you lose 3000 pounds of towing capacity.

Ah there it is. Thank you. That's the math I was missing. Putting weight aft of the axle is taking away from the hitch weight, which is amplified out (like 10x) into the towing capacity numbers.

And how far away from the axle it is increases further as it acts like a lever.

It all makes sense. Thanks!

 

[BartMan Terra Total EV]

Considering they’ve announced 350 I’m not sure how people can be upset that it doesn’t get 400. It has never been stated to be higher than 350

I do realize Scout has never indicated it would go higher then 350. Since we are several years from release, Chevy getting close 500, Riven at 420 and both offering different levels of battery size i was hoping a max battery option could get it to 400.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Ah there it is. Thank you. That's the math I was missing. Putting weight aft of the axle is taking away from the hitch weight, which is amplified out (like 10x) into the towing capacity numbers.

And how far away from the axle it is increases further as it acts like a lever.

It all makes sense. Thanks!

To be sure, this is a simplification and there are a bunch of additional factors that weigh in. It’s just a starting place to understand why the Harvester might have lower rated towing capacity than the BEV. The reality is that what a vehicle is physically capable of towing is often very, very different from what a vehicle can safely tow in a real-world situation. Ford has demonstrated the capability of the F-150 Lightning to tow more than a million pounds. But that’s 100x more than its maximum rated tow capacity.

 

[J Alynn]

I do realize Scout has never indicated it would go higher then 350. Since we are several years from release, Chevy getting close 500, Riven at 420 and both offering different levels of battery size i was hoping a max battery option could get it to 400.

It’s also not to say that SM is a bit conservative and might be able to squeeze out another 20-50 miles range

 

[BartMan Terra Total EV]

I think you're dead on, but I'm curious about one quibble:

You mention tongue weight being the limiting factor due to how far back the ICE is placed (which makes sense from a leverage perspective). However, doesnt that chew into payload moreso than towing capacity? Or are you equating towing capacity based off of the "10% of towing capacity == max hitch weight" that I see a lot of?

I ask this cause I know with the RV industry (specifically bumper pull travel trailers), you run out of payload notably faster than tow capacity.

Can you help me understand where you're getting the reduced tow capacity numbers from (what I'm presuming is) reduction in payload? (or link me to a previous post where you discuss it)

Typicaly it is the tounge weight that causes one to be over thier towing capacity. Its all part of the equation

 

[BartMan Terra Total EV]

I fully expect Scout to get 350 miles on the BEV. That’s such a well-known number by now that they have to have a trim that gets at least 350 miles or they will disappoint everybody. I think this is likely more important than base price.

Can they get 400 miles? Absolutely. How much money do you want to spend?
Will they get 400 miles? How much money do they want to spend?

They could “easily" decide to offer an upgraded battery, low-rolling-resistance All-season, 31” or 32” tires on 22” wheels, and a requirement to use “eco mode" to get 400 miles. The frame has plenty of space for a bigger battery, the GAWR of their axles will easily be able to handle a little extra weight (a few % more). The question is whether they can get the higher asking price if they offer it and whether they need to offer a lower towing capacity with that higher range. They would have to do a fair amount of engineering and testing to be sure they could consistently get that extra range. That’s not free.

The towing capacity of the Harvester is at least partially dependent on where they put the Harvester engine. If it’s over the rear axle or aft of the rear axle, then tongue weight becomes a limiting factor. If it’s between the rear axle and the front axle, GAWR matters more than tongue weight (but you increase noise, vibration, and harshness by moving the engine nearer the passengers).

I’ve done the math elsewhere in this forum. The basic idea is that for every 100 pounds of extra weight over or aft of the rear axle, you lose about 1000 pounds of towing capacity. To get the numbers exact, you would need to know the real weight and distance from the rear axle. Some of that can be mitigated, of course. All it would take is various upgrades to suspension, frame, axle GAWR, brakes, tires (LTs instead of softer tires) etc. I suspect the Harvester is already going to cost more than the BEV, and if it does some people are going to be unhappy—imagine even more cost related to the upgraded parts.

And if you’re upgrading parts, why not upgrade them on the BEV too so Scout only has to purchase one set of parts that are interchangeable between the BEV and the Harvester. But then you’re talking an HD/2500/3500 truck instead of a 1500 truck, you’ve harshed the ride beyond acceptability, and you’ve added $20k to the base price.

There’s also the concern about thermal management. With the massive amount of waste heat coming from the Harvester that needs to be managed, Scout’s thermal management system will probably have to be upgraded on the Harvester. If they separate the engine from the battery/motor thermal management, then it might allow DIYers to upgrade to higher tow capacities (see below).

I think the compromise is:
Harvester: max 7500 pounds
BEV: max 10,000 pounds.

Note that they will almost certainly use the same frame and axles for the BEV and Harvester. If that’s the case, and you know for a fact that the Harvester engine doesn’t push you beyond a safe GAWR, braking capacity, or thermal capacity it might be "simply" a matter of upgrading the suspension, switching to LT tires, beefing up the sway bars, increasing brake size, and a few other upgrades to push the Harvester to 10,000 pounds towing ability. But you’ll still have the lower towing capacity rating on the official VIN and door jamb sticker.

Great post Space. Thanks for sharing

Considering they’ve announced 350 I’m not sure how people can be upset that it doesn’t get 400. It has never been stated to be higher than 350

 

[maynard]

Payload doesn’t care about weight distribution (much). If you put 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. anywhere into the Harvester model, your available payload decreases by 300 pounds. You could put it all under the frunk or between the axles or hanging off the rear end (this is when weight distribution starts to matter because now you’re changing more than just the weight, you’re changing the stability dynamics). The Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR), which is about the truck and trailer, is also impacted by 300 pounds.

Tongue weight cares about weight distribution. If you place 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. into the Harvester model under the frunk, your payload capacity decreases by 300 pounds, but the available tongue weight might not change by much at all. The GCWR is again impacted by 300 pounds no matter where you put the weight. But if you place the extra 300 pounds aft of the rear axle, this extra weight applies to the tongue weight capacity as well as the payload capacity. Because, yes, the lever arm starts to play a role. Because the tongue weight standard is not more than 10% of the trailer weight, if you lose 300 pounds of tongue capacity to the Harvester genset, then you lose 3000 pounds of towing capacity.

Wow - I had forgotten about the momenarm (sp)? Discussion from college… thanks for the wealth of knowledge you bring to this forum!

 

[SrfnFly227]

Payload doesn’t care about weight distribution (much). If you put 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. anywhere into the Harvester model, your available payload decreases by 300 pounds. You could put it all under the frunk or between the axles or hanging off the rear end (this is when weight distribution starts to matter because now you’re changing more than just the weight, you’re changing the stability dynamics). The Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR), which is about the truck and trailer, is also impacted by 300 pounds.

Tongue weight cares about weight distribution. If you place 300 extra pounds of genset, cooling, etc. into the Harvester model under the frunk, your payload capacity decreases by 300 pounds, but the available tongue weight might not change by much at all. The GCWR is again impacted by 300 pounds no matter where you put the weight. But if you place the extra 300 pounds aft of the rear axle, this extra weight applies to the tongue weight capacity as well as the payload capacity. Because, yes, the lever arm starts to play a role. Because the tongue weight standard is not more than 10% of the trailer weight, if you lose 300 pounds of tongue capacity to the Harvester genset, then you lose 3000 pounds of towing capacity.

How would a weight distribution hitch change this? I have a 2016 Grand Cherokee, which has a 6000 pound tow rating. Above a certain trailer weight (I forget the exact number, but let's say 4000), I have to use a weight distribution hitch. Could Scout make the same requirement in order to get the towing capacity up some?

 

[SrfnFly227]

Another thought, wouldn't the spare tire have an effect as well? A 35 inch tire plus the carrier would probably weigh 100+ pounds and it sits further back than the harvester would.

 

[apex96]

Another thought, wouldn't the spare tire have an effect as well? A 35 inch tire plus the carrier would probably weigh 100+ pounds and it sits further back than the harvester would.

View attachment 11597

Yes, that would affect the tongue weight. Anything behind the rear axle and especially behind the hitch will negatively affect payload and tongue weight capacities.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

How would a weight distribution hitch change this? I have a 2016 Grand Cherokee, which has a 6000 pound tow rating. Above a certain trailer weight (I forget the exact number, but let's say 4000), I have to use a weight distribution hitch. Could Scout make the same requirement in order to get the towing capacity up some?

In general a WDH is needed if the weight of the trailer is more than about 50% of the GVWR of the tow vehicle.

In practice, for a light duty truck like the Lightning or Terra, they'll say you must use a WDH when the trailer weighs more than 5k pounds.

Example: ALL F-150s have a maximum trailer tongue weight of 500 pounds and a tow capacity of 5000 pounds on the built-in hitch. My Lightning has a rating of ~900 pounds tongue and ~9k pounds towing if I use a WDH.

My *guess* is that the 5000 pound number that Scott Keogh said when taking to Leno and had everyone freaking out is because he saw a preliminary data sheet with a maximum tow rating without a WDH. Both the Terra and the Traveler in both BEV and Harvester configurations will be limited to 5000 pounds without a WDH.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Wow - I had forgotten about the momenarm (sp)? Discussion from college… thanks for the wealth of knowledge you bring to this forum!

Since you put in a question mark, I'll answer the question.

It's "moment arm."

A “moment" is the product of a distance and force. In our case, the force is weight of the Harvest and the distance is how far aft of the rear axle is the center is mass of the Harvester genset mounted.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Yes, that would affect the tongue weight. Anything behind the rear axle and especially behind the hitch will negatively affect payload and tongue weight capacities.

Exactly.

 

[shutthefrontdoor]

Scout would be wise to limit to 5000 lbs without a WDH.

You can tow a decent size travel trailer behind a Tesla Model 3 with the right modifications. Legally. But it doesn't have this additional hitch weight to worry about. I'm sure you will be able to modify the EREV to tow a higher capacity but it probably wouldn't be cheap to do and you can't change physics.

I can't imagine all the R&D Scout is incurring developing and implementing the EREV variant even if it's their product, made in Mexico. I sincerely hope, as a BEV reservation that I'm not partially subsidizing that. It will be very interesting to see how they both price out and whether BEV pricing will even be announced at that time or if they will hold off so as to not cause any shock if it's significantly lower. Or how transparent they will be with how they arrive at the costs for each.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Scout would be wise to limit to 5000 lbs without a WDH.

You can tow a decent size travel trailer behind a Tesla Model 3 with the right modifications. Legally. But it doesn't have this additional hitch weight to worry about. I'm sure you will be able to modify the EREV to tow a higher capacity but it probably wouldn't be cheap to do and you can't change physics.

Oh, no, it wouldn’t be cheap to do. And at some point the brakes would need to be beefed up, which is the point I stop being interested in increasing towing capacity. When you start messing with direct safety equipment, it’s time to just buy a vehicle that’s designed by the experienced engineers instead of DIYing it. That’s especially true of software defined vehicles where all of the vehicle’s modules have intricate interactions and intersections that aren’t easily understood by a DIY schmoe like myself.

I can't imagine all the R&D Scout is incurring developing and implementing the EREV variant even if it's their product, made in Mexico. I sincerely hope, as a BEV reservation that I'm not partially subsidizing that. It will be very interesting to see how they both price out and whether BEV pricing will even be announced at that time or if they will hold off so as to not cause any shock if it's significantly lower. Or how transparent they will be with how they arrive at the costs for each.

My opinion is that BEV buyers will absolutely subsidize the R&D of the Harvester at least until Scout becomes profitable for a reasonable period of time (a year? two?).

 

[Jamie@ScoutMotors]

Couple of additional points to mention (at this stage).

A very early cutaway/rendered image we showed had the gas tank up front. We have since moved it under the rear seat area (like typical vehicles) and that allows us to move the batteries to the front for better weight distribution as they are heavier than even the full tank of fuel and engine/generator. While weight distribution is always something we look at, cooling and load under heat and stress is what ultimately affect the tow ratings. The Davis Dam test is a grueling, high-grade, extreme-heat test, and one of the biggest reasons big front grills and giant radiators have become so prevalent on modern pickup trucks.

We have made good progress on our Harvester EREV development. Let's see how things turn out.