Is there anything SM could offer to get you to switch from EREV to BEV?

[cyure]

With all I have learned on this forum, looking at my driving use cases, and the fact that EVs are a lot less maintenance I have officially switched my reservation to a BEV. I’m on the EV bandwagon!

Now there’s been lots of discussion about which will come first, EREV or BEV. Let’s say the BEV comes out first could Scout offer something to entice EREV reservation holders to take the leap and buy a BEV.

What would it take to get you EREV reservation holders to purchase the BEV? A free home charger? Money towards the installation? Buy a BEV and get moved to the front of the line for an EREV (Rivian was doing that. If you leased an R1 it got you moved to the front of the line for an R2. They told me that when I test drove one last year).

What do you all think? You fence sitters what would push you over the edge??

 

[Iguy]

I initially reserved a Terra EREV for the hope of wonderful towing abilities and a traveler EV because I wasn’t sure which and thought maybe a family member or friend would want it. Just switched the Terra to an EV. The EREV may still end up being great for towing, but I just don’t want the maintenance hassle. The range while towing when I do will be fine.

We now know 80% have EREV and I’m concerned that the company may make decisions based on that (as they should). My concern is that it may not be accurate anymore and that people like me just never updated their reservation because there wasn’t a point. Now maybe there is a reason?

 

[jr91392]

Call me crazy, but outside of a few use cases, I think most people should be on the BEV bandwagon once they really think about it. EREV really sounded great to me when I first heard about it, but the more I thought about it, the more I don't feel like I need it. It's likely going to be more expensive, the battery is smaller, lower tow capacity, and the biggest issue to me is maintenance. A big advantage of an EV is the low maintenance. Why would I throw away that advantage by adding a largely unnecessary ICE? And all of this is to maybe shave a small amount of time off during the few road trips I take a year. Team BEV, baby.

 

[Iguy]

Call me crazy, but outside of a few use cases, I think most people should be on the BEV bandwagon once they really think about it. EREV really sounded great to me when I first heard about it, but the more I thought about it, the more I don't feel like I need it. It's likely going to be more expensive, the battery is smaller, lower tow capacity, and the biggest issue to me is maintenance. A big advantage of an EV is the low maintenance. Why would I throw away that advantage by adding a largely unnecessary ICE? And all of this is to maybe shave a small amount of time off during the few road trips I take a year. Team BEV, baby.

Agreed, I really only wanted the EREV for towing, but 5k isn’t enough and even 7k is borderline to tow my ‘79 Terra diesel. I’m sure that number will come up from 5k but I doubt it will come up to full capacity nor does it need to.

 

[cyure]

I initially reserved a Terra EREV for the hope of wonderful towing abilities and a traveler EV because I wasn’t sure which and thought maybe a family member or friend would want it. Just switched the Terra to an EV. The EREV may still end up being great for towing, but I just don’t want the maintenance hassle. The range while towing when I do will be fine.

We now know 80% have EREV and I’m concerned that the company may make decisions based on that (as they should). My concern is that it may not be accurate anymore and that people like me just never updated their reservation because there wasn’t a point. Now maybe there is a reason?

I had that same thought and hadn’t updated my reservation because you can switch at ordering. Then I realized duh, they don’t know I want a BEV and that may be affecting their decision as to what goes first if enough of us aren’t selecting what we ultimately want to order.

 

[cyure]

Call me crazy, but outside of a few use cases, I think most people should be on the BEV bandwagon once they really think about it. EREV really sounded great to me when I first heard about it, but the more I thought about it, the more I don't feel like I need it. It's likely going to be more expensive, the battery is smaller, lower tow capacity, and the biggest issue to me is maintenance. A big advantage of an EV is the low maintenance. Why would I throw away that advantage by adding a largely unnecessary ICE? And all of this is to maybe shave a small amount of time off during the few road trips I take a year. Team BEV, baby.

TEAM BEV!!

 

[TelemarkingSailor]

My interest in the EREV was never about towing. I've been imagining these Harvester motors to be pretty lightweight devices... basically enough power to generate electricity without needing to waste energy or capacity on moving a substantial mass like a car.

It was always about driving into the Mountains and potentially spending a few days in parts of the world where there aren't charging stations or even anything in the way of public charging infrastructure. Being able to juice up at the loneliest gas station in the middle of nowhere, then charge up my vehicle to get back to the areas where Fast Charge might be an option is the fundamental reason I want an EREV.

I'll also say that I've been thinking about this vehicle as the cornerstone of a whole house electrical back-up for when the Big One hits Seattle. If it happens in the winter time, and the city grid goes down, being able to add a few gallons of gasoline to keep everything running is the kind of redundancy I'm looking for.

I get it that these are kind of edge use cases and that many of you have experience with BEVs that would suggest that my concerns are overwrought. But in the spirit of answering the question: "What could SM do to make me switch?" I think my answer would be some sort of credit towards installing a home bi-directional charging system.

 

[THil08]

With all I have learned on this forum, looking at my driving use cases, and the fact that EVs are a lot less maintenance I have officially switched my reservation to a BEV. I’m on the EV bandwagon!

Now there’s been lots of discussion about which will come first, EREV or BEV. Let’s say the BEV comes out first could Scout offer something to entice EREV reservation holders to take the leap and buy a BEV.

What would it take to get you EREV reservation holders to purchase the BEV? A free home charger? Money towards the installation? Buy a BEV and get moved to the front of the line for an EREV (Rivian was doing that. If you leased an R1 it got you moved to the front of the line for an R2. They told me that when I test drove one last year).

What do you all think? You fence sitters what would push you over the edge??

I think I would rather my EREV(Extended Range Electric Vehicle) than a BEV(Burning Engine Vehicle).

I really can't see anything or anyone changing my mind to go full EV. Coming from a family of NASCAR drivers, and engine builders. Gas is in my blood. can't change me. That's why I'm going for the hybrid, militance prices don't scare me, it's a part of owning any vehicle thats what keeps them alive and well.

 

[J Alynn]

Call me crazy, but outside of a few use cases, I think most people should be on the BEV bandwagon once they really think about it. EREV really sounded great to me when I first heard about it, but the more I thought about it, the more I don't feel like I need it. It's likely going to be more expensive, the battery is smaller, lower tow capacity, and the biggest issue to me is maintenance. A big advantage of an EV is the low maintenance. Why would I throw away that advantage by adding a largely unnecessary ICE? And all of this is to maybe shave a small amount of time off during the few road trips I take a year. Team BEV, baby.

I mirror these thoughts exactly. Was skeptical when I joined-very early on so while there were a few EV wizards, it wasn’t like it is now and I’ve continued to approach EV open minded and it has pushed me over to full BEV. My wife and I-now that we are in our 50’s are finding any travel more enjoyable when we slow down a bit, take a break, travel a bit off the beaten path and enjoy a new area of the country we haven’t explored. So as you noted-if a couple times a year we spend an extra 30 minutes no big deal. I live around a huge hub of Amish and I now think about how much of a day they spend in a 1 horse powered buggy. If I drive from PA to NC or SC and it adds 45 minutes-hour, not the end of the world. Grab lunch and enjoy the slowed pace off of I-95

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

My interest in the EREV was never about towing. I've been imagining these Harvester motors to be pretty lightweight devices... basically enough power to generate electricity without needing to waste energy or capacity on moving a substantial mass like a car.

It was always about driving into the Mountains and potentially spending a few days in parts of the world where there aren't charging stations or even anything in the way of public charging infrastructure. Being able to juice up at the loneliest gas station in the middle of nowhere, then charge up my vehicle to get back to the areas where Fast Charge might be an option is the fundamental reason I want an EREV.

I'll also say that I've been thinking about this vehicle as the cornerstone of a whole house electrical back-up for when the Big One hits Seattle. If it happens in the winter time, and the city grid goes down, being able to add a few gallons of gasoline to keep everything running is the kind of redundancy I'm looking for.

I get it that these are kind of edge use cases and that many of you have experience with BEVs that would suggest that my concerns are overwrought. But in the spirit of answering the question: "What could SM do to make me switch?" I think my answer would be some sort of credit towards installing a home bi-directional charging system.

I’m curious: If power is out for an extended time because of a big disaster like an earthquake or volcanic eruption, how much do you want to be involved in the scramble to acquire gasoline? And how much gasoline do you think would realistically be available to consumers?

 

[R1TVT]

Even though I would never want the EREV, I'm sort of a fan of Scout for providing the EREV option as a bridge to EV ownership for certain people that are fence sitters. Since many Americans have never owned or experienced an EV yet, the EREV is one way to help those buyers cross the chasm if they have doubts or need some reassurances... So, I think Scout should just keep doing what they are doing and offering the EREV to those that want gas AND electric.

It's clear that the oil and gas faction is clinging on to ICE as hard as possible - they will spew as much FUD as they can to retain what little is left of an essentially obsolete technology. I see the value in the EREV version of the Scout to enable more progress toward cleaner mobility. I also see value for those that like to boondock a lot and go off-grid (even if it is a very niche group).

Post-launch, and after having trucks in the market for a certain period of time, I could see Scout incentivizing EREV owners to "trade-up" to a new PURE BEV Scout. My theory being that a lot of EREV owners will come around 180 degrees on the benefits of the pure BEV, but still love their Scout. They will be a valuable and captive audience for the second wave of Scout ownership, and many will trade-up to get into a BEV by that time - simply based on the advancements with infrastructure and new battery tech.

 

[chucchinchilla]

I’m curious: If power is out for an extended time because of a big disaster like an earthquake or volcanic eruption, how much do you want to be involved in the scramble to acquire gasoline? And how much gasoline do you think would realistically be available to consumers?

As I love to say, you know what also doesn't work when there's no electricity? Gas pumps! That said, one could siphon gas out of other vehicles to stick into the Harvester. One can also more easily store extra cans of gas vs extra energy via battery packs.

All that said I don't think any of this is necessary, I have a 2kWh Anker power station and we can last a day on it with the fridge, wifi, and some lights plugged in. If we use 2kWh per day and Scout BEV has 100 kWh pack (for simple math), that's 50 days of energy...ok let's say it wasn't full at time of the big one and I use more electrical things, so let's call it 30 days. If you need more than a month of power in an urban or suburban environment, you've got bigger problems lol.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

As I love to say, you know what also doesn't work when there's no electricity? Gas pumps! That said, one could siphon gas out of other vehicles to stick into the Harvester. One can also more easily store extra cans of gas vs extra energy via battery packs.

All that said I don't think any of this is necessary, I have a 2kWh Anker power station and we can last a day on it with the fridge, wifi, and some lights plugged in. If we use 2kWh per day and Scout BEV has 100 kWh pack (for simple math), that's 50 days of energy...ok let's say it wasn't full at time of the big one and I use more electrical things, so let's call it 30 days. If you need more than a month of power in an urban or suburban environment, you've got bigger problems lol.

I’ve done regional disaster recovery planning, with a particular focus on the Mount Rainier region (I study volcanoes in the solar system, and it’s the volcano with the most disaster potential in all of the United States, including Hawaii. At one time in a former career, I did a little bit of volcanic disaster consulting). Tacoma and Seattle, and in particular I-5 and I-90 are in the path of lahars and pyroclastic flows. A disruption to the main arterial roadways would mean few people getting out and even fewer people—and, more importantly, few resources—getting in. That would lead almost immediately to fossil fuel shortages. The just-in-time nature of fossil fuel delivery is one of the reasons it's one of the first things to fail when big disasters hit. And because gasoline/diesel isn’t good for a very long period, it can’t be stocked up for long-term planning. An earthquake or large volcanic eruption and the resulting state of disaster would cause most fossil fuels to be unavailable to the general public within a day or so and that lack of availability could last for weeks to months.

An eruption similar to St. Helens would also make relying on internal combustion engines very sketchy since they rely on clean air to do their combustion. Many vehicles, generators, and other combustion systems failed in 1980 when the very fine silicate ash from the eruption clogged air filters, contaminated oil, destroyed belts and other moving, exposed mechanical parts. In a major disaster like a Rainier eruption, the last thing I would want to rely on is an ICE.

A BEV with solar array that’s easy to access for cleaning, and maybe an extra battery backup, is far more resilient as an energy and transportation system, especially in disasters like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

 

[cyure]

I’ve done regional disaster recovery planning, with a particular focus on the Mount Rainier region (I study volcanoes in the solar system, and it’s the volcano with the most disaster potential in all of the United States, including Hawaii. At one time in a former career, I did a little bit of volcanic disaster consulting). Tacoma and Seattle, and in particular I-5 and I-90 are in the path of lahars and pyroclastic flows. A disruption to the main arterial roadways would mean few people getting out and even fewer people—and, more importantly, few resources—getting in. That would lead almost immediately to fossil fuel shortages. The just-in-time nature of fossil fuel delivery is one of the reasons it's one of the first things to fail when big disasters hit. And because gasoline/diesel isn’t good for a very long period, it can’t be stocked up for long-term planning. An earthquake or large volcanic eruption and the resulting state of disaster would cause most fossil fuels to be unavailable to the general public within a day or so and that lack of availability could last for weeks to months.

An eruption similar to St. Helens would also make relying on internal combustion engines very sketchy since they rely on clean air to do their combustion. Many vehicles, generators, and other combustion systems failed in 1980 when the very fine silicate ash from the eruption clogged air filters, contaminated oil, destroyed belts and other moving, exposed mechanical parts. In a major disaster like a Rainier eruption, the last thing I would want to rely on is an ICE.

A BEV with solar array that’s easy to access for cleaning, and maybe an extra battery backup, is far more resilient as an energy and transportation system, especially in disasters like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

These scenarios sound truly like doomsday scenarios.

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

These scenarios sound truly like doomsday scenarios.

I mean, if part of the decision process is based on “the big one,” then I think the full doomsday should be considered.

And St. Helens was a doomsday for a whole lot of people. And Rainier poses more danger to more people.

 

[chucchinchilla]

I’ve done regional disaster recovery planning, with a particular focus on the Mount Rainier region (I study volcanoes in the solar system, and it’s the volcano with the most disaster potential in all of the United States, including Hawaii. At one time in a former career, I did a little bit of volcanic disaster consulting). Tacoma and Seattle, and in particular I-5 and I-90 are in the path of lahars and pyroclastic flows. A disruption to the main arterial roadways would mean few people getting out and even fewer people—and, more importantly, few resources—getting in. That would lead almost immediately to fossil fuel shortages. The just-in-time nature of fossil fuel delivery is one of the reasons it's one of the first things to fail when big disasters hit. And because gasoline/diesel isn’t good for a very long period, it can’t be stocked up for long-term planning. An earthquake or large volcanic eruption and the resulting state of disaster would cause most fossil fuels to be unavailable to the general public within a day or so and that lack of availability could last for weeks to months.

An eruption similar to St. Helens would also make relying on internal combustion engines very sketchy since they rely on clean air to do their combustion. Many vehicles, generators, and other combustion systems failed in 1980 when the very fine silicate ash from the eruption clogged air filters, contaminated oil, destroyed belts and other moving, exposed mechanical parts. In a major disaster like a Rainier eruption, the last thing I would want to rely on is an ICE.

A BEV with solar array that’s easy to access for cleaning, and maybe an extra battery backup, is far more resilient as an energy and transportation system, especially in disasters like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Excellent perspective and agree.

 

[J Alynn]

As I love to say, you know what also doesn't work when there's no electricity? Gas pumps! That said, one could siphon gas out of other vehicles to stick into the Harvester. One can also more easily store extra cans of gas vs extra energy via battery packs.

All that said I don't think any of this is necessary, I have a 2kWh Anker power station and we can last a day on it with the fridge, wifi, and some lights plugged in. If we use 2kWh per day and Scout BEV has 100 kWh pack (for simple math), that's 50 days of energy...ok let's say it wasn't full at time of the big one and I use more electrical things, so let's call it 30 days. If you need more than a month of power in an urban or suburban environment, you've got bigger problems lol.

Like Zombie problems or post mushroom cloud problems

 

[J Alynn]

I’ve done regional disaster recovery planning, with a particular focus on the Mount Rainier region (I study volcanoes in the solar system, and it’s the volcano with the most disaster potential in all of the United States, including Hawaii. At one time in a former career, I did a little bit of volcanic disaster consulting). Tacoma and Seattle, and in particular I-5 and I-90 are in the path of lahars and pyroclastic flows. A disruption to the main arterial roadways would mean few people getting out and even fewer people—and, more importantly, few resources—getting in. That would lead almost immediately to fossil fuel shortages. The just-in-time nature of fossil fuel delivery is one of the reasons it's one of the first things to fail when big disasters hit. And because gasoline/diesel isn’t good for a very long period, it can’t be stocked up for long-term planning. An earthquake or large volcanic eruption and the resulting state of disaster would cause most fossil fuels to be unavailable to the general public within a day or so and that lack of availability could last for weeks to months.

An eruption similar to St. Helens would also make relying on internal combustion engines very sketchy since they rely on clean air to do their combustion. Many vehicles, generators, and other combustion systems failed in 1980 when the very fine silicate ash from the eruption clogged air filters, contaminated oil, destroyed belts and other moving, exposed mechanical parts. In a major disaster like a Rainier eruption, the last thing I would want to rely on is an ICE.

A BEV with solar array that’s easy to access for cleaning, and maybe an extra battery backup, is far more resilient as an energy and transportation system, especially in disasters like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Always love your insight!

 

[J Alynn]

I mean, if part of the decision process is based on “the big one,” then I think the full doomsday should be considered.

And St. Helens was a doomsday for a whole lot of people. And Rainier poses more danger to more people.

I’m centered between 2 active and three mile island soon to be 3 active nuclear plants-about 40 mile radius. If we are ever attacked I’m a goner no matter what as those three being hit wipes out most of the NE coast and heavily impacts DC so heaven forbid the day ever comes at least I know it will be quick

 

[J Alynn]

I’m centered between 2 active and three mile island soon to be 3 active nuclear plants-about 40 mile radius. If we are ever attacked I’m a goner no matter what as those three being hit wipes out most of the NE coast and heavily impacts DC so heaven forbid the day ever comes at least I know it will be quick

And to that point-I suspect an EMP would come from that so even EV’s would be pretty useless