Mods please delete

[yokramer]

Yeah, The only reason I don't like the CyberTruck is just because its ugly... Although there was a time I just thought it was Elon's money losing tax haven.

Not familiar with the others as I don't own a Tesla so I have no experience with it, lol.

The CT cant go though a car wash because water gets into the frame and shorts wiring. Every day there are tons of stories of people being bricked out of their trucks, or parts falling off, trim not attached properly ... One dude was showing how there is 120v running through the body panels of the CT when its charging. Its a shitty product to take advantage of people that dont know any better and dude bros that bought into the cult of personality.

Sponsored

 

[grimmjeeper]

Ok sure but it becomes an EV issue. We can't have large-scale EV adoption without the infrastructure to support them...and we're a very long way from that.

You may be where you live. A lot of the rest of the country is way ahead of you.

 

[yokramer]

You may be where you live. A lot of the rest of the country is way ahead of you.

But that doesnt matter because its not going to put his socks on for him while he waits for it to charge it is a useless technology that isnt worth anything.

 

[Ratbert]

LOL the irony of this statement coming from one of the most pedantic members i've seen here. You of all people should know that those two phrases have VERY different meanings.

Sorry, but I'm still kind of lost at your flow of thought with this whole "more out of less" thing. My brain wasn't exactly working clearly yesterday when I read this at 14k feet. I'd have to figure out exactly how bad my brain was functioning at that altitude, but I'm thinking you would have been impervious to the effects .

When people talk about "more from less", or as you phrase it "more out of less", they're usually focusing on efficiency. It's usually referring to the idea of achieving greater output (more power in this case) while using fewer resources (increased miles per gallon in this case).

You, however, seem to have turned that whole concept around:

Yes. It's not a complicated concept - you get more power out of less MPGs.

It's pretty simple to get more power by reducing efficiency (or as you said "out of less MPGs"). The challenge is to get "more out of less" (e.g. more power from fewer resources), not "more out of more" (i.e. your example of more power from more resources).

I obviously could be wrong in trying to understand what you're trying to get across, but holy feces Batman, saying that more out of more is somehow more out of less just blows my mind.

 

[Remorseless]

I have no doubt this is true in some cases as it is for anyone. But there are how many members on this site? Thousands, right? To try to claim that you and like four other members are THE ONLY ONES out of thousands of members that are willing to speak up about "the flip flopping and revisionism" is a pretty egocentric stance. I don't argue any differently with anyone else...but I get along with almost everyone else. Conversely, ask pretty much any long time member of this forum about Remorseless and yokramer and you get...

Give it time, that number will grow. It has over time already. And honestly I'm OK if there are people who don't like me, means I'm interesting

Mostly agreed. TCs hit what's called "coupling speed" very quickly...they are still slipping, just slightly (though generally this isn't considered slip in the real sense) and thus slightly multiplying torque. But the original claim you made was that the low-end torque advantage of the V6 doesn't matter because the torque converter is slipping that entire time. The second part of that claim is kinda true, but the first part is not. The torque advantage is EVEN BIGGER when the TC is slipping.

Actually, if you remember, the original claim was that torque advantages between 1500 and 1800 RPM don't matter because you don't spend enough time there, intending to point out that scenarios where torque matters most are generally acceleration events through lower gears and you blow through 1500-1800 RPM really quickly. Later when we circled around to the slippage my point was that when it's slipping you're losing power output to the slippage as there's inherent losses during slip, whether in the fluid itself or being converted to heat. You're not getting 100% of the torque through a converter that is slipping.

And, honestly, I would say it's no bigger than what @AnnDee4444's graph showed when it's slipping because the dyno results are post-multiplication, not pre-multiplication.

 

[Remorseless]

You think that you get along just fine with everyone, and when you aren't trying to argue a false point that can be seen that way. The issue is when you believe yourself to be the only one who is accurate even when presented with facts. Most people just avoid you and move on. But this particular thread is full of people who have been calling you on your BS for a while.

I seem to remember several random posters in the altitude thread who he argued with like us that got fed up and moved on after complaining to the rest of the thread lol

 

[TheRaven]

You may be where you live. A lot of the rest of the country is way ahead of you.

Not "a lot". But certainly some of it. Some of the country is EVEN FURTHER behind. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the country is nowhere near ready for full or near-full adoption. That's a very long way off.

But that doesnt matter because its not going to put his socks on for him while he waits for it to charge it is a useless technology that isnt worth anything.

Looks like you already forgot that I said, just a couple hours ago, that EVs are the future.

 

[grimmjeeper]

Not "a lot". But certainly some of it. Some of the country is EVEN FURTHER behind. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the country is nowhere near ready for full or near-full adoption. That's a very long way off.

Actually, yes. A lot of the country is ahead of you. Sure, some are way behind. But I'd wager your area is below average.

And I never suggested we were anywhere near ready for full adoption. Just that, despite your own personal anecdote, the infrastructure has exploded over the last few years to the point where we have critical mass. Critical mass means that for most people (mostly urban at this point) there are multiple chargers within a reasonable distance.

 

[Remorseless]

I was commenting on this:
"there's no meaningful slippage of the converter even though it's well under stall"

I think it's worth pointing out that the torque converter efficiency is not good when unlocked... actual geared reduction is a more efficient way of transferring power.


I also find it funny that the manual transmission JL always gets praise for it's better gear reduction, while ignoring the minimum 2x reduction from a torque converter. Yes, you can slip the clutch... but not all day long like an automatic.

The better gear reduction does come into play in 4 low though, where it's 5.13 manual and 4.71 auto. If you're really creeping, such as without throttle, I wonder where the converter sits at for effective reduction? I can't imagine it's moving fast enough at basically idle to get enough reduction to overcome the manual's reduction in that case.

 

[Remorseless]

True…you stopped for a total of three minutes and posted…again. Unless you have multiple personality disorder it takes you and at least one other person to continue an argument. So clearly you’re getting something out of continuing.

 

[TheRaven]

Actually, yes. A lot of the country is ahead of you. Sure, some are way behind. But I'd wager your area is below average.

I disagree on this one. I say we're actually a little above average. In terms of EVs per capita we're dead-on average (26th) and well above average in EV chargers per capita (13th).

And I never suggested we were anywhere near ready for full adoption. Just that, despite your own personal anecdote, the infrastructure has exploded over the last few years to the point where we have critical mass.

I never said you did. But what do you mean by "critical mass"?

 

[Remorseless]

So again not an EV issue its a local infrastructure issue. Compare PA to NC and Im kind of surprised how much better served NC is.

Clearly it's the goddamned Amish Mafia

 

[grimmjeeper]

I disagree on this one. I say we're actually a little above average. In terms of EVs per capita we're dead-on average (26th) and well above average in EV chargers per capita (13th).

Your state as a whole or just your county? I would suggest that your particular county is well under average. You can't take credit for the dense urban areas that you're well away from

I never said you did. But what do you mean by "critical mass"?

I edited my post to clarify.

 

[Remorseless]

Sorry, but I'm still kind of lost at your flow of thought with this whole "more out of less" thing. My brain wasn't exactly working clearly yesterday when I read this at 14k feet. I'd have to figure out exactly how bad my brain was functioning at that altitude, but I'm thinking you would have been impervious to the effects .

When people talk about "more from less", or as you phrase it "more out of less", they're usually focusing on efficiency. It's usually referring to the idea of achieving greater output (more power in this case) while using fewer resources (increased miles per gallon in this case).

You, however, seem to have turned that whole concept around:



It's pretty simple to get more power by reducing efficiency (or as you said "out of less MPGs"). The challenge is to get "more out of less" (e.g. more power from fewer resources), not "more out of more" (i.e. your example of more power from more resources).

I obviously could be wrong in trying to understand what you're trying to get across, but holy feces Batman, saying that more out of more is somehow more out of less just blows my mind.

That's because it started out as more out of less, and then he kept talking, and his statement turned into more out of more, so then he had to go back and claim that less actually means more.

 

[TheRaven]

Your state as a whole or just your county? I would suggest that your particular county is well under average. You can't take credit for the dense urban areas that you're well away from

I mean my state. I don't need to zoom in much more to make my point. And like I said, i'm not concerned about MY situation...I could have an EV if I wanted one (I have in the past). EVs just don't fit my fleet at this time. The point is that a lot of people don't have the options I do.

Critical mass means that for most people (mostly urban at this point) there are multiple chargers within a reasonable distance.

I agree to an extent, when it comes to major cities...but we still have big problems, even there. Congestion is and will be a major issue - it takes far too long to charge at this point in time, which means that having a sufficient amount of chargers for the population density of large cities isn't really physically possible. That will change with better battery tech that can take faster charges but delivering those charges requires infrastructure upgrades that will take decades and haven't even started yet.

So I guess if your metric is "enough chargers for those who currently have EVs", then I can mostly agree. But since we're in a transitional phase and will be for a few decades, I don't really see a lot of utility in that.

Sponsored