Extra, Extra....Read All About It!

[Albal]

The worst possible place to put very heavy batteries. Much better to keep your CG low and have fast charging.

 

[J Alynn]

Having driven electric vehicles for six years now I'd rather have faster charging than this sort of thing. Batteries are heavy and cumbersome. The amount of range you'd get from add-on batteries like that also likely wouldn't be enough to bother with, especially if your normal charge stops are under 20 mins. Plus you'd have to store and charge them when you aren't using them so you'd have these heavy, awkward things in your garage all the time. Nah, I'd rather have the vehicle just charge faster at a DCFC station than bother with modular add-on batteries. If I can get back to 80% in under 20 minutes and continue driving for another 3 hours or so then who cares if these batteries add another 50km or whatever. They'd just add weight (which reduces range) and take up space that could be used for actual gear. It's diminishing returns. Plus putting all the weight up high like that isn't a great idea for stability. It's just not worth it.

I hear you but I suspect their thinking is the range extensions where areas lack charging stations or off roading for two days where you need the extra juice-so to speak.
I have a parent whose daughter competes. They live in Jersey and drive their Tesla to just outside of Hershey. He then has to drive 22 minutes to the nearest station and often waits 20 minutes just to charge because they only have 1 charger. And this is Hershey-the Sweetest place on earth. Some areas just lack infrastructure. Sure, this will continue to expand but many areas lack and for people with range anxiety this is a possible solution. I’m new to EV buy in but I recognize I won’t travel more than 60-80 miles at any given time

 

[Bodie]

Having driven electric vehicles for six years now I'd rather have faster charging than this sort of thing. Batteries are heavy and cumbersome. The amount of range you'd get from add-on batteries like that also likely wouldn't be enough to bother with, especially if your normal charge stops are under 20 mins. Plus you'd have to store and charge them when you aren't using them so you'd have these heavy, awkward things in your garage all the time. Nah, I'd rather have the vehicle just charge faster at a DCFC station than bother with modular add-on batteries. If I can get back to 80% in under 20 minutes and continue driving for another 3 hours or so then who cares if these batteries add another 50km or whatever. They'd just add weight (which reduces range) and take up space that could be used for actual gear. It's diminishing returns. Plus putting all the weight up high like that isn't a great idea for stability. It's just not worth it.

I agree with you when looking at current batteries BUT future battery chemistries will be smaller/lighter/more energy dense and will make something like a roof cell or “jerry cans” workable solutions to extend range. Setting up the computer to accept charging while driving as an option would be forward thinking.

 

[J Alynn]

I agree with you when looking at current batteries BUT future battery chemistries will be smaller/lighter/more energy dense and will make something like a roof cell or “jerry cans” workable solutions to extend range. Setting up the computer to accept charging while driving as an option would be forward thinking.

For the Marvel fans-we just need Scout to develop an Arc Reactor

 

[R1TVT]

Looks tippy. LOL

 

[J Alynn]

Small blow to electric SUVs and Trucks

Rivian (RIVN) will lose its spot in the Nasdaq-100 index next week, Nasdaq confirms

And it’s official. Rivian (RIVN) will lose its position on the Nasdaq-100 index (NDX) after its stock price fell over...

electrek.co

 

[JohnBills]

Having driven electric vehicles for six years now I'd rather have faster charging than this sort of thing. Batteries are heavy and cumbersome. The amount of range you'd get from add-on batteries like that also likely wouldn't be enough to bother with, especially if your normal charge stops are under 20 mins. Plus you'd have to store and charge them when you aren't using them so you'd have these heavy, awkward things in your garage all the time. Nah, I'd rather have the vehicle just charge faster at a DCFC station than bother with modular add-on batteries. If I can get back to 80% in under 20 minutes and continue driving for another 3 hours or so then who cares if these batteries add another 50km or whatever. They'd just add weight (which reduces range) and take up space that could be used for actual gear. It's diminishing returns. Plus putting all the weight up high like that isn't a great idea for stability. It's just not worth it.

I think I agree. Batteries are so heavy. I do like the idea of trailers with batteries and motor on them so they propel themselves along with the vehicle. That seems worth it to me. But definitely, at a point, charging speed becomes more important than range.

 

[lefty]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/20/business/rivian-tesla-chargers/index.html

 

[LastDayScout]

And now, this…

Volkswagen in talks with Tesla to adopt its charging standard — Reuters

Volkswagen is in talks with Tesla to adopt its North American Charging Standard (NACS), joining a slew of automakers and charging equipment makers that are choosing the technology.

apple.news

 

[Bodie]

Yay! I saw a story today that Polestar (Volvo) is going to NACS also

And now, this…

Volkswagen in talks with Tesla to adopt its charging standard — Reuters

Volkswagen is in talks with Tesla to adopt its North American Charging Standard (NACS), joining a slew of automakers and charging equipment makers that are choosing the technology.

apple.news

 

[Jim Nichols]

Check this out:

Scout EV: the Rivian-fighting e-truck due in 2026

The inside story of the new 2026 Scout electric pick-up truck – VW's new North American utility vehicle

www.carmagazine.co.uk

 

[LastDayScout]

Check this out:

Scout EV: the Rivian-fighting e-truck due in 2026

The inside story of the new 2026 Scout electric pick-up truck – VW's new North American utility vehicle

www.carmagazine.co.uk

So, what does SC416 and SC417 mean? I know those are internal chassis codes. But, I sure they signify something….

Also, the platform they show does not look like a ladder frame that we have been assured of.

 

[Jim Nichols]

I think that they were speculating on a lot of things but I like the rendering but with a different grille.

 

[ddg520]

A good read. Some more insight from CEO @Scott@ScoutMotors

How Scout Motors plans to bring rugged, retro cred to the EV era | TechCrunch

Scout Motors CEO Scott Keogh talks to TechCrunch about the new EV brand and shares details about where it will be built.

techcrunch.com

Awesome read. Thanks for the share.

 

[Bodie]

Another step towards NACS standardization:

VW subsidiary Electrify America to add Tesla connectors to EV charging network

Electrify America said it will add Tesla's North American Charging Standard to its fast charging networks by 2025.

techcrunch.com

 

[Bodie]

This quote below makes me a little sad. I hope the new Scout is instantly recognizable as a Scout the same way Jeeps have always looked like Jeeps and G-wagons have always looked like G-wagons and the new Bronco looks like the original Bronco and thankfully not an F150. I think if you time travelled someone from 1980, they would recognize the current versions of those vehicles as what they are. Or for the VW group, the same would be true for Beetles and 911s. They're not the same but the tweaks are small, model to model. It should be "Dear America, it's like 1977, only WAY better and now without gas lines!"

While Keogh is adamant that the new Scout will honor the past, it won’t be a brand hung up on legacy like some of its gas-burning competition: “I don’t want to make Scout a fossilized retro brand that says: ‘Dear America, it’s 1977. Again.'”

 

[lefty]

This quote below makes me a little sad. I hope the new Scout is instantly recognizable as a Scout the same way Jeeps have always looked like Jeeps and G-wagons have always looked like G-wagons and the new Bronco looks like the original Bronco and thankfully not an F150. I think if you time travelled someone from 1980, they would recognize the current versions of those vehicles as what they are. Or for the VW group, the same would be true for Beetles and 911s. They're not the same but the tweaks are small, model to model. It should be "Dear America, it's like 1977, only WAY better and now without gas lines!"

While Keogh is adamant that the new Scout will honor the past, it won’t be a brand hung up on legacy like some of its gas-burning competition: “I don’t want to make Scout a fossilized retro brand that says: ‘Dear America, it’s 1977. Again.'”

I completely agree with you, Bodie. I picked up on that comment too but am hoping there is a a reason they revived the Scout brand. Otherwise they would have presumably created a more off-road capable VW. With that being said, the fact that they have so few Scouts in the company makes me nervous relative to the retention of legacy, Scout styling/attributes. That is why I asked Jamie that question a few months ago. A solid indicator will come when, and if, Chris Benjamin starts driving one.

 

[LastDayScout]

I completely agree with you, Bodie. I picked up on that comment too but am hoping there is a a reason they revived the Scout brand. Otherwise they would have presumably created a more off-road capable VW. With that being said, the fact that they have so few Scouts in the company makes me nervous relative to the retention of legacy, Scout styling/attributes. That is why I asked Jamie that question a few months ago. A solid indicator will come when, and if, Chris Benjamin starts driving one.

Happy Independence Day fellow Scout fans. Everything we have heard so far is that Scout absolutely needs to and will honor the brand legacy and they appreciate the heritage. That said, it is 2023. Scout cannot build a “1981” Scout electro-mod. While that would be awesome, that would not sell in the numbers they are preparing for. I think down the road it would be cool for Scout to offer “crate” conversions for older IH vehicles, but let’s give them a little time on that. I certainly want to see a modern interpretation of a classic but at the same time I want all the safety and reliability of a new vehicle. I hope that’s what Scott’s comments mean.

 

[Jim Nichols]

I think you need a "Retro" look similar to what Ford did with the 2005 Mustang or Dodge's 2008 Challenger or look at the new Bronco. That's what most customers want!

 

[Bodie]

Oh I absolutely want the safety and reliability of a new vehicle but I want it to look like a Scout and at an absolute minimum, the top must be removable. I get that business case wise, they won’t build an electric Scout II. They could though, if they wanted to, and I would buy that as fast as I could, maybe 2 to have a spare.
What worries me most is that no one from Scout Motors has stated “the new Scout SUV will have a removable roof”. Doesn’t have to be all of them, maybe the standard/base is fixed roof but have the option for removable (heritage/SS trim?)
I’m starting to get the sinking feeling that if they can’t even commit to making it topless as an option, it’s because they’re not going to.
I really hope I’m wrong because I’m super excited about being able to get a new Scout but if the top isn’t removable, I will be that guy who says “if the roof doesn’t come off, it’s not a real Scout” and no amount of PR will convince me otherwise. Every IH vehicle called “Scout “ had a removable roof (or no roof at all). IH made fixed roof vehicles too-pickups, Travelalls, but those weren’t Scouts…and the world needs Scouts, right?