Harvester Talk: Q&A

[UPDon]

Bingo! I maintain that many Harvester takers will rarely use it and wish they didn't opt for it. But, to answer your question there will likely be an algorithm or cycle that the engine will regularly start and self check. That should also run through the limited shelf life of ethanol blended gasoline. I just hope it works better than Generac's self start and check system. Our generators frequently have issues.

I kind of figured that it would have to have some type of cycle function to keep it fresh

 

[ForrestF1re]

I've been thinking a lot about this, and the more I think about it the Harvester, at least without further details that really make it compelling doesn't make sense in almost any use case that I personally would be using it for (not that it wouldn't for anyone else). Keep in mind, this is from a pretty simple perspective. I'm not a huge car guy, nor am I a huge EV fanatic. It gets me from point A to B and I like having fun with it.

From everything I understand (could be wrong):

• By getting the Harvester, we're introducing an additional need for maintenance over a pure EV model due to the introduction of gas cycling through. This also introduces a bit of a specialized service as while oil changes aren't uncommon, EV range extender oil changes are relatively niche. Not impossible, but more or less, just an obstacle.
• The battery range on the Harvester model is reported to be 150 miles (if I recall right). That's about 200 miles less of what the pure EV offers. In addition, with pending specifications of how exactly the range extender would work outside of speculation, the tow capacity doesn't stand out as of current day as too much better.
• Noise is a question due to the sound of a generator. Unlikely as a huge issue, but again a quality of life thing.

Just thinking out loud here, there's a single use case that I could think of for the harvester, and that the range could run out of pure electric and instead of being stranded, you could still charge.

Living in a rural part of Florida, this was a concern originally, but then as I stopped and really thought about it, a few thoughts came about:

• I'd still need to charge up and then alsoreplenish the gas for the Harvester generator once I can.
  • I'm then stuck having to do both because of the lower capacity battery, doing far more stops for charging or alternatively, for gas.
• So much is still unknown as to what it is. Likely speculation is that it will charge the battery, again only used in complete SOS/stranded activities.
• There is limited charging infrastructure in a good chunk of the US still.

All of this led me to a personal conclusion that despite all of these advancements on the Harvester, the problems that it's trying to solve (limited charging infrastructure, complete SOS/stranded activities) don't outweigh the reduced battery capacity. At the point of a Harvester, I'm better off getting a fully gas (or even hybrid, primarily focusing on gas) vehicle, as it solves the problem statements far better.

If the Harvester was a 350 mile capacity battery AND the gas generator? All day everyday. But at the current perspective I would essentially be getting the worst of both worlds with no real pro to it. The way I'm thinking of it is the Ford F150 Lightning. That sucker was able to power folks houses during hurricanes. But that's also because of the battery. If Scout tried to compete there, with a smaller battery in the Harvester, I'm better to just go buy a gasoline generator for that use case and have my vehicle charged for anything else I'd need to do for a natural disaster.

I just can't think of a single reason I'd want to use the harvester. Maybe that'll change as it gets closer to release and we have more specs. But for the time being, I'm switching to a pure EV only on my reservation.

 

[J Alynn]

I've been thinking a lot about this, and the more I think about it the Harvester, at least without further details that really make it compelling doesn't make sense in almost any use case that I personally would be using it for (not that it wouldn't for anyone else). Keep in mind, this is from a pretty simple perspective. I'm not a huge car guy, nor am I a huge EV fanatic. It gets me from point A to B and I like having fun with it.

From everything I understand (could be wrong):

• By getting the Harvester, we're introducing an additional need for maintenance over a pure EV model due to the introduction of gas cycling through. This also introduces a bit of a specialized service as while oil changes aren't uncommon, EV range extender oil changes are relatively niche. Not impossible, but more or less, just an obstacle.
• The battery range on the Harvester model is reported to be 150 miles (if I recall right). That's about 200 miles less of what the pure EV offers. In addition, with pending specifications of how exactly the range extender would work outside of speculation, the tow capacity doesn't stand out as of current day as too much better.
• Noise is a question due to the sound of a generator. Unlikely as a huge issue, but again a quality of life thing.

Just thinking out loud here, there's a single use case that I could think of for the harvester, and that the range could run out of pure electric and instead of being stranded, you could still charge.

Living in a rural part of Florida, this was a concern originally, but then as I stopped and really thought about it, a few thoughts came about:

• I'd still need to charge up and then alsoreplenish the gas for the Harvester generator once I can.
  • I'm then stuck having to do both because of the lower capacity battery, doing far more stops for charging or alternatively, for gas.
• So much is still unknown as to what it is. Likely speculation is that it will charge the battery, again only used in complete SOS/stranded activities.
• There is limited charging infrastructure in a good chunk of the US still.

All of this led me to a personal conclusion that despite all of these advancements on the Harvester, the problems that it's trying to solve (limited charging infrastructure, complete SOS/stranded activities) don't outweigh the reduced battery capacity. At the point of a Harvester, I'm better off getting a fully gas (or even hybrid, primarily focusing on gas) vehicle, as it solves the problem statements far better.

If the Harvester was a 350 mile capacity battery AND the gas generator? All day everyday. But at the current perspective I would essentially be getting the worst of both worlds with no real pro to it. The way I'm thinking of it is the Ford F150 Lightning. That sucker was able to power folks houses during hurricanes. But that's also because of the battery. If Scout tried to compete there, with a smaller battery in the Harvester, I'm better to just go buy a gasoline generator for that use case and have my vehicle charged for anything else I'd need to do for a natural disaster.

I just can't think of a single reason I'd want to use the harvester. Maybe that'll change as it gets closer to release and we have more specs. But for the time being, I'm switching to a pure EV only on my reservation.

Those accustomed to EV’s will probably tell you your thinking is solid

 

[UPDon]

I agree, the reasons I could see for the harvester would be perhaps someone who is really planning on using it for longer travel and it ends up being peace of mind over range anxiety or even a boon-dock camping scenario where you may use the vehicle to power things and you could use the harvester to get back to civilization if need be. Now I do also live in a colder climate and being caught off guard with the effects cold has on the battery, it would also be piece of mind, but then our crappy snow and road salt I doubt mine would see the road in the winter, so I go back to you really need to know how you will be using the vehicle before adding The harvester. If mine where to sit during the real bad part of winter then it would really need to have the gas cycled in the Harvester

 

[Logan]

I've been thinking a lot about this, and the more I think about it the Harvester, at least without further details that really make it compelling doesn't make sense in almost any use case that I personally would be using it for (not that it wouldn't for anyone else). Keep in mind, this is from a pretty simple perspective. I'm not a huge car guy, nor am I a huge EV fanatic. It gets me from point A to B and I like having fun with it.

From everything I understand (could be wrong):

• By getting the Harvester, we're introducing an additional need for maintenance over a pure EV model due to the introduction of gas cycling through. This also introduces a bit of a specialized service as while oil changes aren't uncommon, EV range extender oil changes are relatively niche. Not impossible, but more or less, just an obstacle.
• The battery range on the Harvester model is reported to be 150 miles (if I recall right). That's about 200 miles less of what the pure EV offers. In addition, with pending specifications of how exactly the range extender would work outside of speculation, the tow capacity doesn't stand out as of current day as too much better.
• Noise is a question due to the sound of a generator. Unlikely as a huge issue, but again a quality of life thing.

Just thinking out loud here, there's a single use case that I could think of for the harvester, and that the range could run out of pure electric and instead of being stranded, you could still charge.

Living in a rural part of Florida, this was a concern originally, but then as I stopped and really thought about it, a few thoughts came about:

• I'd still need to charge up and then alsoreplenish the gas for the Harvester generator once I can.
  
  • I'm then stuck having to do both because of the lower capacity battery, doing far more stops for charging or alternatively, for gas.
• So much is still unknown as to what it is. Likely speculation is that it will charge the battery, again only used in complete SOS/stranded activities.
• There is limited charging infrastructure in a good chunk of the US still.

All of this led me to a personal conclusion that despite all of these advancements on the Harvester, the problems that it's trying to solve (limited charging infrastructure, complete SOS/stranded activities) don't outweigh the reduced battery capacity. At the point of a Harvester, I'm better off getting a fully gas (or even hybrid, primarily focusing on gas) vehicle, as it solves the problem statements far better.

If the Harvester was a 350 mile capacity battery AND the gas generator? All day everyday. But at the current perspective I would essentially be getting the worst of both worlds with no real pro to it. The way I'm thinking of it is the Ford F150 Lightning. That sucker was able to power folks houses during hurricanes. But that's also because of the battery. If Scout tried to compete there, with a smaller battery in the Harvester, I'm better to just go buy a gasoline generator for that use case and have my vehicle charged for anything else I'd need to do for a natural disaster.

I just can't think of a single reason I'd want to use the harvester. Maybe that'll change as it gets closer to release and we have more specs. But for the time being, I'm switching to a pure EV only on my reservation.

I think that most of the people reserving the Harvester are thinking it works differently than what you're describing there, which is why it has such a large reservation rate right now.

I'm projecting here, but as I am a Harvester reservation holder, I'm hoping its close? But I'm currently reserved for the Harvester because 150 miles will mean that 99% of my around down/day to day driving will be EV. But road trips/off highway excursions will likely (personal feeling) be a "gas and go" operation (ie, you only have to charge once you are done with your trip) which means if you have poor charging infrastructure, you'll be fine.

Most of our road trips are through rural WA/OR/ID/UT, which... I don't have high confidence in the charging infrastructure out there, at least for the next 5-10 years. Which means I'll likely end up with at least one vehicle that uses gas.

That said, if we end up with a DIFFERENT EREV, or longer range PHEV as a family vehicle (Hyundai Ioniq 9 has rumors it might offer an EREV... or if Toyota released a Sienna plug in with 60-100 miles of range), I might change my harvester to a Battery version.

I'd likely use fuel stabilizer in the harvester, for much of the year, as it would be "used sparingly".

 

[ForrestF1re]

I think that most of the people reserving the Harvester are thinking it works differently than what you're describing there, which is why it has such a large reservation rate right now.

I'm projecting here, but as I am a Harvester reservation holder, I'm hoping its close? But I'm currently reserved for the Harvester because 150 miles will mean that 99% of my around down/day to day driving will be EV. But road trips/off highway excursions will likely (personal feeling) be a "gas and go" operation (ie, you only have to charge once you are done with your trip) which means if you have poor charging infrastructure, you'll be fine.

Most of our road trips are through rural WA/OR/ID/UT, which... I don't have high confidence in the charging infrastructure out there, at least for the next 5-10 years. Which means I'll likely end up with at least one vehicle that uses gas.

That said, if we end up with a DIFFERENT EREV, or longer range PHEV as a family vehicle (Hyundai Ioniq 9 has rumors it might offer an EREV... or if Toyota released a Sienna plug in with 60-100 miles of range), I might change my harvester to a Battery version.

I'd likely use fuel stabilizer in the harvester, for much of the year, as it would be "used sparingly".

100%, that was the hope as well, it's just too much of a fallacy of hopium for me until we get it done.

I'm with you regarding confidence, in my area of rural Florida, there ain't much. My partner just got her Mach-E, so I'm gonna see how an exclusive electric vehicle goes in our area.

 

[Scoutsie]

The Harvester will contain a piece of the All Spark and helps your Scout transform so that it, along with its fellow Scoutobots, can do battles with Teslapticons.

 

[TimmyHil08]

No fighting for charging stalls in small parking lots. I can do what old people do and park far in the back lol and charge my battery.

 

[pwrofgrayskull]

I think that most of the people reserving the Harvester are thinking it works differently than what you're describing there, which is why it has such a large reservation rate right now.

I'm projecting here, but as I am a Harvester reservation holder, I'm hoping its close? But I'm currently reserved for the Harvester because 150 miles will mean that 99% of my around down/day to day driving will be EV. But road trips/off highway excursions will likely (personal feeling) be a "gas and go" operation (ie, you only have to charge once you are done with your trip) which means if you have poor charging infrastructure, you'll be fine.

Most of our road trips are through rural WA/OR/ID/UT, which... I don't have high confidence in the charging infrastructure out there, at least for the next 5-10 years. Which means I'll likely end up with at least one vehicle that uses gas.

That said, if we end up with a DIFFERENT EREV, or longer range PHEV as a family vehicle (Hyundai Ioniq 9 has rumors it might offer an EREV... or if Toyota released a Sienna plug in with 60-100 miles of range), I might change my harvester to a Battery version.

I'd likely use fuel stabilizer in the harvester, for much of the year, as it would be "used sparingly".

Yes. Please.

 

[CarTechGeek]

• The battery range on the Harvester model is reported to be 150 miles (if I recall right). That's about 200 miles less of what the pure EV offers. In addition, with pending specifications of how exactly the range extender would work outside of speculation, the tow capacity doesn't stand out as of current day as too much better.

...
If the Harvester was a 350 mile capacity battery AND the gas generator? All day everyday. But at the current perspective I would essentially be getting the worst of both worlds with no real pro to it.

It's fine for a PHEV/EREV to be something you aren't interested in, but having PHEV/EREV with 350 miles of EV only range is not a practical solution.

Even 150 miles of PHEV/EREV range is overkill for most people, and when it comes to PHEV/EREV range, overkill is expensive and wasteful.

A 150 mile battery, will have something like 75 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 1000lbs, cost about $8000.

A 350 mile battery, will have something like 175 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 2340lbs, cost about $18,700.

That's increasing the cost of building the truck by over $12000, and the weight of the truck by over 1300 lbs. Also both of those underestimate the issue. If you increase the weight of the battery by 1300 lbs, you need a bigger cooling system for those batteries, you need a more robust suspension, and those increase weight even more, so maybe you need a beefier frame, and that increases weight even more, and now you at more like a 1500 lbs weight increase (which of course you need beefier brakes for), and now you are negatively dragging down performance, so you either have to live with worse performance or spend more on more powerful motors and controllers, and all of those beefier components also cost more money, and you need to make profit on them as well.

So in the end your truck ends up weighing 1600 lbs more, and costing $20,000 more at retail, to save a few starts on the EREV generator, and maybe one tank of gas/year?? It's just a massive waste.

A PHEV/EREV needs some kind of relation to you average daily driven miles. I drive less than 40 miles/day on average, give that a buffer of 50%, and 60 mile/EREV is all that it practically makes any sense for me to buy. Anything more and it's just more and more waste (resources, money, efficiency).

I'd bet that the current 150 mile BEV range planned on Harvester is already well into the wasteful range for 99% or more of the potential buyers...

 

[UPDon]

It's fine for a PHEV/EREV to be something you aren't interested in, but having PHEV/EREV with 350 miles of EV only range is not a practical solution.

Even 150 miles of PHEV/EREV range is overkill for most people, and when it comes to PHEV/EREV range, overkill is expensive and wasteful.

A 150 mile battery, will have something like 75 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 1000lbs, cost about $8000.

A 350 mile battery, will have something like 175 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 2340lbs, cost about $18,700.

That's increasing the cost of building the truck by over $12000, and the weight of the truck by over 1300 lbs. Also both of those underestimate the issue. If you increase the weight of the battery by 1300 lbs, you need a bigger cooling system for those batteries, you need a more robust suspension, and those increase weight even more, so maybe you need a beefier frame, and that increases weight even more, and now you at more like a 1500 lbs weight increase (which of course you need beefier brakes for), and now you are negatively dragging down performance, so you either have to live with worse performance or spend more on more powerful motors and controllers, and all of those beefier components also cost more money, and you need to make profit on them as well.

So in the end your truck ends up weighing 1600 lbs more, and costing $20,000 more at retail, to save a few starts on the EREV generator, and maybe one tank of gas/year?? $1600 lbsIt's just a massive waste.

A PHEV/EREV needs some kind of relation to you average daily driven miles. I drive less than 40 miles/day on average, give that a buffer of 50%, and 60 mile/EREV is all that it practically makes any sense for me to buy. Anything more and it's just more and more waste (resources, money, efficiency).

I'd bet that the current 150 mile BEV range planned on Harvester is already well into the wasteful range for 99% or more of the potential buyers...

You make great points, more to consider for sure

 

[Logan]

It's fine for a PHEV/EREV to be something you aren't interested in, but having PHEV/EREV with 350 miles of EV only range is not a practical solution.

Even 150 miles of PHEV/EREV range is overkill for most people, and when it comes to PHEV/EREV range, overkill is expensive and wasteful.

A 150 mile battery, will have something like 75 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 1000lbs, cost about $8000.

A 350 mile battery, will have something like 175 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 2340lbs, cost about $18,700.

That's increasing the cost of building the truck by over $12000, and the weight of the truck by over 1300 lbs. Also both of those underestimate the issue. If you increase the weight of the battery by 1300 lbs, you need a bigger cooling system for those batteries, you need a more robust suspension, and those increase weight even more, so maybe you need a beefier frame, and that increases weight even more, and now you at more like a 1500 lbs weight increase (which of course you need beefier brakes for), and now you are negatively dragging down performance, so you either have to live with worse performance or spend more on more powerful motors and controllers, and all of those beefier components also cost more money, and you need to make profit on them as well.

So in the end your truck ends up weighing 1600 lbs more, and costing $20,000 more at retail, to save a few starts on the EREV generator, and maybe one tank of gas/year?? It's just a massive waste.

A PHEV/EREV needs some kind of relation to you average daily driven miles. I drive less than 40 miles/day on average, give that a buffer of 50%, and 60 mile/EREV is all that it practically makes any sense for me to buy. Anything more and it's just more and more waste (resources, money, efficiency).

I'd bet that the current 150 mile BEV range planned on Harvester is already well into the wasteful range for 99% or more of the potential buyers...

All great stuff.

Small caveat/tweak.

For EREV's, I think the ideal battery size is larger than for a normal PHEV. Mostly because you lack the mechanical connection to the wheels means that you need a larger buffer of battery storage to remain useful on the highway, in the mountains/etc. I'm not sure HOW much larger, but it makes sense to me that an EREV should have a larger range than a normal PHEV.

I have a Tucson PHEV with 33 miles of range. And I definitely wish it had a larger EV range (and a heat pump ). But even as is, in the last 7500 miles, we've averaged ~245mpg. Our best 10k miles (which included a 3k mile road trip of almost entirely gas usage) was ~70mpg.

I think the "ideal" range for a PHEV is probably closer to the 60 mile range (for me/my family at least, but I'd bet a fairly large percentage of the US). This is because its close enough to commute, and covers much of the "its 30 min away" sorts of drives, in both directions without charging.

The Harvesters 150 mile EV range was larger than I was anticipating. But it does mean that most places that are within ~1hr of driving in one direction, are feasible in EV only mode, which does cover a solid 95-99% of my driving. Conversely, if it had been much under 100 miles of EV range, I'd have been a bit worried about the EV range.

 

[CarTechGeek]

For EREV's, I think the ideal battery size is larger than for a normal PHEV. Mostly because you lack the mechanical connection to the wheels means that you need a larger buffer of battery storage to remain useful on the highway, in the mountains/etc. I'm not sure HOW much larger, but it makes sense to me that an EREV should have a larger range than a normal PHEV.

I was thinking about that as I was typing, but I figured I didn't want to get too far off into the weeds.

I think it really matters how powerful your generator is. If it's very powerful, then you don't really need the extra range all that much, but if its relatively weak (like in the i3 Rex), then yeah you want significantly more buffer range.

I think the "ideal" range for a PHEV is probably closer to the 60 mile range (for me/my family at least, but I'd bet a fairly large percentage of the US). This is because its close enough to commute, and covers much of the "its 30 min away" sorts of drives, in both directions without charging.

Coincidentally the same number I tagged for myself...

The Harvesters 150 mile EV range was larger than I was anticipating. But it does mean that most places that are within ~1hr of driving in one direction, are feasible in EV only mode, which does cover a solid 95-99% of my driving. Conversely, if it had been much under 100 miles of EV range, I'd have been a bit worried about the EV range.

Bigger buffer also factors in a vehicle that you might want to tow with. Since a generator that is plenty powerful for regular driving, may be somewhat underpowered for towing increasing the need for more buffer.

 

[Logan]

I was thinking about that as I was typing, but I figured I didn't want to get too far off into the weeds.

I think it really matters how powerful your generator is. If it's very powerful, then you don't really need the extra range all that much, but if its relatively weak (like in the i3 Rex), then yeah you want significantly more buffer range.



Coincidentally the same number I tagged for myself...



Bigger buffer also factors in a vehicle that you might want to tow with. Since a generator that is plenty powerful for regular driving, may be somewhat underpowered for towing increasing the need for more buffer.

Heh, apparently I'm fine diving off at random into the weeds .

Same page here, on all of that.

Cheers .

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

Here's a fun Easter egg for those speculating about the Harvester.

The test mule is at 49% battery SoC, but hasn't dipped into the gas tank yet.

 

[R1TVT]

The test mule is at 49% battery SoC, but hasn't dipped into the gas tank yet.

Right, but could the truck have been in an "EV only mode" and driven to a gas station and just filled up? Hard to say what the screens would mean in isolation from knowing the driving circumstances, or what settings are available. I think we need to wait and see and get more context.

 

[DaveGunter]

It's fine for a PHEV/EREV to be something you aren't interested in, but having PHEV/EREV with 350 miles of EV only range is not a practical solution.

Even 150 miles of PHEV/EREV range is overkill for most people, and when it comes to PHEV/EREV range, overkill is expensive and wasteful.

A 150 mile battery, will have something like 75 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 1000lbs, cost about $8000.

A 350 mile battery, will have something like 175 KWH of usable capacity. Weighs about 2340lbs, cost about $18,700.

That's increasing the cost of building the truck by over $12000, and the weight of the truck by over 1300 lbs. Also both of those underestimate the issue. If you increase the weight of the battery by 1300 lbs, you need a bigger cooling system for those batteries, you need a more robust suspension, and those increase weight even more, so maybe you need a beefier frame, and that increases weight even more, and now you at more like a 1500 lbs weight increase (which of course you need beefier brakes for), and now you are negatively dragging down performance, so you either have to live with worse performance or spend more on more powerful motors and controllers, and all of those beefier components also cost more money, and you need to make profit on them as well.

So in the end your truck ends up weighing 1600 lbs more, and costing $20,000 more at retail, to save a few starts on the EREV generator, and maybe one tank of gas/year?? It's just a massive waste.

A PHEV/EREV needs some kind of relation to you average daily driven miles. I drive less than 40 miles/day on average, give that a buffer of 50%, and 60 mile/EREV is all that it practically makes any sense for me to buy. Anything more and it's just more and more waste (resources, money, efficiency).

I'd bet that the current 150 mile BEV range planned on Harvester is already well into the wasteful range for 99% or more of the potential buyers...

Probably not practical from a production standpoint, but how nice would it be if the buyer had options of battery size for the plug-in, could dial it in for your own circumstances.

 

[Scoutsie]

Probably not practical from a production standpoint, but how nice would it be if the buyer had options of battery size for the plug-in, could dial it in for your own circumstances.

I don’t think it’s that impractical at all. I noticed that Rivian offers options for battery size. I was messing around with their configurator last night/this morning (definitely have a crush on the R1T) and thought that was helpful. It’s a nice way to save money and weight.

 

[J Alynn]

Probably not practical from a production standpoint, but how nice would it be if the buyer had options of battery size for the plug-in, could dial it in for your own circumstances.

I have to imagine there will be at least 2 if not three battery sizes. I’d be shocked for SM to come out of the gate with a base Scout offering 350 mile range. It would be great but just seems like the 350 will be on the higher side so thinking it will be an upgrade. Just hoping it isn’t astronomical in price

 

[CarTechGeek]

Probably not practical from a production standpoint, but how nice would it be if the buyer had options of battery size for the plug-in, could dial it in for your own circumstances.

Yes, I don't think it's practical to have more than one battery just for the Harvester.

Every pack is another design, Testing, and production drain.

They will probably have three packs to start with. The very small one in the Harvester. A midsize pack for
Entry level BEV price point, and a Max BEV Pack (for 350 mile range). They really won't want to add more.