[HN Gopher] I bought a cheap electric pickup truck from Alibaba....
___________________________________________________________________
I bought a cheap electric pickup truck from Alibaba. Here's what
showed up
Author : qzervaas
Score : 84 points
Date : 2022-07-25 21:31 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (electrek.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (electrek.co)
| zdw wrote:
| There's a sequel article that goes over how well it's held up:
|
| https://electrek.co/2022/07/25/electric-mini-truck-how-its-h...
| fuzzythinker wrote:
| Hmm, wonder why the 1 year ago post is posted instead of the new
| one today that follows up 1 year later:
| https://electrek.co/2022/07/25/electric-mini-truck-how-its-h...
| no-dr-onboard wrote:
| > It sure beats a gas-powered UTV since I never have to fill it
| up or choke on exhaust.
|
| I don't know much about this site or the article author, but I
| have a hard time believing that this is anything but a dramatic
| exaggeration.
|
| I own a farm. I (and no one I know) would never seriously rely on
| an electric vehicle for utility. In general the batteries just
| aren't there and the rate at which they lose capacity is just too
| high to justify the cost. For $7,000 you could have a used
| UTV/SXS or a quad with a trailer in most markets. Both would
| handily outdo this Alibaba amalgamation.
|
| I won't even get into all the horror stories about uncaught
| grounds and battery safety for things on that site or the fact
| that preferring electric to ICEs is more of a virtue signal than
| net benefit for the planet. Cool experiment though.
| OrangeMonkey wrote:
| Impressive.
|
| At this price point they had to cut some features. I wonder if
| one of those features is "Safety" and another one is "The front
| won't fall off".
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Alternatively (or in addition), one of the most effective knobs
| you can turn to increase the efficiency of delivering
| products/services is the human suffering knob.
| Arrath wrote:
| See the points in the article about various items having to
| come from DoT registered factories to make a street legal
| vehicle. Compliance with those regulations comes with costs, so
| there is one avenue of cost saving.
|
| Not that I am saying it appears to be replete with crumple
| zones or ride-over protection or side curtain airbags or other
| safety features we would appreciate. But then I wouldn't expect
| to get T-Boned by an inattentive driver in a lifted F-550 when
| I'm tooting around my own property clearing fallen branches
| after a windstorm.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Honestly, I think $7,000 delivered for this is a pretty good
| price. It would make a nice farm vehicle, especially with that
| dump bed. It's in the same price range as a lower end UTV and
| looks like it would be far more comfortable doing, e.g., snow
| clearing duty. Swap in a set of BFG Mud Terrain tires and you're
| all set.
|
| Some feedback on reliability, the rust issues, etc. would be nice
| but I'd seriously think about getting one. As for it not being
| street legal, well I live out in the country. Golf carts, UTV's,
| ATV's, minibikes, on the roads around here are not at all
| unusual. Not legal, but I only know of one case of someone
| getting ticketed.
| Arrath wrote:
| Yeah I have to agree. This seems a lot more suited to most of
| my uses than a more expensive Polaris UTV. With an enclosed and
| climate controlled cab!
| motohagiography wrote:
| These could be competitive with a Kioti for golf courses,
| fairgrounds, and horse farms. If they there were a utv track
| kit option, doubly so in places with winters.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| https://insideevs.com/news/502536/wuling-hongguang-mini-ev-c...
|
| That's the actual car I think I want most in the world. It's so
| cheap and fun, and possibly even practical for me, but I don't
| think there's any way I could drive it in my city sadly.
| jfim wrote:
| Haha wow, that's such an adorable car. It's unfortunate that
| that kind of vehicle won't ever make it to the US though.
| beebeepka wrote:
| I would actually get a driving license for a car like this.
|
| Why wouldn't you be able to drive it in your city. Doesn't
| look smaller than a smart.
| glogla wrote:
| Yeah, the "larger cars are safer for people inside the car
| but more likely to kill people outside the car" red queen
| race made roads even more terrible. In car like that, you
| would get ran over by a lifted truck or mama-SUV pretty
| quickly.
| beebeepka wrote:
| If things continue this way, our current end game is tanks
| with machine guns and stuff. I feel safer already.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Jason Torchinsky from The Autopian imported a ChangLi a couple
| of years ago. He has posted regular updates since he got it
| (his old posts are still up at Jalopnik). I don't know how it
| compares to this one exactly, but there were a few posts
| showing some sketchy wiring, and some wires that nearly caught
| on fire. But it should give you some idea how it's been
| working.
| hedora wrote:
| Yeah; very, very tempting. It makes me wonder if there are
| specialty shops in the US that can cut down on the $2000-$3000
| delivery charge.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _glass has to come from DOT-registered glass factories, the
| backup camera has to come from DOT-registered backup camera
| factories, etc. It's not enough to simply go 25 mph and have seat
| belts and blinkers... Even if the cars had all the necessary DOT
| parts, the factory that produces them in China also has to be
| registered with the NHTSA to allow the cars to be street legal in
| the US._
|
| Some of this makes sense. Much of it doesn't, or could be vastly
| simplified for low-speed use cases.
| bri3d wrote:
| It's just not true - the author of this article doesn't
| understand FMVSS or the process.
|
| How this works is basically:
|
| 1) There are safety guidelines (FMVSS) governing classes of
| motor vehicles. For LSVs, the regulations are _extremely_
| simple. There's no such thing as a "DOT reverse camera
| factory." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.500
|
| 2) The manufacturer must self-attest that the vehicle complies,
| and affix a label confirming this self-attestation.
|
| That's pretty much it. Now the NHTSA will do what they need to
| to enforce their rules. If customers complain or independent
| testing reveals a violation, they will require a recall or ban
| certain vehicles or makes, or sue the manufacturer or importer.
|
| But there's no reason these vehicles couldn't be compliant if
| the manufacturer was willing to attest, and also no such
| weirdness as "DOT factories."
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Millions of things are stamped "not for highway use" not
| because they don't comply with the relevant FMVSS but because
| the manufacturer doesn't know, doesn't care and doesn't want
| to think about it or risk being wrong.
| exar0815 wrote:
| Well, obviously everything makes sense! Atleast when knowing
| the reason for that is simply very successful lobbying by
| established companies to prevent anyone from entering any
| vehicle or vehicle supplying market without enormous upfront
| costs .
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Imagine hitting a pedestrian at 4mph on the side of the road
| with one of your headlights. The headlight shatters.
|
| However, the light turned out to not actually be safety glass
| and shatter in harmless blocks but in nasty long splinters
| that hit an artery and the pedestrian bleeds out on the side
| of the road. The Chinese company won't give a shit because
| they have no certification so nothing to lose. They didn't
| even export it to you, some random AliExpress seller did. So
| you end up in jail for it.
|
| This kind of learning of previous mistakes informed the
| complex legislation around vehicles. Most of these things
| have good reason, not just lobbying. Manufacturers love
| cutting costs and you need a big stick to keep them honest.
| Remember the Ford Pinto? The Boeing 737MAX? Or what
| Volkswagen did to trick emissions tests? In fact I'd be
| surprised if the factories welcome all the paperwork that
| comes with it.
|
| In the end it's not to protect the industry, it's to protect
| the people (not just you but other road users as well) from
| an "all too eager to cut corners" industry. And random
| Chinese factories love cutting corners even more and there's
| virtually no risk to them. The only way to be sure is to have
| the whole chain certified.
| powerhour wrote:
| It's hard to say for sure without the stated reasons but I'd
| bet that most of those requirements were written following
| manufacturing mistakes that resulted in injury.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| What a cute little truck. It's crazy the stuff you can import
| from China.
| Glyptodon wrote:
| I'm confused by street legal thing. How do people register cars
| they make themselves if there are all these requirements?
| kgilpin wrote:
| If you build it yourself then some /many of the regulations
| don't apply. For example you don't need airbags (in
| Massachusetts). It varies by state:
|
| https://www.semasan.com/resources/everything-you-need-regist...
|
| Roughly the same thing is true for airplanes - experimental
| ("home built") have to be airworthy but not certificated.
|
| They say it's due to long tradition of DIY vehicles in America.
| bri3d wrote:
| Self-built cars are usually a completely different process, and
| also don't involve import.
|
| But, the author of the article also massively overstates the
| requirements for a legal vehicle under the Low Speed Vehicle
| rules. The full FMVSS rules are gargantuan, complex, and hard
| to meet, but the LSV rules really aren't.
|
| They basically need to not go 25mph, meet dimension and weight
| requirements, and have lights, reflectors, seat belts, and an
| approved windshield.
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.500
|
| The manufacturer then self-attests that the vehicle meets
| FMVSS, and submits paperwork documenting their VIN format.
| Unless there are complaints or an investigation, that's pretty
| much it.
| tantalor wrote:
| Generally they aren't. Here's an example:
|
| > Factory Five products are expressly sold for custom car-
| building, racing and off-road use and are not intended to be
| used in conventional passenger or other legal highway
| applications.
|
| https://www.factoryfive.com/terms-conditions
| brianwawok wrote:
| You are paying for a 1 off inspection. If you go buy a Honda
| Civic you can skip the inspection, because it follows the
| street legal requirements.
| WebbWeaver wrote:
| It does not look like it would outperform UTVs at similar or
| lower price points.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| What air conditioned UTV is available for $7000?
| pedrocr wrote:
| We have a Toro Workman electric cart on our small farm. It's
| extremely useful even while being quite basic and powered by
| lead-acid batteries. We bought it used a while ago but a new one
| would cost 15kEUR. The new ones are a little nicer but still
| mostly unchanged over the years. John Deere sells a Gator that's
| almost the same thing. I'm definitely hoping some of these
| manufacturers shake up this market. Hopefully the small tractor
| and skid steer markets as well although that's quite a bit more
| complex because of managing the attachments. Battery weight is
| irrelevant and so is range for most people, so lead-acid is fine
| for all these applications. LFP can be a bonus though. A few
| things have started popping up but nothing really good. A lot of
| the time it's people attaching an electric motor to an overly
| complicated transmission designed for the shortcomings of
| gas/diesel motors.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| Pretty much what you'd expect. I'm impressed. Also, the guy made
| more than his money back from youtube revenue
| haunter wrote:
| >the backup camera has to come from DOT-registered backup camera
| factories
|
| Does that mean you can't have a street legal car in the US
| without a backup camera? Or if it does have a backup camera it
| has to come from a DOT-registered factory? If the latter then why
| not just disable it? Or that's not even enough?
| Arrath wrote:
| Yes backup cameras are mandated for new vehicles now. The
| regulation was put into place starting MY 2020.
| bri3d wrote:
| The author of this article does not understand FMVSS or DOT
| regulations.
|
| 1) Yes, this is true, for several years the FMVSS has required
| backup cameras for full speed cars. However, this isn't true
| for low speed vehicles.
|
| 2) This just isn't true at all. FMVSS do not require factories
| to be certified in any specific way.
| https://www.rearviewsafety.com/pub/static/version1558698936/...
| These are the requirements. Manufacturers self-attest that they
| comply. The NHTSA reserves the right to respond to complaints
| or independently inspect their vehicles. They don't inspect or
| register "factories."
| [deleted]
| glxxyz wrote:
| Every _new_ vehicle has to have a backup camera.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Yes, I believe new cars need to have backup cameras in the us
| and Europe. Old cars are grandfathered.
| sharadov wrote:
| It's outrageous! Love it, what fun!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-25 23:00 UTC)