Home » Why You Can’t Put A Wheel Generator On Your EV And Drive Forever

Why You Can’t Put A Wheel Generator On Your EV And Drive Forever

Thermodynamics Generator Ts2
ADVERTISEMENT

There’s a certain post that floats around the Internet with some regularity, and it caught my eye. It shows us a Chevy Bolt with what appears to be some kind of generating apparatus attached to the rear wheel. The post states that the rotation of the car’s wheel is used to recharge the EV’s battery as it drives along, avoiding charging stops and paying for electricity! Genius, right?

And yet, we know that’s too good to be true. If slapping an alternator on the rear wheels was enough to make electric cars run forever, everyone would be doing it. We’d never burn a drop of petrol again.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

You might be wondering, though, precisely why this doesn’t work. Or, you might have a rough idea, but you want to be able to definitively explain to family and friends why this isn’t the magical solution to all of America’s transport woes. Today, we’ll dive into thermodynamics and examine what’s really going on here. Don’t worry—it’s easy! Plus, we’ll even try and figure out why someone might have built this in the first place!

No Free Lunch

Thermodynamics Is Not a Dirty Word

Let’s start by examining what we have here. We have the rear wheel of the car connected via a belt drive to what appears to be an alternator or generator of some sort. When it spins, it makes electricity. That electricity could of course be put to use charging a battery.

ADVERTISEMENT

That all makes sense. But does this mean we should all be putting generators on our EVs to drive forever? Well, no. Because no matter how much energy you get out of the generator, you’re spending more power to turn it using the car’s motor. It’s simply not possible for the generator to produce more energy than the Bolt’s motor had to spend to get it turning in the first place.

Let’s make a diagram. I’m using the terms “kinetic energy” and “mechanical energy” to mean basically the same thing—energy from motion. It’s a little simplified, but it should give you an idea of how this all goes down.

Infographic Gen
Consider the car as if it were an isolated system, up on jacks. The battery runs the motor, which turns the wheels, which turns the generator, which charges the battery again. How much energy ends up back in the battery? Less than it put out!

It all comes down to the thermodynamic principle of conservation of energy. In very basic terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted from one kind to another, but you can’t create new energy.

This is why perpetual motion machines, free energy machines, and this “wheel generator” concept don’t work, and simply cannot work. If you had some kind of rotating machine which rotated forever, and you could get some kind of work out of it – say, by having it turn a generator – it would be creating energy. That’s simply not possible, due to the laws of physics. For the same reason, you can’t put a generator on your car’s wheel, recharge the car’s battery via the electricity generated, and drive forever.

In the case of the Bolt, the electric motor converts the electrical energy from the battery into motion. It accelerates the vehicle and spins the generator. The generator then turns rotational energy back into electrical energy again. All the energy coming out of the generator originally came from the EV’s battery itself. The generator didn’t make any energy, it just converted energy from one type to another.

ADVERTISEMENT
2013 Sema Chevrolet Zz5 350
An alternator puts out less electrical energy than it draws in kinetic energy from the engine. When you convert from one type of energy to another, you always face losses.

A further lesson that thermodynamics teaches us is that every time we convert energy from one type to another, we lose some. For example, a light bulb turns electricity into light, but we also lose some as heat. Combustion engines turn chemical energy into motion, but they also have losses through heat and noise.

It’s the same case here. The energy from the EV’s battery is converted multiple times, each time with some level of efficiency less than 100%. The EV’s motor doesn’t turn 100% of the battery energy into forward propulsion, and the generator doesn’t turn 100% of the rotational energy it harvests into electricity. Even if you feed its output back into the EV battery, you’d be getting less energy out of the generator than you were spending to turn it in the first place.

Simply put, turning the generator adds to the load on the vehicle’s drive motor. The EV’s motor has to work harder to push the car down the road because this generator is now on the back siphoning energy off the rear wheel. It’s thus drawing more energy from the traction battery than it otherwise would if there was no generator hanging off the wheel. Whatever energy you get out of the generator will be less than you’re spending to turn it.

But What About Regenerative Braking?

It is worth remembering, as well, that EVs have ways of turning rotational kinetic energy into electricity anyway. It’s called regenerative braking, and in itself, it perfectly explains why a wheel-attached generator won’t give you free unlimited energy.

ADVERTISEMENT

When an EV engages regenerative braking, it essentially turns its motor into a generator that is attached to the wheels. What happens? Applying the load of the generator to the wheels slows the vehicle down. It turns the vehicle’s kinetic energy into electrical energy to charge the battery. The generator can’t run without slowing the vehicle down. The electrical energy has to come from somewhere!

Naturally, there are some losses involved in the conversion. You can’t accelerate up to speed, then regeneratively brake, and get all the energy back. Some energy is lost in overcoming rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag, and some is lost through electrical resistance in the electronics and as heat through the motor. Similarly, as the generator converts rotating motion to electricity, there are more heat losses in the electronics, motor, and battery in turn.

2020 Bolt Ev One Pedal Driving And Regen On Demand Chevrolet Canada 1 16 Screenshot

Sure, you might say that this rear wheel generator would generate electricity if the vehicle was going downhill, using no battery power to accelerate the vehicle. Yes, that’s true. But the Bolt’s electric motor is already capable of acting as a generator in that case anyway. Plus, you’re still not getting energy for free. You had to spend energy to get the Bolt to the top of a hill in the first place before you could reap the energy by rolling back down.

Many Such Cases

There are all kinds of “simple” and “free” sources of energy touted in snappy little videos on the Internet. For example, one touted the idea of putting turbines inside water pipes to get “free” electricity from the flow of water. Of course, this would be completely pointless for a great many water pipes, as their flow is generated by the city’s water pumps. The pumps would have to work harder to overcome the resistance presented by the turbines, using more energy than the turbines could generate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another example that is often bandied about is the use of an “HHO gas generator” to make a combustion-fueled car more efficient. This involves using a car’s electrical system to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. The mixture is then fed into a car’s intake to promote “cleaner” or “more efficient” combustion. Here’s the thing, though—even if the gas injection did improve combustion, you wouldn’t be getting out ahead. The energy required to split the gas would outweigh any potential energy you’d get back out of it when it passes through the engine.

Screenshot 2024 06 20 At 12.16.17 pm

What’s Really Going On

The post shown at the start of this article is actually not the original. Somebody saw the photo of this vehicle and made an assumption about what was going on. Then, they spun their tale of free recharging that apparently Big EV was too stupid to implement.

The original photo was actually made by a user called rhinnaflor on Reddit, a full five years ago. Posting to r/whatisthisthing, they asked as to the use of this contraption. There are some compelling theories in the comments, and they don’t violate thermodynamic principles.

Belt contraption attached to the rear wheel of a Chevy Bolt
byu/rhinnaflor inwhatisthisthing

ADVERTISEMENT

AJ_Mexico pointed out that the Chevy Bolt may be a “dingy” vehicle that is typically towed behind an RV. With modern cars, it’s often recommended to tow them while switched on. However, this can drain the vehicle’s 12-volt battery over time if it is towed for many hours. The theory was that the system attached to the rear wheel was a simple alternator that had been hooked up to keep the Bolt’s 12-volt battery charged while it was being towed with its rear wheels on the ground.  This wouldn’t do anything for the main traction battery, and thus it wouldn’t improve the vehicle’s range. It’d just keep the 12-volt battery topped off, though you’d normally expect the Bolt’s traction battery would do a fine job of that already.

Naturally, this energy still isn’t free. The mechanical resistance of the generator would make the RV towing the Bolt expend more fuel—marginally—than if the generator wasn’t connected. Of course, there are easier ways to handle this task, too. One could simply fit a 12-volt solar battery tender to the Bolt, or hook up some kind of power line from the RV’s own supply. These would be much simpler.

Others suggest it might be some kind of instrumentation for data collection, but I’m not sure I buy that. It’s a very janky install, and the belt drive wouldn’t be super great for accurately tracking the wheel’s motion without slipping. It’d only be worse in wet conditions and when there’s any amount of suspension travel.

C
The generator seems to be hidden to a degree by some kind of black tape. And what’s going on with that thing in the middle of the bumper?

If we zoom in further, though, this case gets more mysterious. There appears to be a fuel filler neck, or maybe some kind of cabling, tucked under the rear bumper of the car. Commenters speculated as to whether some kind of standalone combustion generator might have been installed underneath as a range extender, but the jury is out as to the truth.

It’s very difficult to definitively pin down what is going on in this image. Our best guess is that it’s some kind of wheel-powered electrical generator, but for what reason, we can’t say. If you’ve seen anything like this before, or you know the car in question, perhaps you could shed some light on the matter for all of us.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ultimately, I hope you found this article educational. You should have a better idea of why you can’t get unlimited range from slapping a generator on your car’s rear wheels. You might even feel confident enough to call out others who bandy about these long-disproven ideas. As much knowledge as there is out there on the Internet, free energy and perpetual motion ideas will seemingly never die. All we can do is call them out and have a chuckle when we see them.

Image credits: via Reddit, via AliExpress, Chevrolet

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
172 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Manuel Verissimo
Manuel Verissimo
8 days ago

Hum, that would have been the perfect article to link to another one treating the subject:

https://www.theautopian.com/thermodynamics-bernoulli-principle-and-carburetors-im-a-french-aerospace-engineer-here-to-teach-you-about-car-aerodynamics/

PS: yay for thermodynamics!

Jakob K's Garage
Jakob K's Garage
8 days ago

All seems locigal. Thanks (heart emoji)

The only real “free” energies are the ones, where it doesn’t really matter if you take a tiny bit of it and convert it into electricity:
-Wind going all around the globe doesn’t care if a little bit of it gets slowed down by a wind turbine.
-Sun 8 million miles away (or something…) couldn’t be bothered if some of it’s rays hits a solar panel.

(People down on earth could of course be bothered by them and all “not in my back yard” like, and that’s why those solutions aren’t everywhere yet)

Yes, I’ve had a solar panel to top up my sailboat batteries for 14 years. About to install one soon on the rooftop of my “new” VW adventure bus also https://www.instagram.com/p/C8SYDi6iYtK

Last edited 8 days ago by Jakob K's Garage
Goblin
Goblin
9 days ago

Great write up.

It is however quite sad that it had to be written at all 🙂

In 1775, the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris made the statement that the Academy “will no longer accept or deal with proposals concerning perpetual motion.”

Last edited 9 days ago by Goblin
Shooting Brake
Shooting Brake
9 days ago

Great write up Lewin.

Mike F.
Mike F.
9 days ago

Yeah, well what if you put a generator on each of the wheels and made four times the power? THEN you’d make it go forever! What do you say to that, Mr. Thermodynamic Smartypants? And I don’t need to read your highfalutin article – I did the research!

Signed,

Mr. Internet Guy (coming to you from the hospital for lack of a certain vaccination)

ShinyMetalAsp
ShinyMetalAsp
9 days ago

They figured this out about 100 years ago just as IC Engines were becoming the norm. Detroit engineers figured out that if you strap a windmill fan to the top of the vehicle and run its axle through a set of reducing gears and clutch setup, the FAN ITSELF COULD POWER THE VEHICLE! Of course, BIG OIL got wind of it, so to speak, and had all of the information destroyed and started the rumor about something called ‘entropy’. They made it incomprehensible so nobody could argue against it.

(Torch, this is your prompt – run with it, man! Go!)

Drive By Commenter
Drive By Commenter
9 days ago

As Robert Heinlein so eloquently had some characters state, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”.

NosrednaNod
NosrednaNod
9 days ago

This entire story could be replaced with the following:

“Entropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Last edited 9 days ago by NosrednaNod
Manuel Verissimo
Manuel Verissimo
8 days ago
Reply to  Lewin Day

You have to trick the students with fun analogies and candy first. Then you bring out the 2nd principle of thermodynamics and the math.

NosrednaNod
NosrednaNod
7 days ago
Reply to  Lewin Day
NosrednaNod
NosrednaNod
9 days ago

With modern cars, it’s often recommended to tow them while switched on. However, this can drain the vehicle’s 12-volt battery over time if it is towed for many hours. The theory was that the system attached to the rear wheel was a simple alternator that had been hooked up to keep the Bolt’s 12-volt battery charged while it was being towed with its rear wheels on the ground. This wouldn’t do anything for the main traction battery, and thus it wouldn’t improve the vehicle’s range. It’d just keep the 12-volt battery topped off,

The 12V battery already gets power from the 66kWh traction battery on the bolt. There is no need for this.

This is most certainly some kind of datalogging or product development mule. Or a vehicle owned by a moron.

Lucy Tycho
Lucy Tycho
9 days ago

I get that this doesn’t work. However, as for range solutions, sometimes when I’m on my electric motorcycle I think about why can’t I just grab onto the car in front of me like Marty McFly on his skateboard

Jb996
Jb996
9 days ago

If I were king for a day:

– Post anything about perpetual motion, your punishment is 1 year of HS Physics, must pass with a B or have to retake it until you do.
-Post antivax crap? 1 year of HS biology.
-Post conspiracy theories? 1 year of World History and a course in Critical Thinking.
-Misuse or misquote ? A year of Literature.
-Post in all caps? A year of Composition and Grammar.

Other courses may be assigned as the transgression warrants.

Last edited 9 days ago by Jb996
Jason Smith
Jason Smith
9 days ago
Reply to  Jb996

I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Jb996
Jb996
9 days ago

Has anyone pointed out that the original poster didn’t even get the Sherlock Holmes quote right?
“Elementary my dear Watson!”

So they don’t know any science, AND they don’t read, cool.
Not that this is the type of person to read or appreciate Sherlock Holmes, but come on man!

Last edited 9 days ago by Jb996
AlterId
AlterId
8 days ago
Reply to  Jb996

Not that this is the type of person to read or appreciate Sherlock Holmes, but come on man!

More like the kind of person who looks for scientific guidance in the works of John C. Holmes. Who, admittedly, was both thermal and dynamic, but not really in a relevant way.

IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
9 days ago

My favorite depiction of a perpetual motion vehicle was an image of a car being pulled forward by a giant cartoon magnet suspended from the car by a pole. Wile E. Coyote would have been proud.

Stig's Cousin
Stig's Cousin
9 days ago

Do we really need a detailed explanation of why adding an alternator to your tire doesn’t turn your car into a perpetual motion machine?

I don’t mean to be a jerk, but anyone who thinks this would work is an idiot.

I’m feeling mildly insulted by the implication that readers of this website (i.e. me) need an explanation of why this wouldn’t work.

Last edited 9 days ago by Stig's Cousin
Stig's Cousin
Stig's Cousin
9 days ago
Reply to  Lewin Day

Fair enough. I suppose there is value in explaining the science to those who intuitively know it won’t work but can’t articulate why. This reminds me of an irritable professor I had in medical school. He had a giant sign in his office that said “teach the ignorant… ignore the stupid.” Not knowing basic concepts is fine if you never had a reason to have learn those concepts. Not attempting to learn basic concepts because you assume you already know everything is not okay.

I’m still surprised there are actual adult humans who look at something like this and think it is a brilliant idea. Those people are probably best ignored.

Captain Muppet
Captain Muppet
8 days ago
Reply to  Stig's Cousin

I was recently driven by an actual degree qualified engineer in his e-Golf. He was worried about range so continually accelerated then coasted so he could “charge up on regen”.

Me and the other passenger were also degree qualified engineers, but couldn’t get him to accept that conservation of energy is a thing.

ClutchAbuse
ClutchAbuse
9 days ago

Clearly perpetual motion machines are fantasy. But what’s the longest an attempt at a super efficient one could actually run for. Seconds, minutes, days?

Jb996
Jb996
8 days ago
Reply to  ClutchAbuse

It depends how you define the Work that your machine is doing (make it something very very small), how much energy you start with or the energy sink that the machine is actually pulling from (something big), and how much you can minimize friction and other losses.

This is a fascinating example, running for 160 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Clock

Captain Muppet
Captain Muppet
8 days ago
Reply to  ClutchAbuse

The earth has been going around the sun for 4.5 billion years, or 6,000 years if you’re not good at science.

Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
9 days ago

The water main generators could work, but there’s a few problems.
Many municipalities create water pressure by using gravity, i.e. a tower. They pump water up into the tower all day long, while demand is low. Then, every weekday morning demand for water goes nuts and the towers empty. Theoretically, you could harness energy from this falling water just like a hydroelectric plant does. This is the only time of day it would work because it’s the only time of day that the water is actually flowing, as opposed to just being statically pressurized.
But oh yeah, the water needs to be chlorinated, otherwise nasty stuff can get in there. Whatever generating equipment you stuff into the water main needs to be able to deal with that. Plus, you’d have to figure out how to get the electricity out of the main and into the grid. This would essentially make the ductile iron water main live, along with every fixture attached to it. So you reach for the faucet and get electricuted.
Um, wouldn’t solar panels and wind turbines just be a whole lot easier?

Mgb2
Mgb2
9 days ago

A correction here: pumps run at night to fill up water towers, as that is when demand is lowest.

There are many ways to convert the kinetic energy of water flow in a pipe into electricity without energizing the pipe. An electric impeller pump is basically doing the reverse and doesn’t add any shock risk to the pipe. A modern hydroelectric dam is literally doing this. And any energized metal water pipe in ground contact would have the voltage disappated, as it’s literally what millions of home electrical systems use as their ground path.

Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
9 days ago
Reply to  Mgb2

That makes sense. But the EPA will never let anyone fool around with the potable water supply.

Kleinlowe
Kleinlowe
8 days ago
JerryLH3
JerryLH3
9 days ago

The people that think things like this might work are the same people who think they can triple their fuel economy by putting one of those vortex generators between the intake and throttle body.

Cool Dave
Cool Dave
9 days ago
Reply to  JerryLH3

No, to triple it you need the generators in sequence so the air has no opportunity to NOT be a vortex.

Col Lingus
Col Lingus
9 days ago
Reply to  JerryLH3

That’s where they screw up. Everyone knows the vortex generators are supposed to be installed in the exhaust pipe, a minimum of 2 inches from the cat converter. People be stupid.

Perry Berens
Perry Berens
9 days ago

I had a generator to the wheel on a bicycle as a child. ( They still sell them) A rider would flip it down to contact the rim, to run your headlight. The faster the rider peddled. The brighter the light. I think that may be in part where the idea comes from. However. A train locomotive can move 1 ton of product 500 miles on 1 gallon of diesel fuel. Using a motor to drive a generator for power. I read where Chevy Volt has that theory working to make it more efficient. I don’t understand why all manufactures don’t utilize train drive tech. Of course a train also has the benefit of less friction to track than these oversized tires on new cars. A train ( if you look at train tracks next time your out walking) you will notice they are convex the shiny part in the track that you see between the rust on the track is all the train contacts. (About an inch and a half of shine.) Have you noticed how tires have gotten wider, adding more road friction as energy becomes more efficient from engines and electric cars. I don’t think anyone is designing tires to increase energy savings.

Rod Millington
Rod Millington
9 days ago
Reply to  Perry Berens

Meeting the OE benchmarks for ride, comfort, handling AND low rolling resistance is one of the most challenging parts of new tyre design currently. It is very difficult to make a tyre with acceptably low rolling resistance whilst still hitting performance metrics for handling.

Dennis Birtcher
Dennis Birtcher
8 days ago
Reply to  Rod Millington

The OE low rolling tires on my Fusion hybrid were entirely adequate as far as ride, comfort, and handling.

However, they were completely worthless at the first hint of snow. The slight MPG hit versus true four season capability, worth it.

Rod Millington
Rod Millington
6 days ago

Yep, and this would be because the OEM has put only a low priority on snow performance relative to other metrics.

Ben
Ben
9 days ago
Reply to  Perry Berens

Always wondered this. The UP class presenter I went to some years ago said 660ish miles to move a ton with a gallon, but regardless, each of those figures is fantastic. I’ll never be able to afford one, but those figures are what excite me about that Ram coming out. Train tech coming to the street.
It ain’t dumb if it works. And trains have been a testbed of the theory for a little bit.

TheHairyNug
TheHairyNug
9 days ago

Every time I meet someone who insists that I should “give people the benefit of the doubt”, I see something like the title image, and I lose so many brain cells that I forget I was just told to give people the benefit of the doubt

Jb996
Jb996
9 days ago

I haven’t read the article, because I don’t need to.

/Old man rant on
However, the fact it needed written makes me genuinely sad for the human race. When did intelligence become a dirty word? Why do we celebrate people who clearly despise the education and science that got our civilization to where it is? I’m not sure, but I feel like not long ago, dumb people knew they were dumb, and at least desired to improve and not advertise it, and respected experts. Now we celebrate stupidity, and it’s growing like a plague.
/Old man rant off

Jb996
Jb996
8 days ago
Reply to  Lewin Day

Oh, I understood the intent. Educate the masses! You are doing good work!

SNL-LOL Jr
SNL-LOL Jr
9 days ago

“It all comes down to the thermodynamic principle of conservation of energy. In very basic terms, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted from one kind to another, but you can’t create new energy.”

E=mc2
Checkmate, bitches

Jb996
Jb996
9 days ago
Reply to  SNL-LOL Jr

Except that mass is still just a form of energy, as the equation states.

SNL-LOL Jr
SNL-LOL Jr
9 days ago
Reply to  Jb996

I suppose if we dig deep into cosmology we can find all sorts of weird things that violate this, e.g. dark energy, antimatter annihilation, etc.

Jb996
Jb996
9 days ago
Reply to  SNL-LOL Jr

Matter/Antimatter does not violate thermodynamics. It would be the fastest way to convert mass to energy though!

Dark matter / dark energy? Who the F knows…

SNL-LOL Jr
SNL-LOL Jr
9 days ago
Reply to  Jb996

Oh I was thinking about the pairing and annihilation that occur right above event horizons. Since energy and mass aren’t conserved if some from those pairings fall into a black hole, the radiation shall count as free energy… Though it’s more of an accounting trick than anything.

Right… Hawking radiation it’s called.

So far dark energy seems to be the best candidate for free energy out of nowhere. I remember the Hi-Z team announced it back in the 90s. It was nuts.

Jb996
Jb996
8 days ago
Reply to  SNL-LOL Jr

But, even in Hawking radiation, the energy is conserved. Hawking showed that the energy of the escaping particle is essentially taken from the black hole. The black hole will lose energy (therefore lose mass) from this type of radiation. This was one fascinating conclusion of Hawking’s work, it means that, eventually, once the cosmic microwave background radiation (the “ambient” energy of the universe) falls below a certain point, that Black Holes would actually lose more energy to Hawking radiation energy than they would collect. This would result in Black Holes eventually “evaporating” away. (in Trillions of years?)
So the current theory seems to be that energy is not lost into a black hole forever, it is merely temporarily stored in the Black Hole, to be slowly returned later, at the end of time…

SNL-LOL Jr
SNL-LOL Jr
9 days ago
Reply to  Lewin Day

Last week my kids were taking their middle school physics final when I was watching a documentary on dark energy with them. I had to repeatedly tell them that as far as they are concerned, mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed… Nor converted.

Jb996
Jb996
8 days ago
Reply to  SNL-LOL Jr

Excellent guidance for middle school.

7th grade teacher: If I drop an apple from 1 meter high, how long until it hits the ground?
Little Billy: So we use the gravity of the earth, and accounting for wind resistance… assuming the apple is a sphere… But how do we account for the apparent extra mass from Dark Matter permeating space around our galaxy, and it’s gravitational effect on the Apple? And how do we factor in the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe due to Dark Energy, which would therefore act to expand the spacetime between the Apple and the surface of the Earth, increasing the distance during the time that it is falling?

7th grade teacher: How much energy will the apple have when it hits the ground?
Little Billy: Sure, I can calculate the apple’s kinetic energy, but surely I should calculate the apple’s total energy, since mass is energy. Shouldn’t I add the energy of the rest-mass in the apple using E=mc^2. But… the apple is moving, so I should probably use the relativistic mass of the apple, which is larger than the rest-mass due to it’s velocity, therefore E=m_rel*c^2… If I can just remember the relativistic mass equation gamma…

Little Billy: Man, physics is hard! This sucks.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
7 days ago
Reply to  Jb996

Funny, I recall Little Billy/Johnny jokes having very different punchlines.

Strangek
Strangek
9 days ago

Well that’s no fair. Thanks for nothing, Laws of Physics!

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
9 days ago

Sure, maybe that’s what happens in Australia, but you people can’t even get your toilets to swirl in the correct direction, so I don’t know how reliable your information is.

Last edited 9 days ago by Canopysaurus
Michael Beranek
Michael Beranek
9 days ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

The Simpsons bit where the embassy in Australia has special equipment to ensure that the toilets spin in the “correct American way” is hilarious.

PresterJohn
PresterJohn
9 days ago

I actually agree with some other people in the comments that this is more likely a very hacky range extender. That may actually work but is a bad idea for a number of other reasons, namely safety. I hope for that person’s sake that thing that appears to be a filler neck isn’t connected to a jerry can lashed under the rear bumper!

Lucy Tycho
Lucy Tycho
9 days ago
Reply to  PresterJohn

I’ve seen a lot of hacky ideas with horrible safety. One of the classics was someone who put a jerry can and a pump in the frunk of their i3 to feed the REx tank… en route

Last edited 9 days ago by Lucy Tycho
PresterJohn
PresterJohn
9 days ago
Reply to  Lucy Tycho

Yikes!! It’s one thing when they do it on the Flexiny YouTube channel to get old cars running. They just tool around their property off road. Doing it on public roads is nuts

TXJeepGuy
TXJeepGuy
9 days ago

Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.

172
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x