The Bollinger B1 is an all-electric, all-wheel drive sport utility truck boasting 360...

Shawn Knight

Posts: 13,056   +130
Staff member

Much of the talk in the EV community this week has focused on Tesla as the first 30 owners are set to take delivery of their Model 3 sedans at a ceremony that’ll be livestreamed over the Internet this evening.

Off-road enthusiasts, however, will likely be more interested in what Bollinger Motors has to offer.

The company, founded in Hobart, New York, in 2014, unveiled its prototype sport utility truck (SUT) this week. The all-electric, all-wheel drive Bollinger B1 features a classic 3-box look and a perfect 50 / 50 weight balance from front to back and side to side. Its dual-motor powertrain generates 360 horsepower and 472 pound-feet of instant torque, enough to propel the 3,900-pound vehicle from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds en route to a top speed of 127 mph.

The B1 will offer two lithium ion battery pack options. The 60kWh pack will provide up to 120 miles of range while the larger 100kWh battery will reportedly be good for up to 200 miles between charges.

For the hardcore off-road enthusiasts, the B1 offers some pretty impressive specifications:

It sports a wheelbase of 105 inches, front and rear track of 68 inches, an approach angle of 56 degrees, departure angle of 53 degrees, and break over angle of 33 degrees. The chassis by itself weighs just 295 pounds while not sacrificing structural or torsional rigidity. The base ride height provides for 15.5 inches of ground clearance but will be adjustable using a self-leveling, 4-wheel independent, hydro-pneumatic suspension within the 10 inches of wheel travel. Disconnectable anti-roll bars allow traction enhancing, full suspension articulation during off-road maneuvers.

Bollinger Motors said it plans to announce pricing and manufacturing targets later this year, adding that it “makes sense” to try and hit the price point of a nicely equipped sport utility vehicle. Once manufacturing is finalized, B1 deliveries are targeted to start within 19 months – assuming of course that everything goes according to plan (which rarely seems to be the case in the EV industry).

Permalink to story.

 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,001   +6,775
Not pretty but functional enough, especially by all accounts the "average" distance driven per day is still well under 100 miles. There are still plenty of drivers that drive more than that, but it does put a certain spin on the need for gasoline powered vehicles. Doubtful that all vehicles can easily go electric for every driver, but if you consider that 50% of the population could use an electrical vehicle it would significantly cut down on the pollution that is so worrisome in many major cities. The claims of pollution generated by electrical plants is valid, but considering the advancements of advanced scrubbers for coal plants and re-capture for gas fired plants, there is a valid place for these vehicles in the US. Of course, there will always be the love of a V8 muscle car by most americans despite the electric cars have the potential to go much faster, much quicker.
 

VitalyT

Posts: 5,481   +5,058
People who say that Mercedes G-wagon looks bad need to see this one. It looks like the cheapest possible Chinese version of G-wagon.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,760   +3,982
....The claims of pollution generated by electrical plants is valid, but considering the advancements of advanced scrubbers for coal plants and re-capture for gas fired plants, there is a valid place for these vehicles in the US.
Sort of. Electric power generation, specifically coal fired plants do pollute; no sane person should deny that. However, looking at the end-to-end production and delivery of gasoline from getting it out of the well to pumping it into a gas tank and combusting it in an ICE, it is significantly more polluting in terms of CO2 generation than even the least efficient coal fired power plants.

Have a look at this post on Physics Forums specifically -
It can also be seen from this DOE web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric that burning coal to generate electricity creates about 2 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Multiplying by 4 kWh, this renders about 8 pounds of CO2 per EG. By comparison, according to this EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm burning gasoline generates approximately 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon; roughly double the amount.
Unfortunately, the second link in the quote is dead. I get the impression that that link only documented the CO2 production when gasoline is combusted in a vehicle and neglected all the pollution that results from drilling and refinement and transportation of the refined product to market.

Since societal norms are to use gasoline, and perhaps this is why society rarely thinks about what happens and how much pollution is generated before it is combusted in a vehicle - thus - I would not be surprised to get a lot of push back on this from some of those who regularly visit this site. Electricity to power a vehicle, even when produced by a dirty coal plant, is the cleaner choice.
 
Last edited:

GeforcerFX

Posts: 1,006   +473
Seems like it would be a good weekend adventure vehicle, add some solar panels to the roof or have a solar charging system built in so people could haul there panels with them and they could recharge the car while doing other stuff.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,496   +5,304
And now we know what the Willy's "Jeep" of the early 40's would have looked like, if they had given no consideration to styling whatsoever!
41-MB-2.jpg

There are a couple of things to consider before buying one of these for yourself, and one for the missus. First of all is the wheelbase of 105". That's only 8' 9", and for reference the wheelbase of a 1997 Suzuki "Sidekick", is 8' 2" , and don't think anyone would dispute that those little trucks are tiny. Oddly, the current Jeep "Wrangler's wheelbase is a tad shorter than even the Suzuki, at just a touch under 96"

So what you have here, for all intents and purposes, is an expensive toy. That's a bit harsh on my part, but OTOH, it isn't the kind of thing which is going to fly if you have a medium to large family. Nor does it appear to supply the opulence, comfort, or styling, some of our more demanding "better halves", might insist upon.

Incidentally, those deep lug tread tires eat gas like crazy, I expect they'll do the same thing with using electricity.

In any case, I do wish Bolinger well. This is impressive getting an electric vehicle damned near on the road in only 3 years.

However, it is a niche vehicle, and I imagine number of units sold will reflect that fact.
 

Skidmarksdeluxe

Posts: 8,645   +3,288
And now we know what the Willy's "Jeep" of the early 40's would have looked like, if they had given no consideration to styling whatsoever!
41-MB-2.jpg

There are a couple of things to consider before buying one of these for yourself, and one for the missus. First of all is the wheelbase of 105". That's only 8' 9", and for reference the wheelbase of a 1997 Suzuki "Sidekick", is 8' 2" , and don't think anyone would dispute that those little trucks are tiny. Oddly, the current Jeep "Wrangler's wheelbase is a tad shorter than even the Suzuki, at just a touch under 96"

So what you have here, for all intents and purposes, is an expensive toy. That's a bit harsh on my part, but OTOH, it isn't the kind of thing which is going to fly if you have a medium to large family. Nor does it appear to supply the opulence, comfort, or styling, some of our more demanding "better halves", might insist upon.

Incidentally, those deep lug tread tires eat gas like crazy, I expect they'll do the same thing with using electricity.

In any case, I do wish Bolinger well. This is impressive getting an electric vehicle damned near on the road in only 3 years.

However, it is a niche vehicle, and I imagine number of units sold will reflect that fact.
I suspect very few readers would know Willy's-Overland were the manufacturers of the original Jeeps. I owned an original Willy's CJ 5 back in the early 80's albeit fitted with a 3.0 litre Ford Essex V6 motor because parts for the original wheezy and very underpowered (Hurricane, manufactured by Mitsubishi, I think) 2.2 litre engine were impossible to source by then.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,496   +5,304
...[ ]...fitted with a 3.0 litre Ford Essex V6 motor because parts for the original wheezy and very underpowered (Hurricane, manufactured by Mitsubishi, I think) 2.2 litre engine were impossible to source by then.
I worked at at gas station which had a war surplus Jeep as a "service truck". IIRC, those were flathead, all cast iron, 4 cyl. motors. (agreed, under powered), but with the bias ply tires of the day, (we're talking it terms of the early 60's), 60 MPH would be taking your life into your own hands, quite literally. I honestly doubt the top speed of those vehicles was too much above sixty anyway.

Considering that sale of the Jeep ramped up tremendously, (or was originally designed for the US Army), I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the engines were made by Mitsubishi, the same wonderful people who brought us the Japanese "Zero".

Although, this does justify further research. Ironic sh!t like Mitsubishi making Jeep motors I suppose, could happen.
 

Skidmarksdeluxe

Posts: 8,645   +3,288
I worked at at gas station which had a war surplus Jeep as a "service truck". IIRC, those were flathead, all cast iron, 4 cyl. motors. (agreed, under powered), but with the bias ply tires of the day, (we're talking it terms of the early 60's), 60 MPH would be taking your life into your own hands, quite literally. I honestly doubt the top speed of those vehicles was too much above sixty anyway.

Considering that sale of the Jeep ramped up tremendously, (or was originally designed for the US Army), I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the engines were made by Mitsubishi, the same wonderful people who brought us the Japanese "Zero".

Although, this does justify further research. Ironic sh!t like Mitsubishi making Jeep motors I suppose, could happen.
Apparently they were manufactured by Mitsubishi from sometime in the 60's onwards. I think the hostilities between the Nips and the Yanks had subsided a bit by then.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,381   +3,458
....The claims of pollution generated by electrical plants is valid, but considering the advancements of advanced scrubbers for coal plants and re-capture for gas fired plants, there is a valid place for these vehicles in the US.
Sort of. Electric power generation, specifically coal fired plants do pollute; no sane person should deny that. However, looking at the end-to-end production and delivery of gasoline from getting it out of the well to pumping it into a gas tank and combusting it in an ICE, it is significantly more polluting in terms of CO2 generation than even the least efficient coal fired power plants.

Have a look at this post on Physics Forums specifically -
It can also be seen from this DOE web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric that burning coal to generate electricity creates about 2 pounds of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Multiplying by 4 kWh, this renders about 8 pounds of CO2 per EG. By comparison, according to this EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm burning gasoline generates approximately 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon; roughly double the amount.
Unfortunately, the second link in the quote is dead. I get the impression that that link only documented the CO2 production when gasoline is combusted in a vehicle and neglected all the pollution that results from drilling and refinement and transportation of the refined product to market.

Since societal norms are to use gasoline, and perhaps this is why society rarely thinks about what happens and how much pollution is generated before it is combusted in a vehicle - thus - I would not be surprised to get a lot of push back on this from some of those who regularly visit this site. Electricity to power a vehicle, even when produced by a dirty coal plant, is the cleaner choice.
If we are adding the drilling and refinement, shouldnt we also add the enviromental impact of mining the materials for batterys, the production of said batteries, ece?

Granted, I agree that even with that electric is still cleaner, but I dont think the gap is as big as you think.

Still want an all electric pickup with long range though. Mmmmm....nissan frontier with 200kW of batteries.....
 

flipp3r

Posts: 26   +6
How do these electric cars handle water? Would a bent chassis mean water into the battery compartment?
Should owners pack pop-corn??
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,760   +3,982
If we are adding the drilling and refinement, shouldnt we also add the enviromental impact of mining the materials for batterys, the production of said batteries, ece?

Granted, I agree that even with that electric is still cleaner, but I dont think the gap is as big as you think.

Still want an all electric pickup with long range though. Mmmmm....nissan frontier with 200kW of batteries.....
Yes, and all the torque you would get out of that - like this thing 472 ft-lbs of torque is pretty impressive.

Yes, materials need to come from somewhere. How much they pollute depends on recycling efforts after life, etc. Some materials can be recycled and this would have an effect on the need to produce more from raw materials. However, if the end-to-end processes in EV production and use are even as low as 2x better than current technology, the impact will be very great considering the number of vehicles in the world today.

Crude refinement is pretty dirty. I do not have information on how dirty refinement of raw materials for battery production is in comparison. With the-crude-to-gasoline process, there is no chance for recycling the end products of combustion, though, in a similar fashion, say, to recycling a dead battery. Recycling dead batteries is law in many places - which is not to say that some humans might ignore such requirements.

I am somewhat reminded of a story several years back where someone tried to claim that a Hummer was more ecological over its lifetime than a Prius. It as resoundingly debunked and also it was noted that it was produced by a paid PR group - which is where having a finely tuned BS detector helps. At least some anti-EV rhetoric comes from those having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and, unfortunately, some of those entities will say and do anything even if it is untrue or detrimental.

However, the more the industry moves in the direction of EVs, I would expect that over time, greater efforts and funding will be pumped into R&D. It is my opinion that if gasoline had not replaced battery power in the late 1800s to early 1900s that we would be significantly further ahead with battery technology now than we are. As so far has been typical, humanity chose fast, cheap, easy, and dirty for its fuel source.

Personally, I think the logical direction for EV power is toward super capacitors which have a significantly greater life span than batteries. Plus, they can be made from carbon. How that carbon is obtained could either help to clean things up or make things dirtier depending on the choices made. I think that there is a growing movement to consider the environmental effects of manufacturing processes, and if the choices made consider environmental effects to be important, the future holds some impressive technologies.