Makes sense. A MB C200 has 135 kW max from the engine, the Tesla’s battery is taking half of that, and losses in the energy transfer would be extra.

I don't think you have much losses in the transfer, the strap is probably efficient. Although they would be extra so you are correct.

GP almost certainly meant losses in the transfer from mechanical energy to chemical energy by way of the cars motors being used as generators, then charging the batteries.

Don't forget the double loss from sending the rotational energy to the ground and back.

Unsprung mass always surprises.

I'm surprised it was that good. I get 8 MPG from my F250 when towing a travel trailer that doesn't have the brakes engaged.

Your travel trailer makes up for it by punching a very big hole in the air.

Yeah, I liken it to what it would be like towing an open parachute behind you.

I'm disappointed at the terrible efficiency we're getting from this rig, to be honest. Based on experience I was expecting more like 10mpg. It doesn't make a big difference in cost, but Ford only gave the 6.2L F250 a 30 gallon tank. For something that gets such abysmal gas mileage, that is a really questionable decision. Our last truck, an F150, had a bigger tank even with a shorter bed. I have no idea what Ford was thinking here.

I too exist where the vent diagrams of HN reader and F250/travel trailer owners intersect.

Why the down votes?

Strangely, the intersection of HN and F250 owners is a smaller set than the intersection of HN and F250 haters.