|
I may be slightly off on this, but I'm pretty sure the only reason Ford didn't end up taking the bankruptcy route is because they were able to secure operating capital right before the market crashed in 2008. They weren't exactly doing better than GM or Chrysler, they just got "lucky".
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:They could even separate the cargo boxes from the wheelie parts, and have some kind of infrastructure to allow chaining up hundreds of cargo boxes in a big linkage that runs on special separated roads, and only need to share streets for runs from endpoints to local depots. it'll never work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:They could even separate the cargo boxes from the wheelie parts, and have some kind of infrastructure to allow chaining up hundreds of cargo boxes in a big linkage that runs on special separated roads, and only need to share streets for runs from endpoints to local depots. Maybe "truck lane", or "tr-ane" for short.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Self driving car enthusiasts are also in to trains, go figure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
There is a really good reason that Wrightspeed and Proterra make electric heavy duty vehicles that are buses and garbage trucks and not freight haulers. Because plenty of stops and shortish routes work with EVs, 600 miles a day doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Long distance trucking could be solved with a high output diesel generator in a series hybrid setup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
I know it's cool to be real down on Tesla because Elon Musk is an idiot (but second only to anyone who would buy an EV) but it's important to remember these "master plans" of his are potentially even a decade out. Continued innovation in battery technology could make electric trucking a lot more realistic. People poo poo all over Elon's first master plan, which he largely executed on almost completely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I have no idea if this is vapor-ware or not, but this turbine-electric semi-truck seems pretty neat. https://nikolamotor.com/one
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
I say don't worry about long range trucking. Electrify local distribution and buses instead, by the time it's working in practice you'll have some new tech to base longer range on. There's a bus route in Copenhagen which had two Chinese electric buses running as a trial. They cancelled the trial due to high running costs, partly due to reliability partly due to high fees on high powered charging. The first is inevitable, the second is politics. It works of people change grid policies and don't let the Chinese design anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
io_burn posted:I know it's cool to be real down on Tesla because Elon Musk is an idiot (but second only to anyone who would buy an EV) but it's important to remember these "master plans" of his are potentially even a decade out. Continued innovation in battery technology could make electric trucking a lot more realistic. People poo poo all over Elon's first master plan, which he largely executed on almost completely. Honestly if Elon Musk is an idiot we need a lot more idiots like him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
SoSimpleABeginning posted:I have no idea if this is vapor-ware or not, but this turbine-electric semi-truck seems pretty neat. This is cool as hell. Looks like they have a reveal scheduled for December of this year?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
EgonSpengler posted:Long distance trucking could be solved with a high output diesel generator in a series hybrid setup. Wrightspeed already builds hybrid turbine EV heavy duty trucks: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/06/heavy-duty-hybrids-cleaner-emissions-when-picking-up-the-trash/ And they told me that long-distance freight doesn't make sense for hybridization because there's not enough stop and go to recharge the batteries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
SoSimpleABeginning posted:I have no idea if this is vapor-ware or not, but this turbine-electric semi-truck seems pretty neat. I think it's vaporware. One thing that jumps out at me is that it's significantly overpowered and overspec'd. Max on-highway interstate GVWR is 80,000 lbs. At that weight, even 2050 lb-ft and 600hp is plenty verging on overkill. Someone is really going to build 3700 lb-ft and 2000 hp? Why not derate a bit to save weight, especially on the turbine and carried fuel? There's also very little advantage to 6x6 vs 6x4, and a lot of additional complexity and weight penalties.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I think it's vaporware. One thing that jumps out at me is that it's significantly overpowered and overspec'd. Max on-highway interstate GVWR is 80,000 lbs. At that weight, even 2050 lb-ft and 600hp is plenty verging on overkill. Someone is really going to build 3700 lb-ft and 2000 hp? Why not derate a bit to save weight, especially on the turbine and carried fuel? There's also very little advantage to 6x6 vs 6x4, and a lot of additional complexity and weight penalties. Ignore the horsepower number, it's apples to oranges. Horsepower = (torque * RPM) / 5252 so an engine (like most diesels) that doesn't exceed 5252 RPM is always going to have a small number compared to an engine that can rev (like most gasoline and electrics). Same reason a high-revving sports car can have a big horsepower number but about as much torque as a wet fart, just in this case it's a (relatively) high-revving motor that does have torque so the horsepower number ends up really big. As for the torque, the way electrics deliver torque makes them hard on transmissions. The Tesla Roadster was originally supposed to be a two speed but it kept breaking transmissions so they went to a single fixed gear reduction box. These trucks are claimed to have a two-speed box rather than the dozen or more in an average heavy truck. Basically they drop the main transmission and just keep the range splitter. Electric motors usually have a wider usable RPM range than combustion engines but if they're geared for highway speeds they'll need more torque to make up for that off the line. On top of that I'd be willing to bet that number is, like a P90D, the combined peak numbers of the motors and not necessarily the amount of power that can be delivered to said motors from the power controller(s) and batteries. 6x6 drive I agree is probably not all that useful for most truck use cases but one more axle worth of regen braking probably is pretty nice. Torque vectoring can definitely allow some cool things in cars, I have no idea how applicable that's going to be to trucks though because the trailer brings so much to the equation. Definitely in no way saying it's not vapor, but the claims don't seem too out there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Independent suspension, 2000hp, 6 wheel drive, a dry weight lower than current trucks while carrying at least 5,000lbs worth of batteries, at least 2 electric motors, 2 transmissions, a gas turbine, generator, and press talk that uses gallons of natural gas, and diesel gallon equivalent interchangeably. Yeah, has to be totally legit, i mean, they shelled out dozens of dollars for their renders. You should probably mail them all the money you got back from your carbon motors investment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Ignore the horsepower number, it's apples to oranges. Horsepower = (torque * RPM) / 5252 so an engine (like most diesels) that doesn't exceed 5252 RPM is always going to have a small number compared to an engine that can rev (like most gasoline and electrics). Same reason a high-revving sports car can have a big horsepower number but about as much torque as a wet fart, just in this case it's a (relatively) high-revving motor that does have torque so the horsepower number ends up really big. Honda used to make a 250cc motorcycle that delivered 50 horsepower. 200hp/L, naturally aspirated, in 1991, for like 4000 bucks.  peak HP is at 17,800 RPM, so it's 14 lb-ft of torque wolrah posted:As for the torque, the way electrics deliver torque makes them hard on transmissions. I've heard this a number of times and I don't really get why it's an issue. Shouldn't you be able to program the ECU to ease on the power application in a way that won't overstress the transmission? That seems like a real no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
The problem with an electric pickup is that adding batteries takes away from payload and modern American pickup trucks dont have much payload to start with. You can add 2000 lbs to a passenger car and call it a tesla and still carry 5 people. Add the same amount to a F150 and it basically cant carry anything else. I guess it would work if you never actually carry anything in the bed but obviously no one would buy a truck for that. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The problem with an electric pickup is that adding batteries takes away from payload and modern American pickup trucks dont have much payload to start with. You can add 2000 lbs to a passenger car and call it a tesla and still carry 5 people. Add the same amount to a F150 and it basically cant carry anything else. I guess it would work if you never actually carry anything in the bed but obviously no one would buy a truck for that. The model S 85kwh battery is only 1200lbs. Add 1200lbs of batteries to a payload package F-150, you can still haul 2070lbs which still more than any spec cummins titan XD. Add 2000lbs of batteries to a F350 dually, and you would still be able to haul a loaded model S crushed into a cube in the bed, still more than any pickup built before 1999. Also consider that even with modern materials, a diesel engine/transmission in a modern 3/4 ton pickup already weighs 1400-1600lbs while a pair of electric motors producing the same torque would only weigh 350-400lbs, and require a very basic transmission comparatively. Range and cost of range while pushing something you can't really streamline is what is holding it back, not battery weight/truck capability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Weight's a real concern for Class 8 OTR though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:I've heard this a number of times and I don't really get why it's an issue. Shouldn't you be able to program the ECU to ease on the power application in a way that won't overstress the transmission? That seems like a real no-brainer. That's a really good question. There has to be something non-obvious because if it was manageable in software you'd think Tesla wouldn't have had the problems they had with the Roadsters. Maybe just dumping power in to the higher capacity of a fixed reduction box proved to allow faster acceleration than multiple gears with software limiting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Weight's a real concern for Class 8 OTR though. For now, mainly because labour costs more than fuel does, so putting 2 trucks on the road where 1 squeaks by is an expensive option. One the trucks are automated, energy will be the next large chunk of cost targeted. Once they're driving by a robot, and run off sub-10 cent/kwh electricity, pretty much everything you buy will be Battery longevity is also a big issue. A battery cycle on a tesla is 270 miles of driving, possibly less taking regen into account. A class 8 truck does more than double that a day, even with the ever tighter hours of service. The tesla batteries seem to show about 80% capacity after 500,000 miles, so if you pack enough battery capacity for the truck to fill out a day, by the time the truck is 2-3 years old, it won't be able to do the full route. Being able run off of powerlines on the road is an option, too. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Good thing those aren't routinely wiped off the map throughout a massive central portion of the country by horrifying weather events.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Good thing those aren't routinely wiped off the map throughout a massive central portion of the country by horrifying weather events.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I'd settle for smooth pavement and non-crumbling bridges, once we've got that down we can start working on the Electric Avenue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Ineptus Mechanicus posted:I'd settle for smooth pavement and non-crumbling bridges, once we've got that down we can start working on the Electric Avenue. Serious question: wouldn't it make more sense, cost less, and cause less disruption to existing road usage to mount the same amount of solars above the roads? Yeah, then you need all the supporting structure, but you don't need to rip up the existing road to install, repair, or upgrade them, you can angle them to shed snow and/or capture more sunlight for whatever latitude you're at, and they shade the roadway, reducing power usage for AC in the summer. Why is the focus on making the road surface itself out of PVs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Serious question: wouldn't it make more sense, cost less, and cause less disruption to existing road usage to mount the same amount of solars above the roads? Yeah, then you need all the supporting structure, but you don't need to rip up the existing road to install, repair, or upgrade them, you can angle them to shed snow and/or capture more sunlight for whatever latitude you're at, and they shade the roadway, reducing power usage for AC in the summer. Why is the focus on making the road surface itself out of PVs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah the point of the solar roadway is that it isn't a loving nightmare to maintain compared to freestanding structures or tunnels or some poo poo. I mean conceivably the electricity generation would help offset the cost of maintenance but it would also increase the cost of maintenance to have more complicated and expensive materials than "asphalt" It's not the technology that will be our salvation but it's not a hideously expensive boondoggle nightmare that people just kind of assume it is, either
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Serious question: wouldn't it make more sense, cost less, and cause less disruption to existing road usage to mount the same amount of solars above the roads? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkx2_qH_EoA Forever
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
I love the ones where the top peels off like a sardine can 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Solar roadways are an awful idea and the sooner everyone forgets about the whole thing the better. There is no shortage of much more suitable areas to plaster with solar panels. Collateral Damage fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jul 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Weight's a real concern for Class 8 OTR though. This, you can make 20% more with a day cab if your cargo is limited by weight instead of space. 20,000 lbs tractor trailer vs 30,000 lbs means 60k cargo instead of 50k cargo. That is a real difference when your costs are mostly fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Powershift posted:For now, mainly because labour costs more than fuel does, so putting 2 trucks on the road where 1 squeaks by is an expensive option. One the trucks are automated, energy will be the next large chunk of cost targeted. Once they're driving by a robot, and run off sub-10 cent/kwh electricity, pretty much everything you buy will be Don't forget the asset cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
So they had a launch event for the Gigafactory for some reason. I cracked up at this bit where they're talking about the size of the factory though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Szj2qIYX8&t=623s
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
How much power would those 50 billion hamsters produce if you put each one in a hamster wheel?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Rumor says Mercedes are going to launch a separate EV brand at the Paris Motor Show in September. http://www.autonews.com/article/20160805/VIDEO/308059933/first-shift-mercedes-planning-ev-sub-brand They have one EV at the moment, the B class electric. It isn't that good in my opinion, no fancy computer gizmos and no fast DC charging. Hope they come up with some good concepts, particularly in the charging bit. Because I would rather driver a ratty Tesla on the Supercharger network than a glitzy Merc with only AC charging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Yeah I was considering maybe getting a Tesla this year but now that other mainstream car companies are getting into it I feel like I ought to at least wait a couple years and see what MB/BMW/whoever put out
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Stefan Prodan posted:Yeah I was considering maybe getting a Tesla this year but now that other mainstream car companies are getting into it I feel like I ought to at least wait a couple years and see what MB/BMW/whoever put out Where do you live? Depending on the market, the earlier Teslas should start depreciating nicely now that so many new things have been introduced. I will be very surprised if MB actually commits to running or supporting charging infrastructure on par with the superchargers, I just don't think they get it yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Ola posted:Rumor says Mercedes are going to launch a separate EV brand at the Paris Motor Show in September. That reminds me: A few days ago, one of Tesla's executives was trash-talking the mainstream auto industry, accusing them of doing basically jack poo poo to make EVs appealing to the average motorist: http://jalopnik.com/tesla-exec-on-competition-youre-not-trying-hard-enough-1784849747 From what I've seen, I would have to more or less agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Ola posted:Where do you live? Depending on the market, the earlier Teslas should start depreciating nicely now that so many new things have been introduced. I will be very surprised if MB actually commits to running or supporting charging infrastructure on par with the superchargers, I just don't think they get it yet. Southeastern US, North Carolina
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Cockmaster posted:That reminds me: A few days ago, one of Tesla's executives was trash-talking the mainstream auto industry, accusing them of doing basically jack poo poo to make EVs appealing to the average motorist: To be fair, the bolt is in production and the model 3 is barely finalized. Until they're profitable, manufacturers with an existing full line won't sabotage those lines with a low volume model. An electric mustang that's faster than a GT with a $60,000 price tag would probably hurt sales overall. Taking a loss on each to hit a $40,000 price point would burn up cash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 03:14
|
|