Ford Teases All-Electric F-150 Pickup Truck By Pulling a Million-Pound Train (theverge.com) 143
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: In 2017, Ford announced that it would sell an all-electric version of its best-selling F-150 pickup truck. It plans to start selling a hybrid version in 2020, and as a way to start priming the pump (or plug, as it were) for a vehicle that will no doubt be a very big deal, the company released a video Tuesday demonstrating the electric truck's remarkable towing capacity. The electric prototype is seen pulling 10 double-decker rail cars over 1,000 feet. It does it once when the rail cars are empty and a second time with them loaded with 42 regular, gas-burning F-150s. The latter stunt puts the entire load at 1.25 million pounds, according to Linda Zhang, chief engineer on the electric truck project. In the fine print, Ford describes the towing stunt as a "one-time short event demonstration" and claims it is "far beyond any production truck's published capacity." Right now, Tesla holds the record for pulling the heaviest load, when a Model X towed a 287,000-pound Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner nearly 1,000 feet on a taxiway at the Melbourne Airport in Australia last year. In June, Elon Musk teased Tesla's upcoming Pickup truck and took a swipe at Ford and other truck companies, saying: "It's going to be a truck that is more capable than other trucks. The goal is to be a better truck than a [Ford] F-150 in terms of truck-like functionality and be a better sports car than a standard [Porsche] 911. That's the aspiration."
He also said in a tweet that the towing capacity would be 300,000 pounds.
He also said in a tweet that the towing capacity would be 300,000 pounds.
Not very impressive, considering... (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.guinnessworldrecor... [guinnessworldrecords.com]
Velu Rathakrishnan (Malaysia) used his teeth to pull two KTM commuter trains, with a total of weight of 260.8 tonnes (574,964 lb), a distance of 4.2 m (13 ft 9 in) along rails at Kuala Lumpur Railway Station, Malaysia, on 18 October 2003
So this is more about rail efficiencies (Score:4, Insightful)
So the impressive thing here is how incredibly efficient steel rolling on steel is.
Did the guy have an advantage of pulling the train downhill?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So the impressive thing here is how incredibly efficient steel rolling on steel is.
/quote>
The towing capacity is NOT 300,000 pounds. Assuming 2000 pounds per ton that is 150 tons. No, just no. Towing capacity is not just getting something to move, it is being able to control what is behind you, including around corners, up hills, down hills, etc. Additional brakes help, but the towing capacity is still not 150 tons. An F-350 is around 35,000 pounds max, or around 17.5 tons, which is a crazy amount of weight, but still not 150.
Re:So this is more about rail efficiencies (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. It's not so much the weight of what you're towing that's the issue, it's the weight that may be applied to your rear axle (tongue weight) which is the issue, since your vehicle can only take so much weight on its rear axle. But you can't just try to balance everything perfectly and have no tongue weight, because tongue weight stabilizes the trailer - ideally ~10-15%.
For ICE vehicles, other factors can also apply, such as brake fade, engine power / torque, etc. These however are generally not limits for EVs, with regenerative braking and crazy amounts of low-end torque. For EVs, it's mainly a question of, "What can your rear axle take?"
Re: (Score:2)
For a fossil wouldn't the clutch be a problem? Seems like you might kill that trying to build up the sustained torque to do this.
I wonder if they used custom firmware in their car or if the production models will be able to do this. If I were writing it I'd probably put some kind of torque/acceleration limit in to account for potentially dangerous situations where the car is out of control.
Re: (Score:2)
Most trucks are torque-converter automatics anyway nowadays I'd imagine.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people use a pickup with an automatic for towing. Pickups with automatics generally have higher towing capacity because the torque converter doubles starting torque. But OTR trucks still commonly use a manual gearbox. However, even they are now very commonly being ordered with an automatic, because it's smarter than you are, so it can get better mileage by downshifting sooner.
Besides efficiency, there are other great reasons to go automatic. One of them is that automatics can shift under power. When ou
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest reason I like an automatic is because I don't have to saw through the gears when in heavy traffic, especially if it is going up a hill. Plus, with tow/haul mode, the torque converter stays locked, so the vehicle slows down as soon as I let off the gas, making it easier to keep distance.
What I am surprised at, is how manual transmissions where the clutch and gearbox is controlled by an ECM are not more popular. I've only seen it on a diesel ProMaster van (which was discontinued), and Smart cars
Re: (Score:2)
Not having to clutch in traffic is a definite bonus, and most drivers' favorite thing about automatics, right up there with it being easier to eat and drive. I used to drive a 240SX which had a close-ratio five speed (top speed was limited to 115, but it was gear-limited to 124 anyway) and it was not a good place to have lunch.
We had an Astro with a tow/haul mode, which as you probably know just changes shift points. Now we have a Blue Bird Q-Bus with an Allison B300R, which has an "economy" mode which does
Re: (Score:3)
... it's mainly a question of, "What can your rear axle take?"
Same thing I ask all of my dates. *slips on sunglasses*
Re: (Score:1)
That is really misleading. And that does not include the towing capacity (of a t
Re: (Score:1)
It's only 1200 lbs rolling resistance to get 1,200,000 lbs worth of freight cars to move. A Yugo with one dead cylinder could do this.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You completely missed the fear factor. What fear factor, an electric FORD pick up truck, how safe is that fossil fueller investment in your garage, when no one wants it, it becomes worth nothing. That fear of when to trade your fossil fueller, electric are overpriced at this time, loaded with profit but in the future when the price of electric drops and it will drop a lot, your fossil fueller is even worth less, and actually becomes worthless.
Getting that fossil fueller trade in for an electric right, real
Re:So this is more about rail efficiencies (Score:4, Interesting)
You completely missed the fear factor. ..., how safe is that fossil fueller investment in your garage, when no one wants it, it becomes worth nothing...... buy a fossil fueller at this time only to see it's value go from tens of thousands to ZERO.
I don't care what my trucks' trade-in values are. I drive them until they don't go any more or rust away. I'm satisfied if I can get rid of them without having to pay someone to take them away.
BTW, I haven't a clue who you think you are replying to. I clicked "Parent" and it was a guy talking about the rolling resistance of steel wheels on rail. Perhaps you should check your previews more carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to keep driving a fossil when the cost of fuel and repairs is so high. EVs right now are much cheaper to operate and the difference will only increase as fuel and maintenance costs for fossils increase.
My Tesla has no routine maintenance cost and fuel costs of about 3 cents a mile vs fossils which have fuel costs of 10 to 20 cents a mile plus oil change, tune ups, filters and thousands of extra parts which wear out.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla regularly go hundreds of thousands of miles without needing a new battery. Fossil cars are trashed after 150,000 miles.
My Tesla has lost all of 3% of it's battery capacity after 80,000 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil cars are trashed after 150,000 miles.
My 2000 Toyota 4Runner has 230,000 miles on the odometer; it is certainly not "trashed." Heck, I sold my 1989 Suzuki Sidekick in 2000 when I bought my 4Runner, and it had 150,000 miles on the odometer and was not "trashed." I only sold it (and bought the 4Runner) because of my new family. It was a bitch loading kids in rear car seats in a 2-door vehicle.
Fossil fuel cars that are taken care of with ordinary care (I certainly don't go overboard on mine) are not trashed after 150,000 miles. Check back in
Re: (Score:2)
Your anecdotal experience is irrelevant.
The average mileage when a car is scrapped in the US is 160,000 and 15 years.
You can keep them going if you're willing to kept spending money on repairs. For most cars, the cost of repairs becomes too great and they ditch the car.
Re: (Score:2)
The same can be said (irrelevance) for comparing current EV longevity against ICE vehicle longevity.
I look forward to the long-term historical data on EV scrap rates in the US when it is available. I'm a fan of EV, but there is no long-term data available for reliability/durability over time (yet). Lack of maintenance might be a cause for ICE scrap rates; EV may offset that with lower maintenance requirements, but eventually batteries will need to be replaced and I am very interested in seeing how that p
Re: (Score:2)
> Hard to keep driving a fossil when the cost of fuel and repairs is so high
--What are you on about? Gas (87) is averaging ~$2.39 right now and late-model cars like the Volkswagen Jetta have an oil-change interval of 10,000 miles. If you get into an accident, sure - but that's what insurance is for.
--The major cost of a new car is the monthly payment and comprehensive insurance, not the fact that it's powered and lubricated by fossil fuels. And the major downside of current electric-only vehicles is tha
Re: (Score:2)
All new cars have high cost for depreciation. However, you want to keep yours a long time where fuel and maintenance costs will be much higher than an EV.
Range issue is mostly in the minds of fossil drivers. I regularly take long trips in my Tesla (300-600 miles/day). Supercharger stops are quick and easy.
Re: (Score:2)
And the cost is going to spike as EVs start to dominate. As gas stations close due to lack of demand, it's going to be a bit of a domino effect as various parts of the petroleum extraction, transport, refining, and delivery industries become less profitable. (40% of a barrel of oil gets turned into gasoline, so less demand for that is very significant.) I expect to see some real swings in gas (and other petroleum products) prices, as the market gets hammered with consolidation.
And as less non-EVs are made,
Re: (Score:2)
Range anxiety will still be around. I think what we might start seeing are EVs with generators, where the IC engine powering the generator is not linked in any way to the drivetrain. This way, if someone is in a rural area, they can refuel and keep going, areas where a pure EV would not be able to go due to lack of charging infrastructure.
This provides a few benefits. Because the generator has only one purpose, and that is to supply electricity to the battery, it can be run at one RPM, which means that
Re: (Score:2)
So basically a Chevy Volt.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. I think the Volt has some parallel hybrid capability, but the Volt is as close as we get right now, because it can run all electric, and will run the IC engine a little bit to make sure it still functions every so often if one doesn't draw the battery down enough so it starts up.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what we might start seeing are EVs with generators,
where the IC engine powering the generator is
not linked in any way to the drivetrain.
Ideally, the generator will be an add-on that you can rent
for a weekend trip and return on monday so that you don't
have to haul all the extra weight when commuting during the week.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to keep driving a fossil when the cost of fuel and repairs is so high.
The one thing I wish I had of my dad's is his truck, instead of his gun (which I do have.) It was a 1962 Chevy C-10 longbed stepside that was only gently beat up and had a lovely patina. It had the 292 straight six with a 1bbl carb and points ignition, meaning it could survive an EMP with no more than a coil replacement at worst, and a four speed with a granny low. It was only 2WD, but a 4WD conversion is not a big deal on a truck like that, and anyway it was plenty good on the BLM roads and such. In all th
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you get the right fossil, it's not cheap to keep it going.
And if you don't get the right fossil, it is cheap?
Re: (Score:2)
Er, editfail. Actual meaning easily gleaned, however.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're right - what happens to all the fossil fueled vehicles. They will be worth nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder if these demonstrations at least go one way, then the other? If not, it really is meaningless.
Re: (Score:1)
Airplanes have rubber pneumatic tires. Their rolling resistance on concrete, even with the high inflation pressures they use on large passenger jets, is much higher than that of steel wheels on steel rails.
Re:Not very impressive, considering... (Score:5, Informative)
That's interesting, but it's not really about that. Conventional combustion engines have serious trouble generating a lot of torque at 0 RPM. The crankshaft needs to keep spinning to generate any power or force at all, and mating a spinning engine to a stationary transmission/axle is very difficult when there's a lot of torque required, as is the case when pulling a train.
A manual transmission uses a clutch plate to connect the two, and it uses friction between the spinning part and the stationary part until the two can spin at the same speed. An auto transmission uses a torque converter with a fluid. Neither is very good at starting from zero, and neither will last long using it this way. Locomotives with mechanical drivetrains use large torque converters designed with this in mind; automatic transmission cars do not.
An electric engine, by contrast, generates its maximum torque from 0 RPMs. They can get going relatively easily from a standstill while towing large amounts, all else being roughly equal.
In other words, a standard electric truck transmission should, in most cases, be able to get much larger, heavier loads moving from a stop than a combustion engine.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, a standard electric truck transmission should, in most cases, be able to get much larger, heavier loads moving from a stop than a combustion engine.
If you really want to get a heavy load going with an ICE, you can use lots and lots of gears, and/or a torque converter (which doubles starting torque.) A big diesel with a correctly sized turbo makes ridiculous torque at low RPMs. Some would argue that an automatic transmission is actually superior for towing, especially now that even heavy ones commonly have six speeds or more.
The big advantages of the EV are efficiency and simplicity. Regen aside, it doesn't really do anything you can't do with an ICE. T
Re:Not very impressive, considering... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you really want to get a heavy load going with an ICE, you can use lots and lots of gears....The big advantages of the EV are efficiency and simplicity. Regen aside, it doesn't really do anything you can't do with an ICE.
How do you hold so many contradictory positions in your head at one time? Are you the mad hatter? "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!"
Every gear you add reduces your efficiency, adds complexity and chances for failure, adds weight, and adds latency.
And "Regen aside"? FFS, regen is where you get like 30% of your energy spent back! It's not an aside, it's a core reason EVs are so goddamn awesome!
Yes, you can approximate the torque of an EV if you use a ton of heavy, inefficient, problem-prone gears and forego recovering 30% of your energy spent. But why the fuck would you?
Re:Not very impressive, considering... (Score:4)
Every gear you add reduces your efficiency, adds complexity and chances for failure, adds weight, and adds latency.
While you're in low gears, you are indeed throwing away energy. Once you're up to speed, those other gear sets aren't in use, and you're at 1:1 or in an overdrive gear, whichever is more efficient. But yes, I think I was quite clear about the simplicity of an EV being one of its advantages.
And "Regen aside"? FFS, regen is where you get like 30% of your energy spent back! It's not an aside, it's a core reason EVs are so goddamn awesome!
Right, I believe I did mention that they are more efficient. Regeneration is a big part of why EVs are more efficient (the higher efficiency of electric motors being the other.)
Yes, you can approximate the torque of an EV if you use a ton of heavy, inefficient, problem-prone gears and forego recovering 30% of your energy spent. But why the fuck would you?
Because batteries still suck from the user's perspective. I'd like to convert our bus/RV to an EV (with full rooftop solar, it could probably eke out a few miles a day, so I could move on every couple of weeks to a month for free) but I want to keep my 1982 MBZ 300SD's engine and put it into a Jeep with some kind of nifty axles, probably Unimog 406. I'd be happy to replace our Sprinter with the upcoming Sprinter EV.
Re: Not very impressive, considering... (Score:1)
If you're talking about regenerative braking, that really doesn't buy you much except in stop and go traffic. On a cross country drive on an interstate, braking is a very low percentage of the total energy loss compared to drag. In stop-and-go it's the opposite. And let's not forget that many of the other benefits of EV disappear in cross country driving. Not too long ago if not still happening, smaller cars, especially the diesel ones, were/are still beating hybrids on fuel efficiency for highway drivi
Re: batteries, stop and go traffic, etc. etc. (Score:2)
Well - the regen braking doesn't get you much on the interstate. But every vehicle eventually has to take the exits or navigate some back roads as part of the journey. It seems to me like braking while towing a heavy trailer has always been a challenge. So anything that helps with the braking force is welcome in that scenario. (Regen braking can work in tandem with your traditional brakes, after all.)
I've never been much of a fan of Hybrids. I feel like a full EV is the only way to really get everything
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the hybrid. I've found hybrids useful in heavy traffic because you are not wasting gas when idle or creeping along. Similar when parked and waiting for a family member to do some shopping. I'm hoping for more series hybrids like a Volt, where they can run on electric almost all the time, but have an IC engine so they can be driven in rural places without range anxiety issues.
Hopefully series hybrids will likely be the future, where the electric motors do all the work, and the IC engine is rele
Re: (Score:3)
That might be true if the gears were in series, but they are not.
In reality, with diesel engines (trucks over 10 tons GVW), the general opinion is that each additional gear means 10% better fuel efficiency* - largely because you can design the engine for a narrower power band. If you have a 24 gear transmission, then : power enters from the clutch and takes one of three gear paths to the lay
Re: (Score:2)
automatic transmissions on trucks are a menace to society and ought to be illegal - just try and back up a full loaded artic (semi) to a loading bay with one wheel going in and out of a pothole if you don't agree.
You don't need a stick, you need a locker. Lockers are grossly underimplemented. I want one bad for our Bus/RV, and there's actually apparently one available (It's a Spicer J-210-S.) Now I just have to find one cheap. I want a complete carrier so I don't have to set it up...
Re:Not very impressive, considering... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you are unaware that there are lots of diesel locomotives [wikipedia.org] that are actually series hybrids [wikipedia.org] - run the ICE at more or l
Re: (Score:2)
Modern automotive transmissions (be they manual or automatic) are very good at what they do, especially once you get to a constant highway speed and stay there (where a long haul truck spends most of its time).
At a constant speed it is more efficient to send mechanical power from the engine straight through to the wheels as compa
Re: (Score:2)
Locomotives don't use series hybrid because it gives better starting torque, they could have stayed with steam if that was what mattered most. They do it because you can't build a geared transmission that can handle the stress. A torque converter for a vehicle that large would be ridiculously gigantic and require a huge amount of fluid and have massive cooling requirements.
Today of course there is another reason to use a hybrid, electrification. A properly designed diesel electric hybrid can use electricity
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And a team of 5-10 people can pull a 747 as well. In fact, there are contests held at many airshows to do just that (usually sponsored by FedEx where you see a FedEx plane used).
All it really shows is how incredibly balanced these vehicles are that all the weight pretty much goes into the ground and free rolling the wheels are so just a couple of horsepower or less can move them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most but not all of them, some use what GP called "mechanical drivetrains". Anyway, some have no electric motor at all.
Re: (Score:2)
GGGP posted: "Locomotives with mechanical drivetrains...". He didn't write: "Locomotives, with their mechanical drivetrains, ...". He clearly meant "Locomotive that don't have an electrical drivetrain..." and it made more sense to make his sentence inclusive instead of exclusive in order to plan for newer technologies that might come up like, let's say; "a warp drivetrian". Obviously he knew as much as you do about switchers and all... :)
By the way, I have always called it; "electric transmission" vs "con
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, just look at that single tiny towing strap in the Ford demonstration - it clearly shows the force applied is not immense - in fact he only reason a regular gasoline powered F150 cannot do the same feat is probably its inability to produce significant torque at low rpm.
As a physicist I always thought towing demonstrations at level surfaces are silly. I mean, the towing weight has such little meaning as the above world record shows. You can't even do comparisons - assuming a level surface, the axles/whee
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised more people didn't comment on the tow strap, which is certainly the telling factor in how much force is being applied to accelerate the train cars. I would be interested in seeing these types of tests repeated with a strain gauge in the linkage between the tow vehicle and the load.
However, it was clearly declaimed by Ford that this was a stunt, and as such it is a good way of generating noise. Volvo's JeanClaude van Damme "Epic Split" feat comes to mind as another great stunt (perhaps with
Bring it on! (Score:5, Insightful)
After driving electric, I would very much like to avoid going back. Currently not everything is perfect (for longer range we use the SUV). However for daily driving nothing beats the snappiness and handling of an electric motor.
So it makes sense to push this onto other platforms, including the pickups. The truck drivers used to hog the electric charger, and then this happened [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] ], where the Tesla easily towed the larger truck. Let's see how people will reach to "large, muscular" electric pickups...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The weight distribution of that heavy power plant can certainly effect handling. Consider that most internal combustion engines can run from 300 to 700lbs, the placement of that weight does matter. EVs give you a bit more options in terms of weight distribution, mostly in terms of where to stuff all of the batteries.
So yes, it CAN matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it does. Having a heavy engine at one end of the car makes the longitudinal axis diverge from a horizontal line. That makes the car want to rotate around it when you steer, which causes the inside wheel on the engine end of the vehicle to lift. That's why Porsche needs so much extra rear track on the 911, and why they don't on the Boxster/Cayman. It's probably also why my 1992 F-250 had way more front track than rear.
Re: Bring it on! (Score:2)
My use case is simple enough, a typical camping trip.
Pull 3500 lb trailer 150 miles with a 3000 ft elevation gain.
Camp four days at a site with no electrical supply.
Return home, with the trailer of course.
No refueling required. It's hard enough to find a gas station up there, much less the three phase power you need for a supercharger station. When you can meet those conditions we'll talk.
Feel free to forward this to Ford, Tesla, etc, or anyone else who thinks pulling many tons a thousand feet is relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, 3000 feet of vertical drop does not get get you 150 miles of range. The elevation profile of the last trip was up a thousand, down a thousand, up 3000. Then the reverse coming back.
Is a Tesla rated for 350 Lbs of tongue weight? The trailer does have it's own brakes, which of course do not have regeneration ability. And how long does an electric car stay charged when parked? How off is off? I have trouble with the current truck draining the battery just sitting there for more than three weeks, which i
Re: (Score:2)
It is too bad EV's don't have some easy way to carry spare "fuel." I wonder if you could get anything useful from the Honda generator on your trailer for an EV pickup, in a pinch.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a good question.
Most generators are not very efficient, and they would make it more expensive to run the vehicle compared to a regular ICE. And if you want to charge quickly, you'd need more than 1500W, and probably 240V output, something like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Yamaha-... [amazon.com]
This would essentially make your EV a "hybrid-like". While camping you can burn thru gas and charge the vehicle on site (just keep the generator running overnight). However that is a terrible way to do a road trip.
Given th
Re: (Score:1)
My dream of a trimodal all-electric RV is on its way- clearly! Complete with pulman car or toyhauler or boat trailer options! And a Swimgear!
Re: (Score:2)
There's a company making an amphibious RV now. Making it all-electric would make it a lot simpler, though, especially if you could come up with waterproof hub motors.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure why people are emotional about this subject. What does it matter how a car is powered as long as it meets your needs.
Several reasons come to mind :-
1) Elon Musk's personality is heavily involved (it induces love or hate among people)
2) The hype surrounding EVs
3) The emotion originally spewing out of EV owners has infected non-EV owners in the opposite way.
4) The fact that EVs use public roads free of charge (in the UK at least).
5) The reservation of prime parking positions for EVs.
It would have been better if EVs had been introduced in a more matter-of-fact way, without the hype and without the unfair concessions
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
For much of the country, electric is natural gas.
For some of the rest it is hydro, solar, coil, or wind, but not enough to make a difference. And for some reason tidal wave generation went nowhere fast.
Re: (Score:2)
You also have to include the cost of cleaning up the air pollution that has been created by fossil fuels. Again, the exact cost is hard to pin down, but is certainly going to be non-zero. A quick thought experiment will show what I mean: Imagine that you had to seal the tailpipe on you ICE vehicle. What would it cost to capture all of the emissions, store them and dispose of them in a way that does not go into the atmosphere?
No-one bagging the exhaust gas from their tailpipe and no-one is cleaning up the air pollution created by fossil fuels (except some Far-Easterners you see wearing cheap cotton face masks). So the cost is almost zero.
Re: (Score:2)
As an EV owner myself, I really do get the resentment about public parking spaces "reserved for electric cars only". But in all honesty, I very rarely see that anymore. That was more of a thing back around 2013-2015? You had mostly local governments thinking they'd be able to speed EV adoption and look like advocates for clean air and "sustainability" and all that if they marked off some spaces for EVs as a perk or incentive to buy them.
As I think we should all know by now? That really didn't work. Nobody
Range? (Score:1)
Reliability (Score:5, Funny)
Ford describes the towing stunt as a "one-time short event demonstration"
So about what one would expect when buying a Ford.
Re: (Score:3)
They certainly don't know how to design transmissions http://fordtransmissionsettlem... [fordtransm...lement.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Ford do this decades ago? (Score:2, Insightful)
I seem to recall a stunt like this many many years ago on TV. Back when people watched TVs that were connected to antennas on their roof, and trucks burned leaded gasoline.
Why should I be impressed now that an electric truck does the same thing?
I'll be impressed when electric cars aren't charged up by coal fired power plants. Until then the use of electric vehicles just looks like conspicuous consumption and/or virtue signaling.
blind don't see (Score:2)
Coal powered electricity is out of our immediate control; what we drive is under our control.
Each powergrid in the USA differs on how dirty it's power is they are not the same and they are not static; probably every single one continues to get cleaner over time.
Furthermore, the pollution of a grid powered electric is still better in many areas vs most gas vehicles. Sure you can cherry pick a dirty grid and pit that against a new gas car... but 1 is a shrinking demographic and you will be able to find 1 back
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with Nuclear Power Plants.
You might want to study accountancy - nuclear waste has to be monitored FOREVER and, the cost of inspection forever is infinity
It only needs to be monitored while the anti-nuclear people, by means of FUD and political hectoring, do not allow it to be finally disposed of in deep repositories. The deep repository solution is simple, but the antis don't want the issue solved - they want it to remain alive despite that being a more potentially hazardous situation. Their underlying agenda is really an anti-establishment one.
All existing solutions scrimp on safety - see Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukishma, etc.
I work in the UK nuclear industry and it does not scrimp on safety. It is the most safety oriented industry of se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a 1972 Chevy pulling a 747 [youtube.com]. Ford did a similar commercial. A Tesla pulling a MUCH lighter 787 is really ho-hum...
Pulling that load several times a day for a few months will destroy the transmission in the Chevy. The Tesla can keep doing it indefinitely.
It will? We know that - how? A 4 cylinder, 75 HP engine [eagletugs.com] is all you need for a B737 tug for commercial use. It is also a 3 speed, change out the differential gear in the Chevy and you have, basically, a stronger version of this tug (if the Chevy is the 4WD version).
And they get to 88 mph too (Score:5, Informative)
To quote Doc Brown, "No, no! This sucker's electrical!"
Diesel railroad engines are actually electical engines. The diesel engine is for a generator to make the electricity. There's a reason these were made by General Electric. They found such engines had very powerful torque from a standstill, just what the doctor ordered for railroad yard work.
Re: (Score:2)
They found such engines had very powerful torque from a standstill, just what the doctor ordered for railroad yard work.
Last I checked, yard work was commonly done with small diesel engines which use transmissions. Because they're not moving whole trains around, you can reasonably build a transmission that can handle the load. It's not until you have to get a whole train moving from a standstill that the load exceeds what can reasonably be done with a gearbox, and it makes sense to pay the efficiency penalty that comes with using a generator and a motor as compared to a transmission in cruising gear. That penalty was very hi
Advertisement for the ignorant. (Score:1)
This really says more about the incredible efficiencies of the steel on steel train/train track interface... probably only takes 300lb/ft of torque to do that and my gasoline powered Ram would've easily done the same, let alone a high output Cummins diesel.
Is this useful? (Score:2)
Isn't there a limit on how lung you can make a truck or how many hangers you can put on it? I'd just like to imagine the road that needs to take a load of 150 tonnes regularly...
I mean it's cool that we technically can, but should we?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there a limit on how lung you can make a truck or how many hangers you can put on it?
About half of states permit [hitchemup.com] a "triple tow", where you tow two trailers. (Yeah, that sounds like a "double tow", doesn't it?) But most states also limit combinations (vehicle+trailer[s]) to 60' (or thereabouts) without a permit. Vehicles are also restricted to 8' (+mirrors, lights, stop signs on school buses, etc) maximum width without a permit and at least a pilot vehicle, and maybe a chase vehicle too. And you didn't ask, but most states restrict vehicle height (less flexible antennae) to 13'6" without pe
What's the point? (Score:3)
If I need to tow a train, chances are I'm running a train yard and have locomotives at my disposal. You know. Those things that are designed to pull trains.
They might as well "tease" an all new diesel-elecric loco by showing it hauling a dozen bags of mulch from the garden center to my driveway. Now that. That I'd pay to see.
Re: (Score:3)
that's good value (Score:2)
Ten double-decker rail cars for £1m is a good price, if they're brand new.
Second hand.. less so.
Plot Twist (Score:2)
Late to the party Tesla and Ford?? (Score:2)
Not impressed. A girl who makes shatty robots has already done it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And HO model locos can, too (Score:1)
Back in the mid-nineties, as part of an anniversary celebration, I think it was 200 Fleischmann HO locomotives (about 1lb) pulled a real-life boxcar.
Then there's the ads from CSX, about pulling 1 ton of cargo about 400 mi on one gallon of gas (actually, diesel).
Railroads are *REALLY* efficient.