Don't underestimate how hard it is for semis to take tight corners in cities. Sometimes they can't do it at all, but when they can, it's by practically self-jacknifing. This is why you can't close the gap between tractor and trailer. Maybe the tractor could have a retractable, sliding shroud which aerodynamically "shields" the gap and is retracted on turns?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Super. So glad we can collaborate. I have my own spreadsheet and was surprised to see that the feasible space is so constrained.
In my earlier post I noted that GE was working on software to optimize the operation of diesel electric trains. They were able to increase mileage by 14%. So the question in my mind is this could fit into our analysis. It impacts what I have called the residual energy (I can't help it, I'm a statistician). Basically this element needs to have enough slack in that such an improvement is plausible. So Ret/Yet needs to be greater than about 14%. My assumptions lead to just 6%. So that is clearly not leaving much room for software to optimize energy use. How should we be thinking about the skill of the driver to drive more efficiently?
Gabriel on Twitter
Check out the cartridge loading concept here. Imagine a vehicle shaped like a bus that can completely contain essentially a shipping container. Because it is enclosed, there is full control over aerodynamics. This vehicle looks a bit smaller that a tractor-trailer combo. But if the vehicle is completely autonomous, it may be fine if it is small.
So what would an optimal highway carrier for a 20 ft shipping container look like?
Check out the cartridge loading concept here. Imagine a vehicle shaped like a bus that can completely contain essentially a shipping container. Because it is enclosed, there is full control over aerodynamics. This vehicle looks a bit smaller that a tractor-trailer combo. But if the vehicle is completely autonomous, it may be fine if it is small.
So what would an optimal highway carrier for a 20 ft shipping container look like?
Don't Believe The Hype: Oil Markets Far From Recovery | OilPrice.com
I so appreciate Art Berman writing about how demand is willingness to consume at a given price.
Is demand strong enough to pay $70/b to grow production? It is doubtful at this point. Demand may be so weak that it would prefer supplies to decline than to pay a price that high.
I so appreciate Art Berman writing about how demand is willingness to consume at a given price.
Is demand strong enough to pay $70/b to grow production? It is doubtful at this point. Demand may be so weak that it would prefer supplies to decline than to pay a price that high.
(1) The shipping containers are lifted and dropped by crane and forklift; can't really enclose them. One type of crane uses magnets from the top, another grabs sort of from the sides, the forklifts grab from below... the infrastructure really requires them to be kept in the open
(2) The reason for the articulation between tractor and trailer is ability to turn sharp corners. Even with a standard shipping container length, that's essential; anything even a little longer than the longest standard shipping container starts being unable to turn city street corners.
So, you can't really improve the existing design in radical ways. Totally reshape the cab/tractor however you like for aerodynamics; do whatever you like with the underside of the trailer; but the basic "box on flatbed" isn't really alterable.
Dude, you're not thinking outside the box.
How about a flatbed that has an inflatable shell that incloses whatever is on the bed? It would look something like a blimp with wheels. The inflatable shell would be pressurized enough to withstand highway wind speed and maintain a smooth and rigid contour.
I'd really like to see governments get behind digital traffic signals that broadcast a digital signal indicating when lights would change. Any vehicle equipped for this would know exactly how to time their approach to minimimize loss of momentum.
I know that there is work being done on signals that communicate two-way with approaching vehicles. This is much more sophisticated and would make sense once there is a high degree of autonomous vehicles. But short of that I think a simple one-way broadcast would amply reward drivers who invest in the systems needed to make use of it. Even if a small fraction of vehicles got the signal and optimized their approach, other drivers would learn to float along with it.
In my area, the cross walk signals have a count down so a pedestrian knows how much time they have left to cross. For drivers, it also provides a better way to anticipate signals, but I'm not convinced that many drivers use this information.
Since the thread has derailed to talk about blimps, let me drop a video of DHL Cubicycles:
The greener they come: DHL pilots carbon-neutral bike deliveries | Air Cargo World
I hope Tesla will push for the standardization of small containers in order to support sustainable, end-to-end logistics.
The greener they come: DHL pilots carbon-neutral bike deliveries | Air Cargo World
I hope Tesla will push for the standardization of small containers in order to support sustainable, end-to-end logistics.
Loved this, thanks for the article!
When I read this part:
I automatically thought about how there could be a dent in this timeline due to the Model 3. That amount of time would allow what, 350,000 M3's to be bulit (is that the number from the total 500,000 in 2018?). This could also maybe be signal to the market that future demand will really be less than they thought?
dc_h
Active Member
Ok, maybe my rolling blimp was overdone, but a whole line of truck hosiery and skirts shows promise.
I do expect that Model 3 is going to send a strong signal. The natural denial mechanisms in the oil industry has led them imagine that if EVs were to make a dent in demand, it will be a long time from now. BP is a good example, they see peak happening around 2035. Last year they projected a total EV fleet of 70M by 2030, but this year they had to bump that up to 100M because sales continued to grow in spite of low gas prices. So what happens when these same analysts see that Tesla is tripling cars sales in a year and could double that the next year? Will their 2030 forecast need to bump up to 300M next year and 600M the year after? By 2020, they may be pressed to reckon that as many as 1B EVs could be on the scene by 2030. Of course, many of us are not surprised by 1B by 2030, because that is just 56% annual growth from where we presently stand. But to industry analysts, they'll be going through the five stages of grief every time they have to update their forecasts.
In short, Model 3 will be a shock to the industry. As expectations shift, behavior will change. Liquidation could become more pronounced. Indeed, I suspect that once the Aramco IPO happens, the gloves will come off. Drill-at-will will be the order of the day.
The EV Marketplace Heats Up As “Tesla Killers” Are Rolled Out | OilPrice.com
Speak of the Devil. Zero Hedge is calling Tesla a "monopoly" and "juggernaut." The Model 3 is the one to beat. Good to call out China for taking up the challenge.
They still rip on the cash burn, but rivals must likelwise burn cash like a drunk Valley VC if they want to show up at the party 5 years later.
These are interesting times.
Speak of the Devil. Zero Hedge is calling Tesla a "monopoly" and "juggernaut." The Model 3 is the one to beat. Good to call out China for taking up the challenge.
They still rip on the cash burn, but rivals must likelwise burn cash like a drunk Valley VC if they want to show up at the party 5 years later.
These are interesting times.
Tesla Semi: analysts see Tesla leasing batteries for $0.25/miles in 300,000 electric trucks for $7.5 billion in revenue
FYI, Morgan assumes 1 mile/kWh. Anyone know how they got to that figure? Blind enthusiasm?
This article is also discussed in the Tesla Semi thread. Let's keep the leasing discussion there. But we've been debating the energy efficiency question here.
FYI, Morgan assumes 1 mile/kWh. Anyone know how they got to that figure? Blind enthusiasm?
This article is also discussed in the Tesla Semi thread. Let's keep the leasing discussion there. But we've been debating the energy efficiency question here.
Yes, yes, yes
No, no (or perhaps by chance)
most efficient about 15-20 mph at about 130Wh/mile
Aero = Drivetrain + Tyres at about 60 mph (250 Wh/mile)
add in air con and it may rise closer to 70mph (300Wh/mile)
Roadster Efficiency and Range
What is more curious is that they do not even need to make such an assumption or propose a leasing model.
They point out that in diesel trucks, the drivetrain is about 50% of the price of a $150k truck. Super. Tesla can offer a 500 to 750 kWh battery at near $75k. The markup is in the other half of the vehicle, but MS wants to see a specific markup opportunity on the battery visa vis a diesel drivetrain. Such an extraordinary opportunity is not needed. Tesla can spend $75k on drivetrain, $40k on the rest of the truck, and still gross $35k on a truck sold for $150k. This becomes a fantastic deal for the truck operator who can save alot of money on fuel and maintenance.
There is no need for Tesla to lease this out to make it at compelling purchase. Leasing is a financing option that some buyers will want, but it is simply a finance option, not an essential business model. For example, some buyers will lease a Model S, but this is not essential to Tesla's business model. It's also a compelling outright purchase with cash.
What MS is suggesting is that Tesla put a half size battery (about 300kWh) in the truck and lease it out at $75k or more, which implies 50% markup on the battery alone, and probably as much on the rest of the cab as well.
Let's say Tesla offers a 600kWh pack. This could provide a loaded range of 200 to 300 miles. Let's also suppose they use a chemistry that has long cycle life, say 2500 cycles. So at lower end of range, that is 500k miles, maybe more, but that works to the advantage of the lessor. So at Tesla's cost this is $0.15/mile, even assuming 3kWh/mile. So if Tesla can lease this out at $0.30 to $0.45 per mile, Tesla does stand to make crazy high markup. But this is largely at the expense of a customer who would be better off buying the battery outright. This essentially leaves the door wide open for competitors to step in and under cut Tesla with potentially inferior products. I don't think this is sort of strategy Musk would pursue. Rather, I think he'll want to lease at say $0.20/mile and offer swaps and Supercharging at near cost. One can buy outright, trade in batteries at swap stations or Supercharge for a fair price. Both buy/lease options are fairly priced.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Guy from AXA was on Bloomberg yesterday pointing out the physical oil market is now so responsive due to shale that it's essentially a mirror to the trade(options) market. Demand may not re-enter the equation before the end, there's too much incentive for everyone to pump all the way through.
Having insurance/investment entities now clearly illustrating everything discussed here over the last year is scary. If this consensus has been reached at the policy level, then we're at the point where only one solution is left sitting on the table. A major world war is the best path to maintaining this gravy train, and it's looking like we'll have a cadre of 12 year olds making the decisions this summer. Good luck us!
At least Russia and the Saudis are most assuredly going broke.
It would be really nice to update this for a semi. The original blog included a link to an Excel spreadsheet, but that link no longer works. Does anyone have an old copy?Yes, yes, yes
No, no (or perhaps by chance)
most efficient about 15-20 mph at about 130Wh/mile
Aero = Drivetrain + Tyres at about 60 mph (250 Wh/mile)
add in air con and it may rise closer to 70mph (300Wh/mile)
Roadster Efficiency and Range
Can we at least work out the functional forms for the four components?
With that we should be able to work backwards from chart to estimate parameters. Then we'd be in a position to adjust those parameters to the semi case.
A few functional forms look easy. Let v be velocity.
Anci = An/v
Tires = At + Bt*v, Bt << At
Aero = Ca*v^2
Drive = Ad + Bd*v + Dd*(Anci + Tires + Aero)
Does this seem right?
Last edited:
Similar threads
