-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Truck Platooning Testing | Transportation Research | NREL
I wonder about a three truck configuration. Perhaps savings of 5%, 15% and 10% are possible. So if you begin with ranges of 500, 300, and 300, these could get extended to 526, 353, and 333.
Weight distribution could also impact this. For maximum range, put heaviest load in first truck and lightest in third truck.
I wonder about a three truck configuration. Perhaps savings of 5%, 15% and 10% are possible. So if you begin with ranges of 500, 300, and 300, these could get extended to 526, 353, and 333.
Weight distribution could also impact this. For maximum range, put heaviest load in first truck and lightest in third truck.
Last edited:
Reciprocity
Active Member
I think EV Semis would benefit more. How much is to be determined. Maybe as much as 20-30% more. I know that when I draft off a semi in my X, at 1 sec follow with TACC/AP. My Wh/mi is about 30% better then if I was not drafting. That is at about 60mph though as the semis dont go very fast.
you mean by switching the lead truck every 200 miles?
It is how the birds and the cyclists go in a formation..
That's my perception, too, when I draft in my S. A semi is a much bigger vehicle, so maybe the savings are not quite as much as with a following sedan.
At any rate, I think Tesla will thoroughly test this out. There are also subtleties around the specific following distance of each vehicle, and this may even be speed, grade and load specific. So there must be opportunities for computer programming and links between trucks to optimize speed and spacing in real time. Maybe dynamic optimization squeezes out another 5% or so of efficiency.
Truck with most range left (in excess of destination) leads, switch off as rankings substantially change.
Given that oveall energy used is cumulative for each link in the chain, then it seems you would.
If the raw materials are coming in by truck, and that cost is one dollar per ton to get to Sparks, and it traditionally has cost another dollar per ton to get the finished packs to Fremont, then the total transportation costs in the supply chain are $2/ton. If you reduce the cost to $0.25/ton from Sparks to Fremont, isn't your overall chain transportation cost now $1.25/ton?
(On edit: I realize the question was about saving energy... same principal applies as overall well-to-wheel energy efficiency electrified transportation is greater than that of internal combustion)
Last edited:
Yeah, and my point was that it was just an atypically easy run to haul a load that distance since it is mostly downhill.
Seeing a Tesla Semi haul a load of cars up to the Gigafactory would be more impressive.
And than back again?
Yes, there could be more impressive tests. Even more impressive than Falcon Heavy taking a roadster towards Mars.
Fact is there are currently exactly zero electric semis doing this totally unimpressive easy route. Because its too easy ...
Not really. This one leg of the supply chain now consumes less energy with much reduced carbon foot print. One leg at a time. One problem at a time.
This all or nothing approach will keep us tied to where we are today. This is the same tactic used to dismiss EVs in general, because not of all the power generation is zero emissions and sustainable energy sources. First you solve the consumption end, a million tail pipes, while also working on moving away from coal and other fossil fuel based power generation.
So it's about a 4,400 ft elevation gain from Freemont to Sparks, a 240 mile route.
According to EV trip planner, my S85 would use about 40% more energy than normal, assuming a 1.1x speed factor and no wind. So that additional energy should be just about all attributable to the uphill route.
The long range semi is spec'd at 500 miles fully loaded. So assuming grade affects it by roughly the same factor, that means it would burn s 336 miles of range. Even if it were affected twice as much as my car, that means it would burn 432 miles. Slowing down to the speed limit on the grades should help even more.
I suspect it would make it.
According to EV trip planner, my S85 would use about 40% more energy than normal, assuming a 1.1x speed factor and no wind. So that additional energy should be just about all attributable to the uphill route.
The long range semi is spec'd at 500 miles fully loaded. So assuming grade affects it by roughly the same factor, that means it would burn s 336 miles of range. Even if it were affected twice as much as my car, that means it would burn 432 miles. Slowing down to the speed limit on the grades should help even more.
I suspect it would make it.
I'm thinking that Tesla is well aware that transporting loads between Freemont and Sparks would have major PR implications. So I rather suspect that they have designed the 300 to be sufficient to take a full load up the hill to Sparks. Failure to do that would imply endless negative PR. Every potential truck buyer is going to want to know if the 300 can really make that trek. The answer had better be, yes.
Why? what is wrong if only a 500 truck can make it? After all it is over the mountain. So no expectation and no harm done if the shorter range truck cannot handle it.
Similar threads
