Tesla is fast

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 4:17:11 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:00:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: 
> > On 16/4/22 2:25 am, Ricky wrote: 
> > > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 3:00:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: 
> > >> On 15/4/22 11:57 am, Ricky wrote: 
> > >>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 7:48:23 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: 
> > >>>> On 15/4/22 9:19 am, Ricky wrote: 
> > >>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: 
> > >>>>>> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote: 
> > >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: 
> > >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: 
> > >>>>>>>>> torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: 
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Was it obvious to the designers, from day one, 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations - 
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE. 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term 
> > >>>>>>>>>> I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo. 
> > >>>>>>>>> trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ... 
> > >>>>>>>> More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks? 
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV. 
> > >>>>>> Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in 
> > >>>>>> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The 
> > >>>>>> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, 
> > >>>>>> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable. 
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>>> The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the 
> > >>>>>> power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being 
> > >>>>>> installed every few 100km along major highways. 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air? 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>> Rechargable. Currently Lithium, but the module form factor is designed 
> > >>>> to adapt to likely new chemistries. The important point is the drive 
> > >>>> motor and battery fits into the existing motor cavity and fuel tank 
> > >>>> locations, so there is no structural modification required. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> The conversion cost is equivalent to rebuilding or replacing the diesel, 
> > >>>> and the operating cost per kilometre a little over half, and service 
> > >>>> costs also significantly reduced. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> <https://www.januselectric.com.au/#:~:text=Interchangeable%20Parts> 
> > >>> 
> > >>> I suppose a battery swap might be more useful for a truck than for cars. But there are issues with scheduling. When a truck has a delivery, that delivery has a schedule. You arrive by the time of your dock appointment or you lose it. I would expect battery swaps to be the same way. So an appointment is made in advance and what do we do to make sure we arrive in time for appointments? We arrive early. The whole point of the battery swap is to reduce wasted time charging. So how does it help to have to arrive 15 to 30 minutes early to make sure of meeting the appointment, vs. simply spending 45 minutes to charge? 
> > >>> 
> > >>> It's hard to imagine a battery swap for trucks that is so rapid that no appointment is needed. But maybe that's just the limit of my imagination. 
> > >> It's not that hard to read the damn FAQs, is it? 
> > > 
> > > This is one of those web sites I find very hard to read because instead of making the site legible, they chose to use stylish, like grey fonts with thin strokes. Sorry, they clearly are not looking for business or investment from me. 
> > > 
> > > I think I was in second grade when I was taught to not read every word individually, but to scan the paragraph looking at the shapes of words. My vision is no longer good enough to be able to do that for these obscured web sites. So rather than read every word, one at a time, I read none of them and visit web sites that aren't designed to torture their viewers. 
> > > 
> > > That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ. 
> > And this is why I have you shaded, and rarely read your posts.
> I like the fact that my vision is not perfect is the reason why you don't read my posts. Interesting. So why do you keep participating in this conversation?
> > You have no time to think, no time to read, but plenty of time to 
> > dribble your brains out in a post that you expect *others* to read and 
> > take seriously.
> I have tons of time. I don't have the patience to deal with crap web sites or marketing drivel.
> > >> For an e-power enthusiast, you're very full of reasons why it won't 
> > >> work. Yet you bleat so loudly when people act the same way about Tesla's. 
> > > 
> > > Analogies are only useful when they are useful analogies. What I say about BEVs has nothing to do with this company. I didn't even know e-power was a thing. 
> > > 
> > > If you think my points are of no value, then explain that to me. 
> > > So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and explain the use case 
> > Put in more time reading and thinking instead of just writing, and you 
> > might have something worth saying.
> Meanwhile, you choose to attack me personally rather than being involved in a discussion of the facts. I think we see where the shortcomings of thinking lie.
> > There is *one* route where this system is being trialled - 
> > Sydney-Brisbane. It's Australia's most heavily-trucked route - hundreds 
> > of trucks a day drive this nine-hour route, so there's no issue with 
> > needing to sleep en route, and food is already catered by existing 
> > service centres. This one route represents a perfectly adequate reason 
> > for some prime movers to be converted, specialised for that route only. 
> > 
> > There is plenty of roadside real estate where these battery stations can 
> > easily be built with multiple bays, and directly on the wide road 
> > reservation. We have these rest stops already built every ten or twenty 
> > kilometres - most have no more structures than a composting toilet. But 
> > if there's power nearby (and there often is) then a charge/exchange 
> > station can be built there. The point is that trucks just pull into a 
> > side track beside the highway, there's no diversion.
> Of course there is some sort of diversion, something that wastes time to get the truck into the bay, make the financial arraignments. Get someone's attention to do the change. Or is it fully automatic like a vending machine? 
> 
> But why you don't address the fact that this is solving a problem that doesn't exist? As I've already shown, a single stop to charge can be concurrent with the mandatory rest period (in the US anyway, not sure what laws are like down under). Someone commented that in the EU there are more/longer rest stops required. So there is already time for charging and no need for swapping batteries. Charging can be accommodated at existing truck stops with the addition of the chargers. It won't require extra land or zoning issues. It's an easy adaptation and can even be blended with the parking spots every truck stop provides. I don't know how large the battery swap buildings would be, but there has to be space for the inventory as well as means to charge them.
> > > So maybe someone should stop looking at the engineering minutia and 
> > explain the use case 
> > Maybe you should pull you head out of your arse and read *what has 
> > already been written* instead of writing reams more nonsense out of your 
> > own fetid imagination?
> I'm having a conversation *here*. You've posted a link to a web site I've already explained I'm not going to struggle to read. If you have something useful to say, please say it. But stop being a horses ass about the simple fact that you are in a conversation you don't like. That has got to be the epitome of idiocy, to be in a conversation you hate, and rail about it constantly, rather than just shutting the fuck up! 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C. 
> 
> -+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
> -+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

What would be REALLY interesting is a Canonball coast-to-coast race with EVs. I wonder what the time would be? Remember, an ICE-powered car did it in 27 h 25 m in 2020.

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:34:07 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 16/4/22 9:17 am, Ricky wrote: 
> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:00:57 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: 
> >>> That's why I am not interested in reading the *damn* FAQ. 
> >> And this is why I have you shaded, and rarely read your posts. 
> > 
> > I like the fact that my vision is not perfect is the reason why you don't read my posts.
> You seem perfectly able to read. If you have vision defects, enable the 
> accessibility features of your browser so you don't get low-contrast text.

You are an arrogant ass.   There are no useful features available.  You are the one who wants to discuss the web page.  If you can't be bothered to explain it, I'm not going to jump through hoops to read the damn thing. 


> > So why do you keep participating in this conversation?
> Because people who matter to me seemed inexplicably to be paying 
> attention to you. I have no idea why, because you've still said nothing 
> to deserve it. 

Nope, you are the only one who is in this conversation with me.  You seem rather obsessed with it.   It has nothing to do with anyone else.  


> If you want respect, you need to show some respect first. 

I literally have zero interest in your respect.  Is that clear enough for you? 


> When you write, you do it in the expectation that we will read. 
> You expect us to spend the time to read your dribble, yet you are too 
> lazy to do any reading yourself, so as to have something useful to say. 

If you want to read and reply, fine.  If you don't want to read and reply, that's fine too.   But clearly, you can't not read what I write.  You do seem to be rather in an odd state.  You talk as if reading my posts hugely annoy you, yet you keep, not only reading, but replying.  Yes, very odd. 


> That is the epitome of disrespect, and it characterises almost *all* of 
> your posts in this forum. I skip them, because they're almost always 
> content-free.

You simply have no respect for my handicap which is very different from having no respect for me.  You are clearly not the sort of person who I wish to converse with. 


> >> You have no time to think, no time to read, but plenty of time to 
> >> dribble your brains out in a post that you expect *others* to read and 
> >> take seriously
> > Meanwhile, you choose to attack me personally rather than being involved in a discussion of the facts.
> Facts are good. I like facts. Unfortunately you choose not to seek or 
> offer any.
> > But why you don't address the fact that this is solving a problem that doesn't exist?
> Why do you care? It should be obvious that the truck owners, and the 
> system's other investors, have done their due diligence and found that 
> it is in fact a very real solution to a very real problem. 

I don't see that at all.  There are always people who get involved in bad ideas.  Do you really not understand that???  If you don't understand that, you can't possibly judge useful projects from useless ones. 


> This can significantly reduce the cost of transport on Australia's 
> heaviest route, while providing a positive ROI for everyone involved, 
> from the first year. And you think that's not solving any problem, 
> because allow no facts to penetrate your thick skull?

It may produce an ROI.  That's not the question.  Will it continue to produce an ROI and will it be an optimal ROI?  I suppose if you have to have a solution today, then this might be useful.  But I've already explained that this approach may not have legs and you may end up stuck with a lemon that has no support if the company goes under.  


> > So there is already time for charging and no need for swapping batteries.
> This method reduces the barrier for entry presented by the high cost of 
> the batteries. The truck owners get their ROI more quickly than the 
> system's investors, who own the batteries. 

I haven't seen numbers, but I would be more interested in knowing if the ROI will continue after other solutions are available.  Will this system remain competitive?  I think the other systems will expand more quickly.  Since Australia is a self contained, island country, it may turn out that this system becomes dominant there, while BEV trucks dominate in the rest of the world. 


> The conversion itself costs no more than an conventional engine 
> swap/rebuild.
> >> Maybe you should pull you head out of your arse and read *what has 
> >> already been written* instead of writing reams more nonsense out of your 
> >> own fetid imagination? 
> > 
> > I'm having a conversation *here*.
> No you're not. In a conversation, people pay attention to the other 
> side, and consider their response. You just dribble out whatever 
> nonsense gets triggered by your false understanding of things. 
> 
> I keep hoping against hope that one day you will reflect on what I've 
> said (same on several occasions before, I might add), and will decide 
> you no longer want to be such an incorrigible bore. Not to say boor. 

Ok, I am reflecting on what you say.  I'm done with you.  I've tried to participate in a reasonable conversation, but you insist on being highly insulting because of my handicap.  You don't see it as important and that I should take the effort to read a web site intentionally made difficult to read, just so you can converse with me more easily.  I think of your handicap the same way.  Yours is a mental attitude, and that is often as incurable as any other disease. 

It's not like you have anything useful to say anyway.  Your comments are basically, that this system is good and other systems are not as good.  Brilliant!  What insight!  Thank you for your wisdom. 

-- 

Rick C.

-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Ricky wrote: 

> Clifford Heath wrote: 

>> You seem perfectly able to read. If you have vision defects, enable the 
>  
>> accessibility features of your browser so you don't get low-contrast
>> text 

> You are an arrogant ass. There are no useful features available. 

Of course not, Ricksy is using Google!

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:t3dmeq$rje$2@dont-email.me: 

> Ricky wrote: 
> 
>> Clifford Heath wrote: 
> 
>>> You seem perfectly able to read. If you have vision defects,
>>> enable the 
>>  
>>> accessibility features of your browser so you don't get
>>> low-contrast text 
> 
>> You are an arrogant ass. There are no useful features available. 
> 
> Of course not, Ricksy is using Google!
> 

Ctrl +

Increases size on every web browser I ever saw.  Ctrl 1 thru 9 as well 
and Ctrl 0 resets it.

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 8:34:07 PM UTC-7, Clifford Heath wrote:
> This can significantly reduce the cost of transport on Australia's 
> heaviest route, while providing a positive ROI for everyone involved, 
> from the first year. 

With the basic chassis ($50,000?),  $85,000 conversion, $120,000 batteries, it's a 1/4 million truck.  Doesn't matter who owns it, customers are indirectly paying for it. 

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:27:50 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote: 
> > Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote: 
> > > fredag den 15. april 2022 kl. 01.28.50 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: 
> > >> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:20:03 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: 
> > >>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote: 
> > >>>> On 15/4/22 2:28 am, Ed Lee wrote: 
> > >>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote: 
> > >>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 6:44:19 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: 
> > >>>>>>> torsdag den 14. april 2022 kl. 00.38.16 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: 
> > >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: 
> > >>>>>>>>> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: 
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Was it obvious to the designers, from day one, 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations - 
> > >>>>>>>>>> For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE. 
> > >>>>>>>>> And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term 
> > >>>>>>>> I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo. 
> > >>>>>>> trucks are not fast, and most of the cargo is going to be batteries ... 
> > >>>>>> More FUD. Usually you post real information. What bee is up your bonnet about BEV trucks? 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> Biggest problem is to maintain the current truck/driver model, where they are driving 8 to 10 hours of the same truck. In that case, we might need upward of 10,000 pounds of batteries. However, there are always shorter hauls where they can decouple the drivers with trucks/trailers, or go with hybrid diesel/EV. 
> > >>>> Read the link I sent. Standard prime movers are being retrofitted (in 
> > >>>> under a week!) with electric drive motors and quick-swap batteries. The 
> > >>>> trucks aren't limited by the geometry or aesthetics of a passenger car, 
> > >>>> so standardised interchangable batteries are easily achievable. 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> The batteries are rented, so the owner just pays for the 
> > >>>> power+depreciation. Battery exchange/charging stations are being 
> > >>>> installed every few 100km along major highways. 
> > >>> I'm interested, but not enough to read through the fluff. Can you provide the pertinent facts? Are they talking about rechargeable batteries or primary cells, like aluminum-air? 
> > >> $120,000, guesses: 1 cu.m, 5000lbs, 300kwhr
> > >> 
> > >> They claim 300 miles range, but i really doubt it for fully loaded truck. 
> > > 
> > > modern 40 ton diesel trucks average something like ~4km/l 
> > > a liter of diesel is ~10kWh 
> > In Denmark or Holland or Florida, maybe. In Switzerland or Colorado, 
> > not so much. ;)
> For us imperialist: 4 * 3.78 * 0.62 = 9.37 miles per gal. That's pretty good. We used to deal with 5 to 6 mpg for big trucks. 30% of 37.8kWhr (1 gal) for moving is 9.37 miles for 12 kWhr or around 0.8 mile per kWhr.

BTW, Tesla Semi says less than 2kWhr/mile or more than 0.5mile per kWhr.

https://www.tesla.com/semi

On April 13, Ed Lee wrote:
> > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. 
>> Was it obvious to the designers, from day one, 
>> that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? 
>
> For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For 
> maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, 
> which is hard to do with ICE.

At the risk of asking  a dumb question... how do they sync the 
speeds of the various motors?  Does the vehicle have a single 
centralized servo controller, monitoring them all? 

In which case, one might ask what's the failure mode, 
if that controller goes on the fritz -  

--
Rich

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:24:10 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On April 13, Ed Lee wrote: 
> > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
> >> Was it obvious to the designers, from day one, 
> >> that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? 
> >
> > For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For 
> > maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, 
> > which is hard to do with ICE.
> At the risk of asking a dumb question... how do they sync the 
> speeds of the various motors? Does the vehicle have a single 
> centralized servo controller, monitoring them all? 
> 
> In which case, one might ask what's the failure mode, 
> if that controller goes on the fritz - 

Speed controllers do not need to be powerful.  I don't see the need for a single central controller.

Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
>> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee: 
>> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: 
>> > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road. 
>> > > The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. 
>> > > 
>> > > Was it obvious to the designers, from day one, 
>> > > that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? 
>> > > 
>> > > I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations - 
>> > For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
>> And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term
> 
> I am thinking in terms of trucking.  Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers.  Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.

18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle 
   configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to 
   trailers where eight of the tires are.

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:59:46 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:
> Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 2:52:18 PM UTC-7, lang...@fonz.dk wrote: 
> >> onsdag den 13. april 2022 kl. 23.02.08 UTC+2 skrev Ed Lee:
> >> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:52:45 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote: 
> >> > > Today the electric cars are the quickest on the road.
> >> > > The classic petrol muscle cars are vying for the silver medal. 
> >> > >
> >> > > Was it obvious to the designers, from day one, 
> >> > > that this would be the case? Is it simply a power/weight calculation? 
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm congenitally leery of simple explanations -
> >> > For one thing, it's easier to install and control multiple motors. For maximum performance, you can put one (or more) motor per wheel, which is hard to do with ICE.
> >> And electric motors can usually handle quite a lot of extra power short term 
> > 
> > I am thinking in terms of trucking. Perhaps 18 motors for 18 wheelers. Smaller distributed motors might work better for heavy cargo.
> 18 motors for an "18 wheeler" makes no sense at all. Look at the axle 
> configuration for truck. It also makes no sense to try to add power to 
> trailers where eight of the tires are.

Lithium batteries don't perform well in the cold, which trucks have to deal with. At -20 C the capacity is about 75%; at -40 C it is less than half. So those Tesla semis operating during the wintertime could see their range reduced to under 150/250 miles (depending upon the version). Of course, they could insulate the batteries and use a part of their energy to heat themselves (which would also reduce range).