More generally, electrifying these sort of vehicle fleets makes a lot of sense since usage is predictable, order volume is high if replacing a whole fleet, they run on a schedule, and the problem set can be well defined (compared to passenger vehicles where you need to solve for every edge case).
However, the range is not to be discounted. Assuming a delivery van will operate for basically the full working day, I'd assume 200 miles is not unheard of for driving, and I see the range is about 150 miles for them.
That said, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/14/what-its-like-to-deliver-for... seems to indicate that the range is working out ok? I'm curious if that is strictly in the dense areas? Mayhap the lower density also translates to fewer deliveries such that you have a lower "duty cycle" as it were?
they also have to be WAY easier to drive. they just scoot out of there rather than having to shift 9 times to get up to speed.
All Amazon delivery vans are automatic.
I’m not sure, is it even possible to use these systems on diesel motors?
Probably also depends on where you are? I'd imagine colder climates need to keep the engine running.
This is backwards. The whole point of these systems is that it costs more in fuel at idle than it does to stop and restart.
Lots of "pure" ICE cars have this now with some smarts about operating temperature, battery etc.
Idling was worse on carbs, sure, but even with injectors your fundamental problem is you don't have enough airflow, and you counteract that by richening the mix so you don't stall.
Is a very interesting case study in what software folks would call "tech debt."
I think this is the important bit. Amazon knows on exactly which routes a full battery and a full load of packages line up, so they can put the EVs on those routes.
On top of that, while plugged in, they can keep cool/warm in the vehicle without having to idle it or have additional wear and tear...
You can see this in long race formats that have breaks. Teams that find a way to not do the break wind up winning. Such that you then have to mandate them, which works for things that people don't get value out of.
We already have similar mandates for truck driving, and I think most folks would be surprised that that exists. And they are far looser than what would be required for last mile driving.
Teams that don't take the break will be inhibited by the limited range of their un-recharged vehicles. Are you suggesting that some people will find out how to swap their vehicles, and keep the shift going? (Or add an extra length of hose to the fuel line, for a virtually bigger tank? That type of trick isn't going to work well with battery vehicles...)
How is it you propose that someone is going to get more work done in less time, when their total range / route length is reduced by the extra effective distance they would have been able to continue with 15 minutes of fast charging added in, at the one or two points where it makes sense to add a stop in their shifts?
Then, later, they would find that the newer batteries actually can get by with smaller breaks. Or other efficiency gains that we just aren't thinking about.
My point wasn't that it would fail immediately, but it would eventually.
By throwing the furthest of their deliveries into the nearest lake, and coming back early with an empty truck and charge remaining.
Drivers don't want to sit around waiting for a recharge. They want to clear the truck and go home.
If the trucks go far enough, and the drivers don't need breaks, then say that I guess. Drivers don't want to do their job is not an engineering problem, whereas delivering more packages per shift could be one.
My main point is still on the "contra to my view" side, though. I'm skeptical that they are as good of an idea as stated, but evidence is positive on them.
Edit: Amusingly, I think I was thinking that I was bullish against it. Such that I flipped a different part of the sentence. Still, wrong as written.
I don't really have an analog for the bulls, oddly.
Bears: stand and swipe down with their paw
Bulls: start with their head low and jut upwards with their horns
I'm also open to challenges in my thoughts on typical range needed for a city fleet in deliveries. Will try and take a dive to find more data there.
One of those typically dominates the total battery degradation, depending on the use case. EVs for personal use tend to have calendar aging dominate the overall battery degradation early in their life.
Our school district had a transportation manager who refused to buy electric school buses because the bottom line was they were more expensive to own and operate. He considered initial purchase costs, ongoing maintenance, the need to install and maintain a charging infrastructure for a fleet of buses, and the depreciation on the battery and replacement costs for same. He was replaced shortly thereafter by someone who promoted the party line. A referendum for a property tax increase was on the ballot within a couple of years. It passed of course, because "schools"
The business case can be well defined as expressed in your example, which makes solving for that problem easier. Selling en mass to the general public is a harder feat for an EV startup IMO
Tesla took the route of selling low volume luxury and then went down market. Seems like Rivian is taking a strategy of special purpose fleet vehicles (and I imagine eventually broadening their focus to consumers) - both are pretty smart business approaches to growth IMO
It is, for example, how airplanes have been so competitive despite there effectively being a duopoly. Pretty much no one is buying an airliner at list price.
The last of the DC-10s/MD-11s only recently ended service with FedEx. They may actually still be flying some MD-11s.
If you’re leasing it’s not for free, the lessor is charging you a premium to make a profit over what they’re spending, so it still makes sense to own, particularly for large, heavily utilized fleets that don’t scale down much.