Volvo delivers 74-tonne electric truck | Hacker News Reader

Volvo delivers 74-tonne electric truck

volvotrucks.com

203 pointsclouddrover140 comments

I believe I speak for everyone here when I say this:

This calls for a new van Damme commercial.

Edit: the old one https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M7FIvfx5J10

If someone else does it would it have the same impact? I think part of the reason it worked so well is because Van Damme was well known for exactly that sort of stunt.

But Van Damme is 63. Even though I'm sure he is fitter, faster, and more supple than 99% of the population of any age if he could do that again now that would be quite some achievement I think. Even with safety lines.

The original commercial has Van Damme using safety lines.

If Tom Cruise at 61 can ride a motorcycle off a cliff six times, Van Damme at 63 can surely still do a split between two trucks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lsFs2615gw

or you can have a stunt man do it, then make a fake making of video where van damme pretends he did it

Basically, Tom Cruise is the world's wealthiest stuntman. I'd love to know the carbon footprint per second of video for that scene. And honestly, would it have looked worse had it been created using CGI?

> would it have looked worse had it been created using CGI?

I think so. Just watch the latest Mission Impossible and then watch the latest Indiana Jones. The difference is obvious. You don't even need a huge budget to do a better job with practical effects: they just look better - watch How to Blow Up a Pipeline for a great thriller done on a budget with little CGI.

Basically why I don’t enjoy watching these types of movies anymore.

The entire cliff was cgi.

I've watched the making-of video I linked several times and I get anxious every time he rides the motorcycle off the ramp. In comparison, the final version in the movie where they used CGI to remove the ramp is way less exciting to me. I found the scene in the movie a bit of a let down.

Exactly this. And after watching the whole prep montage, I was expecting to be at least moderately impressed by the final scene. I wasn't. The cliff looked improbable. But even if you believed that it existed as it was rendered, its surface is rough, yet as the bike accelerates along it the suspension doesn't absorb as much as a pebble. That made the whole thing look more CGI than it actually was. And it's the same with the other MI movie stunts: they make such a huge deal about Tom doing his own stunt that they forget to make a movie with a remotely plausible plot or relatable characters. These movies are wrapping around a few big stunts. 50% spectacle, 50% "so did you know that Tom (61) does his own stunts"

But I get it, these movies aren't aimed at me, they have their target audience etc.

Edit: Tom did not do his own aunts. That would be a very different film.

Edit2: my wife just suggested two movie titles, "Mission Incest, or Ant Fucker?". Sorry. Laughed so hard.

I think it’s time for Walker the Texas Ranger

That is an amazing commercial.

The dynamic steering is too

Confirmed. You do indeed speak for everyone.

Volvo is awesome, and so is Van Damme!

Volvo has always had amazing marketing. I know this isn't Volvo Trucks, but another banger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTjLmHXoNNw

The best part is Volvo backs up their marketing with amazing vehicles. It’s really the first car I’ve been so thoroughly pleased with. The only annoying thing is they’re going deeper on touchscreens rather than tactile controls… which is certainly quite annoying. But very few automakers are going the opposite way. Tesla ruined it for us all I guess.

And a new hook:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_wKkV5dwQ

The technological innovation pace in large capacity batteries and motors for EV’s is very inspiring. However, everything has externalities that seem to be ignored or remembered only after the fact. The USA’s roads have a score of D <1>. These electric trucks are tremendously heavy, and road wear is proportional to vehicle weight to the 4th power! <2>. A possible future innovation might be reinventing the highway pavement system, either materials or methodology of resurfacing.

<1> https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/roads-infrastr...

<2> https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...

This vehicle has 10 axles, so it should put less wear on the road than a typical truck&trailer with 5 axles with a capacity of 45-55 tonnes of cargo. Wear is directly proportional to the number of axles.

But more tires, more tire wear, more micro-plastic pollution from the tire wear, etc.

Nope. Twice the number of tires means half the weight per tire. Half the weight means 1/16 of the wear per tire. Twice the number is 2X, so overall 1/8 the impact.

Any reason why we don’t put as many tires on (existing) trucks as possible? Seem like a good deal reducing tire wear.

It will complicate the control of the truck and add more components (increasing the cost).

Truck drivers don't have to pay for the negative externalities of tire wear

It would probably increase wear, not decrease it. When a vehicle with more than one non-steering axle turns, some of the tires must slide. It's mostly not too noticeable unless the corner is fairly tight or the trailer has at least three axles. You don't really want any more wheels on the ground than you need to support the load. Or you need to allow those axles to pivot.

Heck, even with my modest two-axle travel trailer I leave tire marks on my driveway where I have to turn sharply to get it onto the road.

Increased friction -> uses more gas/energy. Complicated the mechanical design; more moving parts you have to maintain in a more crowded area.

I think we need to look at it as a throughput question. How do we transport X tonnage from pt A to pt B? What’s more efficient? One truck with more axles or two separate trucks, with fewer, for example; taking into consideration roadwear, tire wear, bridge capacity, etc.

Fewer vessels for fewer total trips is the more efficient option as a rule. See: cargo trains and gigantic container ships. Australia has some super long cargo trucks they allow called road-trains, I think, which are justifiable if you can fit them onto roads.

The thing that needs to be balanced in the case of # of axles is the cost of outfitting each truck with additional axles and associated suspension/braking hardware versus the savings in tire costs due to reduced wear on the larger number of tires.

I wanted to add that there are a bunch of factors at play in this optimization problem that might not be obvious. For example, there are diminishing returns in reduced wear from distributing load over more tires at some point. More tires & rolling parts also tend to increase rolling resistance, even ignoring extra weight that tends to come with a more complex design. Another potential advantage of having more axles is to reduce the frontal area of the vehicle by arranging tires in the direction of travel instead of putting them side by side on the same axle. Frontal area is a big component of the drag on a vehicle, along with speed and drag coefficient.

Probably a train. Doesn’t even need to carry its own electricity source.

They aren't really that much more heavy than normal trucks. We're talking a couple of percent of the useful payload here. They aren't 'tremendously' heavy but just about the same weight give or take a couple of percent. A couple of tonnes of battery goes a long way. And it's not like big diesel engines, assorted plumbing and other systems, and a couple of hundred of gallons of fuel weigh nothing.

There's no need for new pavements, or any other solutions for a perceived problem that simply does not exist.

> reinventing the highway pavement system

A number of years ago there was a demo of a technology where they mixed (something like) iron filings in the asphalt. By slowly driving over it with a massive electromagnet they could heat the asphalt from within, helping to fix any small cracks before water ingress could cause a larger problem.

> The idea is that HCT will contribute to [...] reduced road wear [...]. One example is Finland, where it is permitted to drive with 76 tonnes of total weight and 34,5m truck combinations on most roads. Another is Sweden, where it is allowed to drive 74 tonnes...

Apparently it can actually reduce road wear, likely due to using fewer trucks (and therefore fewer axles), despite the absolutely massive size of the semi featured in TFA.

Considering how close the truck matches the length and weight limits of the road networks listed, I strongly suspect it was explicitely designed around said limits. Possibly coupled with a margin for safety and human inaccuracy at the weigh scale, or simply lowest common denominator for limits in a market not listed.

No, road wear is proportional to the weight on each axle to the 4th power. More axles (like this tandem-trailer truck) can distribute the weight.

Of course that means more wheels needed, so more tires and other components. Tire wear also scales with axle weight (among other factors).

Total environmental impact depends on more than just the weight. The added weight isn't good, but may be offset by the other design changes.

So what's the downside to more tires?

https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/12/03/tire-related-chem...

EVs' heavier weight also cause more tire wear, creating more fine dust...

Is that based on the EV's overall weight, or is it proportional to the amount (or maybe contact area) of the tires?

The world is burning and you’re acting like dust matters. I’m so tired of this shit.

And the strength of guard rail needed to keep the vehicle in its lane is also proportional to .. the square of the weight (kinetic energy) if I could guess?

The size of the fire from one of these trucks getting into an accident is going to be impressive

Yes, it would almost be like the fires you have today, when a truck explodes that's carrying fuel for all the other fuel using vehicles.

I've been pretty frustrated with the slow adoption of EV and PHEVs for large trucks.

EV drivetrains are so much better suited to heavy trucks for everything but range (thus... the hybrid). The insane torque they can deliver, the energy recovery in braking, simply is a revolution for them. The Tesla demo showed that being barely able to go up a mountain is a thing of the past with an EV drivetrain.

I had to drive an RV with a friend over the Appalachans, and then the constant undulating foothills of the eastern midwest. What is especially annoying is the automatic transmission can't handle the climbs without careful metering of torque by the driver, otherwise it does a loud and jerky downshift. EV drivetrains would have none of that.

The range? Put a generator onboard. For RVs they already have one in most cases.

The stability of the entire system would be enhanced with floor batteries. interior and storage space would improve. You have a huge room for solar cells, and for RVs, the roll-out sunshade could be further solar cell real estate.

The weight issue will improve with density. Sulfur, solid state, and semi-solid state are in the wings. But again, a hybrid drivetrain would reduce the amount of batteries needed and improve range.

We should have mandated the development of hybrid drivetrains in all wheeled transport two decades ago, which is five years after the Insight and Prius hit the market.

> The range? Put a generator onboard

A small trailer with a genset and extra luggage space would be enough to convert an compact electric car into a touring car. Even better if you could rent one only when you need it.

>A possible future innovation might be reinventing the highway pavement system, either materials or methodology of resurfacing

Yes. Perhaps we could replace tarmac and tyres with steel.

Obviously there would be grip implications, so we could cut grooves in the road, and add flanges to the wheels.

I wonder how good their regenerative braking is -- that's a lot of kinetic energy to both have to stop effectively and to take advantage of as, well, energy.

Most diesel trucks use a jake brake / engine brake because the wheel brakes would otherwise wear out relatively fast, or even overheat and fail on longer downhills.

Seems like in-wheel motors are just about perfect for this application, and if they can put a reasonable fraction of that energy back into the batteries, even better.

There's no theoretical reason why it can't be good. The Tesla Semi is capable of significant regenerative braking capacity over long downhill stretches. Tesla's marketing claim featured a route which included Grapevine Mountain — which has a 4136ft elevation. They assert that it was capable of continuous regenerative braking, though it's not clear how much friction braking was involved. (It's almost certain that some trailer braking was involved for safety and stability.)

In the interview with Jay Leno they said you can do Grapevine "without ever touching the brake" which I interpreted as 100% regenerative

It's capable of jack shit until they release it and let independent reviewers without NDAs review it.

In wheel are bad unless you really need the compactness. In general on a vehicle you want to minimize the unsprung mass. Also the geometry of the wheel restricts you to mostly axial geometry, where as radial electric motors can be made as long as you want.

These trucks can charge at 160kw, so yeah they can put some pretty serious power back into that battery during regenerative braking.

yes regenerative braking is a holy grail. Unfortunately current (haha) car implementations have some corner cases that might be a safety hazard in a truck.

EVs nowadays cannot absorb so much electricity with a cold battery or a full battery. Even during ideal battery conditions, I think a fully loaded tractor trailer on a hill could easily overwhelm even a large battery.

I think the solution is some sort of hybrid system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking

like maybe dumping energy into the battery, then overflow into banks of resistors, and then a fallback to friction brakes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking#Rheostatic_bra...

I was thinking about the same issue the other day, but in the context of passenger EVs and tall mountain passes. On the pikes peak descent for example there are many signs imploring drivers to shift down and use engine braking to avoid brake overheating and failure. It would probably be a bad idea to put a charger at the summit.

well if youve gone up the hill your battery will be warm and wont be full.

if you charge at the top of the hill your battery will be warm you just need to know not to fill it up.

you just need to train drivers not to have a break at the top of a hill.

Using hydraulic hybrid technology is a better bet for trucks. They recapture 70%-80%, which is a lot better than batteries, and they last a lot longer than batteries. The economics show a savings of $150k per truck over its lifetime (for UPS trucks). The trucks don't have the massive additional battery weight, so less particulates from tire wear and less road repair.

https://www.epa.gov/cati/hydraulic-hybrid-vehicles

Garbage trucks can be retrofitted with hydraulic hybrid, for big savings.

https://www.powermotiontech.com/hydraulics/accumulators/arti...

> The truck runs 12 hours a day, with a stop for charging when the driver takes a break

I'm curious how much range it gets before needing a charge, and how long it takes to charge during that break. Running 12 hours a day doesn't tell us anything about distance covered.

My question as well. The next sentence says: "In the long term, the truck will also run between Gothenburg and the city of Borås, 70 km from Gothenburg."

So the implication is that it's not being used for that distance yet.

70km is really not very far. Great if you can take some short haul diesels off the road I guess, but that's not even a 1-hr drive on most roads.

Distance isn't the only issue. Nobody needs that kind of power in a truck to get around in.

But short haul and heavy duty like in a mine, this would be very handy.

Recent documentary where those heavy CAT loaders in Sweden mines are electric: https://youtu.be/V5aDnIfBCKA?si=aQevXe13IjjFkgRQ

Germany is also experimenting with electrified highways, where trucks charge their batteries via a pantograph for stretches of the autobahn.

Of course, they're also shuttering nuclear plants and reopening coal plants, so you might call it a step forward and a half-step backward...

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-tests-first-ehighway-autobahn/...

This keeps getting repeated but the percentage of coal in the electricity mix hasn't risen whatsoever. What's getting delayed is a higher renewable percentage. The problem in Germany isn't "more coal".

It sounds like a good question to ask but the main point is that there is a use case for a truck this size/capacity that can work 12 hour/day. At worst it displaces a diesel truck working 12hours/day with same km. EV. Are awesome as they don't need to idle their engine so no diesel (or very few electrons) spent while waiting for loading etc.

Volvo's Class 8 electrics get around 275 mile range, which is more than Daimler's. Naturally, carrying more weight is gonna limit that range, dunno how much (any auto engineers around?)

Mercedes recently did a test across the alps with their 40 tonne truck: https://electrek.co/2023/10/05/a-40-ton-mercedes-benz-e-truc...

As for charging speed, this truck has 0.6 megawatt hour of battery on board. Mercedes used 600 kw chargers. So, that's about 1 hour. There are a few companies working on megawatt chargers for trucks, so that's a number that might come down.

More battery in the truck is possible but also more expensive. And at least in Europe breaks are mandatory every four and half hours anyway. So, the driver might as well plug in while they rest. The battery wouldn't be completely empty by then so it tops up faster.

Pretty dammning for that Tesla / Pepsi report from yesterday:

https://bradmunchen.substack.com/p/scoop-the-tesla-semi-from...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38297765

I don’t think an article from a blogger with no source really carries much weight.

It carries the same weight as press statements from Tesla on a semi never released into the hands of the public without NDAs.

No it doesn’t because one of them is actually doing something…

That is pretty cool, it has definitely been an interesting electric truck week. I especially like Volvo USA's Electric VNR series (https://www.volvotrucks.us/trucks/vnr-electric/).

As someone who tries to curate a wider notification network of new technologies, I found this 'hole' in my sources on electric truck availability/deployment kind of notable. Now I'm going to need to find some sort of 'Transport News' type publication that summarizes these things monthly or quarterly :-).

Compared to Tesla, it seems Volvo’s gone a different route. While they don’t mention the total range, the trial distance being ~70km one way (with 12 hr/day duty cycle) suggests they might be targeting low distance heavy transport.

Semi’s high range means it needs a bigger battery, combined with the non-stop use takes a large toll on them. Someone in the other post speculates the cost of replacing them could be $170k. Volvo’s model likely gets around that with smaller batteries - leading to lower cost of maintenance.

The current trial use of Semi with Pepsi seems to be the same use case as Volvo. They only have day-cabs, and every day Semi returns to the transport hub. The long-range continuous-use stuff is still a future goal.

While there would be some efficiency savings from carrying around less weight, I'm not sure one should expect lower maintenance costs with smaller batteries since the wear per cell would be higher in inverse proportion to the size of the battery.

That’s a fair point. Volvo fitted with smaller batteries but travelling a comparable distance as the Semi will result in more charge-discharge cycles for the Volvo. That can lead to more wear.

The Ports of Los Angeles require decarbonization, and so this is not required to go great distance, but rather to spend a day moving containers around at the port.

Peanuts.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/worlds-largest-dum...

As far as I know, there exists a full electric version of this truck, or of a comparable.

Extra battery in the trailer can make it go so much further. And make battery in the trailer replaceable during a "charge" stop

Germany is doing something with electrified truck lanes on the highway. The trucks get charged through a pantograph as they're travelling.

Sounds good but it will require long stretches of infrastructure to be electrified or am I wrong?

If we base our numbers off the Mercedes truck elsewhere in the thread [1], then that takes 1 hour to charge a 600 kW battery, which can go for about 600 mkles. If we assume a speed of about 60 miles per hour, then that only requires a bit over 10% of the road to be electrified (60 miles out of every 600, I'd recommend splitting it up to 15 miles every 150). And maybe add a bit more to be safe, plus charging at rest stops in case the vehicle is low on battery when it gets get on the highway, and some more depending on the terrain (e.g. more up mountains than down).

That being said, the Volvo being discussed only charges at 180 kW/h, and the article doesn't have battery or range information.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38315909

I can see EV for next-gen mining equipment, the sort of behemoth that the wheels alone dwarf a man standing next to one - and still needded for mining new climate tech energy likel lithium, copper, silicon - but jeez, just some truck?

Not quite a behemoth but there is already a 120 ton mining EV:

https://www.emining.ch/

EV for mining is already a big deal: you don't want to run diesel equipment underground in an enclosed space.

The optimisation for mining would be replacing more of the surface diesel generators with solar + batteries as a logistics optimisation.

I thought mining equipment like that already was electric?

1978: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288

> Gross power: 16.56 megawatts of externally supplied electricity

There is an electric mining truck: https://electrek.co/2022/11/23/caterpillar-demonstrates-firs...

Already in operation: https://youtu.be/6TxMeHRq1mk?t=178

This is silly. We need to start viewing gas as a precious resource and treating it as such which means creating cities that don't take a car to get around in.

Yes, absolutely, but what would you like to do for the next 100 years while we make that happen? Keep on burning dug up fossils?

Are you proposing we should stick with gas vehicles until all cities on earth has been redesigned to not need cars and trucks?

How about electric train or something instead? Something electric, but more efficient? Is there something, anyone knows?

It's already there - https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2023/8/alstom-and...

Hydrogen is also already used for trains - https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock/alstom-coradi...

Seriously? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_multiple_unit

Hmm in the long run it's probably more efficient to install wires on train tracks. If you meant battery powered trains that is.

Guess it would work as a stopgap measure.

While every other country comes to that conclusion, somehow in the US we keep deciding that running wires is too expensive and we can save money with hydrogen fuel cells or fast charging batteries.

Probably because the cost numbers for systems that have never been demonstrated can get away with magical optimism, while existing technologies are constrained by historical data.

There should be pretty reliable data on electrification costs for a freight railway and how the operational costs add up. If it were a substantial business advantage over diesel-electric, why aren't the privately owned rail companies doing it already?

Running wires here, on a train network carrying a billion tonnes per annum, is a bit silly for various valid engineering reasons.

Battery trains make sense, they're on order ATM:

https://www.riotinto.com/news/releases/2022/Rio-Tinto-purcha...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-20/challenge...

    Rio Tinto purchased the four 7MWh FLXdrive battery-electric locomotives from Wabtec Corporation with production due to commence in the United States in 2023 ahead of initial trials in the Pilbara in early 2024.

    The locomotives, used to carry ore from the company’s mines to its ports, will be recharged at purpose-built charging stations at the port or mine. They will also be capable of generating additional energy while in transit through a regenerative braking system which takes energy from the train and uses it to recharge the onboard batteries.

> why aren't the privately owned rail companies doing it already

It prevents double stacking rail cars

"freight railway". Why only freight?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-67011369

Aren't most trains electric anyway? Over here(in Poland) I don't think I've ever seen a train that doesn't run on electricity.

> The Polish railways network consists of around 18,510 kilometres (11,500 mi) of track as of 2019, of which 11,998 km (7,455 mi) is electrified. [1]

As only ~65% of the polish rail network are electrified, I'm sure there are still plenty of Diesel powered trains operating in Poland.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Poland

Technically I think diesel powered trains are just eletrical trains with a diesel generator.

Lots of danish trains are still diesel

This one is diesel even if it is under overhead lines: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:SA132-008_Pozna%C5%84_RB8...

Some more: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_spalinowych_zespo%C5%82%...

This view was common for me some years ago: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/SM42#/media/File:SM42-838...

That seems like a silly choice, since most diesel trains are diesel-electric... which is a design that can easily be modified to run dual-mode.

They probably mean diesel despite the picture chosen not making it obvious.

??? They said diesel.

Yes. They’re saying that it’s an example of a diesel locomotive, despite the picture suggesting it may be electric only.

I translated the polish language page it is on and it sounds like it is diesel with a mechanical drive.

If I understand correctly those are just somewhat cheaper per unit and some of them do run on lines that are not electrified. So it happens that a diesel train runs entirely (or often partially) on electrified lines like in the photo I gave.

I said "diesel" as a mental shortcut for diesel and diesel-electric, but certainly not for electro-diesel.

https://thedriven.io/2023/04/18/australian-miner-to-trial-wo...

Already exists. 160 tonnes, swappable batteries, converted old diesel trucks. Australia has figured it out.

Really touching on the third rail of EV politics here.

There are lots of electric trains without battery and some with battery. All of Europe is running lots of electric trains without battery.

Here in Germany on some tracks some trains also run on battery. As a test case we had such a train for some month to replace a diesel train. They just had to return the test train.

hmm, all diesel trains use electric track motors.

Electric subways have been a thing for about 140 years now.

https://intramotev.com/

Where is the video of the Moose test or is that a Finn thing only?

Moose bites and, uh, collisions with moose can be very nasti

The truck is not 74 tons, it's capable of moving that weight in cargo. Title update would be nice.

This is how trucks are referred to. A 74 ton truck is not expected to weigh 74 tons.

That's great. Do we expect the typical HN reader to know this? While I don't think I'm 100% representative, I looked at that title and thought "wow, that's a really big truck! Is it used for mining?"

What do you think the typical HN reader thinks when they hear "1 ton pickup truck"?

I’m all for keeping the original title, but thanks to your comment I’m one of “today’s 10,000” to realize what that term means. And I grew up around trucks!

Even better, when they hear commercials for America's best selling half ton truck, did they really think it weighed 1000 lbs?

Truthfully I didn't think much about it, but yes I assumed that was their weight, in the same way that a heavy-weight boxer fights in a particular weight class.

If you thought the large trucks people call half ton weight only 1000 lbs, you have such a disconnect with reality and the physical world that I can't even relate. If a half ton Chevy truck weighs 1000 lbs, what did you think a Honda Civic weighs? As much as the driver and passenger?

Please give the HN guidelines[1] a glance.

Some people don’t give much thought to trucking or weights or even vehicles in general; Their connection to reality isn’t based on needing to know those things. Some people even live in places without trucks at all. The world is pretty diverse!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Even better, almost all modern "half ton" pickups have an actual payload capacity between 3/4 and 1 ton. Or even higher.

I expect them mostly to know, and for those that didn't know trucks are categorized by payload to learn it from the comments, like this.

I expect you open the article and read it in the first paragraph. Also it is industry standard to name it that way.

the truck itself weighs only 9 tons, it's the battery that weighs 65

Diesel is much more energy efficient than batteries.

Sure, and dumping mercury from your gold mine is cheap.

Externalities make everything cheaper than it should be.

Unfortunately, the best way to turn diesel into motion is an internal combustion engine, and internal combustion engines have very poor efficiency.

Based on all the diesel locomotives out there, the best way to turn diesel into motion is with a diesel engine running at optimal conditions driving an electric generator which in turn runs electric motors for the drive wheels. At least for very large loads, they are much more efficient per ton of goods than a diesel truck.

Diesel electric drive are only around 80% efficient while a mechanical transmission is 95%+. It is a misconception that trains use them for efficiency, trains get their efficiency from low rolling resistance from steel wheels on steel tracks and aero efficiency from all the cars drafting together. The electric drive is needed for simplicity of routing power to wheels and for the precise traction control needed to get the train moving without slipping the wheels.

Yes, diesel engines are some of the most efficient internal combustion engines, the best of them are slightly better than 50% efficient from tank to crank.

And then diesel-electrics have more losses converting that to electricity, and then more losses again to convert back to rotational power.

It is more efficient to generate electricity at a power plant and electrify the tracks, because power plants can far exceed 50% efficiency. Also they can run on something less dirty.

That’s mostly because of the difficulty of making a mechanical transmission that can survive the required torque. That used to be impossible, now it’s merely a bad idea.

Pray tell why do all the largest pieces of equipment on the planet use electric drives? This may be direct plugin to the grid, or diesel electric.

Moreso, explain hybrid systems like the Edison Topsy that run at a fixed rpm and can use battery for things like regenerative braking?

If you come to a form and say dumb crap, at least have something to attempt to prove your point.

By way of comparison, a loaded M1 Abrams tank weighs about the same. The wear and tear on roads will be enormous, and the extra particulates from the greatly increased tire wear are also concerning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com