Electric cars

AdrianC wrote: »

Some loads cube out, yes, then there's part loads. But not many - and it's certainly not something any haulier will be happy to rely on.

Could you provide some numbers to support your claim that it's not many. I've previously supplied links to info suggesting that in the States:-

The data regarding truck weight is collected by the States and consolidated by the FHWA using a technology called weigh in motion. The last time I looked, about 3 years ago, less than 10% of the trucks (class 8-13) were running near, at or above 80K pounds.

Also, while you are responding, could you now please supply the evidence on which you claimed the two trucks at the launch were stage-locked mock ups, and the two mules now making deliveries are different vehicles, quickly knocked up after (not before, for some reason) the launch?

Just trying to complete all of your posts and claims with actual proof/evidence. And to be fair, I have asked you a number of times.

Thanks.

AdrianC wrote: »

Do you mind terribly if I fail to hold my breath?

Probably not a wise decision when you have your head buried in the sand.

AdrianC wrote: »

Originally Posted by AdrianC View Post
Add 2t to the unladen weight, and you've just taken damn near 10% off the payload.

Originally Posted by Martyn1981 View Post
Nope. You've taken 10% off the max payload.

Tautology, much?

I let this bit slide, as it's just your usual silliness, but having thought about it, it's actually incredibly important, and possibly goes a long way to dealing with your general misunderstandings and excessive EV negativity.

Your statement is that any extra weight reduces the payload.

My response is that that is not true, as it only reduces the payload, if the weight of the payload exceeds the max.

So, if using your additional 2t batt weight and truck/trailer weight estimates, then the max load may have been reduced from 28t to 26t.

But, obviously all loads of 26t or less are not impacted, as per my statement - "You've taken 10% off the max payload."

Your claim - "Add 2t to the unladen weight, and you've just taken damn near 10% off the payload." falsely claims that all payloads are impacted.

This basic lack of understanding is similar to the silly claims we have seen on here by folk who think that

'until an EV can drive 400 miles without recharging, it's not suitable/viable'

however, the truth is that 'until an EV can drive 400 miles without recharging, it's not suitable/viable ...... for folk who want/need to drive 400 miles without recharging'

There is a significant, in fact, essential importance to understanding the difference here.


So back to trucking. If your claims are true that the Tesla will weigh 2t more than other similar tractors, then your payload claim only applies to fleets that operate at, or within 2t of the max payload. All other fleet managers won't mind at all. Hence why I asked you to support your latest claim

AdrianC wrote: »

Some loads cube out, yes, then there's part loads. But not many - and it's certainly not something any haulier will be happy to rely on.

as it's quite important/significant. Thanks.

AdrianC wrote: »

You're using "payload" to describe the weight of the actual load.

I'm using it to describe the potential maximum weight that can be legally carried - which is the usual definition used across the entire haulage and motor industries.

If you hire a van and fill it with helium balloons, it does not have a negative payload. The payload does not change.

I take it you are trying to slither your way out of yet another 'broad statement' of negativity? Fair enough then, if we both agree that it's not necessarily a negative for many fleet managers.

However, your follow up statement:-

AdrianC wrote: »

Some loads cube out, yes, then there's part loads. But not many - and it's certainly not something any haulier will be happy to rely on.

appears to support my interpretation that you are implying that most loads (the inverse of 'not many') will be impacted. So once again you appear to be trying to dig your way out of a hole, using contradictory claims.


Anyways, back to you supplying proof of the grand statements that you've made, and for which I've asked many times now:-

1. Proof that the Tesla semi's at the launch event where not mules, just stage-locked vehicles barely capable of moving themselves.

2. Proof that the trucks now being load tested by Tesla are new mules, as you stated, knocked together after the launch.

3. Proof that most UK loads are near to max weight, or shall we say, within 2t of max.

I'm assuming this information is at your finger tips, after all, Shirley you wouldn't make those 'statements of fact' falsely?

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Remember the giant mine truck that was converted to batts. It runs loaded, down from the site charging up the batts, then runs empty, back up. It actually 'makes' energy which has to be fed to the grid, cool!

Speaking of which, article today on another mine experimenting with these giant diesel electric trucks ..... more leccy, less diesel.

Swedish Copper Mine Converting Monster Trucks To Run On Electricity

Perhaps in the longer term, they'll be able to ditch the diesel engines and put enough batts on board to run the trucks for periods between overhead cables, then receive a charge for part of the journey.

Oh, and being Northern Sweden, that might make these trucks 'water-powered'.