Tesla semi

[houstonscott]

I own a 2010 BMW 335d. Easily breaks 40mpg on highway, and will dust a corvette. 425 foot pounds of torque. We're there.

 

[flusher]

I think you mean SR-71 or the A-12

Shell scientists did experiments and a book was even written,

"Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977 One of the chief scientists quoted well over 300 mpg




here is a small discussion on some of the findings in the book
Shell Oil Company achieves 376.59 mpg in test car at Wood River Laboratory

Rumor has it that it has since been removed from the National archives or Library of Congress.?..


The car has been found that achieved 377 mpg:

Shell Oil's 377 MPG 1959 Opel - YouTube

Gasoline may have been (reformulated) and the vaporization has been reduced to the point that vapor carbs no longer are feasible.

There was an interview with one of the Shell scientists years ago that was involved with this project but I have not been able to find it so far.

also found a PR letter from Shell to an interested party, but the quoted mpg is (only) 297...

http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/wo5778a.jpg

You can get impressive fuel mileage with an ICE-powered vehicle if you drive 15-20 mph to reduce drag and rolling friction. And you can get 1000 miles range out of a fully charged battery in an EV by doing the same.

 

[tomato coupe]

I own a 2010 BMW 335d. Easily breaks 40mpg on highway, and will dust a corvette. 425 foot pounds of torque. We're there.

Oh no, now you've done it! It's never a good idea to claim anything is faster than a Corvette, especially a diesel-powered German car.

 

[Redneck in training]

I own a 2010 BMW 335d. Easily breaks 40mpg on highway, and will dust a corvette. 425 foot pounds of torque. We're there.

Nope. It will do it if youi catch the Corvette driver sleeping. 335D makes 60 in 5.5 sec at best while Corvette Z6 does it in 3 sec.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

You know those LTE networks get faster by adding antennas, it's not a speed per antenna increase you are imagining, that's getting mature.

Adding antennas is one method, among many. As practical matter, we are getting far more speed from CA than from MIMO.

As a more practical matter, until we have the backhaul to support it, it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[TemporaryKubotaOwnerMark]

Tesla customers aren't investors, they're purchasing a commodity. Tesla customers tend to be very happy with the product. Calling Tesla a Ponzi scheme makes for a nice sound bite, but it's not an accurate portrayal of the situation.

Accurate? Not strictly so, but as a figure of speech, it's accurate enough. Musk has admitted they can't make a profit on their cars. Note that he has not said they haven't made a profit yet. He says they do not know how to make a profit.

The customers are being subsidized by tax breaks and gullible investors. Its not sustainable. Just like a Ponzi scheme, when the subsidies dry up, it will fold up.

It might work.

There's no reason to believe it would not.

The important thing to remember is, with the implementation of any revenue-neutral tax scheme, some people will pay higher taxes and some will pay lower taxes. Sales taxes, by nature, tend to be regressive taxes because wealthy people spend less of their income on goods. The Fair Tax tries to rectify this by giving rebates to the lowest income earners, but the wealthy will still come out ahead. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but if you implement a Fair Tax that is revenue neutral, then someone has to make up for the lower taxes paid by the wealthy.

A rich person will not be paying lower taxes than a middle or lower class person. They spend more, they will pay more. As a percentage of their revenue? Certainly, but what has that got to do with anything? Is the goal of taxation equal pain? Currently the few wealthy pay the majority of all taxes paid. It is a gross injustice.

In this case it looks like you are likely to pay more in taxes if you're in the lower-mid or middle income groups. I'm okay with that, but I know a lot of people who wouldn't be.

That's the point, really. A truly fair and open tax system (which our current system is not) will have everybody hurting, and finally facing the ugly truth of how much our government costs us.

If we collectively decide to continue that pain, at least we have done so with full knowledge of the price, instead of having it hidden by or current system, and unfairly laid mostly on the backs of the few, to the benefit of those who mostly do not produce anything of value.

 

[Egon]

You know those LTE networks get faster by adding antennas, it's not a speed per antenna increase you are imagining, that's getting mature.

Your talking about two whip antenna's with fox tail's on the rear fenders? Adding a continental kit will also help.

 

[vvanders]

Accurate? Not strictly so, but as a figure of speech, it's accurate enough. Musk has admitted they can't make a profit on their cars. Note that he has not said they haven't made a profit yet. He says they do not know how to make a profit.

The customers are being subsidized by tax breaks and gullible investors. Its not sustainable. Just like a Ponzi scheme, when the subsidies dry up, it will fold up.

Got a source for that juicy quote?

FWIW they've always said they would be profitable post Model 3 full production: Elon Musk: Tesla should be profitable after Model 3 arrives – The Mercury News

The margins are pretty good on the Model S(if I recall ~27% or so) but they decided to not stay at 100k cars a year and reinvest everything into growing the company.

Pretty similar to what he's doing with SpaceX which has been doing really well lately.

 

[tomato coupe]

Re: The Fair Tex

There's no reason to believe it would not (work).

You want to totally dismantle our present taxing system and replace it with something that has never been tried in this country, and you think there's NO reason to believe it might not work? Even a supporter of the Fair Tax has to admit that there is some risk associated with adopting it.

A rich person will not be paying lower taxes than a middle or lower class person. They spend more, they will pay more. As a percentage of their revenue? Certainly, but what has that got to do with anything? Is the goal of taxation equal pain? Currently the few wealthy pay the majority of all taxes paid. It is a gross injustice.

That's the point, really. A truly fair and open tax system (which our current system is not) will have everybody hurting, and finally facing the ugly truth of how much our government costs us.

You're missing the point. Any change made to the tax structure, when done in a revenue-neutral way, will result in some people paying more under the new system and some people paying less under the new system. In the case of the Fair Tax, the wealthy will see their taxes reduced, while the lower-mid to middle income will see their taxes go up. Whether or not the new system is more fair depends on who you ask. It might sound fair if you're wealthy, but probably not if you're lower-mid or middle income.

 

[ultrarunner]

Maybe, Ransom Olds might have manipulated the government, but I haven稚 seen the proof.

Hey, I resemble that remark with my 1905 Curved Dash Olds...

 

[tungularafishcamp]

Anything major we do to our system will have to be done thru congress. Being as the lobbyists own congress and the lobbyists are the VERY wealthy entities, they will make sure they come out on top of any new legislation

 

[buickanddeere]

So, you're saying it never happened?

Impossible to operate an automotive gasoline engine at 50% efficiency let alone 500% efficiency . Did you pass high school physics class ?

 

[buickanddeere]

I own a 2010 BMW 335d. Easily breaks 40mpg on highway, and will dust a corvette. 425 foot pounds of torque. We're there.

Wife has a 2017 GMC Sierrra with the 420HP 6.2L , max Towing package with the huge mule deer mirrors. It has averaged 7.8L per 100km over 50Km at 90km speed. On low cost gasoline instead of the $$$ Diesel.

 

[buickanddeere]

I own a 2010 BMW 335d. Easily breaks 40mpg on highway, and will dust a corvette. 425 foot pounds of torque. We're there.

Here is the corvette you beat . 1977 Chevrolet Corvette C3 Production Statistics and Facts

 

[ultrarunner]

Attended a partnership meeting of a Development group with over a billion in assets... one of the concerns is the President and CEO has built the company from inception over 30 years... there is no succession even with his two very bright sons as they have no interest in development or Real Estate in General... they both work for Elon Musk putting their Engineering and Physics degrees to work...

 

[tomato coupe]

The car has been found that achieved 377 mpg:

Shell Oil's 377 MPG 1959 Opel - YouTube

Gasoline may have been (reformulated) and the vaporization has been reduced to the point that vapor carbs no longer are feasible. There was an interview with one of the Shell scientists years ago that was involved with this project but I have not been able to find it so far.

Also found a PR letter from Shell to an interested party, but the quoted mpg is (only) 297...

http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/wo5778a.jpg

Do the math, such mileage would require over unity efficiency , doesn't occur.

So, you're saying it never happened?

Impossible to operate an automotive gasoline engine at 50% efficiency let alone 500% efficiency. Did you pass high school physics class ?

I'll take your response as a yes, meaning you don't believe any of these experimental high efficiency vehicles ever existed, including this one:

Breaking 2,5 mpg, Canadian Team Wins High-Efficiency Race

So many conspiracies, so little time ...

 

[Redneck in training]

I'll take your response as a yes, meaning you don't believe any of these experimental high efficiency vehicles ever existed, including this one:

Breaking 2,5 mpg, Canadian Team Wins High-Efficiency Race

So many conspiracies, so little time ...

That is all nice. But if the organizers of the race specify four seater car and the minimum speed of travel it will change very fast for way worse. Aerodynamic drag increses with square of speed while rolling resistance is linear. Therefore to double the speed of a vehicle you need to increase power eight times. Therefore energy consumption escalates very quicly with speed increase.
Example:
Bugatti Veyron:
1.) Small two seater sports car.
2.) With low aerodynamic drag C coefficent.
3.) 1200 HP engine.
4.) It needs all the 1200 HP to reach 431.072 km/h (267.856) mph drag limited.
From that we could estimate fuel consumption 0.17 miles/gal or about 4.5 miles to run the tank dry at maximum speed. If the vehicle had 100% efficeint power train it could travel about 20 miles to run the tank dry.

 

[MossRoad]

SR-71, the S and the T are beside each other on the keypad.

or so the Russians would have us believe...

 

[MossRoad]

I own a 2010 BMW 335d. Easily breaks 40mpg on highway, and will dust a corvette. 425 foot pounds of torque. We're there.

2010 Chevrolet (USA) Corvette C6 Z06 full range specs

Chevrolet Corvette Z06, model year 2010, version for North America
3-door coupe body type
RWD (rear-wheel drive), manual 6-speed gearbox
petrol (gasoline) engine with displacement: 7011 cm3 / 428.7 cui, advertised power: 377 kW / 506 hp / 513 PS ( SAE cert ), torque: 637 Nm / 470 lb-ft
characteristic dimensions: outside length: 4460 mm / 175.6 in, width: 1928 mm / 75.9 in, wheelbase: 2685 mm / 105.7 in
reference weights: base curb weight: 1451 kg / 3199 lbs
how fast is this car ? top speed: 318 km/h (198 mph) (declared by factory);
accelerations: 0- 60 mph 3.7 s, 0- 100 km/h 3.9 s (declared by factory), 1/4 mile drag time (402 m) 11.7 s (declared by factory)
fuel consumption and mileage: 18 mpg (U.S.), 13.1 l/100km, 21.6 mpg (imp.), 7.7 km/l new EPA combined ratings; average estimated by a-c: 17.1 l/100km / 16.5 mpg (imp.) / 13.7 mpg (U.S.) / 5.8 km/l

2010 BMW 335d (since mid-year 2010 for Europe ) specs review
Specs datasheet with technical data and performance data plus an analysis of the direct market competition of BMW 335d in 2010 the model with 4-door sedan body and Line-6 2993 cm3 / 182.8 cui, 210 kW / 286 PS / 282 hp (ECE) 6-speed automatic with Steptronic manual shift mode powertrain offered since mid-year 2010 for Europe . Specifications listing with fuel economy, top speed, performance factory data and ProfessCars™ estimation: this BMW would accelerate 0-60 mph in 5.7 sec, 0-100 km/h in 6 sec, 0-200 km/h in 23.8 sec and quarter mile time is 14 sec.

 

[DieselBound]

That is all nice. But if the organizers of the race specify four seater car and the minimum speed of travel it will change very fast for way worse. Aerodynamic drag increses with square of speed while rolling resistance is linear. Therefore to double the speed of a vehicle you need to increase power eight times. Therefore energy consumption escalates very quicly with speed increase.
Example:
Bugatti Veyron:
1.) Small two seater sports car.
2.) With low aerodynamic drag C coefficent.
3.) 1200 HP engine.
4.) It needs all the 1200 HP to reach 431.072 km/h (267.856) mph drag limited.
From that we could estimate fuel consumption 0.17 miles/gal or about 4.5 miles to run the tank dry at maximum speed. If the vehicle had 100% efficeint power train it could travel about 20 miles to run the tank dry.

Great contribution!

Many just don't understand physics.

Same thing with draining the Tesla batteries. Speed UP, distance DOWN.

Regarding stuffing a big truck with batteries, isn't the purpose of the truck to transport goods? I suppose it would help reduce the hauling of crappy products (frivolous stuff ain't going to be transported due to the high[er] costs).

Most efficient transport is by ships: there has been many attempts to add wind power (sail) to them (to the future via the past!) The it's rail: and rail is run via hybrid diesel-electric. There really is nothing that provides the energy density of diesel (too bad that the limitations of IC engines couldn't be overcome).

I can transport myself plus 3,000 lbs of car 50 miles on 7.15 lbs of fuel (diesel). A tank of fuel gets me 750+ miles. But... the thread is really about transport of goods; POVs are going to be in decline (demographics [aging population], environmental and affordability). The ONLY way that we can approximate the same levels of goods movement with other-than-diesel power is with HUGE subsidies: yes, the existing fossil fuel based infrastructure is heavily subsidized; but, it also has a lot of embedded energy in it (much of the capital costs are covered- new stuff will be forced to not only compete with this fact but with the fact that we're all heavily in debt- the benefits of economies of scale aren't likely going to be coming in spades anymore).

Unless we're going to run trolley wire everywhere again (shame that nearly all the infrastructure got scrubbed) I'm not seeing electric as being able to deliver. In my more hopeful days I was an advocate for fusion energy; fusion, IMO, is the only thing that theoretically can meet the energy requirements for transport.