VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
I really love my Cayenne and take it up to it's limits, but EV just won't work for the long haul stuff I do. I don't need 10,000+ lbs either, but I'm probably in for one of these as well.

Of course, if I had 10k lbs, I'd probably use it. A 30' could fit two race cars I think? :devilish:
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
These aren't class 4 and up vehicles for commercial users though. Class 2b/3 are for regular people who like the security of a higher tow rating whenever they are taking their boat to the lake or their camper out to the woods. If the hydrogen is only at truck stops, it means that every week or two people are going to have to drive out of town to a truck stop to fuel up, then drive back home. That doesn't make sense.

Though I suppose if every truck above 2a (F-150 / Silverado/Ram 1500) is hydrogen only and they only sell hydrogen at truck stops, that would mean a lot fewer brodozers in suburbia. Perhaps this really is something I can get behind after all.
Yeah, the point is to facilitate people that need to haul stuff. If suburban brodozer dads cant conveniently have their choice of daily? Win-win.

Then why have pushes towards hydrogen gone nowhere ❓
Because we haven’t banned gas yet. This will be worse than diesel and gas for these trucks. And it would be worse than an EV in a daily. But if you’re hauling stuff over distance, EV is a non-starter.
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
I dont think banning gas would make everyone move to hydrogen over night. Plus yes while fuel cells are way cleaner emissions wise they're not much better efficiency wise compared to say, a hybrid. And the logistics are tougher than gas or electricity. I think hydrogen is a good option for certain applications but it's def no cure all or replacement for EVs.
I never said it said it was a cure all, in fact I said quite clearly it would be worse than EVs. All this is, is for someone that needs to get heavy loads across long distances, a way to still be able to do that with a new vehicle and without emissions.

If you banned diesel and gas tomorrow and actually attempted to enforce such a ban, the result would be apocalyptic. If gas were ever banned (which I believe is highly unlikely to ever happen in our lifetime), it would only be after it has long since fallen into disuse on its own.
We haven't even banned leaded gas for airplanes, so any talk of banning gasoline/diesel for road vehicles before it's obsolete is absurd.
That’s out of context. We’re talking about sales of new vehicles here. NY and CA already banned new gas passenger cars for 2035; it’s reasonable to assume they’ll do pickups by 2045 or so. I definitely still want to be alive in 2045.
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
If gas passenger cars still have 50% market share in 2035, those "bans" are almost certain to be pushed back.
This is a whole ‘nother discussion, but as someone that lives in NY, the state will (and does) watch itself burn before it admits that it’s wrong. 50% will not sway them. Maybe 95% would but I feel like we’re already past that here. I actually think 2035 won’t be a big problem for the mandate.

Edit: Just checked the legislation; its 35% emission free by 2026, 68% by 2030, and then trucks is indeed 2045. So Ford has two decades for these powertrains; I’m glad they’re already on it.
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
this is essentially the same motive plant already being used in Locomotives.
Not really. Diesel electric locomotives are giant 2-stroke motors designed to spin at like 900 RPM and weighing 20-40,000 lbs. They're designed for much more constant velocity than trucks are, and indeed have to burn off excess power when it's not being used with giant heatsinks. The reason they're diesel electric is because it would be stupid hard to make a mechanical transmission that can handle 50,000 lb fts of torque distributed across eight wheel drive, not because it's some efficiency magic bullet.

The efficiency is because they benefit from huge economies of scale that passenger trucks cannot, aerodynamic benefits of being a train that passenger trucks cannot, and especially, rolling efficiencies of smooth rails and metal wheels that pneumatic tired passenger trucks cannot. If diesel-electric itself were better than conventional car transmissions, then cars like the Volt wouldn't ever drive the wheels directly.
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
Yeah but there's only a very specific speed range where the engine will clutch the MGA/MGB and drive the powertrain directly.

Only the fixed ratio has the engine clutch in to drive the wheels. Form simplicity, it's really unnecessary and mostly more of a Can we do it, than should be do it,

View attachment 225764
Low-, Fixed-, and High-Extended Range all have some percentage of parallel hybrid through the engine's planetary. The combo of two planetaries give it more control over the split (and thus engine RPM) in Low- and High- to maximize engine efficiency; the difference with fixed is that the engine is direct-drive to the wheels and thus 100% parallel hybrid. Notably in your graph, low- to mid- torque between 60 and 80 is where most fuel is burned, and GM sized the only fixed gear ratio to be active and in the efficient part of the engine in that range.


Product Font Parallel Triangle Diagram


I don't have any measured data on the Voltec, but to make some reasonable assumptions: a FWD planetary from an ICE to wheels is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% efficient. For gasoline-electric drive in the Voltec, we're still going through the planetary (albeit not the whole transmission, so I'll estimate that to be 95%), and then on average a small efficient generator like that would typically be about 90% efficiency. Modern brushless motors are very good so we'll say 98% there. So .95*.9*.98 = 84% which obviously gets beat by 90%.

This checks out with dielectric electric locomotives, which in general are 85% efficient vs. Diesel mechanical locomotives that are around ~95%. https://www.railway-energy.org/static/Diesel_mechanic_transmission_98.php
Rectangle Font Parallel Pattern Number


Again, the main reason to use a diesel-electric powertrain is because we can't build a 50,000ft-lb 8wd mechanical drivetrain that can accelerate a train from a dig without shredding itself.
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
Everyone's very fixated on efficiency but is forgetting that it won't matter how much electricity it takes to do something once most electricity is low cost renewables.
Yup. It doesn't even have to be efficient, it's a way to continue to haul heavy #$#@ long distances without producing carbon. Unless we collectively decide we don't want any heavy @#$# hauled anymore, it's a good thing.

There's probably a future where we go back to incandescent light bulbs in US homes because they're cheaper to make and more environmentally friendly, because energy efficiency will no longer be "a thing".
Heh. A couple years ago we banned plastic grocery bags in NY. I'm happy with that decision, but also, the people who were willing to use reusable bags were for the most part already doing it. So in practice what it meant is that grocery stores had to switch back to the same paper bags they switched away from in the 80s. 😂
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
That’s actually a frustrating thing to me. Paper is obviously better for litter aspects, but the answer is reusable bags which most won’t use if they have the option of forgetting them.
If all for reusable bags only. It will be a serious PITA a few times, but eventually people will figure it out. And if you don’t, deal with it. Won’t kill anyone to take a few more trips from the car to the house, that’s for sure.
We switched years ago and its easier on all fronts. They’re more solid so you can pack them fuller, they’re square so the trunk loads easier, the straps are long so you can carry them over your shoulder, the openings are larger so you can unload easier, and putting them back in the car is no harder than recycling.

You can lead a horse to water…
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
There will surely be applications for hydrogen where battery power absolutely won't do ...
That’s the whole point of this though. We’re talking super duty trucks here not Escapes. Super duty trucks are already making tons and tons of compromises to be able to do what they do, this will just be another.

If the amount of electricity and generating capacity and distribution infrastructure required for a full fleet of EVs concerns you, it's three times worse for hydrogen.
BEVs average $0.04/mile in power costs. Gas cars average $0.13/mile in fueling. So even if it's 3x worse, it's still a marginal benefit over gas. Where BEV isn't an option (re: hauling), this will be a win-win.
 

· Registered
A chili pepper and an empty crate.
Joined
·
10,361 Posts
Hence my earlier suggestion... BEV with a fuel cell range-extender. Most of the mechanical bits between a BEV and a FCV are the same.
If they're FCV then yeah there could be some batteries, for downhill and braking regen and such it would make sense to put a few kWh in for everybody. But heavy on the batteries with hydrogen as a secondary range extender...depends. I should clarify, I see two common cases for a super duty buyer IMO:

1. Local contractors--builders, lawn services, etc. Yeah, I agree it's a good suggestion, a range extender would work really well here. They can do their daily routes mostly on EV and then have the backup if they need to go out of town for materials or something.

2. Transporters (aka, fuel superusers from the earlier thread)--people moving cars/materials/supplies/purchases/campers over some distance for hire or for personal use. I and most other amateur racers fall into this category. If I'm towing, it's almost always hundreds of miles. Even if we could fit a 100kWh pack along with a FC into one of these things, on a median 20k GCWR journey that might get me 10% of the way. That other 90% would be all hydrogen and I'd want as big a tank as possible. Consumption is huge; to illustrate, I currently get 10-10.5 mpg with my 20' enclosed race trailer. So if I have a race at VIR, that's 60 gallons of gas each way. With my 26 gallon tank I still have to fuel up four times on the journey, and that's starting with a full tank. It's actually one of the reasons I didn't get the PHEV version of my car; it doesn't really change towing MPG but the tank is 6.5 gallons smaller.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top