Jump to content

None






Joe771476

New light & medium duty news

Recommended Posts

How does Hino and Toyota do a joint venture? Doesn't Toyota own Hino? That would make it more like Toyota telling Hino to develop the product with shared engineers from the Toyota division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

 

From the Mach E thread:
 

 

 

 

Thx- Reminds me -about a year or so ago a contractor I know built a hydrogen transfer facility here in Mass. right off I-495..just about midway between I-90 interchange and I 93 interchange.  If my memory serves me right I think he had mentioned  Musk's involvement with it and his plan to offer fuel as part of his marketing plan to sell his trucks. I believe it was a manufacturing site with a bulk tanker loading rack.  I'll have to do some more digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, atomcat68 said:

How does Hino and Toyota do a joint venture? Doesn't Toyota own Hino? That would make it more like Toyota telling Hino to develop the product with shared engineers from the Toyota division.

 

Yeah, I found that amusing too - like the same company does a joint venture?  Ok....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

 

Yeah, I found that amusing too - like the same company does a joint venture?  Ok....

Owned by the same company but very separate entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bzcat said:

It is a net loss in energy... the energy output is less than the input required to produce it.

First Law of Thermodynamics

 

Quote

 Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

First Law of Thermodynamics

 

 

Not quite as bad, but until we have  superconductivity  in transmission lines the advantage of electrics and charging stations  on every street corner is not that much better....right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Thx- Reminds me -about a year or so ago a contractor I know built a hydrogen transfer facility here in Mass. right off I-495..just about midway between I-90 interchange and I 93 interchange.  If my memory serves me right I think he had mentioned  Musk's involvement with it and his plan to offer fuel as part of his marketing plan to sell his trucks. I believe it was a manufacturing site with a bulk tanker loading rack.  I'll have to do some more digging.

 

Musk is a well known fuel cell skeptic so I doubt he was involved in any hydrogen project. He is all in on battery as automotive and utility energy storage solution. 

Edited by bzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, bzcat said:

Hydrogen fuel cell will have a future in a localized setting, especially in places where combating smog forming emission is the top priority (e.g. cargo port or industrial park).

 

It doesn't have a future in long distance road transport, primarily as I mentioned in the Mach E thread, the chemistry doesn't make sense. It is a net loss in energy... the energy output is less than the input required to produce it. What made fossil fuel great (despite poor thermal efficiency) is that the energy output is far greater than the input required to extract, refine, and transport it. Hydrogen is the exact opposite. 

 

Until we have an abundant source of carbon free electricity (from nuclear fusion), making hydrogen to power vehicles just doesn't make any sense on a national or global scale. Even if you make hydrogen from water using solar power, you are still left with the problem that it is more efficient to use that solar power to power the vehicles directly.

They've actually discovered a way to make hydrogen using a variation of rust FeOOH as the catalyst

and from what I understand, it's better at keeping the hydrogen separated from the oxygen, preventing

the two from recombining. The process is said to make up to 25 times more hydrogen than existing

titanium dioxide catalyst techniques. 

 

I don't know what sort of future fuel cells have but obviously oil companies would be pushing them 

as a way of making the use of their products seem a lot greener than they are. Never underestimate

the reach of determined people with deep pockets...

 

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

Musk is a well known fuel cell skeptic so I doubt he was involved in any hydrogen project. He is all in on battery as automotive and utility energy storage solution. 

Thx- I'll see if I can clarify the point.  Mind you -the guy was the GC on the job so I'm sure he was getting a lot of secondhand info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Not quite as bad, but until we have  superconductivity  in transmission lines the advantage of electrics and charging stations  on every street corner is not that much better....right?

Nope.

 

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

Quote

 ... as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2020 at 4:50 PM, bzcat said:

... the energy output is less than the input required to produce it. What made fossil fuel great (despite poor thermal efficiency) is that the energy output is far greater than the input required to extract, refine, and transport it. Hydrogen is the exact opposite. 

 ALWAYS THE CASE !  Second Law of Thermodynamics 

 

Quote

 as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted

 

 

On 10/6/2020 at 4:50 PM, bzcat said:

Until we have an abundant source of carbon free electricity (from nuclear fusion),  ...

Fission, using different design reactors (fail safe, no radio active waste)  is much more feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, theoldwizard said:

Fission, using different design reactors (fail safe, no radio active waste)  is much more feasible.

Fussion always seems to be "in just 20 years" away.

https://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2014/11/forever-20-years-away-will-we-ever-have-working-nuclear-fusion-reactor

 

I think we may actually be getting there with some of the recent advances I've seen on YouTube.  How many years to real world, I won't say.

Edited by 92merc
Crap, I thought I said Fusion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, 92merc said:

Fission always seems to be "in just 20 years" away.

https://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2014/11/forever-20-years-away-will-we-ever-have-working-nuclear-fusion-reactor

 

I think we may actually be getting there with some of the recent advances I've seen on YouTube.  How many years to real world, I won't say.

 

Fission power reactor has been around for 80 years - it's what we use now to generate electricity. Fusion is always 20 years away  😎

 

To paraphrase theoldwizard, the problem with hydrogen is that is doesn't just exist for "free" like  sun light or oil in the ground. You can't mine hydrogen. You can't harvest hydrogen. You can't collect hydrogen. You have to make hydrogen from something and that means it is always going to be a loser no matter what process you use to make it. Hydrogen bonds tightly to other elements so it takes a lot of energy to sperate it from oxygen or carbon in various gas or liquid. It's fundamentally a hopeless way to meet our energy needs because for a given amount of energy provided by a unit of hydrogen, you always start off with an even greater amount of energy. So why don't you just use that greater amount of energy to power whatever that you need to power instead of wasting it to make hydrogen?

 

Additionally, the whole idea that we need to pivot away from fossil fuel is because we are putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and changing the climate. Batteries or other chemical energy storage is energy source agnostic... meaning once you have infrastructure setup, you can feed clean carbon free or carbon neutral electricity into the system. So wind or solar power (which is now completely viable and cheaper alternative to gas or coal in large parts of the world) can be stored and used whenever needed. And yes, there will be loss through storage but if the source is carbon free, the loss is also carbon neutral... those sun light would be wasted anyway if not captured in the first place. Hydrogen is not agnostic, nor is it carbon free or neutral. Its production is heavily dependent on fossil fuel and will be for the foreseeable future. We are taking natural gas (CH4) and separating the carbon from the hydrogen by using electricity (which can be carbon free but the source material is still CH4). And as a storage medium, it also has poor recovery ratio compare to battery because it requires refrigeration from end to end. 

 

The only way to make hydrogen less wasteful and harmful is to make it from non-fossil fuel source and with carbon free electricity and consume it onsite/not transport it. For example, from water (H2O) with nuclear power and delivered within only a few miles from source to consumption point (to minimize refrigeration needs). This is why I mentioned before, the kind of place that make sense for hydrogen transportation system is closed loop system like a port or an industrial park located near nuclear power plant.

Edited by bzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-renewable natural gas may yet have a future if carbon capture proves feasible.  Of course the ideal source for electricity is still wind and solar, but NG could be an important secondary source when the wind and sun are not there.

 

Ethanol proponents will argue that E85 could come close to carbon-neutral...........

 

Mandates or not, I think there is no question the bulk of new passenger car sales will be BEV inside of 10 years.  For the vast majority of drivers, they are just going to be better all around than ICE vehicles.  While purchase prices will be somewhat higher, BEV's will be cheaper to operate and require far less maintenance than ICE vehicles.  BEV use will drive demand for clean electricity and the energy industry will respond one way or another..     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 10:14 PM, Bob Rosadini said:

Well been about 6 weeks since I swung through the  Altech installation facility here in nearby Sterling MA.  As I mentioned last time, yard was full of mostly big class 8's .  Previously yard would be jammed with class 4/5's-mostly Fords. But it appeared they have changed the purpose of this facility.;

For one thing they installed a large concrete pad where I assume they do their test routines on these very big buckets-or should I say, it appears most of them have huge Effer folding cranes.

One good sign- a new 750 Power Stroke-first OAP Ford (650/750).  This one was I'm guessing a derated one (25,999 gvw) as it had juice brakes. But a good sign.  How about it-I know one of the regulars on BON has a son who works for Altech- any clue if they are realigning their production by facility?  I mentioned the concrete pad but they also cleared out a wooded area in back of plant and it is stacked with new Effer booms-including some very big ones.

Attached is shot of 750 plus a beast of a Mack Granite with a big Effer mounted on its ass end.

Ford 750 Altech 9:20.jpeg

Mack Granite 9:20 Altech rear.jpeg

Mack Granite Altech 9:20-front.jpeg

My son works for Altech. He's an IT guru, but is working from home since this Covid crap. He used to fly out to all the plants to so software integration. Not sure if that will occur in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 351cid said:

My son works for Altech. He's an IT guru, but is working from home since this Covid crap. He used to fly out to all the plants to so software integration. Not sure if that will occur in the future. 

thx-now I know who  the Altech connection is😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2020 at 1:27 AM, 7Mary3 said:

Ethanol proponents will argue that E85 could come close to carbon-neutral...........  

I guess they do not include the CO2 being released by the farmers tractors !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theoldwizard said:

I guess they do not include the CO2 being released by the farmers tractors !

 

They do, but the theory is that it is offset by growing corn's photosynthesis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VW's truck unit Traton got Navistar today.  On the face of it it probably doesn't mean anything to Ford, but I have a longshot hunch that it might eventually.  Thing is even though Traton paid a lot for NAV, the deal makes Traton significantly more valuable.  Traton is now a world truck manufacturer with a big North American presence like Daimler Truck and Volvo.  And that in turn means VW will likely reap large profits from spinning Traton off, which they have already begun to do.  Money that VW could invest in Ford.........

 

Like I said, a longshot.......      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

VW's truck unit Traton got Navistar today.  On the face of it it probably doesn't mean anything to Ford, but I have a longshot hunch that it might eventually.  Thing is even though Traton paid a lot for NAV, the deal makes Traton significantly more valuable.  Traton is now a world truck manufacturer with a big North American presence like Daimler Truck and Volvo.  And that in turn means VW will likely reap large profits from spinning Traton off, which they have already begun to do.  Money that VW could invest in Ford.........

 

Like I said, a longshot.......      

Navistar should thank goodness that Traton bought them when they did

and VW should offload Traton once Navistar is assimilated into the group

because in spite Traton's impressive brands and assets, it made a lot  less

than 10% return in 2019, this year is a write off anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Navistar should thank goodness that Traton bought them when they did

and VW should offload Traton once Navistar is assimilated into the group

because in spite Traton's impressive brands and assets, it made a lot  less

than 10% return in 2019, this year is a write off anyway.

 

I agree, and I think eventually with NAV Traton will do well on its own.

Edited by 7Mary3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

I agree, and I think eventually with NAV Traton will do well on its own.

I doubt that its constituent brands would survive on their own, it's only through sharing development costs

and engineering modules that these brands stand a chance of transitioning to a lower carbon footprint.

VW is thinking long term with Traton becoming a true multi-brand, multi-sales channel that could turn

heavily cash positive with the right  technology path investment, three or four brands is a huge footprint.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jpd80 said:

I doubt that its constituent brands would survive on their own, it's only through sharing development costs

and engineering modules that these brands stand a chance of transitioning to a lower carbon footprint.

VW is thinking long term with Traton becoming a true multi-brand, multi-sales channel that could turn

heavily cash positive with the right  technology path investment, three or four brands is a huge footprint.

Well in the natural progression of things, at what point does the "commonality" of development blur the distinction between brands and then the bean counter/financial "analysts" start the synergism drum beat and some brands disappear?  I think your first sentence spells that out.  At some point they become just that..a "brand".

 

Been waiting for the shoe to drop at Mack.  Sooner or later enough of the old Mack diehards (as in customers) will be gone and someone in Sweden will say...."and why do we have all this duplicated expense?"

 

It will be a sad day for an old guy like me.

60B2C60E-E8F1-4930-88AC-D83C275BDF07.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well in the natural progression of things, at what point does the "commonality" of development blur the distinction between brands and then the bean counter/financial "analysts" start the synergism drum beat and some brands disappear?  I think your first sentence spells that out.  At some point they become just that..a "brand".

 

Been waiting for the shoe to drop at Mack.  Sooner or later enough of the old Mack diehards (as in customers) will be gone and someone in Sweden will say...."and why do we have all this duplicated expense?"

 

It will be a sad day for an old guy like me.

 

Just my opinion but I think that the battle of differentiation has already been fought and decided,

brands are now becoming the customisation point for trucks with mostly standardised equipment

selection, engines, transmissions, axles, frames and cab layouts. 

 

Regionalisation through branding is far more effective than trying to get say, US customers to like

European trucks, it's a way of having your cake and eating it to. The big pay off for VW and Traton

is that electrification of its truck brands becomes modular, designed once and amortised across

the group, a strategy that will spell  death for brands still on their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, my tree guy is indeed a Ford guy!  Loves his F750 Powerstroke!  He also has two mid-80's L9000 cranes w/Cummins  and Detroit.  Yeah Bob, I think you're right about the possible Mack demise, however I just read Mack Defense is testing trucks for US military use, so maybe to stay "American", they might keep it, for a while at least.  I finally saw my dream TV ad!  Ford bragging PROUDly about their leadership in supplying emergency vehicles!  Now we need a C9000 tandem axle pumper/tanker!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×