twintornados Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Fox news article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Wow, 12.2 MPG! Damn! That's what my SD gets around town just hauling me and my kids around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Wow, 12.2 MPG! Damn! That's what my SD gets around town just hauling me and my kids around. But your SD doesn't have 320 sf of solar panels, a huge bank of batteries with an electric motor and a boiler/generator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 But your SD doesn't have 320 sf of solar panels, a huge bank of batteries with an electric motor and a boiler/generator. And it isn't towing 65k lbs either! It would be awesome if they could bring this tech to production at a reasonable cost. With a savings of $28k/year (at today's cheap diesel prices), a reasonable cost could be an additional $100k per truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 The hybrid drivetrain and possibly even the boiler/generator seem feasible, but not the solar panels on the trailer. Maybe a smaller version on the cab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Solar panels on a trailer, no. However, I'm sure if you got creative with the placement you could fit enough on the cab and get enough power from them to justify it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Curious as to why you guys think the solar panels aren't feasible. I know not all trucks and trailers are matched all the time, but many are. For those that are, or where the trailer doesn't sit for prolonged periods, I could definitely see it as doable. It seems much more straight forward and easier to implement than the boiler. Just have a section at the front of the trailer, or underneath, to house the batteries. When the truck switches trailers, the batteries are charged up and ready to power the truck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Maybe for a dedicated trailer, but even then I think the cost of such a large array might be prohibitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Maybe for a dedicated trailer, but even then I think the cost of such a large array might be prohibitive. They've come down considerably lately. To cover 350 ft2 would run about $7k (just for the panels), and that's about 5kW DC. Of course, that's just the cost of the solar panels themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 If a fleet operator were to buy a bunch of solar panel equipped trailers, when they are not on the road, they could be plugged into a local grid to provide electricity while sitting in the operators parking lot...just a thought. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 If a fleet operator were to buy a bunch of solar panel equipped trailers, when they are not on the road, they could be plugged into a local grid to provide electricity while sitting in the operators parking lot...just a thought. Not necessarily ideal since they want the fleets moving but it could be a real benefit during slow periods or even just while trailers are being filled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I didn't understand the boiler thing.....does that mean it has to have an additional tank for the water it needs to boil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I didn't understand the boiler thing.....does that mean it has to have an additional tank for the water it needs to boil? A small one - it would be recycled. Just run the exhaust through the water tank, it boils, generates steam, turns a turbine connected to a small generator and returns to the tank as water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 27, 2015 Author Share Posted March 27, 2015 What they are doing is showing off different "future high techie-techie" technology....it all is very interesting how these items could be used individually or in conjunction with each other... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Amazing what results you can get when you throw 115 mil on an issue. I wonder how much F'liner got for their efforts? No doubt we at some point will see some of this trickle down but I wonder how much better off we would be if some sort of control parameters were in place on these grants that somehow entered the element of cost effectiveness into the picture. Or do they currently do that? No doubt a lot of surface area on the roof of the typical highway box-an increasing number of which are 53' long and 102" wide, but tractors dedicated to specific trailers are I would have to think less than one percent of the freight box pool. But again-its a concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 You figure out what works then you work to make it cost effective. Solar power for homes is common now - 30 years ago it was super expensive. Same for batteries. I don't see anything they did that was super exotic or extremely expensive - they just put them all together at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Amazing what results you can get when you throw 115 mil on an issue. I wonder how much F'liner got for their efforts? No doubt we at some point will see some of this trickle down but I wonder how much better off we would be if some sort of control parameters were in place on these grants that somehow entered the element of cost effectiveness into the picture. Or do they currently do that? No doubt a lot of surface area on the roof of the typical highway box-an increasing number of which are 53' long and 102" wide, but tractors dedicated to specific trailers are I would have to think less than one percent of the freight box pool. Found the answer-F'liner got 40 mil that they had to match-so this is the result of 80 million of engineering research. You figure out what works then you work to make it cost effective. Solar power for homes is common now - 30 years ago it was super expensive. Same for batteries. I don't see anything they did that was super exotic or extremely expensive - they just put them all together at the same time. But again-its a concept. Agree you figure out what works-but I would rather see my tax dollars tied to some cost effectiveness parameter up front-with obvious leeway to compensate for economy of scale when full production is factored in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) whoops... wrong thread. Edited March 28, 2015 by atomcat68 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazerdude20 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I didn't understand the boiler thing.....does that mean it has to have an additional tank for the water it needs to boil? They do this in commercial buildings. The solar energy heats the water which they use to help heat the building, once it goes through the radiators it returns to the boiler as cool water and the cycle restarts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Agree you figure out what works-but I would rather see my tax dollars tied to some cost effectiveness parameter up front-with obvious leeway to compensate for economy of scale when full production is factored in. Half of the cost effectiveness equation is fuel savings. You don't know how much fuel something will save until you actually build it and test it. Nothing they used is exotic or super expensive. And given how many miles are driven by trucks every year and the potential savings of just 1 or 2 mpg, this seems like money well spent. Don't forget there was a lot of aerodynamic improvements that could be applied to all trucks without any additional cost, just a different design. I'd much rather see the money spent this way than to see it subsidize Nissan Leaf leases. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Further info on this 12.2 MPG "success story": -The route was a 312 mile RT On I-35, San Antonio-Dallas. Can anyone comment on nature of this route? Relatively flat? Significant issue. -GVW was 65,000 lbs. Why didn't they use Federal max of 80,000 lbs for five axles? -Engine was a 10.7L @ 375 HP and speed was limited to 65 MPH. That is a "safe" HP rating and a "safe" max speed to generate good MPG. You could say this would be a reasonable baseline for a "corporate" operation. Typical owner operator? Not likely -Rear axle ratio of 2.28. While I have no clue what trans. ratio in top gear was, I have never heard of a tractor with such a tall rear end ratio. Such a ratio IMO would work on only the optimal route-namely flat, minimal wind conditions and something less than max GCW. If ever there was a tractor that could "smell a grade", this would be it! No doubt some of this will "trickle down". But how much and at what cost. And by the way-as I've said before-old guy here! Not that old however that I go back to the days of "bull nose" trailers, but I go back to the days when the Rudkin -Wiley cab airshield made its debut-followed by the various bulbous "nose cones" that were affixed to the nose of the typical square nose box to improve economy. These were relatively low cost add ons that did improve economy. And speaking of economy, 4.5 mpg was not considered outrageous at 73,280 to 80,000 lbs when you kept a diesel at 2100 RPM. I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to say with these test parameters, not shocked by this success. And like I said, F'liner got 40 mil of our tax dollars for this "experiment"? As I see it, Daimler got a good deal courtesy of the US taxpayer. Typical government sponsored exercise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 San Antonio's elevation is 650' and Dallas's elevation is 430', and the route between seems to be pretty flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Rosadini Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 San Antonio's elevation is 650' and Dallas's elevation is 430', and the route between seems to be pretty flat. Figured as much-thx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehandro Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 Ah, the years when this freightliner came out were beautiful. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.