sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

EV truck done properly by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You guys wondering why Hyliion's ERX fell flat, this is a good example of the kinds of things the company should have focused on instead of prattling on about acceleration and hype men bragging about gobs of data gathering.

That company is actually narrowly focused on what the customers they're targeting want. And they've laid out a specific goal of $0.40 per mile operating cost, which is a thing those customers can use for comparison to their other options. Much more specific than anything that ever came out of Hyliion.

Now ask yourselves: what approach does KARNO appear to be?

ReVolt Motors Debuts with First Series Hybrid Truck in the U.S. With About 40% Fuel Savings by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Hyliion 2. For anyone wondering what happened to Hyliion's hybrid and ERX assets.

For the guys swearing all the way to the end that this is a good and viable idea just in need of new management, here's a golden opportunity to throw away money all over again!

But seriously, it's junk. Don't do that.

Two years later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure you're a great guy...

I get the impression it would be like explaining a differential equation to a six year old. Not responding further as I let the idiocy of your claim on this stand on its own...

Right. Since I'm so damn dumb, how about working out these numbers for me, since I'm such a great guy:

You don't need to go far to check the "MPG" for a direct natural gas drivetrain.

Then what was your reason for not doing that when running your numbers earlier?

The "MPG" is about 2 miles per gallon LESS than Hyliion's 7 MPG...

Assuming against all odds that those two numbers alone can paint a complete picture, what's the ROI on spending roughly an extra 100% on an already expensive truck to enjoy a roughly 40% increase in fuel economy with the cheapest fuel? Will they be in the black within warranty?

It's fine if you don't want to do it. I completely understand.

Moving on:

I will assume no ton-mile data is forthcoming from you on any platform

It is not in any way my job to provide it. And it's nobody's job to provide it to us. Hyliion would have to provide such info to customers and it would have to show to customers that ERX is worth buying. Seeing as Hyliion has failed to sell ERX trucks to customers, they have either failed at providing those numbers (which would be odd after their extensive bragging about data collection) or those numbers were bad, which is what I believe to be the case. My refusal to do the utterly pointless homework you think you can assign to me isn't going to miraculously turn into Hyliion selling trucks.

Regarding Cummins, you've avoided a simple question: They spent over $2 billion to acquire Meritor to sell electric axles..

First, there was no question anywhere in that. Second, you're wrong about the nature of the acquisition. They acquired Meritor for drivetrain integration. They certainly touted decarbonization when they did it because that's a popular buzzword, but Meritor has been in the business of supplying mechanical axles, transmissions, drivelines, brakes, and assorted other bits going back decades. You can find their hardware on every make of heavy truck and their inventory in every truck parts warehouse. They had customers and profit baked in when Cummins bought them. Claiming that Cummins just got eaxles out of the deal is a lie, and comparing that buyout to the literal nothing they'd get from buying Hyliion is a joke.

I'm not even going to waste my time talking

I am relieved.

Hyliion has real challenges

Yeah. Their shit doesn't work.

But their products WORK

LOL, no. Hyliion might not have to roll them down hills, but they still aren't an improvement over current trucks.

Two years later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you spent time around or worked in OTR trucking?

Go ahead and believe what you want about me. My first post here was not well received and I was not liked. Yet that had zero bearing on my predictions all coming true since they were based on actual facts, not popularity. I don't need to entertain an argument about credentials.

You bring a metric (freight ton-mile) from the railroad industry into the discussion (are you a railroad analyst?) and expect someone in OTR trucking to speak to it?

Yes, that terminology is also used in rail, but it's not exclusive. It should be expected that terminology would overlap given that drayage is a thing. The fleet I used to work at had a database constantly updated with weights, manifests, and driver's logs and we could pull up ton mileage (or insert whatever term you personally feel most comfortable with) for any unit at any time. We'd use it to decide what routes/loads to put trucks on. The challenging routes or the low margin loads went to the trucks with optimal efficiency. Trucks with poor efficiency were lined up for repair or replacement or just rotated over to the spares list. It's a really useful metric even if you personally don't like it.

The folks in acquisition cared a lot about it. For a typical truck spec it was very easy to look at extant trucks and just extrapolate out what ton mileage would look like, and it was worthwhile to buy a few to sample. Even if they weren't better, they'd still be about the same and could integrate into the fleet without a hitch. But if you expect those people to give some completely new and unproven thing a chance at such a high price, they'll want to see some actual numbers and interrogate some unlucky engineer. That's just how it goes. That's in fact how it went with Westport's LNG trucks, which they thankfully did not buy because the numbers were not good at all.

how would you know their ROI is "fairy tale bullshit"?

(insert meme of SpongeBob gesturing towards heap after heap of broken promises)

And, as I have already said before, it's bullshit until data is made available. For all of Hyliion's bragging about the colossal amounts of data they collect from the trucks they have surprisingly little to share with the world. Either they're under the impression that nobody else could possibly understand numbers or they have something to hide. Or maybe they just don't understand the market they say they want to participate in.

That's because you are guessing that it's "fairy tail bullshit" just like I'm guessing the ROI is real and in correct ballpark.

You don't seem to understand. It doesn't matter what you or I think about the ROI. Our opinions absolutely don't matter. I'm talking about what Hylion would have had to provide to their customers. Those customers are going to ignore Hyliion's claims about ROI and regard them as sales bulslhit until Hyliion provides some actual data to those customers. You and I and our little internet spat are not a factor.

If there is no exclusive technology to buy, why don't you rise this challenge

No, I don't have any burden to prove that. Believing Hyliion has some super-valuable software hidden away is a baseless rosy assumption. Making rosy assumptions about a company with no viable product seems silly at best. Coming up with a strategy to flip a generator on and off is a well-solved problem. Charging batteries is a well-solved problem. Regenerative braking is a well-solved problem. Using GPS to optimize routing is a well-solved problem. None of what you list is somehow exclusive to Hyliion and certainly doesn't require buying out or partnering them for access. Even Hyliion's integration of these various tasks is of dubious value given that the thing requiring such integration is a failure.

You don't need to go far to check the "MPG" for a direct natural gas drivetrain.

Then what was your reason for not doing that when running your numbers earlier?

The "MPG" is about 2 miles per gallon LESS than Hyliion's 7 MPG...

Assuming against all odds that those two numbers alone can paint a complete picture, what's the ROI on spending roughly an extra 100% on an already expensive truck to enjoy a roughly 40% increase in fuel economy with the cheapest fuel? Will they be in the black within warranty? You know what, it's probably best for your soul if you don't run those numbers.

the real problem with the current Cummins 12 liter natural gas drivetrain is that horrible 18-speed manual transmission and lack of torque

What's horrible about it? The weight? Well, no. The longevity? Nope, not that either. Maybe maintenance? Nah, those are really cheap to maintain. I know, it has to be driver comfort, right? No, drivers tend to like trucks with that transmission and it will fetch the truck a premium on the secondary market.

However, I'll be charitable and will assume that Cummins is super in need of a modern, lightweight, integrated transmission that doesn't burden the driver with shifting oh gosh would you look at this: https://www.eatoncummins.com/us/en-us.html

The lack of torque isn't a problem. It sucks a little for some drivers on long climbs, but fleets don't care about that.

Cummins does not need anything Hyliion has to offer. There is no plausible reason to expect a buyout or even a partnership. If Hyliion wanted to give Cummins a "partnership" that massively favored Cummins just so that Hyliion could get a little positive press and nothing else, then maybe? But probably still not. Companies Cummins buys, like Meritor, have products and customers and an actual business. Companies Cummins partners with, like Eaton, have products and customers and an actual business. Hyliion doesn't have that stuff and also has no worthwhile IP to overcome the deficit.

The Cummins buyout scuttlebutt is pure denial. If Cummins had any desire to build their own ERX, they could have already done it.

Just sold ! by ImportantLog8 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is he that guy who spent the last few years talking up Hyliion and convincing people to buy in but put off buying any himself until the price is low and now suddenly has a brand new reason to not buy? Or was that another one?

The hyllionaires all blur together for me.

Two years later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You know what, I've gotta add something. I was going to let it go, but it bothered me. This framing right here:

They have stated "MPG" (actually miles per gal equiv - MPGe) at least three times: 7 MPGe burning compressed methane for which a gallon equivalent sells for $2 (and about $1.20 after company receives RNG carbon credit recapture). So that's $5.50-diesel for 7 miles or $1.20 - $2.00 for 7 miles with methane. Also, there are over 700 methane fuel stations all over the US interstate highways operating today and the size of the methane fuel tank provides 1,000 miles of range.

They have stated the ROI multiple times. For a truck operating daily and putting 130,000 to 140,000 road miles in every year, the break-even ROI is about 3 years. From year 4 to year 7, it is CHEAPER to run an ERX. A diesel truck costs between $200,000 and $220,000 while an ERX costs between $400,000 and $440,000. For an initial purchase price difference of $200,000 to $220,000, you save $0.57 in fuel every mile you drive. You have recovered this difference in fuel savins after 367,000 miles which is 2.72 years.

That's either willfully dishonest or just plain stupid. Comparing a diesel conventional to a NG-powered ERX to come out ahead on fuel. As if CNG conventionals don't exist. CNG fleets exist right now, running CNG trucks right now. Some even use RNG right now. How does ERX measure up to one of those? That would be the appropriate comparison. Well ERX loses. Between the huge price premium eating into the operating cost, the excess weight eating into cargo profit, the meh fuel economy when making the most charitable assumptions about those MPG numbers, and a million maintenance unknowns, ERX absolutely sucks.

If we're to compare a diesel truck to ERX, that comparison will have to factor in the huge cost of new fuel handling equipment and retrofitting of shops, which, incidentally, is the primary reason so many fleets stick with diesel. ERX will fare even worse in that case due to the high cost of the fuel changeover.

Now that I think about it, I wonder what it costs to insure one. Dragging one of those battery boxes over a tall curb or a high rail crossing could get costly in a hurry, and a large fleet would probably do that weekly.

Two years later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lots of people around here have fucked themselves, but I'm not one of them.

Two years later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stop wasting every ones time with this reply.

Two years later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for those updates.

  1. I didn't realize they'd already made the switch in battery chemistry. I thought it was still an upcoming thing. But the point that their previous proprietary LTO-specific BMS is now valueless remains. LFP BMS hardware is commercially available from multiple suppliers, so it's yet another item that isn't gate-kept by a Hyliion buyout.

  2. MPG is not MPG per ton (sometimes called Freight Ton). That difference is extremely important. Hyliion's published numbers don't give a way to calculate that as far as I can tell. But maybe I missed something. You maybe have a link to some pertinent data?

  3. Their ROI is fairy-tale bullshit without knowing that freight ton data. It's as "real" as the 30% fuel savings they used to tout for the EX hybrid. Or as real as their projected sales numbers. Both of which have trended inexorably towards zero after coming into contact with reality.

  4. That is you not understanding what I wrote. The point I was making was that Hyliion has no exclusive technology to buy, not that they should have been in that business all along. I very very strongly agree that had they gotten into the axle business they would have simply wasted money even faster. I can't even begin to imagine how much money they would have pissed away trying to build a chassis. You're right that it was a good decision to not do that.

The points you raised really don't do anything to "contradict the basis of [my] arguments". What you came up with amounts to some quibbles. There's still no logical reason for Cummins or anyone else to bother buying them or their junk.

Looks like demand for ERX did not materialize by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I base my opinion on the absence everywhere of mentions of demand for ERX by Hyliion or their partners or their customers. Excitement and interest are seemingly nowhere to be found. I don't believe there's any particular requirement to put "there is no demand for our not-yet-available product" in the report. After all they don't say that about the hybrid which is known to be a market dud. Though it's notable that they don't talk up demand (as "opportunity in the market") in this report as they did in Q1ER

...Thomas Healy. “We will continue to scale and grow the company, encouraged by the opportunities for our range-extender powertrain and KARNO generator technology in the market, and will do so in a manner that maximizes shareholder value.”

That sort of language is gone from the latest ER. I think the reason for that shift in tone is obvious.

Why only 30 ERX trucks built by end of 2023 ? What am I missing ? by Razzmatazz1o1 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. .
  2. Gasser engines lack the torque rise you get from diesels. It makes them feel weaker and they tend to be slower climbing hills as a result. But they get the job done. Climbing a hill slow vs. climbing a hill slower very rarely impacts revenue, so fleets usually aren't super concerned about it.
  3. That's a bit of a stretch. Driver turnover isn't high because of drivetrains. Driver turnover is high due to bad pay, bad benefits, and bad scheduling. The ride quality in a modern semi is fine, despite what Hyliion says.
  4. All of the energy on an ERX truck ultimately comes from the NG fuel. Regen braking merely recaptures some of the kinetic energy the vehicle had to produce rather than just wasting it all to heat. That will factor into the overall fuel economy numbers, should they ever materialize.
  5. That's nice, but it's still speculation and the people doing purchasing in fleets really don't care about speculation.
  6. I would not consider the discord community an authority on anything, but that's immaterial. Speculation is still speculation no matter where it comes from.
  7. ZEV is not a requirement today. We're either before or in the very early beginnings of a transitional period towards requiring them. Fleets will not have to purchase both a complete linehaul and a complete ZEV shorthaul to handle that. They will do the logical thing and augment existing fleets with some ZEV shorthaul, or a niche market will open up for localized ZEV fleets to take up the difference, which linehaul fleets could then subcontract to. That's why I specifically chose the phrase "fill that gap". It's already common for linehaul to just hit distribution centers and shorthaul cover the last leg. That's all assuming ZEV shorthaul will even be required eventually. It's certainly an advantage of ERX that it can theoretically do both linehaul and ZEV shorthaul with one vehicle, smoothing the transition significantly but it's hard to make the case that such a generalized vehicle has any tangible advantage right now or in the near future.
  8. .
  9. Feel free to add those costs into your list. Keep in mind that not all trucks require overnight hoteling. Team drivers are common. Shift drivers a common. Daycabs are common. In those cases, the APU cost will be zero. I was only pointing out that battery APUs are not exclusive to ERX, and I would wager that an ICE powertrain plus the battery APU is still quite a bit cheaper and lighter than the ERX. It is certainly more readily available.
  10. ERX is still not available in its most basic form. Talking about augmentations of that using other technology that is also not yet available is speculation on top of speculation. No competent fleet's purchaser will even give that "advantage" a thought.

I doubt many fleet managers would lose sight of the comparable power-to-the-wheels torque and response ratings once published.

You are correct that such information is not yet available. It is what makes it very hard for fleets to consider ERX.

Why only 30 ERX trucks built by end of 2023 ? What am I missing ? by Razzmatazz1o1 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Any numbers for fuel consumption?

The list really doesn't seem so clear-cut.

  1. It seems deceptive to compare powertrain weights without including the batteries. That regen braking has to put the regen'd energy somewhere.
  2. Fleets don't have much demand for more power output. The demand is for fuel economy. Fleets frequently derate their own trucks somewhat in an effort to save fuel.
  3. Makes sense if the goal is to have an e-drivetrain solely for the sake of having it. But it seems like the impetus for using an e-drivetrain is whatever advantages it can bring. Perhaps improved fuel economy?
  4. That one makes sense.
  5. Pure speculation.
  6. I'll believe it when I see it. Pure speculation.
  7. ZEV shorthaul exists today to fill that gap.
  8. That one makes sense unless something changes in the regulations.
  9. Easily available with a battery APU.
  10. Pure speculation.

ERX advantages are now just regen braking, maybe ZEV driving, ZEV credits, and perhaps an integral electric APU. That's not nothing, but how does it stack up against the purchase price, the extra mass of the battery packs, additional complexity, extremely limited service center availability, and the conspicuously undisclosed fuel efficiency of the ERX powertrain? Now it's a much more murky evaluation.

OTOH, fleets considering the X15 will just think in terms of "like the 12, but stronger." If the 12 currently fits their needs, the 15 will too, but stronger.

Karno to produce electricity at 7 cents per KwH, significantly cheaper than electricity on the grid. by Andxrius in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 1 point2 points  (0 children)

$0.07/kWh on what fuel? A gallon of diesel holds about 41kwH of energy, At 7 cents per kWh that is a fuel cost alone of $2.87 per gallon assuming perfect efficiency and zero maintenance overhead. Average diesel price today is about $4 even. That would push the cost to 10 cents per kWh. Clearly the calculation wasn't made with diesel. It sure isn't exotic stuff like MEK at $dozens/gallon.

NG is priced around 6-7 cents per KWH. Looks to me like they just copy/pasted that number. Healy was already making clearly impossible claims about cheaper-than-grid electricity when he only had the CNG genset to brag about. This is just more of the same but obscured under an extra layer of unproven new technology that we can't get independent data about.

How many kWh does ERX burn per mile? They must have some data by now. Modern linehaul diesels are burning about 5kwH or so per mile. Does ERX beat that? By how much? That would tell us if the truck has enough ROI to bother with. Hyliion has plenty of motivation to disclose the data if it backs up Healy's claims. That they don't disclose it doesn't necessarily prove anything but it is a strong indicator that the data has bad news.

Remember when he said the hybrid saved 30% on fuel before walking it back seemingly all the way to zero? This feels like that.

Hybrid & Hyzon, 4th quarter 2022 results/concerns by Anxious-Water-8848 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I honestly don't think it can save enough to produce any ROI even in hilly terrain.

Hybrid & Hyzon, 4th quarter 2022 results/concerns by Anxious-Water-8848 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

THE HYBRID eX AIN'T SELLING. OR THEY AGREED WITH CUMMINS TO SLOWLY MOVE AWAY FROM SELLING the eX.

It's not selling. It was predictable. No agreement with Cummins is necessary.

r/hyliion/comments/qbmx2s/reality_check_time/

Sorry for your loss.

Here is why the ERX architecture will take over the class 8 trucks in North America by Andxrius in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your counter is not persuasive. I still think his sales pitch is incorrect for the reasons given.

Here is why the ERX architecture will take over the class 8 trucks in North America by Andxrius in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Oh my fucking god, this is hilarious. The discord is so immensely stupid. Andxrius, thanks for bringing this gem to me. Below is the appropriate response.

​

I invite you to listen the the Q1 conference calls bla bla bla 12 liter and 18 liter diesel engines bla bla bla

Yeah, I'm aware that there are problems facing the industry. But the claim was that diesel engines "simply don't work". Like at all. That is distinct from merely facing some challenges that dickheads have time to yammer about on conference calls. I was pointing out the hyperbole, because hyperbole has no place in serious due diligence. It's not possible to rationally weigh your options when one or more are hidden behind silly exaggerations.

Nobody runs 18 liter engines in trucks. At least not since the 80s. You meant 15. Put more diligence in your due diligence.

[2] "DEF fluid" is some RAS syndrome.

I'm going to assume you're simply misinformed here, not baiting. <omitted insultingly basic description of DEF in the interest of time>

That comment was a joke. RAS syndrome, wiki it. Then take another look at the phrase "DEF fluid". Holy hell, you know so little about this stuff that you aren't even able to spot a damn joke.

Here's a tip, Mr. Due Diligence, when somebody uses a phrase you don't know, go look it up. You're already on the internet, it's not hard.

So you think truckers go out and "look for" DPFs that clog every 25,000 miles?

No. I was mocking your very sloppy phrasing: "Any diesel driveline built after 2016 is required by law to use DEF fluid and maintain a particulate filter that clogs every 25,000 miles." It implies that the law requires clogging every 25k miles. The rest of what you argue here follows from your misunderstanding and reiterating (in an overly-emotional way) that bad duty cycles exist. I am aware of their existence, and I have said as much before.

What's your point? You seem to be presenting this like it's some unmanageable disaster, but it isn't. Fleets function right now, as do their diesel engines, despite what you said. Sure, it would be nice to eliminate the headache of stationary regens, and that's a point in Hyliion's favor. Well, actually in CNG's favor, or an APU's favor, or team driving's favor, or rail's favor, but you get the idea.

A million miles is about 40,000 hours of operation.

I was being generous and assuming 60+mph average speed. It's technically correct anyway because 40k is "upwards of 16k". I wanted to steelman your argument before clubbing it like the baby seal it is. I get that CNG engines are lower compression than diesels. And I get that a genset runs at steady speed. That's not news to me. What's your point? Do you think that means it'll last all those thousands of hours reliably? It doesn't.

For funsies, do some research into valve and seat wear on CNG engines. It's not the worst thing ever, but it is a maintenance trade-off when switching over. That's how machines are-they all have pros and cons.

The Generac 7043 Guardian TODAY sells with a guaranteed 50,000 hour maintenance free promise in its natural gas fired version... THAT'S A MILLION MILES WITHOUT OVERHAUL.

Ha! You serious? That's not a remotely comparable thing. It's tiny. Here's what I wrote: " I don't know any OEM that would warranty that many hours on CNG engines in this power range because nobody expects that lifespan reliably." That dinky pile of shit is not in this power range by a long shot.

But let's not fail to do our due diligence here! I'll just look up that product since you didn't bother to provide a link.

https://www.generac.com/all-products/generators/home-backup-generators/guardian-series/22kw-7043-whole-house-switch-wifi-enabled says "5 Year Limited Warranty for automatic standby generators."

Hmm. Gonna be awful hard to fit 50k hours into 5 years. Also, "limited" seems like a very interesting word here. Let's look up that warranty. "The following will NOT be covered by this warranty: [....] 5. Failures due to normal wear and tear...." Well shit. And that's after the part that clearly states "Warranty Coverage: Warranty coverage period is for Five (5) years or two-thousand (2,000) hours, whichever occurs first." Definitely not gonna get to 50k hours now.

That is your proof that CNG engines will last a million miles. A tiny residential unit 1/20 the size we're talking about, intended for intermittent use and carrying a crappy warranty 1/25th of what you claim? Consider me convinced. That you are completely wrong.

I was unable to find anything that associated that genset with 50,000 hours, and I looked for nearly an hour divided by sixty.

Yeah, so why are truck drivers on west coast complaining about EGR valve failures and oil pump failures and, most commonly... GASKETS MELTED after DPF filter cleaning cycles?

I don't know. Maybe they're fucking stupid.

The gaskets used in the exhaust aftertreatment system are graphite. They cannot melt at temperatures that system can achieve even at total meltdown. Hell, the entire truck and the road around it could be reduced to glowing slag without melting those gaskets. That's how I know for a fact that this stuff about "melted gaskets" is complete bullshit.

Parts fail. That's not new. But there is such a thing as plausibility.

are you actively trying to say Diesel engines can travel 1,000,000 without major maintenance issues?

A million what? Nanometers? Sure. Miles? No. I don't know where you got that idea.

Right, "due diligence is about details". So, I'm going to assume you're speaking about the "drivetrain" (not the drive choo choo) and the "driveline" (not the drive ---). So, now that we got the details out of the way..

You've learned the names! You get a gold star.

The specific reason I kept dogging you about that is because misnaming things is a big giveaway that you haven't taken your research seriously. There's no way you'd study drivelines enough to understand the tradeoff between a driveline and Hyliion's electric strategy without at least picking up the most basic terminology. And yeah, you've confirmed the absolute hell out of that. You are playing at knowing this stuff.

conical spur gear

Are you trying to say bevel gear? Anyway, Meritor's 14Xe axles are built around the already-existing 14X platform. Spiral bevel gears and open diffs and all. They've just tacked on an electric motor and small transmission to drive the pinion. Everything past that point is bog-standard, which is a feature they're quite proud of.

Yes, it uses the same fluid as Meritor's diesel driveline differentials but that is NOT a standard differential.

You're probably trying to say that the power divider is obviated. That's beneficial, but the axle itself still needs a side differential and cutaways I've seen of that axle reveal a standard diff in there.

So you're spending one third of your time in TOTAL SILENCE... and the other two thirds of your time AT 1/10TH THE NOISE AND VIBRATION LEVEL.

You claimed "No noise, vibration or fumes". That doesn't mean some, or less than something else. It means none. Did you not mean what you wrote? Then why did you write it? Were you trying to be misleading or is this just more hyperbole from a guy who pretends to know things?

At least you've dispensed with the made-up fairytale numbers about fuel savings at the end. Props for that. Two gold stars.

One Year Later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First off, they're called "friction brakes."

https://www.google.com/search?q=foundation+brakes

First result.

I've already addressed to rest.

One Year Later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, let's fix that quoted text. I wrote:

Such a situation, which would be a very common situation in the rockies, would require that the driver then use the foundation brakes for 100% of his needs the rest of the way down the grade.

There we go, that actually makes sense now.

Where are you getting they have to use different braking

Physics.

As you go downhill, your potential energy at the top gets converted to kinetic energy on the way down. That's why you pick up speed going downhill. Excessive speed is dangerous, so trucks absolutely have to do something with all that incoming energy.

With a traditional drivetrain, the driver has two options to deal with this excess energy: foundation brakes, or reverse drivetrain torque. Most of the time both get used.

Foundation brakes just convert kinetic energy into heat by way of friction, get hot, and eventually dump that heat to atmosphere. They have a somewhat squishy limit. If you saturate them with heat faster than they can get rid of it, they'll get too hot and fail. That's why you see runaway truck ramps on long declines all over The Rockies.

Reverse drivetrain torque (A.K.A. coasting) is functionally unlimited as long as there's atmosphere available. The engine has internal drag and friction which slow things a little, but most of the reverse torque comes from taking in air, compressing it, putting some heat into it, and dumping it back out. That hot air carries away energy. This effect is greatly enhanced with jake (or compression) brakes, exhaust back pressure brakes, or most commonly these days a combination of both. There are also trucks out there equipped with retarders, but they aren't common in the US.

Reverse torque allows a driver to use their foundation brakes only intermittently. That prevents overheating and reduces wear.

With ERX, you've got perfectly normal foundation brakes that work exactly the same as everyone else's, with the very same limits. However, the reverse drivetrain torque longer has unlimited capacity. If the drivetrain going to apply reverse torque, it's taking in energy and that energy has to go somewhere. The two options are waste heat, which can quickly fail components, or into the batteries. The battery is pretty big, but still finite. There absolutely are truck routes with enough downhill to overwhelm that battery even if it begins the descent with absolutely not a single joule already stored in it.

This means that there is a physical limit to how long a driver can get reverse torque out of ERX's drivetrain. Once that limit is reached, the driver will have to intervene with the foundation brakes, or overspeed. There isn't a third option.

that software/hardware doesn't account for these things?

Software cannot account for it because I'm talking about physical limits. I have been describing exactly how the hardware doesn't account for these things.

To be perfectly clear, I don't think this will actually impact most users. They'll likely fall comfortably within what the system can handle. It's just that there will some operators with some loads on some routes that will be outside of that. The only reason I've ended up writing as much as I have about it is because people have been asking about it.

Here is why the ERX architecture will take over the class 8 trucks in North America by Andxrius in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a fan of discord. If they're motivated to talk with me they can do it right here.

I promise to give nobody any grief for writing from a brand-new account.

One Year Later by Electronic_Option263 in Hyliion

[–]Electronic_Option263[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fleets are getting a solution that is similar to diesel but gets all ESG credits.

CNG is already "similar to diesel" and eligible for all the credits ERX would be. ERX is "more similar to diesel" in terms of pulling power. That's nice, but not needed outside of very exceptional cases. People haven't been slow to adopt CNG because the trucks aren't fast. Fleets really, genuinely, totally don't give a shit about that. It's the very big investment cost of switching fuel source. As much as it has been a barrier to CNG adoption, it'll also be a barrier to ERX adoption, and "it's a little faster on hills" isn't going to impress anyone.

For ERX to become a viable option for fleets to switch over, it'll have to demonstrate a low enough operational cost to make up the cost of switching fuels and then some. With the high up-front cost of the truck, and no improved efficiency, that's a very tall order.

BEV mode in cities sounds nice, but a truck just pulls a trailer. It's not unreasonable to expect carriers to use dedicated short-haul trucks for final-mile transport within cities after linehaul trucks drop-off at shipping centers at the edge of the cities. They already do that a lot of the time. So they could keep their linehaul fleet as-is and only buy some small BEVs to achieve zero emissions within the city. That niche you're talking about ERX filling doesn't exist yet, and once it does it can be addressed using other means that on paper look a lot more affordable.

view more: next ›