Chaos is a ladder
Chaos is a ladder
glueguy said:When this becomes prevalent, charging will morph into mobile recharge rigs, similar to in-air fueling. An automated slave truck will pull alongside and connect while in motion, then return to its home base to recharge its pack while another in the recharge fleet heads out from base.
This. Holy crap, I never thought about that aspect before. Particularly with longer routes or cross country corridors, where we have a greyhound depot could basically be the power truck depot. If the trucks doing the hauling all have similar ranges, it wouldn't be difficult to space the stations out fairly evenly and effectively.
My previous thought was Teslas battery swap idea that they had for the cars, trucks could just pull into the station, get a fresh pack swapped on, and be out the door again.
SVreX said:The vast majority of miles covered by trucks are long distance.
It would be incredibly easy to designate some existing coast to coast interstate highways for long distance OTR, and define specific lanes separated from cars by concrete dividers.
I see no reason why the general public would hesitate in the least.
We could even connect a whole bunch of them together for efficiency. And do away with those flimsy rubber tires and just use steel wheels, maybe on some sort of a track to make steering easier.
LIGHT RAIL!! why the berkeley aren't we building out that infrastructure instead of reengineering idiotic trucks. Because we're stupid, that's why.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) :
And maybe electrify those tracks so we don't have to deal with those pesky batteries and charging issues..
Cummins just recently revealed an electric truck, it was more or less an effort to just stick it in Tesla's face that they could make it before Tesla could. But Cummins said that it has a 100 mile full electric range or you can get a diesel powered range extender that will net you 300 miles. It'll be interesting to see what the true number ends up being for the Tesla unit.
It's too bad we've done away with so much of our rail infrastructure.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:SVreX said:The vast majority of miles covered by trucks are long distance.
It would be incredibly easy to designate some existing coast to coast interstate highways for long distance OTR, and define specific lanes separated from cars by concrete dividers.
I see no reason why the general public would hesitate in the least.
We could even connect a whole bunch of them together for efficiency. And do away with those flimsy rubber tires and just use steel wheels, maybe on some sort of a track to make steering easier.
LIGHT RAIL!! why the berkeley aren't we building out that infrastructure instead of reengineering idiotic trucks. Because we're stupid, that's why.
Because we made the decision 100 years ago that our country is too big and the legal and land acquisition issues are to big to effectively serve the populace by trying to run rails everywhere.
Trucks in designated truck lanes are not the same thing as trains. They have the power conserving potential of trains, with the flexibility of being able to disconnect instantly and cover nearly every single inch of this entire country directly, with no modifications whatsoever, no matter how remote.
Trains will never be able to do that.
Plus, trucks have the ability to adopt new changing technologies as they develop. So, as automated guidance systems develop, they can morph. As material tracking systems develop, they can re-route. As public acceptance increases and legal obstacles lesson, trucks can become more integrated into every aspect of our lives.
The only thing trains can do is get old with their antiquated systems and technology.
Sorry. The "lets build trains" argument just doesn't cut it.
In reply to SVreX : right now it’s faster to take the train London to Paris than fly or drive.
Train technology is global not local it’s politics that is local putting artificial limits on technology.
Self driving cars are here, decades ago they worked on it in San Diego. Even had a freeway dedicated to it.
We weren’t ready then and still many aren’t ready today. It’s OK, history shows us what happens to those who fail to keep up.
frenchyd said:We weren’t ready then and still many aren’t ready today. It’s OK, history shows us what happens to those who fail to keep up.
Did anyone get a good-natured chuckle out of the juxtaposition of that statement and the name of the person who started this thread yesterday? 
In reply to Keith Tanner :Good point! Yes I’m an old codger, just old enough to have heard a lot of this.
My Grandmother told me when she tried to learn to drive she yelled whoa!! As the car entered the garage. Grandpa laughed the whole time he was replacing the back of the garage.
Yes technology is moving faster than I can keep up, doesn’t mean I don’t try.
So tell me just where these "special" truck only lanes going to come from? Do you know the cost of building a mile of interstate highway? Even adding a lane to the typical 2 lane interstate would cost billions of dollars. As it is now the fuel taxes we pay barely cover the maintinence of these highways. As we use less fuel what with electric cars, Hybrids, and just more efficient gas cars it may only get worse. There's been talk of using on board transponders for every vehicle to record how may miles they travel and you pay a tax on miles driven, not on how much fuel you use. Talk about "Big Brother" looking over your shoulder?
Can self driving trucks happen perhaps but only in certain areas. Most long distance trucking loads would actually be cheaper to ship via rail. The problem with rail is time. If a load needs to get from point A to point B in a certain time only a truck can do that. Rail is more efficient in fuel usage but costly in time.
Chicago where I live near, is a bottle neck for cross country rail. Loads can lose days being transfered from one railroad company to another.
frenchyd said:Train technology is global not local it’s politics that is local putting artificial limits on technology.
Who cares?
Why does it matter if the barrier to entry is technological or political? It's irrelevant- still a barrier to entry.
When you discuss high speed trains, you are describing a specific point-to-point route. Today's US trucking system is an entire landscape-to-landscape system. No point in the country can't be reached. Trains can't do that, and NEVER will, regardless of cost or political motivation.
The land aquisition barriers alone would make sure it never happened.
We don't have concentrated production points or destination points. We have a completely decentralized system. Product transport MUST be able to blanket the entire system, not move product from one place to another. Trains can't do it.
Or more accurately, trains can't do it without trucks. But trucks CAN do it without trains.
jimbbski said:So tell me just where these "special" truck only lanes going to come from? Do you know the cost of building a mile of interstate highway? Even adding a lane to the typical 2 lane interstate would cost billions of dollars. As it is now the fuel taxes we pay barely cover the maintinence of these highways. As we use less fuel what with electric cars, Hybrids, and just more efficient gas cars it may only get worse. There's been talk of using on board transponders for every vehicle to record how may miles they travel and you pay a tax on miles driven, not on how much fuel you use. Talk about "Big Brother" looking over your shoulder?
Can self driving trucks happen perhaps but only in certain areas. Most long distance trucking loads would actually be cheaper to ship via rail. The problem with rail is time. If a load needs to get from point A to point B in a certain time only a truck can do that. Rail is more efficient in fuel usage but costly in time.
Chicago where I live near, is a bottle neck for cross country rail. Loads can lose days being transfered from one railroad company to another.
For the interim period while technology is developing, existing fast lanes could be sacrificed on certain designated routes. Yes, I know the cost of building an interstate. I am not suggesting building anything, just using what we have.
The trucking industry could pay the costs via access fees for the privilege of being able to use the designated lanes. They would earn the money from the additional revenue generated from increased delivered goods opportunities (faster routes mean more revenue), and decreased costs (lower wages, payroll load, insurance, fuel, etc.).
The increased loads on the Interstates which sacrificed lanes for accelerated truck lanes could be transferred to alternate Interstate routes with decreased traffic because of the reduced trucking loads.
Eventually, even Interstate construction costs would reduce. It would no longer be necessary to build all Interstate lanes to a standard to handle heavy truck usage, only the accelerated truck lanes would need to be built that way.
By the time the additional load created by the reduced lanes mattered, technology will have developed (and public acceptance) sufficiently to no longer have a need for the dedicated truck lanes.
I would suggest that with proper planning, the highway construction cost could be a net zero.
GameboyRMH said:Wow, there are 4 states where software developer is the most common job!?
I too want to belive that truck driving is a very popular job as shown in the map but it will take a lot to convince me that the most popular job in New Mexico is Secretary. What is it, still the 1960's with typing pools and office switch board operators? Is someone taking dictation and "shorthand" is still used by the secretaries ?
T.J. said:Wouldn't a diesel engined self driving truck make a lot more sense than a battery powered version?
Its a little harder then just energy density. Electric motors respond at a more consistent rate and faster then ICE so its easier to program.
Mark my works in about 5 years they will be on the roads in a few of the major fleets if the legislation allows them to be. My day job is automating things and there is a lot of personal cost that they can cut out and the truck can be run non stop with no driver so log books and tracking are a thing of the past. They will make this work somehow. Does not solve the final mile or unload issues but they are working on that as well for warehousing right now same as the truck.
We as a country are going to have to figure out how to deal with MASSIVE job destruction. I have one system being built right now that can be run by 5 people almost completely remotely that replaces 600 people. If it works then they will build more, then the completion. then it is just me keeping it running and adding new functions and 10K people out of work easy.
N Sperlo said:aircooled said:Most common job in each state:
Weird. I don't see thief anywhere near DC. Check your sources.
Lawyer. Doh.
In reply to aircooled :the loss of jobs won’t happen overnight. While it will happen those jobs will be replaced with something similar but new.
Stage coach drivers were replaced with truck drivers. Actually I suppose it would be more correct to say freight wagon drivers were replaced by truck drivers.
But don’t forget even in the already selfdrive mode planes still need pilots. Ships need captains . And for a while trucks will need drivers.
The guys that come out ahead will be those who figure out the next move and get ahead of the curve
bentwrench said:This gives me an idea for a new business, Mobile battery charging for big rigs!
A big diesel generator sounds perfect, right?
frenchyd said:... those jobs will be replaced with something similar but new.
I think this is the biggest problem on the horizon, and that you are seriously underestimating the scope.
Truck drivers will not become computer programmers or robotics technicians. What are they gonna do?
Plus, if they COULD make the transition to the tech jobs, there is a vast volume mis-match. Eliminating 10,000 jobs to be replaced with 100 new jobs leaves 9900 people without jobs.
But the biggest problem is the economic impact BEHIND the scenes. Truckers make reasonably good money for the education level. If 10,000 truckers lose their jobs, that's 10,000 wages that can no longer purchase the stuff being hauled on the trucks.
It's the reverse of what Henry Ford tried to do- lower the cost of his product so the average employee in his plant could afford to by his product.
And that's just truckers... every industry will be affected.
jimbbski said:While I can see many advantages to the tech, as driver assists, not as self driving trucks. The ability for a truck to be able to see an obstacle in it's path that the driver either doesn't see, is distracted, or is to tired to notice can't come soon enough! But what I can't see is people allowing self driving trucks to move about on public highways. If something goes wrong the results can be very bad and even if the tech can detect a problem and shuts the truck down that to may cause many a traffic back ups which the public will also not want.
I come from a back round of truck transportation, as a dispatcher, load scheduler, driver recruiter, driver management, and yes I even drove a truck for a while. This tech is going to have to be tested for many years and fail safes will have to be put in place that won't cause their own problems before it takes to the public roads. And even then I would question it and just how safe it is.
Drivers do a lot more than just driving if I understand correctly. Tieing down loads, moving boxes, etc. That will be harder to eliminate.
In reply to
In reply to SVreX :
Where is Eisenhauer when we need him?
Yes I know he was a republican but the strangest kind of republican. He’s the last one to balance the budget, He’s the one who warned us about the coming military industrial complex. He built the interstate system. He kept the peace. He raised taxes.
America had been well served by some individuals who belonged to a political party. But they put the country ahead of the party!! Not the other way around!
N Sperlo said:aircooled said:Most common job in each state:
Weird. I don't see thief anywhere near DC. Check your sources.
As a portion of the residents of DC, decision makers in the US government are a very small percentage. But hey, despite not having actual representation in those bodies, we might as well get blamed for their Ill choices for the country. How bout you elect better people instead of laying the faults of those you did on us.
Fueled by Caffeine said:akamcfly said:T.J. said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
Just thinking that 500 miles worth a diesel fuel weighs less than 500 miles worth of batteries and the tank can be filled up a lot faster.
For now. Give it a few years and it will be the reverse.
maybe. I have 0 faith in tesla's ability to manufacture anything at scale.
Tesla doesn't necessarily have to be involved the inevitable.
You'll need to log in to post.
