Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the Welcome-to-the-Rig-of-Tomorrow dept.
Papas Fritas writes:
"Heavy-duty trucks spend more time on the road than passenger vehicles, so improving their fuel efficiency of 5 or 6 mpg can have a major effect on emissions--and their owners' bottom lines. Now Stephen Edelstein reports that Walmart has unveiled the Walmart Advanced Vehicle Experience (WAVE), designed for optimum aerodynamic efficiency featuring a convex nose to reduce aerodynamic drag and constructed of carbon-fiber reducing its weight by 4,000 pounds allowing the truck to carry more freight without the need for increased power or fuel consumption. The design was achieved in part by placing the driver in the center of the cab (video). The steering wheel is flanked by LCD screens--in place of conventional gauges--and there is a sleeping compartment directly behind the driver's pod.
The WAVE is powered by a Capstone Turbine engine coupled to an electrical powertrain. Capstone Turbines is a California based gas turbine manufacturer that specializes in microturbine power along with heating and cooling cogeneration systems. Key to the Capstone design is its use of foil bearings, which provides maintenance and fluid-free operation for the lifetime of the turbine and reduces the system to a single moving part which also eliminates the need for any cooling or other secondary systems. With over 7000 trucks, Walmart's fleet of vehicles provides a large opportunity to increase fuel efficiency across the board and set an example for the rest of the big box stores. They'll also be necessary in the near future: President Barack Obama has directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to draft a new set of fuel-economy rules for medium and heavy-duty trucks."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by caseih on Thursday March 06 2014, @01:36PM
Definitely rigidity is a problem. I also wonder how a carbon fiber frame and body would burn in a roll over. As well a carbon fiber truck that rolls over is definitely not going to be repairable.
Many of the B train trailers around my area are now all aluminum construction, with only steel for the rails over the axles. They work fine, but eventually they do crack, and in some case they've split in half from fatigue. So you have to inspect them regularly. I think most of the newer box trailers are all aluminum too, even frame rails. While the manufacturers do take into account rigidity and reliability, it's all about tolerances. I'm sure older steel trailers were way overbuilt. Newer aren't as strong as older steel ones, but that's often fine. They are certainly adequate over an estimated lifespan, but they are also focused on average conditions. If your roads are bad (or gravel or dirt), expect problems with all-aluminum trailers, especially belly dump bulk trailers. As roads get worse and worse in north America, particularly the US because of gov't neglect and lack of funds, I expect more and more problems with cracking. But then we'll have bigger problems anyway.
Saving weight is a big deal. It does reduce the fuel cost per kg of cargo. But don't expect trucks to get lighter overall when loaded (even walmart's truck). Making a truck lighter means more weight can be carried as cargo. Trucks always want to travel at close to 100% maximum legal weight to maximize productivity. Cargo companies charge by the kilo, so the more kilos per litre they can haul the better for their bottom line.
I expect that cameras will become standard equipment on trucks in the near future, just like dashcams are becoming more and more ubiquitous. Increase safety and decrease liabilities.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Friday March 07 2014, @07:14AM
Print more US dollars but instead of using it for bailouts and wars, use it to build and restore infrastructure and other stuff.
To me that's the proper way of taking advantage of the US dollar being the world's reserve and trading currency assuming you are thinking of benefiting the USA as a whole.
When US dollars are created it makes everyone else with net positive amounts of US dollars poorer- it is like an involuntary tax. This "tax" affects many US people BUT more importantly it includes the rest of the world who also hold or are owed dollars - like China, Japan etc. So even though the US citizens get poorer, if the created money is used productively in the USA, the US citizens will get their cut of the wealth one way or another, and tend to be wealthier compared to the rest of the world, compared to if the dollars weren't printed.
It's like Mugabe (US Gov) in Zimbabwe (the world) printing Zimbabwe dollars and passing some of it to his cronies. The rest of Zimbabwe (the world) get poorer, but he and his cronies get their wealth.
In the past this was fine for the USA when the US citizens were included amongst the cronies. This seems less true nowadays. I may be wrong of course.
It's harder for governments of many other countries to do the same thing - when they print money in order to benefit the country they actually have to use it for projects/things with high enough return on investment. When nobody else holds your currency but your own people, you're transferring wealth from them. So your projects have to be worth it.
But if you can transfer wealth from the rest of the world and pass it to your people, your projects don't have to that great, they just can't be crap.