Volvo delivers 74-tonne electric HGV

[dan_b]

Impressive.

https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news- ... %2525%253e

[Stinsy]

Impressive.

https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news- ... %2525%253e

I'm really in favour of this sort of thing. Just quietly replacing diesel with electric.

However the article misses a lot of important information!

How big is the battery?
How fast does it charge?
What is the range?
How many mi/kWh?

[Paul_F]

How big is the battery?
How fast does it charge?
What is the range?
How many mi/kWh?

Details at https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/truck ... ctric.html

Battery options between 180 and 540 kWh, charging at up to 250kW DC (presumably only the larger battery options) and range is up to 300km. Miles/kWh is probably a bit meaningless until we have a standardised test cycle given the variations in loads carried.

[nowty]

Some cars are currently capable of 350kW DC charging rates with battery sizes less than half the size of the smallest battery option of that truck.

[Ken]

The way forward i think for many cos is to have some batteries in the trailer unit. This will reduce down time of the tractor and driver unit. It can often take hours to load a trailer sitting around all day so plenty of time to charge. This is not an original thought some firm is alredy doing it.

[AE-NMidlands]

The way forward i think for many cos is to have some batteries in the trailer unit. This will reduce down time of the tractor and driver unit. It can often take hours to load a trailer sitting around all day so plenty of time to charge. This is not an original thought some firm is alredy doing it.

That would be OK for small firms with few customers (where they don't lose sight of their trailers) or huge firms with loads of trailers who can always pick up one [of theirs] dropped off a few hours earlier.
I imagine that for a lot (most?) of the hauliers in the middle the investment and the chance of losing their trailer would be too high a risk.
Now if we had a really big company with state funding to lead it, perhaps something like "British Road Services," it might get off the ground...
(Does anyone else remember spotting the depots on these: https://britishroadservices.wordpress.c ... rousel-131?)
A

[Krill]

Question: How much damage to the road surface would a vehicle of that weight cause, compared to a car? Considering the Fourth Power law. 74 tonnes over the number of axles in the picture (I think I count 10 axles) looks to be similar to current vehicles.

Interesting from a road tax perspective.

[AE-NMidlands]

Question: How much damage to the road surface would a vehicle of that weight cause, compared to a car? Considering the Fourth Power law. 74 tonnes over the number of axles in the picture (I think I count 10 axles) looks to be similar to current vehicles.
Interesting from a road tax perspective.

Looks like 6 on the tractor and 4 on the trailer, so not dissimilar to what we see here now.

However I think axle weight is not the whole/ real problem, and is actually a distraction. I remember a TV programme which explained research which showed that damage was the product of pressure applied to the tarmac and recovery time between compressions. Hence 3-axle trailers do more damage than 2-axle ones and these "super-single" tyres put the trailer weight on only half as many bits of tarmac.
We currently have 44T gross weight and 3-axle (6-wheel) trailers... which must be the worst configuration for road damage!

[dan_b]

True, but they'll only hit 350kW for a few minutes under very specific conditions of state of charge and temperature. I expect this would take 350kW pretty much flat for most of the charging session...

Some cars are currently capable of 350kW DC charging rates with battery sizes less than half the size of the smallest battery option of that truck.

[Mart]

Question: How much damage to the road surface would a vehicle of that weight cause, compared to a car? Considering the Fourth Power law. 74 tonnes over the number of axles in the picture (I think I count 10 axles) looks to be similar to current vehicles.
Interesting from a road tax perspective.

Looks like 6 on the tractor and 4 on the trailer, so not dissimilar to what we see here now.

However I think axle weight is not the whole/ real problem, and is actually a distraction. I remember a TV programme which explained research which showed that damage was the product of pressure applied to the tarmac and recovery time between compressions. Hence 3-axle trailers do more damage than 2-axle ones and these "super-single" tyres put the trailer weight on only half as many bits of tarmac.
We currently have 44T gross weight and 3-axle (6-wheel) trailers... which must be the worst configuration for road damage!

Yes, exactly what I recall, it's the weight, total tyre footprint and crucially tyre pressure.

A 2tonne car will have roughly 0.5tn per tyre, with tyres at 30-45psi (BEV's weigh more and tend to have higher pressure). A 44tn artic may have 14 tyres (2-2-4 on the tractor, and 2-2-2 on the trailer), so roughly 3.14tn per tyre (hmm pi, feeling hungry), and those tyres can be 130psi+.

The move to super singles was good for the trucking industry, but the 6 slightly wider tyres on three axles, don't have quite as much footprint as the old configuration of 8 tyres across 2 axles, hence the uplift in psi.

If I recall the numbers correctly, then I think it was suggested that max weight artics cause about 5,000x the damage of a car. Much of the damage is a metre or two after any dip or lump in the road surface, as the vehicle 'bangs' its weight back down.

I guess it's a compromise situation, where we benefit from lower haulage costs, making goods cheaper, but pay for it in higher road maintenance.


Silly thought, but with a BEV, being charged from green leccy, then perhaps reverting to more tyres, at lower pressures might be seen as a good idea. Fuel consumption would go up but clean(er), but road damage would reduce, and grip and braking would be enhanced ..... but we'll need bigger batts, better charging etc etc..