Summary: Driving without oil, vehicles of tomorrow

[Capt_Maloche]

I agree 100% with the principle

[Christophe]

I would like to drive with petrol ... Laigret!

[coucou789456]

Hello

why not have built diesel-electric vehicles like the power cars of the same type on the railways.

1 standard 80t power train pulling a 500t passenger train consumes, on average less than 1l / 100 km per tonne moved.
for a particular vehicle, a manufacturer could align a consumption of 1.5 l / 100 km, and without pantone, then with, imagine the continuation

unless I am wrong in my figures!

jeff

[I Citro]

why not have built diesel-electric vehicles like the power cars of the same type on the railways.

1 standard 80t power train pulling a 500t passenger train consumes, on average less than 1l / 100 km per tonne moved.

unless I am wrong in my figures!

Excellent idea to compare the consumption of a train with that of road vehicles in liters per 100km / tonne moved.

I looked for information on the question, it seems indeed that diesel power cars consume on average 300l / 100km (and up to 100 gallons at full load is more than 400l / 100km).
The weight of a powerplant would be around 80 T and it tows an assembly of 500 tonnes. Which, brought back to the ton shifted, represents much less than 1L / 100km.

It would be interesting to do the calculation per passenger transported ...
if someone wants to do the research ...

I heard that the current airliners announce 3l / 100 / passenger transported ... (to check for comparison) ...

[coucou789456]

per passenger, I don't know the answer, however the power corresponds to around 5 CV per tonne, which is ridiculous
account must be taken of the fact that on railways, the maximum slopes are a small percentage compared to the conventional route, of the order of 2 to 5 per thousand.
on the highway, slopes of 8 per cent exist, and with 5 hp per ton, we could not go very fast.
a low-end vehicle can make 50 CV, so goes at ease on a slope at 8% ... but on the flat, no need for all the power, off to reach the maximum speed of the vehicle, the engine must actually turn to the maximum, therefore consume. an electric power transmission would be better manageable than a transmission by mechanical box.
a small displacement produces well between 4 and 10 CV of power at idle, which would suggest that on the flat, at 90 km / h the engine of a vehicle would not often turn beyond the engine idle
I have among others a C5 6cyl petrol whose engine develops more than 10 CV at idle which would already give about 6 CV per ton

jeff

in a train set, assuming that it carries 1000 people of 80 k average, that would represent 80 t more compared to a train of 5 to 600 t empty
so taking 400l / 100 km, it would give 0.4 l / 100 km per person

[coucou789456]

the vehicle of tomorrow, provided it cannot leave the floor of the cows, will be electrically powered.
it remains to be seen what will power the engines
manufacturers should go through the electric and generator motors stage, pending a better solution. at least some of the vehicles should not be studied at the last minute when the quick fix comes out (power generation solution)

jeff

[Christophe]

1 standard 80t power train pulling a 500t passenger train consumes, on average less than 1l / 100 km per tonne moved.
for a particular vehicle, a manufacturer could align a consumption of 1.5 l / 100 km, and without pantone, then with, imagine the continuation

unless I am wrong in my figures!

No, it's almost correct, but the train fill rate must be 100%, I think.

On this topic: https://www.econologie.com/forums/porte-cont ... t4813.html

I had estimated this the specific consumption between a container carrier and a 36 Tons truck:

6300L / h for 120 tonnes useful for 000 knots.

26 knots = 26 * 1,852 km / h = 48km / h.

We therefore obtain a "specific" consumption of: 6300/48 * 120 = 000 L / T.km.

Compare with a heavy vehicle: payload 30 Ton (fully loaded), consumption 20 to 30 L / 100 or a maximum CS of: 30/100 * 30 = 0,01 L / T.km

A Super Cargo therefore consumes roughly 10 times less than a truck. I'm surprised I thought it was even less ...

So we have :
a) for the freighter: 0.1L / 100km.T
b) for the truck: 1L / 100km.T

We speak in useful tonnes displaced (what was your numbers?).

According to the same reasoning, a car which displaces 200kg of payload (3 passengers) and which consumes 6L per 100km will have a specific mass consumption of:

c) For the car: 30L / 100km.T

It is not certain that the train is better than the truck despite the scale effect because the ration used mass / displaced mass is unfavorable to the train.

In other words: a train displaces a lot of mass for little useful mass compared to the truck. For passengers and with a filling rate of 35% a train is not so much better than a car!

For the passengers I am sure (look at the datasheets of the new TER diesel from Alstom to convince you), for the goods a little less ...

[Christophe]

It would be interesting to do the calculation per passenger transported ... if someone wants to do the research ...

Well I just did it partly for truck and boat For the train do a research seems to me that we had already talked about it too ... otherwise you will easily find a datasheet on the alstom.

I heard that the current airliners announce 3l / 100 / passenger transported ... (to check for comparison) ...

Yes, the plane can be "cleaner" than the car!
But 3L / 100 is long-haul ... with 100% occupancy rate.

Here are the average occupancy rates (I have in mind) of passenger transport:

Airplane:> 80%
Urban public transport: 35%
Train (average): 30 to 40%
Car: according to studies 1.3 to 1.6 passengers therefore 40% at best (1.6 / 4 seats) and 26% at worst (1.3 / 5 seats)
Motorcycle:> = 50%

[coucou789456]

your numbers are absolutely true
rather my calculation was just on the ton of material moved to compare it to a particular vehicle (payload included)
for a 38t truck, I will rather look for 40 l / 100, or even more

jeff

[C moa]

account must be taken of the fact that on railways, the maximum slopes are a small percentage compared to the conventional route, of the order of 2 to 5 per thousand.
on the highway, slopes of 8 per cent exist, and with 5 hp per ton, we could not go very fast.

Just to complete, the most powerful trucks marketed in France I think they are around 400-500hp for around 40 tonnes towed. This represents a power-to-weight ratio of 10 to 12.5 hp / tonnes.
If we now take a clio which is barely 1 ton, the smallest diesel makes 68 hp. It leaves you dreaming when you know that this car is considered not very greedy (it also works with the 206, C2 and the others, I have nothing against Renault).

Of course, you are going to tell me that it is not comparable, that a truck does not travel so fast that it has much more speed ...
I agree but even if we did not divide the power of this car by 2, we would see that we can still move forward correctly, especially in the city where they are most used. We would have a weight / power ratio which would still be around 3 times larger than that of trucks.

I let you imagine the usefulness of cars with 200 hp and more ...

Your servant wishes you a good evening, he who owns a cattle trailer with 110 horses under the hood and a donkey driving !!