Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Drive)   "You got your tank treads in my tires" "You got your tires in my tank treads" Yep, two great locomotion methods that locomote great together   ( thedrive.com) divider line
    More: Cool, future combat vehicles, Carnegie Mellon University, Wheel, hardiest wheeled vehicles, high-speed road capability, Ground X-Vehicle Technologies, Reconfigurable Wheel Tracks, National Robotics Engineering  
•       •       •

5004 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jun 2018 at 4:38 PM (20 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-06-24 04:06:46 PM  
They've been working on a bunch of variants on this idea for a while, and it's a weird looking idea, but if it works, drive the Hells on. Literally.
 
2018-06-24 04:18:03 PM  
Batman tech that is real.
 
2018-06-24 04:41:41 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2018-06-24 04:44:52 PM  
" Man is never so inventive as when he is finding new ways to kill other men."
Arnold Stang.
 
2018-06-24 04:45:37 PM  
you need simple, not complex.
 
2018-06-24 04:46:07 PM  
The idea is so freaking obvious when you see it.  Looks like it's got great potential.
 
2018-06-24 05:00:57 PM  

plutoniumfeather: you need simple, not complex.


It looks like an IED the size of a couple of cherrybombs would stop it cold
 
2018-06-24 05:01:45 PM  
Looks like a great idea. You want to maximize the number of moving parts, because more is always better than fewer. Twice as any parts can do twice the work with the half the effort. It's basic science!
 
2018-06-24 05:11:22 PM  
sciencefictionruminations.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2018-06-24 05:19:21 PM  
Man, I bet the ride is jarring, especially during transfer.

Now the extreme travel suspension? Yes please.
 
2018-06-24 05:25:20 PM  

LewDux: [i.imgur.com image 840x514]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-06-24 05:27:10 PM  
the embedded video


Demonstrations of DARPA's Ground X-Vehicle Technologies
Youtube HrQrJ57J9eE


shows all sorts of crazy suspensions and windowless driver situations. I enjoyed the line "reduce driver nausea" which is probably a concern for many of these schemes, though I suspect that may become moot if the vehicles evolve to being remote or autonomously piloted .
 
2018-06-24 05:38:42 PM  
Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.
 
2018-06-24 05:44:56 PM  

Korzine: Man, I bet the ride is jarring, especially during transfer.

Now the extreme travel suspension? Yes please.


I was in a 113 once on a relatively flat dirt road. You will almost never hear a grunt decline opportunities for methods of transportation other than their feet but fark the 113, now I know what a ping pong ball in a bingo roller thingy feels like. Unless it was going up yet another farking mountain I'd prefer to walk over getting in one of those pieces of shiat again. I don't care how heavy everything is, I'll farking walk there.

Simple stuff works, fancy stuff doesn't. If something is amazing only if it works it becomes a liability because you can't depend on it. Something that works, even if it sucks, is infinitely better than something some stupid pogue makes fancy videos out of that breaks in the real world.

Yippy, I've got this super duper gauss weapon that weighs a few tons and seventeen miles of cables all over me but I get killed by some jackass with a spear because his shiat works and mine doesn't!
 
2018-06-24 05:45:24 PM  

Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.


I also wonder how well it would work when the tread is thrown or breaks, both big deals for treaded vehicles.
 
2018-06-24 05:50:47 PM  

WoodyHayes: Simple stuff works, fancy stuff doesn't.


natazha: I also wonder how well it would work when the tread is thrown or breaks, both big deals for treaded vehicles.


img.fark.netView Full Size

plutoniumfeather: you need simple, not complex.


Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.


jaytkay: Looks like a great idea. You want to maximize the number of moving parts, because more is always better than fewer. Twice as any parts can do twice the work with the half the effort. It's basic science!

 
2018-06-24 05:51:13 PM  

Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.


Fixie-user typing detected
 
2018-06-24 05:54:55 PM  

Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.


IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.
 
2018-06-24 06:19:46 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2018-06-24 06:20:01 PM  

Facts_are_for_losers: WoodyHayes: Simple stuff works, fancy stuff doesn't.

natazha: I also wonder how well it would work when the tread is thrown or breaks, both big deals for treaded vehicles.

[img.fark.net image 620x413]plutoniumfeather: you need simple, not complex.

Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

jaytkay: Looks like a great idea. You want to maximize the number of moving parts, because more is always better than fewer. Twice as any parts can do twice the work with the half the effort. It's basic science!


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-06-24 06:23:48 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: [sciencefictionruminations.files.word​p​ress.com image 850x637]


First thing I thought of.
 
2018-06-24 06:36:00 PM  

SwiftFox: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 194x260]


Nah...I want a giant sized version of this...


Festo – BionicWheelBot (English/Deutsch)
Youtube jGP5NxcCyjE


THAT looks like off-roading fun, and terrifying for anyone who happens to see you rolling over the horizon...
 
2018-06-24 06:47:09 PM  
while tracks own the sand, mud, and snow, as well as crumbling urban surfaces

buried lede
/gotta pacify them 'urbans'
 
2018-06-24 06:47:40 PM  

natazha: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

I also wonder how well it would work when the tread is thrown or breaks, both big deals for treaded vehicles.


The vehicle would have at least four wheels. If one wheel breaks, it might be able to freewheel or the crew can just remove the tread (cut it off) and skid back. If the vehicle is truly disabled, they'd evacuate the crew some other way and probably set it on fire or tow it. But I don't know more than that about vehicle repair in the military. I expect that back in the shop it would be replaced whole and *maybe* the broken wheel would be repaired. And the design will likely change before, if ever, it carries troops.

One advantage I see over other designs is that having four or more independent electric motors, one for each wheel, means you get the most torque when the motor is stopped or moving slowly so limping along with a broken wheel shouldn't be as bad as losing one of two tracks on a tank. The drive wheel connected to a tank tread doesn't touch the ground so you can't "drive on a flat."
 
2018-06-24 06:54:46 PM  
Hey, all that extra money we spend on the military has to be spent somewhere, amirite? We could just waste it on veterans care, better pay and body armor for the troops. Think of the poor military contractors.
 
2018-06-24 07:04:35 PM  
As someone living in Minnesota, I look at this and think, when will we get a civilian version of this?
 
2018-06-24 07:43:28 PM  

whither_apophis: plutoniumfeather: you need simple, not complex.

It looks like an IED the size of a couple of cherrybombs would stop it cold


More like a handful of shale gravel.
 
2018-06-24 07:48:03 PM  

NewWorldDan: As someone living in Minnesota, I look at this and think, when will we get a civilian version of this?


I'm not in MN, but that was my thought, too.  We get a decent amount of snow here in NH, not counting the occasionally fast-dumping nor'easter.  I'd love a set of these on my VW Golf in the winter.
 
2018-06-24 07:58:41 PM  
Looks shiny.  Which means it's probably hell to pay in the field.  Repair/function hell anyway.  Usually how it works.  Then again, it may well be an improvement on straight treads.  Ask anyone that's had to fix the damn things how often those go agley.  More than one tank guy I've talked to has spent substantially longer waiting on the thing to be restored to functionality for assorted reasons than they have actually driving it anywhere.  Extra points when one decides to go south when you're getting shot at.
 
2018-06-24 08:01:17 PM  

Schmerd1948: " Man is never so inventive as when he is finding new ways to kill other men."
Arnold Stang.


So they run dudes over with them?
 
2018-06-24 08:05:23 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.


Except that you still need an IC engine to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.
 
2018-06-24 08:11:40 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.

Except that you still need an IC engine a source of electricity to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.


All you need on board are enough batteries to provide the desired range. Recharging can be done at a central location by various means, and even if you opt for an IC generator or three the maintenance costs should be lower than for a fleet of truck engines.
 
2018-06-24 08:20:55 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.

Except that you still need an IC engine a source of electricity to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.

All you need on board are enough batteries to provide the desired range. Recharging can be done at a central location by various means, and even if you opt for an IC generator or three the maintenance costs should be lower than for a fleet of truck engines.


Oh you are serious... let me laugh harder.

A battery powered truck is not a battlefield reality. Even with lithium cells you still have to choose between payload or the battery capacity to lug that's payload. Batteries are frigging heavy. Add to that: taking hours to recharge is not a desirable attribute.

Also: being unable to top the vehicle off in the field with Gerry cans. There are plenty of missions that involve driving trucks to the middle of nowhere and refilling from gas that was pallet dropped by aircraft.

You really can't beat hydrocarbon fuels for sheer energy density.
 
2018-06-24 08:34:29 PM  

WoodyHayes: Simple stuff works, fancy stuff doesn't.


When they retire the last Blackhawk helicopter, the crew will fly home in a Huey...
 
2018-06-24 08:34:52 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.

Except that you still need an IC engine a source of electricity to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.

All you need on board are enough batteries to provide the desired range. Recharging can be done at a central location by various means, and even if you opt for an IC generator or three the maintenance costs should be lower than for a fleet of truck engines.

Oh you are serious... let me laugh harder.

A battery powered truck is not a battlefield reality. Even with lithium cells you still have to choose between payload or the battery capacity to lug that's payload. Batteries are frigging heavy. Add to that: taking hours to recharge is not a desirable attribute.

Also: being unable to top the vehicle off in the field with Gerry cans. There are plenty of missions that involve driving trucks to the middle of nowhere and refilling from gas that was pallet dropped by aircraft.

You really can't beat hydrocarbon fuels for sheer energy density.


If your previous objections had focused on the energy density of hydrocarbons and the weight of battery packs instead of the effects of scale on diesel-electric powertrains, your laughter might be justified. As it is, you can put those goalposts back where you found them.
 
2018-06-24 08:40:31 PM  

whither_apophis: plutoniumfeather: you need simple, not complex.

It looks like an IED the size of a couple of cherrybombs would stop it cold


Indeed. But which of the swarm of 300 or 3,000 drones would you choose to stop?

What if they were the size of birds, and there were 30,000 of them?
 
2018-06-24 08:43:36 PM  
Hooray!  Mechanized warfare. Gimme more. You know, for democracy.
 
2018-06-24 08:44:13 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.

Except that you still need an IC engine a source of electricity to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.

All you need on board are enough batteries to provide the desired range. Recharging can be done at a central location by various means, and even if you opt for an IC generator or three the maintenance costs should be lower than for a fleet of truck engines.

Oh you are serious... let me laugh harder.

A battery powered truck is not a battlefield reality. Even with lithium cells you still have to choose between payload or the battery capacity to lug that's payload. Batteries are frigging heavy. Add to that: taking hours to recharge is not a desirable attribute.

Also: being unable to top the vehicle off in the field with Gerry cans. There are plenty of missions that involve driving trucks to the middle of nowhere and refilling from gas that was pallet dropped by aircraft.

You really can't beat hydrocarbon fuels for sheer energy density.

If your previous objections had focused on the energy density of hydrocarbons and the weight of battery packs instead of the effects of scale on diesel-electric powertrains, your laughter might be justified. As it is, you can put those goalposts back where you found them.


Except that someone thought it was clever to say that it would be all good to just replace all of that with batteries. And I was specifically replying to that. My original point ALSO stands.

Battery powered vehicles are impractical on the battlefield.  Motor/generator/motor arrangements on a vehicle that size are heavy and inefficient. The two facts are not wrong, nor are they mutually exclusive.

There is a reason most vehicles tie the motive power directly to the wheels.
 
2018-06-24 08:46:44 PM  
They tried those one of those silly things on Top Gear. It didn't go well - the treads came off every time it went round a corner.
 
2018-06-24 08:49:13 PM  

limboslam: Facts_are_for_losers: WoodyHayes: Simple stuff works, fancy stuff doesn't.

natazha: I also wonder how well it would work when the tread is thrown or breaks, both big deals for treaded vehicles.

[img.fark.net image 620x413]plutoniumfeather: you need simple, not complex.

Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

jaytkay: Looks like a great idea. You want to maximize the number of moving parts, because more is always better than fewer. Twice as any parts can do twice the work with the half the effort. It's basic science!

[img.fark.net image 425x292]


LOL, and whatever they are showing us, you can bet that actual R&D is anywhere from 5 to 10 years ahead of what we are being shown. This is good. As a result, I'm feeling a little better about our survivability as the Evil Empire (which we are rapidly becoming) with the entire rest of the world arrayed against us.
 
2018-06-24 08:54:15 PM  

hubiestubert: SwiftFox: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 194x260]

Nah...I want a giant sized version of this...


[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/jGP5NxcC​yjE]

THAT looks like off-roading fun, and terrifying for anyone who happens to see you rolling over the horizon...


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-06-24 09:06:14 PM  
All this effort put into weapons, although if you can turn out a civilian model it'll be on every eunuch's lifted truck in five month.
 
2018-06-24 09:12:36 PM  
That would be really useful on a variety of farm equipment.
 
2018-06-24 09:17:01 PM  
How long until this is available for a Polaris?  Asking for my friend who doesn't need one.
 
2018-06-24 09:17:48 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.

Except that you still need an IC engine a source of electricity to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.

All you need on board are enough batteries to provide the desired range. Recharging can be done at a central location by various means, and even if you opt for an IC generator or three the maintenance costs should be lower than for a fleet of truck engines.

Oh you are serious... let me laugh harder.

A battery powered truck is not a battlefield reality. Even with lithium cells you still have to choose between payload or the battery capacity to lug that's payload. Batteries are frigging heavy. Add to that: taking hours to recharge is not a desirable attribute.

Also: being unable to top the vehicle off in the field with Gerry cans. There are plenty of missions that involve driving trucks to the middle of nowhere and refilling from gas that was pallet dropped by aircraft.


You really can't beat hydrocarbon fuels for sheer energy density.

If your previous objections had focused on the energy density of hydrocarbons and the weight of battery packs instead of the effects of scale on diesel-electric powertrains, your laughter might be justified. As it is, you can put those goalposts back where you found them.

Except that someone thought it was clever to say that it would be all good to just replace all of that with batteries. And I was specifically replying to that. My original point ALSO stands.

Battery powered vehicles are impractical on the battlefield.  Motor/generator/motor arrangements on a vehicle that size are heavy and inefficient. The two facts are not wrong, nor are they mutually exclusive.

There is a reason most vehicles tie the motive power directly to the wheels.


Or not, I guess. Have fun.
 
2018-06-24 09:26:12 PM  

Harlee: whither_apophis: plutoniumfeather: you need simple, not complex.

It looks like an IED the size of a couple of cherrybombs would stop it cold

Indeed. But which of the swarm of 300 or 3,000 drones would you choose to stop?

What if they were the size of birds, and there were 30,000 of them?


Oh, look, they can be:


Festo – BionicFlyingFox (English/Deutsch)
Youtube zDq4kjY19UU

and
https://www.festo.com/group/en/cms/13​1​30.htm

Here you go. If we get this first and position ourselves well with it, this gives the USA strategic and tactical military dominance for well into the next century:

Set up automated mass production on, say, converted oil tankers (sea) or converted SSNs (undersea) or C-130s (air), with spaces converted to "nests" for the birds, inventory parts storage, manufacturing facilities to build new birds, ammo storage for whatever ordnance each bird is equipped with, and electrical recharge facilities to refuel the damned things.

Mass production with OTS technology. They can be autonomous, so they are hard to counter with jamming.

A battle sortie might release anywhere from 1,000 to 100,000 of them. Might be in a Kamikazi wave; might be in a hit-and-run "hope for retrieval" wave. The ship-borne birds are for local interdiction and area denial. The C-130 birds control a wider area, but are less numerous. The sub-launched birds are for remote area interdiction, far away. To launch, the SSN would fire modified ICBMs with payloads of the birds, stored in racks, ready for release 1,000 to 7,500 miles away from the sub. Each flock of birds would release from the missile in "shroud pods" which would rapidly drop away (providing chaff) while slowing the pod, and each bird would unfurl it's wings as the airspeed dropped away, orient itself, and join the rest of the flock in attacking the target.
 
2018-06-24 09:28:24 PM  

Harlee: LOL, and whatever they are showing us, you can bet that actual R&D is anywhere from 5 to 10 years ahead of what we are being shown


Nope. It's DARPA showing stuff from universities like Carnegie Mellon. This isn't the Skunk Works & Area 51.

DARPA funds tons of shiat, let's them fail and flail, and picks choice bits out of the efforts.

Some of this stuff is at the duct tape stage.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-06-24 09:31:39 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.

Except that you still need an IC engine a source of electricity to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.

All you need on board are enough batteries to provide the desired range. Recharging can be done at a central location by various means, and even if you opt for an IC generator or three the maintenance costs should be lower than for a fleet of truck engines.

Oh you are serious... let me laugh harder.

A battery powered truck is not a battlefield reality. Even with lithium cells you still have to choose between payload or the battery capacity to lug that's payload. Batteries are frigging heavy. Add to that: taking hours to recharge is not a desirable attribute.

Also: being unable to top the vehicle off in the field with Gerry cans. There are plenty of missions that involve driving trucks to the middle of nowhere and refilling from gas that was pallet dropped by aircraft.

You really can't beat hydrocarbon fuels for sheer energy density.


Also, Li-Ion batteries are somewhat unstable in civilian use. A Tesla sized battery pack gets so much as dented in military use.... Very Bad.
 
2018-06-24 09:34:43 PM  

Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.


Looks very complicated. As I service vehicles for a living, in the field the entire "corner" needs to be serviced as an assembly. Turn around time has to be kept to a minimum.  My guess it would take days to replace a bunch of chains, actuators and cogs on that thing.
 
2018-06-24 09:37:01 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Evil Twin Skippy: common sense is an oxymoron: Tyrosine: Those look great an all but they all look fairly complicated so one wonders how durable they are and how easy it is to repair and service them in the field.

IANAME, but the hub motors seem less complicated from a field maintenance standpoint than IC engines, and that suspension travel looks like an excellent tradeoff for the increase in complexity. The rest of it looks like a bunch of expensive, fragile toys.

Except that you still need an IC engine a source of electricity to power it. So you still have that complexity. Only now you have an IC power producer, and a giant alternator to convert that mechanical power into electrical power. And the then you are taking that electrical power and converting back into mechanical power.

There is a reason you only see that sort of arrangement on diesel locomotives and ships. At large scale you can do the conversion efficiently, or at the very least, at a significant cost/reliability/weight improvement over a properly scaled mechanical transmission system.

For car and truck sized vehicles... not so much.

All you need on board are enough batteries to provide the desired range. Recharging can be done at a central location by various means, and even if you opt for an IC generator or three the maintenance costs should be lower than for a fleet of truck engines.

Oh you are serious... let me laugh harder.

A battery powered truck is not a battlefield reality. Even with lithium cells you still have to choose between payload or the battery capacity to lug that's payload. Batteries are frigging heavy. Add to that: taking hours to recharge is not a desirable attribute.

Also: being unable to top the vehicle off in the field with Gerry cans. There are plenty of missions that involve driving trucks to the middle of nowhere and refilling from gas that was pallet dropped by aircraft.

You really can't beat hydrocarbon fuels for sheer energy density.

If your previous objections had focused on the energy density of hydrocarbons and the weight of battery packs instead of the effects of scale on diesel-electric powertrains, your laughter might be justified. As it is, you can put those goalposts back where you found them.

Except that someone thought it was clever to say that it would be all good to just replace all of that with batteries. And I was specifically replying to that. My original point ALSO stands.

Battery powered vehicles are impractical on the battlefield.  Motor/generator/motor arrangements on a vehicle that size are heavy and inefficient. The two facts are not wrong, nor are they mutually exclusive.

There is a reason most vehicles tie the motive power directly to the wheels.


Even that system looses power in translation. Look at tourqe numbers at crankshaft vs on the ground. Not disagreeing, in a support vehicle (as intended in the article) ICE, gearing, and wheels is the least lossy of current systems for the weight.
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report