Chip with simple program for Toy

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

Of course all the rail yards here are now built over with expensive apartment blocks.

I doubt thats true of all of them.

I assure you it pretty much damn well is.

You're just plain wrong. As you admit in your next sentence.

I was being liberal with my words. More of a joke if you like. But I am serious too. Just happened in my own
town.

Or they're now the car parks for the commuters who use the trains.

Thats easily reversed if that is desirable.

So where do the commuters park then ? Rail makes most of its money from transporting PEOPLE in Europe.
Freight is a drop in the ocean.

AFAIK you can no longer send an ordinary parcel by train in the UK.
It's contract only for heavy loads.

It would be easy to move containers by rail and then by local truck to
say supermarkets etc if the transport fuel costs make that worth doing tho.

It's been tried and found wanting. Large rail yards are too far spread for one thing for it to be practical
and slow freight trains hold up the profitable commuter and long-distance express trains.

And do that with parcels to the post office/courier office too.

They have their own parcels van service that transfers to big trucks at distribution centres. Why would they
kill a fast and successful service ? There are several companies doing this in fact. I can think of 6
instantly.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

Nevertheless, if it becomes politically correct to go up a 6% grade at
8 mph

I remember something a bit like that in the late 50s and early sixties on the
notoriously hilly A66 route between Scotch Corner and Carlisle, a route over
the Pennine Hills. Fixed by the building of the motorway system. It's probably
a great drive now since most traffic will avoid it and the scenery is rather
good.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

Hybridization is a minor advantage on the highway. An old diesel
Rabbit gets slightly less mpg as a new Prius on the highway.

Nevertheless, if it becomes politically correct to go up a 6% grade at
8 mph, a full series hybid truck may appear. On the down hill the
energy could be regenerated to recharge the battery instead of
overheating the brakes. But right now a series hybrid truck would
require a multi ton battery to get 80,000 lbs over a mountain at what
is currently considered an acceptable speed ~ 35 mph.


Only about 1 ton of battery actually (to get 80,000 lbs to the top of a 6000
ft mountain pass.
In actuallity, a smaller battery would suffice since the power generator can
help on the way up.
Either way it's good use of the battery, since on the way down it gets
charged back up to the brim, ready for the next mountain range !

Please understand that a series hybrid rig with battery can go up the
mountains much FASTER than it's crawling diesel-equivalents, since the
electric motors can be more powerfull than it's diesel engine.

Only if you pay for the suitably rated motors of course ! ;~).

Mind you, that's a flexibility of such vehicles. If you don't run those routes
you can use smaller motors.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore"wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
. Eeyore wrote

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which would
only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press release or
whatever.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote

So where do the commuters park then ?

Wherever they choose to build another multistory carpark. Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

You obviously know nothing about how heavily 'built up' Britain and many other European countries are.

Besides, big freight yards would be best OUTSIDE city centres.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail if
only because sooner or later trains will electrify and
a lot or most long haul trucking will disappear.

Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive

It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.

Wrong, as always. Not much freight moves using rail in northern europe.

True. Even the Royal Mail (British Post Office) moved to trucks only a year or so ago.

But that may change if the cost of transport fuel gets a lot higher.

It won't here because so much of it is already tax, that the impact of the raw material
price is much lower than in the US.

You may HAVE to go that way too to avoid 7 litre gas guzzlers.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail if only
because sooner or later trains will electrify and a lot or most
long haul trucking will disappear.

Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive

It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.

Land and (relatively) labour was cheap then too. That's how France
laid the majority of the TGV system without it costing a fortune.

The cost of the sort of land that that uses mostly hasnt increased all that much.

It has in France. As has the labour. SNCF did it at just the right time.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote

Large rail yards are too far spread for one thing for it to be practical

Have fun explaining how come they work fine in some places.

Name such a place.

and slow freight trains hold up the profitable commuter and long-distance express trains.

They dont have to. The freight can be moved when there isnt the commuter and express volume.

You mean only ever at night ?

And do that with parcels to the post office/courier office too.

They have their own parcels van service that transfers to big trucks at distribution centres.

And it may make sense to move that stuff using rail in future when the cost of transport fuel is much higher.

Fuel costs affect diesel locos as much as trucks silly.

Why would they kill a fast and successful service ?

Because rail costs a lot less to move that freight.

Simply not so. The was a rail general freight company called 'Red Star'. The government (remember our railways
were publicly owned and in part still are) sold Red Star for Ł1 in order to give it a chance IIRC. It still
failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_Parcels

It is now bought out and a road operated service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LYNX_Express

There are several companies doing this in fact. I can think of 6 instantly.

Irrelevant to what makes sense when the cost of transport fuel is much higher.

Diesel trains use the same stuff. Almost all freight in the UK is diesel hauled.

Graham

 

[Dean Hoffman]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Some local ex farmer was telling me that in the midwest the wheat
actually grows up under the snow. (I listened politely.) He also
said that the soil there is only 4" deep so they alternate rows with
weeds for a wind break to keep the soil from blowing away.

He was probably talking about winter wheat. It's sowed in the
fall, usually in late September in my area. It goes dormant after the
weather gets cold, then restarts in the spring. Snow actually helps
protect it from the cold. It's usually ready to be harvested late
June/early July in my area. One advantage for winter wheat is it takes
advantage of typical spring rains and avoids the later dryer times of
the year.
Strip farming might've been the other thing he talked about.
Alternate strips are sowed every other year. It isn't individual rows
that alternate. The strips are probably a few hundred feet wide. Weeds
in the unfarmed areas are controlled to conserve moisture. Strip
farming is used in arid regions. I'm not too familiar with it as I live
in a wetter region.
That soil depth thing is a puzzler. He must've been referring to an
area closer to the Rockies. It seems like a stretch. Planting depths
of a couple inches wouldn't leave much room for error. There wouldn't
be much room for the root system to grow.

He claimed the local farmers only get one ton/acre of the expensive
wheat or 3 tons/acre of the cheap wheat so either way they never made
much money. He said the lettuce farmers got upset over some insect
attracted by cotton and banned cotton farming.

There are different types of wheat that bring different prices. I
think the more expensive types (spring wheat) are grown in the Dakotas
and farther north.

He said he quit farming because of the 90 hour work weeks.

It's pretty common for ag workers to put in a lot of hours in the
spring, summer, and fall. People make up for it in the winter. This
applies to farmers, ag mechanics, sprayer operators/pilots, irrigation
crews, crop consultants, and the grain handling people.
The 90 hour claim might've been a bit much unless he took no days
off. One reaches a point where it's counter productive to work those
hours. People get tired and do stupid things. Sometimes those stupid
mistakes get people hurt or killed. I think farming is 3rd on the list
of most dangerous occupations.

I've been cycling a lot at night and farm tractors are often out
working the fields. They light up a cloud of dust around the tractor
with a half dozen lights.

The really big rushes around here are in the spring and fall. A
combine along with a tractor or two in a field can make it look like an
alien invasion.
There is a big difference in farming practices when I was growing up
compared to now. Irrigation is a lot more efficient. Farm equipment is
a lot bigger and more efficient. No till and minimum till practices
reduce soil erosion and conserve fuel and $$$$$$. Farmers of my dad's
generation probably did ten separate operations to produce a crop.
Modern farmers are doing it with maybe half that or less depending on
the crop.

Dean






----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

So where do the commuters park then ?

Wherever they choose to build another multistory carpark.
Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.

You obviously know nothing about how heavily 'built up'
Britain and many other European countries are.

Wrong, as always.

So where do you live ? Fantasy land ?
Here's my local station on one of the busiest commuter lines into London.
Right in the middle. It's electrified from Bedford to Brighton and also
carries express trains from the Midlands to St Pancras where they can
directly board the Eurostar to France and Belgium.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.750534,-0.326865&spn=0.004955,0.009613&t=k&z=17

Where are you going to put the yard (not that it would be very suitable in
the centre of a Victorian era part of the city with narrow roads).

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote

It would be easy to move containers by rail and then by local truck to
say supermarkets etc if the transport fuel costs make that worth doing tho.

It's been tried and found wanting.

Its been tried and continues to be done that way in quite a few countrys.

Large rail yards are too far spread for one thing for it to be practical

Have fun explaining how come they work fine in some places.

Name such a place.

Australia, America, Canada, China, India, Russia, Japan.

But not Europe.

I must ask Mauried how many parcels go by rail in Oz. They don't have many rail lines. Its the land
of the 'road train'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Road_Train2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Road_Train_Australia.jpg

and slow freight trains hold up the profitable commuter and long-distance express >>>trains.

They dont have to. The freight can be moved when
there isnt the commuter and express volume.

You mean only ever at night ?

Nope. The main volume overnight, with some of the freight moving during the
day when most of the long distance express train traffic volume is lower etc.
In spades with commuter trains which only use a small fraction of the day.

You have some funny ideas. Those passenger trains only stop running for about 5 hours a day.

And do that with parcels to the post office/courier office too.

They have their own parcels van service that transfers to big trucks at distribution
centres.

And it may make sense to move that stuff using rail in
future when the cost of transport fuel is much higher.

Fuel costs affect diesel locos as much as trucks silly.

We were discussing ELECTRIFIED rail, stupid.

The UK rail freight franchise uses diesel engines because *at least* half the track (probably a LOT
more) it needs to run on isn't electrified. Remember, only very heavily used track is economical to
electrify.

Rest of absurd nonsense snipped.

Graham

 

[DB]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

I was being liberal with my words. More of a joke if you like.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Gee Graham,
So this is what you get for kissing rodnuts ass.

Go figure.......

(Makes you dumber than a rock...)

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bret Cahill wrote:

But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail if
only because sooner or later trains will electrify and
a lot or most long haul trucking will disappear.

Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive

It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.

Wrong, as always. Not much freight moves using rail in northern europe.

True. Even the Royal Mail (British Post Office) moved to trucks only a year or so
ago.

But that may change if the cost of transport fuel gets a lot higher.

It won't here because so much of it is already tax,

Wrong again. If the price of crude is 10 times higher, the tax is irrelevant.

It would probably just over double the price here.

that the impact of the raw material price is much lower than in the US.

You may HAVE to go that way too to avoid 7 litre gas guzzlers.

Wrong again, you can just ban them if you want to.

I wonder which is more acceptable to the US psyche.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore wrote
Bret Cahill wrote

But the hybrid tractor, series or parallel, will prevail
if only because sooner or later trains will electrify
and a lot or most long haul trucking will disappear.

Electrifiying train lines is HORRIBLY expensive

It must have been cost effective at $10/barrel crude
because that was the situation in N. Europe decades ago.

Land and (relatively) labour was cheap then too. That's how France
laid the majority of the TGV system without it costing a fortune.

The cost of the sort of land that that uses mostly hasnt increased all that much.

It has in France.

No it hasnt.

As has the labour.

Wrong again. They can use cheap foreign labor if they choose to.

Haha ! Do you know ANYTHING about French Trades Unions ! LMAO.

SNCF did it at just the right time.

Wrong, as always.

Cite for all please !

Graham

 

[Bret Cahill]

Hybridization is a minor advantage on the highway. �An old diesel
Rabbit gets slightly less mpg as a new Prius on the highway.

Nevertheless, if it becomes politically correct to go up a 6% grade at
8 mph, a full series hybid truck may appear. �On the down hill the
energy could be regenerated to recharge the battery instead of
overheating the brakes. �But right now a series hybrid truck would
require a multi ton battery to get 80,000 lbs over a mountain at what
is currently considered an acceptable speed ~ 35 mph.

Only about 1 ton of battery actually (to get 80,000 lbs to the top of a 6000
ft mountain pass.
In actuallity, a smaller battery would suffice since the power generator can
help on the way up.
Either way it's good use of the battery, since on the way down it gets
charged back up to the brim, ready for the next mountain range !

Please understand that a series hybrid rig with battery can go up the
mountains much FASTER than it's crawling diesel-equivalents, since the
electric motors can be more powerfull than it's diesel engine.

Only if you pay for the suitably rated motors of course ! ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝ ďż˝;~).

Invest in copper. I somehow got on some list and was recently offered
dinner in exchange for my "vast" political influence to help get
legislation to open a copper mine.

After a chuckle I decided I'd fix my own food and not be tainted with
conflicts of interest.

Mind you, that's a flexibility of such vehicles. If you don't run those routes
you can use smaller motors.

Unless it's easy to swap out/upgrade/downgrade the electric motors and/
or engines, economies of scale may wipe out such niche markets. SW
airlines has one or 2 types of aircraft so all their pilots/mechanics
can work any of their planes. This is why they are successful.
Similarly, large carriers who drive everywhere will want to buy all
one kind of truck.

They'll want something that can climb 6,000 feet at 35 mph.

On the other hand, how does a small country like Sweden get into so
many large markets? No one ever comments on that phenomenon. My pet
theory is they are snowed in for 9 months of the year and cannot do
anything except go to the library and work.

In the summer only the bus drivers work in Sweden.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

They didn't give a driving profile but if that claim held for the open
highway, that would be $100/day for a 600 mile day, $180 for a 1000
mile day and even without the green write offs the savings would more
than make the tractor payments.
In town the savings of a hybrid could be great but not so much on the
highway.
? ? ? The link qwerty provided talked about short run delivery trucks
and bucket trucks like the utility companies use. ?Nothing about the OTR
trucks unless I missed it.

Hybridization is a minor advantage on the highway. �An old diesel
Rabbit gets slightly less mpg as a new Prius on the highway.

Nevertheless, if it becomes politically correct to go up a 6% grade at

8 mph, a full series hybid truck may appear. �On the down hill the

energy could be regenerated to recharge the battery instead of
overheating the brakes. �But right now a series hybrid truck would
require a multi ton battery to get 80,000 lbs over a mountain at what
is currently considered an acceptable speed ~ 35 mph.

Only about 1 ton of battery actually (to get 80,000 lbs to the top of a 6000
ft mountain pass.

The 300 gallon diesel tank common on rigs weighs one ton so another
one ton "tank" doesn't sound prohibitive.

In actuallity, a smaller battery would suffice since the power generator can
help on the way up.

The wind resistance will be less as well. You might be down to 1,000
lb battery.

Most climbs are less than 6,000 feet so the battery size could drop
even more.

Either way it's good use of the battery, since on the way down it gets
charged back up to the brim, ready for the next mountain range !

Since the trucks must go slowly downhill for safety, the wind
resistance is low and therefore the potential energy is almost
completely wasted going downhill.

With conventional drive trains the engine is used for braking, often
enhanced by shutting off the exhaust manifold. If diesel is still
being injected into the cylinders it just represents more waste.

Please understand that a series hybrid rig with battery can go up the
mountains much FASTER than it's crawling diesel-equivalents, since the
electric motors can be more powerfull than it's diesel engine.

With a 400 hp electric motor a rig could really zip across
intersections in town.


Bret Cahill

 

[Dan Drake]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:04:08 UTC, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

John's original, still right at the top, is just plain wrong
on WHEN that collection of silly senile old farts realised
that the earth does in fact revolved around the sun.

Sorry for the confusion.

There is no confusion and there still isnt. You were and still are just plain wrong.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

What I was referring to was the Roman Catholic Church's
official admission that Geocentrism was wrong

Yes, that was always clear.

and, AIUI, that acknowledgement only occurred a few years ago.

And that is where you were always just plain wrong. It happened a LONG time before that.


OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Like I said, what actually happened only a few years ago, was that
they did officially admit that Galileo had been very badly treated.


OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Small comfort for Galileo, who knew he was right, beyond a shadow of doubt,

And he wasnt alone in recognising that at that time. The evidence was very clear.

That's not the point.

Corse it is.

but was forced to perjure himself

He didnt even perjure himself.

In order to save his life, he was forced to lie about his
beliefs before a legislating body, which is perjury.

Wrong, as always.

Do you actually mean anything by that statement? If so, could you tell us
what it is?

I mean, I assume you know what the word "recant" means. Obviously you know
that Galileo recanted, formally, under oath, before witnesses, with a
transcript being taken, the authenticity of which has never been
questioned -- unless you have now decided to question whether he really
said it (in which case it would be nice to know on what grounds you
question it, in opposition to everyone else in the world and every
historian of science that ever considered it).

BTW I am not arguing that the Church didn't recognize the Earth's motion
till the 1990s. After all, when they allowed (in fact, _ordered_) the
publication of Galileo's work undiluted in 1822, it was not because the
Inquisition had been converted into disciples of John Locke with a firm
belief in Voltaire's famous principle which he never actually said, about
defending to the death your right to be wrong. It was because they knew
they looked too damn stupid by then -- just as Galileo had warned their
predecessors, though they were not about to say that out loud. And in only
170 years more, the Church got around to saying it out loud.

This, of course, is a small point in itself; it's just that your
uncompromising and unfounded statements tend to, you know, make it look as
if you don't really know what you're talking about. The senile old farts
at Fordham U (your characterization, not mine; I find a lot of highly
respecatble scholarship in Romish sources) have proved a convenient
reference:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

"...But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely
to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe
and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that
it moved,... I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat
of the said already condemned doctrine... : I have been judged vehemently
suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is
the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the
centre of the same, and that it does move.

"Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all
faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against
me, I abjure with sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest
the said errors and heresies...

"I Galileo Galilei aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and hold
myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own hand have
subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have recited it word
by word. In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this 22nd day of June,
1633.

"I, GALILEO GALILEI, have abjured as above, with my own hand."

What part of "recanted" or "abjured" or "under oath" do you not
understand? Or is your claim that he really had joined the senile old
farts in actually *believing* this crap? It would be odd if you were to
say that, considering your assertion (true enough) that there were other
people who knew it was nonsense; this would make Galileo a more senile of
fart than those people. Hence it's hard to figure out what you *do* mean.



--
Dan Drake
dd@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:55:44 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

---
As much as you rail against it, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for
some numbers which will support your position.

Let's see your hand...


JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which would
only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

OTR trucks are already pretty efficient on the highway. Moreover,
there's always the hope that a lot of long haul freight can go by
rail.

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press release or
whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain, then discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits
(w.r.t. a standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck will be much more significant in mountain driving than in
'flat land' driving.

I may reverse myself here. Mountain driving may be the best place for
hybrids.

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just strong enough  to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough  (100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain, a series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain
work.

6,000' climbs aren't all that common on most truck routes so you might
be able to get away with a smaller battery.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

On Sep 2, 3:39�pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which
would only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

OTR trucks are already pretty efficient on the highway. �Moreover,
there's always the hope that a lot of long haul freight can go by
rail.

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press
release or whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain,
then discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits (w.r.t.
a standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck will
be much more significant in mountain driving than in 'flat land'
driving.

I may reverse myself here. �Mountain driving may be the best place for
hybrids.

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just
strong enough to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough (100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain,
a series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain work.

6,000' climbs aren't all that common on most truck routes so you might
be able to get away with a smaller battery.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on
flat land (compared to a standard diesel rig).
Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

You've just plucked those numbers out of your arse.

We can tell from the smell.

You idiots need to git yer noses out of arses.


Bret Cahill