Date: 27/03/2023 01:04:15
From: dv
ID: 2012720
Subject: max range, ICE vehicle

What do you reckon would be the maximum possible driving range for an internal combustion vehicle? Assume no design limitations, allow articulation, assume you can refuel from trailers etc.

Quad tankers in Australia carry up to 120000 litres of fuel. Say, 103000 kg. Empty, the tanks and cab might weigh what, 30 tonnes?

From what I can glean they use something like 2 L per km full, 1 L per km empty, on flat high quality road at optimal speed.

So you might hope to travel 80000 km on carried fuel under best conditions.

But of course quad tankers are not designed with this goal. So what do you reckon would be the theoretical limit?

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:17:06
From: Kingy
ID: 2012721
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

dv said:


What do you reckon would be the maximum possible driving range for an internal combustion vehicle? Assume no design limitations, allow articulation, assume you can refuel from trailers etc.

Quad tankers in Australia carry up to 120000 litres of fuel. Say, 103000 kg. Empty, the tanks and cab might weigh what, 30 tonnes?

From what I can glean they use something like 2 L per km full, 1 L per km empty, on flat high quality road at optimal speed.

So you might hope to travel 80000 km on carried fuel under best conditions.

But of course quad tankers are not designed with this goal. So what do you reckon would be the theoretical limit?

An empty quad is 40+ tons.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:21:52
From: becklefreckle
ID: 2012723
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Theoretically, there must be a point at which every extra kilo of payload (fuel) you add, your fuel usage goes up so much that you don’t get any extra distance out of that kilo. So that would be your max range. Is that what you mean?

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:24:20
From: AussieDJ
ID: 2012725
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

dv said:

Assume no design limitations, allow articulation, assume you can refuel from trailers etc.
Are you assuming that the engine is equally as fuel-efficient when moving off from a stop as when the vehicle is running at cruising speed?

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:24:20
From: Kingy
ID: 2012726
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

dv said:


What do you reckon would be the maximum possible driving range for an internal combustion vehicle? Assume no design limitations, allow articulation, assume you can refuel from trailers etc.

Quad tankers in Australia carry up to 120000 litres of fuel. Say, 103000 kg. Empty, the tanks and cab might weigh what, 30 tonnes?

From what I can glean they use something like 2 L per km full, 1 L per km empty, on flat high quality road at optimal speed.

So you might hope to travel 80000 km on carried fuel under best conditions.

But of course quad tankers are not designed with this goal. So what do you reckon would be the theoretical limit?

Mega quads are legal for 200 tons, so near enough to 150 tons of cargo/fuel. On average 1.5 L/km. So 100,000+km is do-able right now with off the shelf equipment.

Power Trains could probably add 50% to that.

Actual rail trains, well… lots more.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:27:32
From: dv
ID: 2012727
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Kingy said:


dv said:

What do you reckon would be the maximum possible driving range for an internal combustion vehicle? Assume no design limitations, allow articulation, assume you can refuel from trailers etc.

Quad tankers in Australia carry up to 120000 litres of fuel. Say, 103000 kg. Empty, the tanks and cab might weigh what, 30 tonnes?

From what I can glean they use something like 2 L per km full, 1 L per km empty, on flat high quality road at optimal speed.

So you might hope to travel 80000 km on carried fuel under best conditions.

But of course quad tankers are not designed with this goal. So what do you reckon would be the theoretical limit?

An empty quad is 40+ tons.

Thanks for the correction.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:28:36
From: dv
ID: 2012728
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

AussieDJ said:


dv said:
Assume no design limitations, allow articulation, assume you can refuel from trailers etc.
Are you assuming that the engine is equally as fuel-efficient when moving off from a stop as when the vehicle is running at cruising speed?

I’m not, but I’m assuming it is kept constantly at the optimal speed, rather than stopping and starting.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:29:49
From: dv
ID: 2012729
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Kingy said:

Actual rail trains, well… lots more.

Fair dos, I should have specified road vehicles.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 01:36:12
From: Kingy
ID: 2012730
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

dv said:


Kingy said:

Actual rail trains, well… lots more.

Fair dos, I should have specified road vehicles.

In a perfect vacuum with zero G?

Damn, I’m starting to sound like SCIENCE!

Nah, a powertrain would suck a lot more fuel per km, so a mega quad is probably the best option.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 02:23:19
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2012733
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Kingy said:

dv said:

Kingy said:

Actual rail trains, well… lots more.

Fair dos, I should have specified road vehicles.

SCIENCE

sorry we haven’t driven any railway guns or fuel tankers before and don’t know how their losses scale

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 03:13:33
From: AussieDJ
ID: 2012735
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

dv said:


AussieDJ said:

dv said:
Assume no design limitations, allow articulation, assume you can refuel from trailers etc.
Are you assuming that the engine is equally as fuel-efficient when moving off from a stop as when the vehicle is running at cruising speed?

I’m not, but I’m assuming it is kept constantly at the optimal speed, rather than stopping and starting.

File under ‘Red herring’ or irrelevant, possibly, but I’ll chuck it in anyway.

We’d have to assume a remotely-controlled vehicle then. Otherwise you’d be subject to human interactions, such as the bladder limitation of the driver, let alone the road safety rules which mandate regular breaks from driving. Not being a long-distance truckie, I don’t know what those particular rules are. But even tourists are advised to take a break every so often.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 05:24:47
From: Kothos
ID: 2012738
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Drop the tanks as each one becomes empty. Are you thinking of driving one of these things to the Moon?

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 08:42:56
From: transition
ID: 2012750
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

what are you assuming of speed, are you assuming some conformity with other traffic velocities, perhaps near the posted speed limits

I ask because the efficiency and range really comes down to optimizing speed, and engine RPM

suppose you gone on holiday now, and i’m stuck here contemplating what parameters and conditions you intend of the hypothetical proposition, I may have a meltdown, my planet-size brain could explode, or worse implode and turn into a black hole

anyway, on a lighter note, something more like philosophy, there is always this dimension to traveling anywhere by land, the terrestrial experience, how long are you happy for the trip to take, and your willingness to obstruct other traffic, or appear suspiciously slow

I gather cruising speed means toward the posted speed limit, otherwise really to get more near the objective of the hypothetical it’s going to be more toward the lowest speed for optimization

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 10:46:05
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 2012764
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

It wouldn’t be particularly difficult to design a vehicle that never had to stop, ever. But that would depend upon being able (allowed) to change the various components whilst it’s on the move. For example have at least two engines in it, with only one needed to run to keep the vehicle moving, so you could have a service vehicle drive beside it, to swap over the old engine for a new one. That wouldn’t be needed very often with a modern diesel as you’d expect at least a million kilometres out of one.
Much the same for the gearbox/drivetrain.

It’d also be easy to design the suspension so that when a tyre got a little thin (measure rpm’s Vs road speed to determine the diameter, Tesla’s can do that right now) it could be lifted up clear of the road to allow for the tyre & wheel to be changed.
Refuelling would, of course, be a simple exercise.

But assuming you aren’t allowed to do any of that, the idea of having towing several trailers is the way to go. I’d also equip the engine with a cylinder deactivation mechanism, (as used in many cars right now) so that as the overall load decreased from the fuel burn & subsequent release of the fuel trailers, less power would be needed to keep it all moving. Perhaps even design the engine so that it’s in multiple sections, so that as the load decreased you could shut-down & decouple that part of the engine to eliminate drag.

Determining the optimum speed is a balance between engine efficiency & aero/tyre/drivetrain drag. It’s not difficult to design the engine to run at a specific rpm, then use a gearbox with lots of gears to vary the speed as needed as the tyre drag & overall mass decreased. Only maybe 5% ratio change between each gear would be enough I reckon.

Some kind of energy recovery from the exhaust would help, as would perhaps recovering a bit of heat from the radiator. Exhaust energy recovery on a diesel is normally just a regular turbocharger fitted to the exhaust manifold. Again, since the engine would be running at a very constant rpm you could tailor the turbo to be right in the middle of its best efficiency island.

Tyres are the next engineering challenge. You’d want them to be as thin as possible to reduce drag but not so much that even when pumped-up to, say, 200 bar they wouldn’t deflect too much from the mass they are carrying. There’s no real reason why you couldn’t just use metal wheels that had a very hard rubber ring around them.

You’d have to go super pedantic on the aero drag as well. I mean really anal. Things like having no windscreen, just a small bump or hole that a camera lens sticks out of so the driver can see where they’re going on a screen. The entire vehicle & trailers would have to be one smooth round sectional profile to minimise surface area. And yeah a pointy nose and even longer pointy tail as you typically get more aero drag from a blunt tail than a blunt nose, due to the larger amount of turbulence coming off the rear. A bit of an engineering challenge to do so because of the trailers dropping away at various intervals, but far from impossible. The tyres would be a bit tricky but a pretty conventional fairing would work okay. A bit more difficult to incorporate steering as the entire fairing would have to move with the wheel’s change in angle – perhaps have the fairing split into two so it pops open whenever more than about 0.5° wheel defection is needed to keep it clear, then shuts again after the wheel comes back straight.

Fuel is another consideration. There’s no doubt that brewing up a special blend would also add several percent to the range. I know that very special types of fuel were tested in some US jet aircraft to improve range & performance but they were pretty nasty to be anywhere near as they had radioactive boron particles in it. Zip fuel it was called.

Anyway if you did all that you could easily double the efficiency of a typical semi vehicle, probably even far better than that.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:15:24
From: Cymek
ID: 2012769
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Does the vehicle carrying the fuel have to be the one doing the driving or could it refill a car whilst they are both moving
When the car needs refuelling again another truck refills it and so on

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:27:41
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 2012770
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Think a bit more about it, you could have each fuel trailer have its own engine. That would make things much easier than having to build a complicated engine in the front vehicle. As the trailers get released, less power is needed so the trailer might as well take the engine needed with it.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:37:49
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2012774
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

oh and how much road like for example plenty of jet engines use crystal methamphetamine and the vehicle could have wings attached and begin on a road

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:39:56
From: captain_spalding
ID: 2012775
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Spiny Norman said:


It wouldn’t be particularly difficult to design a vehicle that never had to stop, ever.

Perhaps not. But, why would you do it?

‘Hows this! A vehicle that never stops!’

’Wow! Where can you go to in it?’

‘Well, you don’t go places in it, because it never stops.’

’Ah, so you can’t get on, and you can’t get off?’

‘Mmm….pretty much.’

’No much help for transporting goods, either?’

‘No, not really suitable for that.’

’So, what else does it do?’

‘That’s about it. It just goes. But it doesn’t stop.’

’Right…’

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:40:01
From: Cymek
ID: 2012776
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Spiny Norman said:


Think a bit more about it, you could have each fuel trailer have its own engine. That would make things much easier than having to build a complicated engine in the front vehicle. As the trailers get released, less power is needed so the trailer might as well take the engine needed with it.

It does make you wonder what could be made to last a lot longer than it does, if selling the next version(s) wasn’t a priority.
Cars owners obviously expect many year of use before it needs replacing from no longer working but could cars be made from longer lasting material and possible last for many many decades.
They might not be the best example as the nature of how they work they are subject to all manner of forces that wear parts out.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:41:10
From: Cymek
ID: 2012778
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

captain_spalding said:


Spiny Norman said:

It wouldn’t be particularly difficult to design a vehicle that never had to stop, ever.

Perhaps not. But, why would you do it?

‘Hows this! A vehicle that never stops!’

’Wow! Where can you go to in it?’

‘Well, you don’t go places in it, because it never stops.’

’Ah, so you can’t get on, and you can’t get off?’

‘Mmm….pretty much.’

’No much help for transporting goods, either?’

‘No, not really suitable for that.’

’So, what else does it do?’

‘That’s about it. It just goes. But it doesn’t stop.’

’Right…’

Snowpiercer never stopped it was a train though

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:42:23
From: captain_spalding
ID: 2012779
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Cymek said:

Snowpiercer never stopped it was a train though

Where is it now?

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:43:47
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2012781
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

It wouldn’t be particularly difficult to design a vehicle that never had to stop, ever.

Perhaps not. But, why would you do it?

‘Hows this! A vehicle that never stops!’

’Wow! Where can you go to in it?’

‘Well, you don’t go places in it, because it never stops.’

’Ah, so you can’t get on, and you can’t get off?’

‘Mmm….pretty much.’

’No much help for transporting goods, either?’

‘No, not really suitable for that.’

’So, what else does it do?’

‘That’s about it. It just goes. But it doesn’t stop.’

’Right…’

so uh how did those astronauts get to the moon and back

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:44:55
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2012782
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Cymek said:

Spiny Norman said:

Think a bit more about it, you could have each fuel trailer have its own engine. That would make things much easier than having to build a complicated engine in the front vehicle. As the trailers get released, less power is needed so the trailer might as well take the engine needed with it.

It does make you wonder what could be made to last a lot longer than it does, if selling the next version(s) wasn’t a priority.
Cars owners obviously expect many year of use before it needs replacing from no longer working but could cars be made from longer lasting material and possible last for many many decades.
They might not be the best example as the nature of how they work they are subject to all manner of forces that wear parts out.

coronavirus vaccines

Let It RRRRRRRRip®¡ The Economy® Must Grow¡

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:46:04
From: captain_spalding
ID: 2012784
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

SCIENCE said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

It wouldn’t be particularly difficult to design a vehicle that never had to stop, ever.

Perhaps not. But, why would you do it?

‘Hows this! A vehicle that never stops!’

’Wow! Where can you go to in it?’

‘Well, you don’t go places in it, because it never stops.’

’Ah, so you can’t get on, and you can’t get off?’

‘Mmm….pretty much.’

’No much help for transporting goods, either?’

‘No, not really suitable for that.’

’So, what else does it do?’

‘That’s about it. It just goes. But it doesn’t stop.’

’Right…’

so uh how did those astronauts get to the moon and back

Well, their vehicles did eventually stop. Pacific Ocean, and all that.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 11:54:08
From: captain_spalding
ID: 2012791
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

I get what you’re saying, SCIENCE, there’s a vehicle that ‘never stops’ (the command and service modules), and a vehicle that does start and stop and start and stop (the lunar module) that will rendezvous with that non-stop vehicle.

And that could be made to work for e.g. a bus service with a ‘never-stop vehicle’.

Not all that economical, though.

If you have e.g. sixteen pick-up/drop-off points along the bus route, then you’ll need at least seventeen vehicles: the non-stop bus, plus sixteen ‘shuttles’ to carry passengers and baggage out to the bus and rendezvous with it, manouevres that require a great deal of very good dedicated roadway and a pretty high degree of skill and co-ordination.

Whereas you could just have one bus that stops at each bus depot, and picks up and sets down.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 12:10:35
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2012801
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

captain_spalding said:

I get what you’re saying, SCIENCE, there’s a vehicle that ‘never stops’ (the command and service modules), and a vehicle that does start and stop and start and stop (the lunar module) that will rendezvous with that non-stop vehicle.

And that could be made to work for e.g. a bus service with a ‘never-stop vehicle’.

Not all that economical, though.

If you have e.g. sixteen pick-up/drop-off points along the bus route, then you’ll need at least seventeen vehicles: the non-stop bus, plus sixteen ‘shuttles’ to carry passengers and baggage out to the bus and rendezvous with it, manouevres that require a great deal of very good dedicated roadway and a pretty high degree of skill and co-ordination.

Whereas you could just have one bus that stops at each bus depot, and picks up and sets down.

yes or even more generally the entire celestial engine is continually in motion, you just need to match velocity

there’s something to be said for modular shuttling though, constellations of shuttles, it’s only marginally different to a road train

difficult to do if each driver is independent though, we’ve all seen the shitty highway merges that cause massive jams

(never us, of course, we drive perfectly)

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 12:12:56
From: Kothos
ID: 2012804
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Don’t spy planes theoretically never stop? I mean, can’t their missions have no time limit because if they need to they can keep refueling?

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 12:13:20
From: captain_spalding
ID: 2012805
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

SCIENCE said:

(never us, of course, we drive perfectly)

We need a Forumite badge for our cars, so others will know that they should show due deference.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 12:24:45
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 2012811
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Kothos said:


Don’t spy planes theoretically never stop? I mean, can’t their missions have no time limit because if they need to they can keep refueling?

They could certainly fly for many days if need be, but even new jet engines will still burn a little oil and so would have to land for a top-up. I guess it wouldn’t be too difficult to add an oil replenishment system though. Then you have things like oil, fuel, pneumatic, and hydraulic filters that would also have to be replaced periodically.

There was a Cessna 172 (or similar) in the US that flew for something like 69 days non-stop, with two pilots on it. Towards the end of the time the engine was way down on power and so they decided to land.

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 12:26:08
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 2012812
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

Spiny Norman said:


Kothos said:

Don’t spy planes theoretically never stop? I mean, can’t their missions have no time limit because if they need to they can keep refueling?

They could certainly fly for many days if need be, but even new jet engines will still burn a little oil and so would have to land for a top-up. I guess it wouldn’t be too difficult to add an oil replenishment system though. Then you have things like oil, fuel, pneumatic, and hydraulic filters that would also have to be replaced periodically.

There was a Cessna 172 (or similar) in the US that flew for something like 69 days non-stop, with two pilots on it. Towards the end of the time the engine was way down on power and so they decided to land.

Here it is – https://hackaday.com/2021/10/25/the-longest-ever-flight-was-over-64-days-in-a-cessna-172/

Reply Quote

Date: 27/03/2023 13:51:24
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 2012833
Subject: re: max range, ICE vehicle

An ICE powered spacecraft in geostationary orbit would travel a long distance, even allowing for it to have to carry its own oxygen. But I take it that that’s not the aim of the exercise.

Consider energy losses. Wheel rolling resistance, air drag, engine heat losses, braking, bearing friction. Add them up to get the best litres per kilometre and then divide by the number of litres.

Air drag is small at 70 km/hr and below, significant at 80 km/hr and above. Wheel rolling resistance tends to be approximately proportional to wheel load (axle load divided by number of wheels per axle).

Thinking further. Look up fuel consumption figures from “hypermiling”. Then add more for axle load due to fuel mass. That should give a pretty good first estimate.

“During the 8,233 mile trip they achieved a fuel economy of 81.17 miles per gallon, or 2.89 liters per 100 km.”

Reply Quote