All electric F150 pulls a million pound train
- Thread starter atikovi
- Start date
- Status
Compare to a VW Touareg towing a 747 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmM-635RR6o
I'm wondering what they used to STOP the train! I agree with above, any decent 4WD with enough tire grip & 4WD low engaged could have done it.
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
I would like to learn more about the tow strap used. Try to find any tow strap out there with a break strength capacity close to what the F-150 electric pulled. Did they double, triple etc. the tow straps to multiply breaking strength capacity?
Originally Posted by eljefino
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
Originally Posted by atikovi
Originally Posted by eljefino
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
The Road and Track article explains why this is not a unique feat to the electric F150. The extremely low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails makes it possible. Most current pickup trucks can generate the necessary tractive effort to move the train. R&T calculates that it only takes 1875 lbs of force to move the train. My Dodge has a tire rolling radius of 1.33 ft, so it would require ~2500 ft*lbs of torque at the wheel to generate the necessary tractive effort. Overall gear reduction in my truck is 21:1 in first gear, so the engine would only need to put out 120 ft*lbs of torque to move the train. No problem. Isn't gearing wonderful?
Originally Posted by eljefino
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
The Road and Track article explains why this is not a unique feat to the electric F150. The extremely low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails makes it possible. Most current pickup trucks can generate the necessary tractive effort to move the train. R&T calculates that it only takes 1875 lbs of force to move the train. My Dodge has a tire rolling radius of 1.33 ft, so it would require ~2500 ft*lbs of torque at the wheel to generate the necessary tractive effort. Overall gear reduction in my truck is 21:1 in first gear, so the engine would only need to put out 120 ft*lbs of torque to move the train. No problem. Isn't gearing wonderful?
Originally Posted by eljefino
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
That's an interesting thought.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
That's an interesting thought.
Then the F150 needed 8 hours to recharge.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by atikovi
Originally Posted by eljefino
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
The Road and Track article explains why this is not a unique feat to the electric F150. The extremely low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails makes it possible. Most current pickup trucks can generate the necessary tractive effort to move the train. R&T calculates that it only takes 1875 lbs of force to move the train. My Dodge has a tire rolling radius of 1.33 ft, so it would require ~2500 ft*lbs of torque at the wheel to generate the necessary tractive effort. Overall gear reduction in my truck is 21:1 in first gear, so the engine would only need to put out 120 ft*lbs of torque to move the train. No problem. Isn't gearing wonderful?
Very interesting. I could buy it.
Now just how much does it need when puling some hillls?
Originally Posted by atikovi
Originally Posted by eljefino
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
The Road and Track article explains why this is not a unique feat to the electric F150. The extremely low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails makes it possible. Most current pickup trucks can generate the necessary tractive effort to move the train. R&T calculates that it only takes 1875 lbs of force to move the train. My Dodge has a tire rolling radius of 1.33 ft, so it would require ~2500 ft*lbs of torque at the wheel to generate the necessary tractive effort. Overall gear reduction in my truck is 21:1 in first gear, so the engine would only need to put out 120 ft*lbs of torque to move the train. No problem. Isn't gearing wonderful?
Very interesting. I could buy it.
Now just how much does it need when puling some hillls?
Originally Posted by aba4430
I would like to learn more about the tow strap used. Try to find any tow strap out there with a break strength capacity close to what the F-150 electric pulled. Did they double, triple etc. the tow straps to multiply breaking strength capacity?
Yea i was wondering the same thing...... I was more impressed with that tow strap.
I would like to learn more about the tow strap used. Try to find any tow strap out there with a break strength capacity close to what the F-150 electric pulled. Did they double, triple etc. the tow straps to multiply breaking strength capacity?
Yea i was wondering the same thing...... I was more impressed with that tow strap.
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by atikovi
Originally Posted by eljefino
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
The Road and Track article explains why this is not a unique feat to the electric F150. The extremely low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails makes it possible. Most current pickup trucks can generate the necessary tractive effort to move the train. R&T calculates that it only takes 1875 lbs of force to move the train. My Dodge has a tire rolling radius of 1.33 ft, so it would require ~2500 ft*lbs of torque at the wheel to generate the necessary tractive effort. Overall gear reduction in my truck is 21:1 in first gear, so the engine would only need to put out 120 ft*lbs of torque to move the train. No problem. Isn't gearing wonderful?
Very interesting. I could buy it.
Now just how much does it need when puling some hillls?
This is where it gets hairy. If it was on a 1% grade, the additional force required to move the train would be calculated by:
Grade Resistance = Vehicle weight * sin(arctan(grade %)) = 1,250,000 * sin(arctan(.01)) = 1,250,000 * sin(.573) = 12500 lbs, or almost 7 times the rolling resistance alone.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by atikovi
Originally Posted by eljefino
When you think about it train engines don't have a marvelous amount of traction with their steel-on-steel wheels on rails.
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
Electric motors make their maximum torque at zero rpm. Don't know if a gas powered truck could do that. Maybe torque converter would stall the engine before it started moving.
The Road and Track article explains why this is not a unique feat to the electric F150. The extremely low rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails makes it possible. Most current pickup trucks can generate the necessary tractive effort to move the train. R&T calculates that it only takes 1875 lbs of force to move the train. My Dodge has a tire rolling radius of 1.33 ft, so it would require ~2500 ft*lbs of torque at the wheel to generate the necessary tractive effort. Overall gear reduction in my truck is 21:1 in first gear, so the engine would only need to put out 120 ft*lbs of torque to move the train. No problem. Isn't gearing wonderful?
Very interesting. I could buy it.
Now just how much does it need when puling some hillls?
This is where it gets hairy. If it was on a 1% grade, the additional force required to move the train would be calculated by:
Grade Resistance = Vehicle weight * sin(arctan(grade %)) = 1,250,000 * sin(arctan(.01)) = 1,250,000 * sin(.573) = 12500 lbs, or almost 7 times the rolling resistance alone.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by eljefino
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
That's an interesting thought.
Static to dynamic load with mass added to velocity when each car joins motion …
Originally Posted by eljefino
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
That's an interesting thought.
Static to dynamic load with mass added to velocity when each car joins motion …
Originally Posted by 4WD
Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by eljefino
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
That's an interesting thought.
Static to dynamic load with mass added to velocity when each car joins motion …
And the impact inside the Janney coupler helps overcome static friction of each successive car...
Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by eljefino
The slop in the connections between cars helps the whole mess get rolling. That way they're only accelerating one car at a time from a dead stop.
That's an interesting thought.
Static to dynamic load with mass added to velocity when each car joins motion …
And the impact inside the Janney coupler helps overcome static friction of each successive car...
Originally Posted by supton
Pfft. Call me when it can tow a space shuttle.
Which weighed a lot less, NASA says Discovery weighed 171,000 lbs with engines.
Pfft. Call me when it can tow a space shuttle.
Which weighed a lot less, NASA says Discovery weighed 171,000 lbs with engines.
Originally Posted by Little_Lebowski
Originally Posted by aba4430
I would like to learn more about the tow strap used. Try to find any tow strap out there with a break strength capacity close to what the F-150 electric pulled. Did they double, triple etc. the tow straps to multiply breaking strength capacity?
Yea i was wondering the same thing...... I was more impressed with that tow strap.
Here's one with 925 lbs more capacity than was needed for this silly stunt:
https://www.harborfreight.com/2800-lb-capacity-2-in-x-20-ft-heavy-duty-tow-strap-60675.html
My 1941 John Deere B has a maximum pull of 2690 lbs. That will pull a 1.8 million pound train, all with a whopping 16.44 hp at the draw bar.
Ed
Originally Posted by aba4430
I would like to learn more about the tow strap used. Try to find any tow strap out there with a break strength capacity close to what the F-150 electric pulled. Did they double, triple etc. the tow straps to multiply breaking strength capacity?
Yea i was wondering the same thing...... I was more impressed with that tow strap.
Here's one with 925 lbs more capacity than was needed for this silly stunt:
https://www.harborfreight.com/2800-lb-capacity-2-in-x-20-ft-heavy-duty-tow-strap-60675.html
My 1941 John Deere B has a maximum pull of 2690 lbs. That will pull a 1.8 million pound train, all with a whopping 16.44 hp at the draw bar.
Ed
- Status
Similar threads
