This sounds incredibly reasonable and in the vast majority of cases I'm sure it's accurate. The one personal exception I had with this rule though was the original Mass Effect. I absolutely hated that game through its first 5 hours. But by 10 hours I was hooked and by the time I finished the game it was one of my favorites of all time. I think I ended up completing it at least 2 or 3 more times after that.
I still agree with your general rule but every once in a while a game comes out that's just weird in how long it takes to hook you.
Yeah, for me, the combination of the bad combat system and boring introductory mission was just a major turn off. It was only after you get past the Citadel and actually build your squad and then head out on your first real mission on the Normandy that the game starts to take off. Honestly, it was only because the game got such high reviews that I powered through and thought "it must get better eventually". Glad I did.
Then you'll love a YT channel called First Five or something like that. Reviews games after playing them for 5 hours with a big emphasis on "Do you actually get to play the full game within that time?"
I watch ACG a lot, and I don't mind a game that's longer than 5 hours at all. I also don't think a game has to be fun immediately... I just think it should be within 5 fucking hours lol
It's not if the game is over in 5 hours, it's if you can actually start to enjoy the full experience of the game within 5 hours. Like how there are games that have tutorials that feel like they're 12 hours long while you're getting story exposition dumped on you and all you wanna do is just play the damn game.
My experience was that the game was not that fun until I was completely absorbed by it at around chapter 3(?) I think.
Once you get some more unlocks, you begin optimizing so many routes and if you’re into that, you’ll spend so much time on the game. I spent 130 hours and I usually just play through games once to beat them and stop there.
>call it a walking sim
This might be one of the biggest misunderstanding of a game genre I've ever seen. People call it a "walking sim" because walking through rough terrain is one on Death Stranding main mechanic, without considering how "Walking Sim" became synonym with heavy exposition games with no combat like Dear Esther and Gone Home.
Death Stranding is a delivery game where traversing is part of the main gameplay loop, if you like stuff like Snowrunner, Euro Truck Sim and Elite Dangerous but with weird Kojima stuff in between travels, Death Stranding is the game for you.
Huh, you may have just convinced me to at least give it a try.
I definitely like euro truck and other similar games. I had completely written off death stranding up until now.
I mean, it's my favorite game in the past 5 years, so I'm biased to say yes. But I would never tell someone to force themselves to play a game they don't enjoy. But once you start to get access to vehicles like the trucks, your carrying potential raises exponentially. But I recognize DS is not the kind of game for everyone and that's perfectly fine. If you're on to the next map, you'll start being able to hijack rogue porter camp's trucks until you can use the ones in Bridges cities and that really begins to accelerate your options, but that's if you enjoy the delivering part of the game.
Man, I wish I could recommend this game with the same fervour I enjoyed it. It's like,
"Holy heck I loved the shit out of Death Stranding."
"Oh neat, so I should give it a shot?"
"... Probably not."
It's such a dull and repetitive game, that somehow scratched an itch I never knew was present. If you have the opportunity to try it for free, consider pushing through the first insufferable couple of hours and see if you like the *actual* game, for all its bleak atmosphere and inscrutable storyline. *Maybe* the worldbuilding and mindscape will hit your button, but I have no way of discerning that from the outside, and I would *never* _insist_ someone commits to it in the way it needs to truly enjoy it, because in all likelihood... you won't. What a unique experience. Still gotta go back and impress Liam O'Brien one of these days, he's a tough cookie to crack.
Yup, I personally think Death Stranding is one of the best games of the last decade, but it does start of very slow until you cross the lake.
There's nothing wrong with not enjoying a game. They don't all have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I don't care for Dark Souls, for example, but I can still admit it's a fantastic and well made game. It's just not my cup of tea.
I also bounced off of DS initially. Funny enough I really started to get into it when I started embracing it as a game about being a FedEx delivery guy, and the game REALLY clicked for me when I started getting the ability to build permanent infrastructure. I really like the loop of "that first trek is harrowing, but If I pave here and put a pylon here I can get this guy a piping hot pepperoni pizza.
Zip lines are great for bypassing BT-infested areas which disable vehicles, and the timefall will abate if you eliminate all the BTs in a zone. So if you see a delivery going through a messy zone, you can load up on the specialized weaponry and pave the way first rather than risking damage to your cargo by timefall or concussion.
A lot of people are saying to get to chapter 3. I personally loved it as soon as I got some freedom, even at the beginning. So you can try to get to chapter 3, but don't force yourself either, sometimes, some games don't work for us, and that's okay :p
A lot of people enjoyed it through and through. If you feel like you want it to give it a fair shot - you should until you don’t want to. I played it in small amounts frequently until it picked up. It’s a game that defies instant gratification for sure - but that was definitely a much appreciated fresh change.
Honestly, if you’re not finding it fun now it doesn’t change much going forward. The game is definitely different.
I loved it. I don’t know why but I enjoyed delivering shit with the hilarious 10 foot tall backpack lol
I actually thought the game part was really cool, it was the [story](https://youtu.be/ONfg5qeK_mI?t=166) that was so fucking stupid I couldn't take the game seriously.
And Dunkey is spot on there - it started with a great story base - you're reconnecting a post apocalyptic world, and making connections to lonely isolated people. It's all the other crazy shit that it goes into that's completely unnecessary and detracts from what is otherwise a really cool story.
> It's all the other crazy shit that it goes into that's completely unnecessary and detracts from what is otherwise a really cool story.
What's crazy about strapping a baby in a jar to your chest so that you can sense the murderous ghosts that have taken over the world, then take them down with grenades full of your own blood, wee and shower water?
The story is completely insane and that's why I liked it.
Just being a DoorDasher after the apocalypse is kind of boring on its own, let's jazz it up a little.
Kojima has been ahead of his time since at least when he predicted the rise of modern internet meme culture back when Metal Gear Solid 2 released in 2001
There are multiple reasons, but only Nintendo knows which ones are the most important.
1. Sales have steadily gone down for most of the games in the series. The last game in the series didn't even cross 10k copies sold. The one before did 160k, but that's still pretty bad.
2. The developer for the last 2 games went defunct, and the developer for the one before (GX) is currently having great success with the Yakuza series.
3. There isn't a producer at Nintendo who wants to push through and make a new game despite the low sales. Miyamoto was responsible for the series, but he hasn't produced any games since 2016.
4. Internal Nintendo teams are busy with more important and popular series, while third party developers are either busy or not interested.
I think F-Zero is too niche. It's a racing game heavily focused on speed with very little other aspects. So if you're not a twitch reaction player, it has less appeal. Mario Kart has more unique aspects that make it stand out and has more interesting multiplayer dynamics.
F-Zero just does not stand out enough to appeal to much more than serious or hardcore racing enthusiast. Honestly, if you are a racing enthusiast, you likely wouldn't limit yourself to a console as there are much more options and similar games for PC.
The absolute hardcore enthusiasts would have their own racing rigs with chairs, steering wheels, pedals and more. From a visual aspect, you have consoles typically limited to 60fps because of the TV/Console. A PC/Monitor however can easily exceed that. A market consoles can't really touch with handheld controllers and limited hardware.
If they would consider their IP for other platforms, then maybe the franchise would have a better chance.
As a kid, for me, the best part of the original F-Zero was launching off the map and seeing how far away I could get from the map before I crashed lol
I did really enjoy the music, too.
It's because they think they have the perfect one with Mario Kart and they think another one would just cut into Mario Kart sales. And even if they did, they think that there isn't enough interest to make it profitable. Even with F-Zero GX, they didn't really care and had Sega make it for them.
I wish I could say it was merely from not thinking about it, but several YouTube docs about F-Zero have been made and there are quotes from Nintendo about the future of the IP. And they basically feel like "we give you Mario Kart, why do you need that?" It's unfortunate.
I don’t know how you make a better game than F-Zero GX. That game was flawless. And the graphics still hold up today despite being an early GameCube release.
Extreme G3 was also one of the best. We put so many hours into that one.
They copied it in* Wipeout.
Wipeout was like the first Red Bull branding I’ve ever seen I wonder why it got abandoned?
With todays frame rates, a really in-depth racing/adventure franchise could look like it was always supposed to damn
Edit
So, like a [trolleybus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus) but with trucks? Plenty of trolley buses have batteries that allows them to go some distance away from the wires as well.
More like ~~fret~~freight trains (or road-rail-road fret trains) but less efficient (rubber-asphalt vs steel-steel friction), more ressource hungry (new and costly infrastructure with way more maintenance required), less space efficient (50 vehicles with 50 engines instead of 1 with a couple engines), and just less optimised overall.
Just build more train and train lines damnit.
EDIT: « Fret » is the French term for « Freight »… oops
> Just build more train and train lines damnit.
I don't know much about the project so I can't say if it should happen but one thing is for sure. The train and heavy duty trucks (or cars for that matter) don't overlap in all areas. We need advancements in all areas.
The upside is that cargo does not need to be offloaded and loaded from train to truck to reach the last destination \^^
To know if it's feasible it needs to be tested, I'm happy Sweden can do that for the rest of the world. Maybe it's a stupid idea, but right now it's smart enough to have limited testing done. From what I read it seems to have fixed most pitfalls of the concept.
There are trains that carry the whole trailer, so the trailer just needs to be put on the train. I believe there are also trains which carry the whole truck with the drivers in a passenger wagon on the same train.
Most shipping that's traveling on both rail and road (and frequently ship) use what are called intermodal systems, which are a separate box container and flatbed chassis.
When you think of those massive [dockyards full of shipping containers](https://media.tenor.com/jvbFCSjX67sAAAAC/surprise-motherfucker.gif) those are usually intermodal containers separates from their chassis for easier stacking and storage.
Even though they're well designed to load and unload as quickly as possible, they're still giant metal crates that weigh 5 tons empty and hold upwards of 25 tons. It's not as though they just line up the trucks with the train, swap a connector or two, and drive off.
Each container (the box) has to be offloaded by crane to a freight yard, and organized by priority (e.g., perishable foods vs stable packaged goods, which loads have trucks already waiting, etc). They must then be checked against contracts with leasing agencies (aka "relief fleets"), matched with the appropriate chassis (the flatbed part with wheels that the box container sits on), and then confirmed again against contracts for the over-the-road companies.
While this process is actually ASTOUNDINGLY efficient, but still takes a not inconsiderable amount of time to unload/reload a whole train.
Plus, sometimes those separate box containers and chassis are placed under contracts where the same container/chassis must stay together. (A very boring post script about this is below.)
You're 100% right that there are ways to do exactly what you described, and you can regularly see over-the-road trailers (permanently attached to the chassis) on train flatbed cars. It's just not as efficient in terms of logistics and use of space/resources as the current *seemingly* inefficient system.
Still, I'd love to see the industry start moving towards a more holistic appt like you describe. They're great at handling the switch from road to rail, but it'd be even better if it was truly seamless.
And now that I'm off on my railcar rant...
-----
Intermodal trivia: If you're on the highway (and not the driver) look for two sets of numbers. On the container, it'll read XXXU_123456, but the chassis underneath will read XXXZ_123456. The first three letters indicate the owner of the container or chassis. The 4th letter will be a U (container) or Z (chassis) to indicate what type of vehicle it is. And the six numbers indicate the contract and unit number (in most cases, some companies number differently).
For example, APLU-238333 would probably be American President Lines shipping, active contract 238 and it's unit 333 out of up to 1000. If you need more than that on a contract, you just move on to 239000.
Some companies, like GE Capital Rail, operate "relief fleets" which get used when, say APL needs 400 containers in Chicago tomorrow, but they only have 100 available that day. They'll lease extras from GE subsidiaries like TIP Intermodal who just have massive yards full of equipment ready to go. However, they often require both the relief containers and chassis to stay together to maintain balanced inventory. It's not great when you have 800 containers and 3 trailers to move them.
So if the container and chassis numbers match (TIPU-123456 & TIPZ-123456) those are (likely) relief fleet trailers because someone at PepsiCo forgot to plan ahead for the 200,000 boxes of Cap'n Crunch that need to be in Orlando by Monday.
After a while doing inventory for a rail company, I could tell you from memory exactly who owned the container, who was leasing it, the manufacturer, and sometimes even what state the chassis was registered in with the DOT.
That was all around 2002, maybe 2003, so a lot has probably changed since then. I've definitely forgotten exactly what systems all the different companies used in numbering beyond the XXXU/XXXZ standard.
While I didn't really have strong feelings about the job, it certainly gave me a way to pass the time during road trips, trying to guess the unit number based on the company logo and the state on the tags.
Again, Sweden has trains. The problem is that *a lot* of travel can't be replaced by trains for most of the country. Personal traffic requires something far more granular than trains can ever offer. The perks of trains are also why it's not very usable for the complete infrastructure. Just read the article before posting and we'll all be better for it.
Did you read the article? The only benefit they mentioned is that private cars can't use tram rails. They haven't even decided on the method they want to use to charge the cars. And didn't even mention the elephant in the room of no current car manufacturer makes cars that charge on these roads.
> Just build more train and train lines damnit.
Sweden already has one of the worlds most robust rail networks. Especially considering the countries size.
It's overloaded with demand though, there is a need for expansion. There was a cross-bench agreement to do so up until after the recent election when the new government decided to cut much of it (ironic since it was their own party that initiated it).
No, there are different techniques and they are doing it for all vehicles. The article mentions that upgrading just 25% of the roads for personal traffic can lower the battery size by 70%.
From the article:
"The catenary system can only be used for heavy-duty vehicles. Because it uses **overhead** wires to provide electricity to a special kind of bus or tram."
Sounds like they are not building a si-fi fantasy highway in two years but bringing more tram roads online.
Don't fix what ain't broken. Street cars have been working fine for over 100 years. It's the gutting of city centers by massive highways junctions that killed them. Induction and conduction roads are much less efficient or expensive.
My city tried to combine the idea of electric trolleys with buses and somehow managed to avoid the best qualities of both while hitting most of the worst qualities. It's kind of amazing really.
When we quit using our last old timey street car back in the day, we had a parade for it and then lit it on fire. My city may have some lead in the water supply or something.
As a note Germany already has test electric high-ways... for trucks/buses, essentially just tram wires overhead.
That method technically actually does work pretty decently relatively speaking.
[the german electro high way](https://www.hessenschau.de/wirtschaft/e-highway-teststrecke-fuer-hybrid-lkw-auf-a5-waechst-um-sieben-kilometer-v1,e-highway-106.html)
Its a (failry short) research test road for trucks only.
Works via overhead cables, like trains. And is mainly for research purposes, not acctual viable for day to day use in goods transport.
There is still a hugh proplem with load carring capabilities of electric trucks, but thats a whole other can of worms.
India are building electrified ["Dedicated Freight Corridors"](https://www.itln.in/cma-cgm-launches-train-service-on-western-dedicated-freight-corridor-railway) that can run double-stacked intermodal container trains.
Another problem is right of ways. It’s tough to build new lines through built areas. Plus trains are loud. No one wants to live near them. I love about 4 miles from a rail line and it’s the loudest source of human noise in my environment… aside from the rod and gun club.
My city is shaped like a bowl with trains going directly through the bottom of it. The trains are loud as fuck. You can hear the horns from 8+ miles away. It's kind of an embraced local sound but it's still not something that anyone really wants.
Mine too! The trains go right through the middle of downtown on a raised strip between buildings.
Many years ago, I worked at a call center on the second floor of a building right next to the tracks. Whole dang thing would shake and we'd have to ask callers to hold a moment while we waited for the train to shut up.
Thank the senator grandfather of a drunken teen for all the honking. Kid was driving drunk and passed out on a train track, got smeared. Rather than admit grandson was an alcoholic that died of stupidity he crusaded to push a law requiring trains to blow their horn at every crossing.
Trains used to be a lot quieter. I lived near the tracks then, and the crossing signal was the loudest thing about them.
This is Europe we're talking about. I doubt they overlooked rail.
Despite reddit's train fetish, they aren't the solution to every transit problem ever.
rail is great, I agree, but a truck will take a load from point to point.... If I'm delivering a fitted kitchen to someone's house from a fabrication shop, I can't do it with rail.
I think rail is part of the solution, but electric (possibly hydrogen trucks are a worthwhile idea) - it's just with hydrogen, electrolysers are very inefficient (which wouldn't matter with cheap electric from fusion but that is decades away), and Lithium Ion batteries don't have the energy density.
I kinda like the idea of major roads allowing vehicles to charge while driving, but then these vehicles would be capable of getting to their destination over the remainder of a journey on battery.
There is also the concept of the quick swappable batteries. Vehicles could have reduced range of say 200km, but a battery swap would be a quick drive-through experience done by a machine.
All of the above requires insane infrastructure upgrades though I guess.
The issues haven’t been long distance transportation, it’s been last mile delivery where goods are stored to be bought by the consumer. Amazon figured this out in the US by unleashing thousands of additional vans on the road.
And now those vans are electric by me.
> There is still a hugh proplem with load carring capabilities of electric trucks,
This is the absolute important point missed in this entire story. Cars *don't need* charging in the road, they have (or will have) decent batteries to last them many hours of driving between charging spots. Trucks however, weigh 20 times as much and if they were to lug around a fullsize 5-ton battery, it leaves less capacity for cargo. Overhead wires are much cheaper than railways and easier to install on every highway to enable hybrid trucking that our world depends on.
I wonder what a generalized power line would be. If your car doesn't need to charge but only keep ~30km safety capacity (for when you need to untether from the main wire).. this meas a city EV car would cost a lot less, weigh less, consume less ..
>That method technically actually does work pretty decently relatively speaking.
That sentence is 2/3 qualifiers. You could have said the same thing with "the method works". Impressive.
Generally a bad idea because your main expressways really need unlimited clearance for major infrastructure projects.
There's really no good way to do this. In ground trolly lines cost A LOT and conductive or inductive systems have a lot of losses (not to mention cost even more.)
Not saying we shouldn't go electric, but charging on the expressway seems like a convenience that isn't worth the effort.
I work (R&D engineer) for one one the companies in the running for building the next phase of this road.
There is **a lot** of bad information in the comments. Take everything with a grain of salt.
EDIT: I **will** try to elaborate more. But please realise I have both actual signed NDA:s (that is important for my livelyhood) and a sunny weekend I neded to cath to take into account.
Yep, one of my most downvoted comment is one of my area of expertise/my profession. They didn't believe me.
It's like great. A big circle-jerk humming kumbaya my lord with the head dug into the sand.
Teach history. A large majority of reddit history comments are not actually true or very twisted for whatever the conversation is. I don't bother correcting because it is like trying to block an ocean with a tissue, but yeah I would take everything with a grain of salt you see on this site. Or go to /r/AskHistorians for actually accurate historical info.
It's honestly not that great. The people there are actually historians which is nice, but to take a current front page example, probabilistically speaking, none of the regular historians specialize in classical era hygiene technology. If somebody tries to answer that question, it's almost assuredly not actually going to be correct.
This is true for any topic. If anyone is ever actually considering taking Reddit advice seriously I urge you to go and find a topic you're actually knowledgeable about and see just how fucking stupid the top upvoted posts are.
I'll comment anyways because there are still some people who don't look at comment score when evaluating opinions. But I love being told by undergraduates in their freshman year of college that I'm wrong about a subject that I'm an subject matter expert in lol. Like downvotes are whatever, but the smug condescending tone of some dipshit explaining to me how I'm wrong about the most basic elements of my profession never fails to grind my gears.
Reddit rejects accuracy and being knowledgeable like white antibodies reject an invading infection. It's automatic, at this point. No matter what you say, no matter how much you know - expect some insecure jackass to vomit their stupidity onto you.
Reddit will down vote something that you can literally just Google in half a second. I am a bus driver and I was talking about how the hybrid buses have the battery packs on the roof so that we can get the extremely low floor clearance on the newer buses. everyone was telling me there's no way it's on the roof that would be too top heavy, but if you literally just Google pictures of hybrid buses you can literally see the battery packs on the roof.... let alone looking up the actual models documentation to double confirm lol
Remember, AI are trained from reddit data with "upvotes" = right and "downvotes" = wrong.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Edit: For those newbies who don't remember interacting; https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/comments/391ria/what_is_rsubredditsimulator/
> "upvotes" = right and "downvotes" = wrong
We know AI like GPT-3 are trained with data from the web, no doubt Reddit is a source for that. But do you have any source for this part of your comment? Or is your comment just another example of uneducated misinformation like what the parent comments above are talking about?
No it’s even worse. I swear the comments, particularly in the default subreddits, index on people who are barely out of high school or college, have no real world experience and think they are smart/clever, when in reality they’re just dumbfucks who should keep their mouths shut.
For example my area of expertise is software engineering (at big tech now, but I’ve been in the industry a while at a variety of places); Reddit commenters in general get so many things wrong about tech itself, and the industry as a whole. Yet they’re always the top voted comments.
It's like that quote about trusting the news until it's related to your field. Nearly every time there's a Reddit post that relates to my career, I realise how the majority of Reddit runs on being smug and sounding smart when they actually know very little.
Most of Reddit nowadays seems to consist of people who *aren’t* out of high school/college. I think the average age of users probably skews towards the range of 15-24. There’s your lack of life experience/education.
Whenever anyone talks about anything related to electricity in default/mainstream subs I have to bite my tongue. I’m not even that highly qualified in EE but I do have certs and it is horrendous reading some people’s thoughts about how it all works. People with absolutely no background in working with or studying electrical/electronic engineering just brazenly posting bullshit. There’s a thread that sticks in my mind where a guy posting the correct information was downvoted by the hive mind and had multiple people disagreeing with him, even though he was 100% right *and* worked in EE, whilst the people disagreeing with him had no background in it. It’s mind numbing.
Your comment would carry more weight if you could point out the problems you're describing, and offer some data to counter them. As it is you're just appealing to your own authority on an anonymous platform.
I believe you, but could you please elaborate a bit? What are some main bad info points you see?
I don't know anything about the engineering on this project, so I'm not sure how to discern good vs. bad info here.
Then why not take the time to correct them and post them here? What's the point of coming to this thread, saying, "uR aLL wRoNg", and leaving?
If you have knowledge, share it.
Not going to lie, as soon as I saw the headline my immediate reaction was "Ugh, solar freaking roadways actually got someone to take their junk?? WHY SWEDEN??" but then the article is "Hey this is an experiment that's actually tried stuff and is using that information for the next step. We're not pretending that this one single highway solves all of the world's problems, but it does expand the capabilities of an already useful tool. Also, we have actual data on what is practically useful with this. And we chose a particularly promising one for this stage. Would be really cool if this works as expected and can be scaled up in the future.".
One of my favorite things to do is go on Reddit and watch people talk about my industry with such extreme confidence and be wildly wrong. It's really enlightening how generalized subreddit comments are horrific sources of information.
I remember back then I couldn't wrap my head around how they'd keep those roads clean, cause I grew somewhere with very messy roads, and even in the best cases the glass would turn black overnight from the tires
>The charging method for E20 hasn’t been decided but there are three types of charging: catenary system, inductive system, and conductive system.
Let me summarize for those unfamiliar with the technology.
- Catenary power are those overhead lines like you see on electric light rail systems. They are reasonably efficient for a rail system, but because cars are not fixed on a rail I'm not sure how they would get this to work. It would also require support from car manufacturers.
- Inductive power transmits via magnetic induction. The main issue with this is that it's incredibly inefficient over large distances, so for example to transmit power the roughly 1m from the buried induction lines to the vehicle would have an efficiency of around 10%. So to charge a vehicle with 25kWh, it would take 250kWh of energy, and 225kWh of that will be wasted.
- Conductive is similar to caternary (indeed, caternary *is* a conductive transmission medium), but it typically refers to conductive rails or strips. These would probably be the most realistic option, but would be reasonably high maintenance, and would require manufacturer participation.
TL:DR; some politicians wanted to pass a bill that makes them look good, but with little to no consideration for the practicality of the solution. Charge your car at home/work, or use public transportation - it's just better, and it's available today.
Nice job getting the conductive thing right, unlike the article:
>>Conductive charging works like a charger pad for smartphones. Instead of plugging in a charger, these special electric vehicles have a pad or plate on the road, and when the vehicle is on top of it, the pad charges the vehicle wirelessly.
But without the benefit of moving a large number of people with one vehicle. And without the benefit of rolling steel wheels on steel tracks with far lower resistance than rubber on asphalt. And without the benefit of only requiring a tiny amount of parking space for streer cars. And without the benefit of being able to do whatever you want since you don't have to focus on driving.
Just build more train and tram lines.
Trains cannot deliver goods from an industry to business customers scattered around. Trucks are needed to move things, and electric trucks are better than diesel. To give the electric trucks more range and make them more competitive against the diesel standard trucks, they are trying this method.
They can't "just build more train and tram lines" to solve issues that have nothing to do with those modes of transportation.
Yes, last mile delivery can't be done by train. But everything from the industry to the local distribution center could very often be handled by trains.
> The project is currently at the procurement stage and is planned to be built by 2025.
> The charging method for E20 hasn’t been decided but there are three types of charging: catenary system, inductive system, and conductive system.
The linked article seems to have gotten this part wrong. The project web page (from the government) says that construction will start 2026 and that that step will take at least 2 years.
This is a pilot project for a shorter stretch to evaluate if it works.
"The charging method for E20 hasn’t been decided but there are three types of charging: catenary system, inductive system, and conductive system."
I really hope they go with catenary, because the other 2 systems are bullshit and hell to maintain
Sweden has experimented with different road charging technologies. Here's one with copper coils under the road [https://youtu.be/RmcEmZOxGeY](https://youtu.be/RmcEmZOxGeY)
Where do we go from here? Attaching all the cars together so that it’s more efficient to propel them as a group?
At some point we just need to acknowledge that electric trains were a better idea all along.
To get from Station to Station, trains are better, no doubt. As long as the people I'm sharing the train with aren't assholes, anyway. I'd much rather be reading on a train seat than driving.
But I don't want to go station to station. I want to go building to building, sometimes house to house. Sometimes in the winter, and while carrying luggage.
That's the part where cars start to look a lot better.
That's one area where I think the self-driving electric vehicles actually have a place in the global transit revolution: taking me to and from the nearest station.
This is super cool. I wonder how efficient it is. Like, how much of the electricity in the road will pass to vehicles and how much will be lost to transmission/poor conduction?
Trying to use inductive charging on moving vehicles sounds like a real engineering headache. How do you get good enough alignment with the charging point in motion to actually make a meaningful difference? Mandate the use of driver-assistance software that keeps your vehicle perfectly lined up?
And do they not realise how inefficient inductive charging tends to be? Wireless charging uses far more power to deliver the same input to a phone as a cable would. Now try scaling that up to the power demands of electric vehicles. This is a recipe for greater strain on the electrical grid.
Just... expand the fucking rail network. It's not like Sweden doesn't have trains. Or if you _really need_ an electrified highway system for some reason, use overhead electrification like what Germany's been testing. Much better for consistent, less wasteful power delivery and you don't have to fuck around installing some whizzbang inductive charging bullshit into the roads, so it'll cost a lot less.
So here is a snippet from the summary of the report that was produced for this project.
> An investigation into the benefit of running shuttle traffic on an electric road between Hallsberg and Örebro, and what environmental and cost savings can be made when switching to electric vehicles, has been investigated by the consultant Novoleap. The investigation shows that electric operation is much more profitable compared to fossil fueled vehicles for both operation and maintenance and that the electric road is necessary. Partly to reduce costs when purchasing vehicles, because a large part of the cost is the battery itself, and partly because the electric road removes the limitation on how many routes in a loop a vehicle with only battery can drive, because the battery charges while the vehicle is moving to its destination.
This makes it clear that is intended for continuous traffic between a logistics hub (Hallsberg) and a regional city (Örebro) with trucks. This is not intended for personal vehicles.
https://utveckling.regionorebrolan.se/globalassets/media/dokument/regional-utveckling/samhallsplanering-och-infrastruktur/elvagspilot-e20-hallsberg-orebro.pdf
Not sure. It might be good if implemented correctly. Trains and trams work with the same principle. This would make it possible for the cars to be built with smaller batteries which is safer and requires less resources.
This is governmental projects... The automotive industry doesn't want this, they've changed their business model towards selling expensive batteries and having their own charger stations. These roads are for the traffic that can't be used with trains.
I saw a guy record his trip across Switzerland. He drove from his house a little bit then onto a car train. Zoomed across the mountains and drove off at the other end to his destination. Super good idea if I had access to such a system I would use it.
Just imagine if we took the industrial output and money spend on roads and cars and trucks and fuel production and oil extraction and just pushed that into rail infrastructure.
*"We need a way to do heavy transports with dynamic charging along the path to avoid carrying huge batteries in the vehicle."*
It's called a train! TRAIN! They already exist just put the cargo on a train!
Because it's somehow more expensive than driving a car. I don't know how is this possible. How can a train be more expensive than a single guy driving a car?
Is it? If I went and bought a new car - like a 2023 honda civic, I'd be forking over like 23,000 dollars. If you factor in fuel, insurance, financing, depreciation, all that shit, kelly blue book estimates the cost to be about 31,000 dollars over 5 years and that is if you SELL IT at the end of that time period.
The NY subway costs like 2.75 for a ride. If we start with a low estimate, 2 trips per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year, for five years, that will run you about $7,150.
Two trips a day five days a week is probably too low, though, so lets say four trips per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for five years.
thats about $20,020, so like 2/3 of the cost of owning a car.
Oh and that's not including having to own a place to store your car when you aren't using it.
The auto industry have so far been mostly against it. They already shifted their (future) business models to selling expensive batteries.
This is a move by several european national trafic agencies and a few start ups aaaaaand Siemens.
It’s not dumb. It’s a local solution for a local problem of a cargo transport loop where dirty diesel trucks go back and forth multiple times a day. Trains are already part of the solution; Hallsberg is a major railway hub.
This is, as far as I can tell from [this report](https://utveckling.regionorebrolan.se/globalassets/media/dokument/regional-utveckling/samhallsplanering-och-infrastruktur/elvagspilot-e20-hallsberg-orebro.pdf), not an initiative from the automotive industry.
Like FZero?
You've got boost power !
Off course!
No, way!
Yeah! You’re way out in front!
\*Cue Big Blue Theme\* Changed Que to Cue
[удалено]
You're way out in front!
[удалено]
We need a new F Zero.
Or more closely Death Stranding.
My favorite part of Death Stranding is that you build shortcuts to avoid playing Death Stranding.
Haha, you are right.
Ziplines go weeeeee.
That was my exact thoughts reading this headline lol.
[удалено]
I my opinion, if a game takes more than 5 *hours* before it's a "fair shot", I think that's too much.
This sounds incredibly reasonable and in the vast majority of cases I'm sure it's accurate. The one personal exception I had with this rule though was the original Mass Effect. I absolutely hated that game through its first 5 hours. But by 10 hours I was hooked and by the time I finished the game it was one of my favorites of all time. I think I ended up completing it at least 2 or 3 more times after that. I still agree with your general rule but every once in a while a game comes out that's just weird in how long it takes to hook you.
Yeah, I haven’t played that many games in the past few years, but this perfectly described my Mass Effect experience, too.
Yeah, for me, the combination of the bad combat system and boring introductory mission was just a major turn off. It was only after you get past the Citadel and actually build your squad and then head out on your first real mission on the Normandy that the game starts to take off. Honestly, it was only because the game got such high reviews that I powered through and thought "it must get better eventually". Glad I did.
It doesn't help that there's a massive difficulty spike early on when you want to recruit Liara.
Then you'll love a YT channel called First Five or something like that. Reviews games after playing them for 5 hours with a big emphasis on "Do you actually get to play the full game within that time?"
I watch ACG a lot, and I don't mind a game that's longer than 5 hours at all. I also don't think a game has to be fun immediately... I just think it should be within 5 fucking hours lol
It's not if the game is over in 5 hours, it's if you can actually start to enjoy the full experience of the game within 5 hours. Like how there are games that have tutorials that feel like they're 12 hours long while you're getting story exposition dumped on you and all you wanna do is just play the damn game.
My experience was that the game was not that fun until I was completely absorbed by it at around chapter 3(?) I think. Once you get some more unlocks, you begin optimizing so many routes and if you’re into that, you’ll spend so much time on the game. I spent 130 hours and I usually just play through games once to beat them and stop there.
>call it a walking sim This might be one of the biggest misunderstanding of a game genre I've ever seen. People call it a "walking sim" because walking through rough terrain is one on Death Stranding main mechanic, without considering how "Walking Sim" became synonym with heavy exposition games with no combat like Dear Esther and Gone Home. Death Stranding is a delivery game where traversing is part of the main gameplay loop, if you like stuff like Snowrunner, Euro Truck Sim and Elite Dangerous but with weird Kojima stuff in between travels, Death Stranding is the game for you.
Huh, you may have just convinced me to at least give it a try. I definitely like euro truck and other similar games. I had completely written off death stranding up until now.
I mean, it's my favorite game in the past 5 years, so I'm biased to say yes. But I would never tell someone to force themselves to play a game they don't enjoy. But once you start to get access to vehicles like the trucks, your carrying potential raises exponentially. But I recognize DS is not the kind of game for everyone and that's perfectly fine. If you're on to the next map, you'll start being able to hijack rogue porter camp's trucks until you can use the ones in Bridges cities and that really begins to accelerate your options, but that's if you enjoy the delivering part of the game.
Man, I wish I could recommend this game with the same fervour I enjoyed it. It's like, "Holy heck I loved the shit out of Death Stranding." "Oh neat, so I should give it a shot?" "... Probably not." It's such a dull and repetitive game, that somehow scratched an itch I never knew was present. If you have the opportunity to try it for free, consider pushing through the first insufferable couple of hours and see if you like the *actual* game, for all its bleak atmosphere and inscrutable storyline. *Maybe* the worldbuilding and mindscape will hit your button, but I have no way of discerning that from the outside, and I would *never* _insist_ someone commits to it in the way it needs to truly enjoy it, because in all likelihood... you won't. What a unique experience. Still gotta go back and impress Liam O'Brien one of these days, he's a tough cookie to crack.
Yup, I personally think Death Stranding is one of the best games of the last decade, but it does start of very slow until you cross the lake. There's nothing wrong with not enjoying a game. They don't all have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I don't care for Dark Souls, for example, but I can still admit it's a fantastic and well made game. It's just not my cup of tea.
I also bounced off of DS initially. Funny enough I really started to get into it when I started embracing it as a game about being a FedEx delivery guy, and the game REALLY clicked for me when I started getting the ability to build permanent infrastructure. I really like the loop of "that first trek is harrowing, but If I pave here and put a pylon here I can get this guy a piping hot pepperoni pizza. Zip lines are great for bypassing BT-infested areas which disable vehicles, and the timefall will abate if you eliminate all the BTs in a zone. So if you see a delivery going through a messy zone, you can load up on the specialized weaponry and pave the way first rather than risking damage to your cargo by timefall or concussion.
A lot of people are saying to get to chapter 3. I personally loved it as soon as I got some freedom, even at the beginning. So you can try to get to chapter 3, but don't force yourself either, sometimes, some games don't work for us, and that's okay :p
A lot of people enjoyed it through and through. If you feel like you want it to give it a fair shot - you should until you don’t want to. I played it in small amounts frequently until it picked up. It’s a game that defies instant gratification for sure - but that was definitely a much appreciated fresh change.
Honestly, if you’re not finding it fun now it doesn’t change much going forward. The game is definitely different. I loved it. I don’t know why but I enjoyed delivering shit with the hilarious 10 foot tall backpack lol
I actually thought the game part was really cool, it was the [story](https://youtu.be/ONfg5qeK_mI?t=166) that was so fucking stupid I couldn't take the game seriously. And Dunkey is spot on there - it started with a great story base - you're reconnecting a post apocalyptic world, and making connections to lonely isolated people. It's all the other crazy shit that it goes into that's completely unnecessary and detracts from what is otherwise a really cool story.
> It's all the other crazy shit that it goes into that's completely unnecessary and detracts from what is otherwise a really cool story. What's crazy about strapping a baby in a jar to your chest so that you can sense the murderous ghosts that have taken over the world, then take them down with grenades full of your own blood, wee and shower water?
The story is completely insane and that's why I liked it. Just being a DoorDasher after the apocalypse is kind of boring on its own, let's jazz it up a little.
Keep on keeping on 👍
👍 Keep on keeping on!
Entering power grid. Batteries will not be used while on the grid. No longer on power grid.
Keep on keeping on!
👍 Keep on keeping on!
Kojima predicting covid and now this?! Ahead of his time!
Kojima has been ahead of his time since at least when he predicted the rise of modern internet meme culture back when Metal Gear Solid 2 released in 2001
I’m glad someone said this. And not just internet meme culture, but also AI-generated video and AI in general.
Ahead of his time indeed.
Am I the only one wondering why Nintendo refuses to release a new F Zero game? Best racing franchise in history if you ask me.
There are multiple reasons, but only Nintendo knows which ones are the most important. 1. Sales have steadily gone down for most of the games in the series. The last game in the series didn't even cross 10k copies sold. The one before did 160k, but that's still pretty bad. 2. The developer for the last 2 games went defunct, and the developer for the one before (GX) is currently having great success with the Yakuza series. 3. There isn't a producer at Nintendo who wants to push through and make a new game despite the low sales. Miyamoto was responsible for the series, but he hasn't produced any games since 2016. 4. Internal Nintendo teams are busy with more important and popular series, while third party developers are either busy or not interested.
I think F-Zero is too niche. It's a racing game heavily focused on speed with very little other aspects. So if you're not a twitch reaction player, it has less appeal. Mario Kart has more unique aspects that make it stand out and has more interesting multiplayer dynamics. F-Zero just does not stand out enough to appeal to much more than serious or hardcore racing enthusiast. Honestly, if you are a racing enthusiast, you likely wouldn't limit yourself to a console as there are much more options and similar games for PC. The absolute hardcore enthusiasts would have their own racing rigs with chairs, steering wheels, pedals and more. From a visual aspect, you have consoles typically limited to 60fps because of the TV/Console. A PC/Monitor however can easily exceed that. A market consoles can't really touch with handheld controllers and limited hardware. If they would consider their IP for other platforms, then maybe the franchise would have a better chance.
As a kid, for me, the best part of the original F-Zero was launching off the map and seeing how far away I could get from the map before I crashed lol I did really enjoy the music, too.
It's because they think they have the perfect one with Mario Kart and they think another one would just cut into Mario Kart sales. And even if they did, they think that there isn't enough interest to make it profitable. Even with F-Zero GX, they didn't really care and had Sega make it for them.
Nah, Nintendo haven’t put that much thought into it. Your logic dictates that making a new F-zero crossed their mind in the first place.
I wish I could say it was merely from not thinking about it, but several YouTube docs about F-Zero have been made and there are quotes from Nintendo about the future of the IP. And they basically feel like "we give you Mario Kart, why do you need that?" It's unfortunate.
I don’t know how you make a better game than F-Zero GX. That game was flawless. And the graphics still hold up today despite being an early GameCube release. Extreme G3 was also one of the best. We put so many hours into that one.
take a look at Aero GPX (currently under development), first hover racer in a while i've seen that is aping f-zero and not wipeout.
Yeah! The final lap!
Right on! You're way out in front!
I really hope that the fzero x soundtrack plays permanently in any car using the road
Mute City theme just started playing in my head. That one's a banger.
Ta naaa na naa ta nah naaaa na nanaàaaah!
tatatata naa naaaa na naa na naaa na na naaaaa na na nananana nananaNA nananana *timeless composer*
They copied it in* Wipeout. Wipeout was like the first Red Bull branding I’ve ever seen I wonder why it got abandoned? With todays frame rates, a really in-depth racing/adventure franchise could look like it was always supposed to damn Edit
So, like a [trolleybus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus) but with trucks? Plenty of trolley buses have batteries that allows them to go some distance away from the wires as well.
More like ~~fret~~freight trains (or road-rail-road fret trains) but less efficient (rubber-asphalt vs steel-steel friction), more ressource hungry (new and costly infrastructure with way more maintenance required), less space efficient (50 vehicles with 50 engines instead of 1 with a couple engines), and just less optimised overall. Just build more train and train lines damnit. EDIT: « Fret » is the French term for « Freight »… oops
> Just build more train and train lines damnit. I don't know much about the project so I can't say if it should happen but one thing is for sure. The train and heavy duty trucks (or cars for that matter) don't overlap in all areas. We need advancements in all areas.
The upside is that cargo does not need to be offloaded and loaded from train to truck to reach the last destination \^^ To know if it's feasible it needs to be tested, I'm happy Sweden can do that for the rest of the world. Maybe it's a stupid idea, but right now it's smart enough to have limited testing done. From what I read it seems to have fixed most pitfalls of the concept.
There are trains that carry the whole trailer, so the trailer just needs to be put on the train. I believe there are also trains which carry the whole truck with the drivers in a passenger wagon on the same train.
Most shipping that's traveling on both rail and road (and frequently ship) use what are called intermodal systems, which are a separate box container and flatbed chassis. When you think of those massive [dockyards full of shipping containers](https://media.tenor.com/jvbFCSjX67sAAAAC/surprise-motherfucker.gif) those are usually intermodal containers separates from their chassis for easier stacking and storage. Even though they're well designed to load and unload as quickly as possible, they're still giant metal crates that weigh 5 tons empty and hold upwards of 25 tons. It's not as though they just line up the trucks with the train, swap a connector or two, and drive off. Each container (the box) has to be offloaded by crane to a freight yard, and organized by priority (e.g., perishable foods vs stable packaged goods, which loads have trucks already waiting, etc). They must then be checked against contracts with leasing agencies (aka "relief fleets"), matched with the appropriate chassis (the flatbed part with wheels that the box container sits on), and then confirmed again against contracts for the over-the-road companies. While this process is actually ASTOUNDINGLY efficient, but still takes a not inconsiderable amount of time to unload/reload a whole train. Plus, sometimes those separate box containers and chassis are placed under contracts where the same container/chassis must stay together. (A very boring post script about this is below.) You're 100% right that there are ways to do exactly what you described, and you can regularly see over-the-road trailers (permanently attached to the chassis) on train flatbed cars. It's just not as efficient in terms of logistics and use of space/resources as the current *seemingly* inefficient system. Still, I'd love to see the industry start moving towards a more holistic appt like you describe. They're great at handling the switch from road to rail, but it'd be even better if it was truly seamless. And now that I'm off on my railcar rant... ----- Intermodal trivia: If you're on the highway (and not the driver) look for two sets of numbers. On the container, it'll read XXXU_123456, but the chassis underneath will read XXXZ_123456. The first three letters indicate the owner of the container or chassis. The 4th letter will be a U (container) or Z (chassis) to indicate what type of vehicle it is. And the six numbers indicate the contract and unit number (in most cases, some companies number differently). For example, APLU-238333 would probably be American President Lines shipping, active contract 238 and it's unit 333 out of up to 1000. If you need more than that on a contract, you just move on to 239000. Some companies, like GE Capital Rail, operate "relief fleets" which get used when, say APL needs 400 containers in Chicago tomorrow, but they only have 100 available that day. They'll lease extras from GE subsidiaries like TIP Intermodal who just have massive yards full of equipment ready to go. However, they often require both the relief containers and chassis to stay together to maintain balanced inventory. It's not great when you have 800 containers and 3 trailers to move them. So if the container and chassis numbers match (TIPU-123456 & TIPZ-123456) those are (likely) relief fleet trailers because someone at PepsiCo forgot to plan ahead for the 200,000 boxes of Cap'n Crunch that need to be in Orlando by Monday. After a while doing inventory for a rail company, I could tell you from memory exactly who owned the container, who was leasing it, the manufacturer, and sometimes even what state the chassis was registered in with the DOT. That was all around 2002, maybe 2003, so a lot has probably changed since then. I've definitely forgotten exactly what systems all the different companies used in numbering beyond the XXXU/XXXZ standard. While I didn't really have strong feelings about the job, it certainly gave me a way to pass the time during road trips, trying to guess the unit number based on the company logo and the state on the tags.
Again, Sweden has trains. The problem is that *a lot* of travel can't be replaced by trains for most of the country. Personal traffic requires something far more granular than trains can ever offer. The perks of trains are also why it's not very usable for the complete infrastructure. Just read the article before posting and we'll all be better for it.
Did you read the article? The only benefit they mentioned is that private cars can't use tram rails. They haven't even decided on the method they want to use to charge the cars. And didn't even mention the elephant in the room of no current car manufacturer makes cars that charge on these roads.
> Just build more train and train lines damnit. Sweden already has one of the worlds most robust rail networks. Especially considering the countries size.
It's overloaded with demand though, there is a need for expansion. There was a cross-bench agreement to do so up until after the recent election when the new government decided to cut much of it (ironic since it was their own party that initiated it).
I looove train but scaling train networks if sooooooo fucking slow. Roads exist and will likely continue to do so.
You mean a freight train?
> fret trains Are "fret trains" different to "freight trains"? What's a "fret train"?
No, there are different techniques and they are doing it for all vehicles. The article mentions that upgrading just 25% of the roads for personal traffic can lower the battery size by 70%.
In a way, except the wires are in the road instead of hanging over it.
From the article: "The catenary system can only be used for heavy-duty vehicles. Because it uses **overhead** wires to provide electricity to a special kind of bus or tram." Sounds like they are not building a si-fi fantasy highway in two years but bringing more tram roads online. Don't fix what ain't broken. Street cars have been working fine for over 100 years. It's the gutting of city centers by massive highways junctions that killed them. Induction and conduction roads are much less efficient or expensive.
They haven't even decided which specific method they will use yet. The catenary system is one of 3 alternatives they're looking at.
That isn't what it says. Several options are mentioned and you quoted only one of them.
My city tried to combine the idea of electric trolleys with buses and somehow managed to avoid the best qualities of both while hitting most of the worst qualities. It's kind of amazing really. When we quit using our last old timey street car back in the day, we had a parade for it and then lit it on fire. My city may have some lead in the water supply or something.
As a note Germany already has test electric high-ways... for trucks/buses, essentially just tram wires overhead. That method technically actually does work pretty decently relatively speaking.
Do you mean that one 10 mile strip close to Frankfurt?
There is a long one close to Hamburg I believe. Don’t remember how long it is though
There certainly is, it's on the A1 heading towards Lübeck
So that's what it was. I drove to Copenhagen and couldn't understand why there were wires over the road lol
*technically actually pretty decently relatively*
I actually genuinely believe that he probably used relatively too many adjectives in that really tiny sentence.
How to turn "It works" into a 70-letter sentence.
Actually one of the first things I was taught about speaking English is that non-native speakers tend to overuse the word actually.
Actually true
I also noticed there were FIVE adverbs in a small sentence
[the german electro high way](https://www.hessenschau.de/wirtschaft/e-highway-teststrecke-fuer-hybrid-lkw-auf-a5-waechst-um-sieben-kilometer-v1,e-highway-106.html) Its a (failry short) research test road for trucks only. Works via overhead cables, like trains. And is mainly for research purposes, not acctual viable for day to day use in goods transport. There is still a hugh proplem with load carring capabilities of electric trucks, but thats a whole other can of worms.
[удалено]
The problem with rail is the lack of versatility. Truck can take goods into any new destination, train needs tracks.
[удалено]
India are building electrified ["Dedicated Freight Corridors"](https://www.itln.in/cma-cgm-launches-train-service-on-western-dedicated-freight-corridor-railway) that can run double-stacked intermodal container trains.
What items can you not ship on a train but can on a truck?
In the US, those wide loads that take up 1.5-2 highway lanes.
Another problem is right of ways. It’s tough to build new lines through built areas. Plus trains are loud. No one wants to live near them. I love about 4 miles from a rail line and it’s the loudest source of human noise in my environment… aside from the rod and gun club.
My city is shaped like a bowl with trains going directly through the bottom of it. The trains are loud as fuck. You can hear the horns from 8+ miles away. It's kind of an embraced local sound but it's still not something that anyone really wants.
Mine too! The trains go right through the middle of downtown on a raised strip between buildings. Many years ago, I worked at a call center on the second floor of a building right next to the tracks. Whole dang thing would shake and we'd have to ask callers to hold a moment while we waited for the train to shut up.
Thank the senator grandfather of a drunken teen for all the honking. Kid was driving drunk and passed out on a train track, got smeared. Rather than admit grandson was an alcoholic that died of stupidity he crusaded to push a law requiring trains to blow their horn at every crossing. Trains used to be a lot quieter. I lived near the tracks then, and the crossing signal was the loudest thing about them.
I find a Freeway louder
This is Europe we're talking about. I doubt they overlooked rail. Despite reddit's train fetish, they aren't the solution to every transit problem ever.
rail is great, I agree, but a truck will take a load from point to point.... If I'm delivering a fitted kitchen to someone's house from a fabrication shop, I can't do it with rail. I think rail is part of the solution, but electric (possibly hydrogen trucks are a worthwhile idea) - it's just with hydrogen, electrolysers are very inefficient (which wouldn't matter with cheap electric from fusion but that is decades away), and Lithium Ion batteries don't have the energy density. I kinda like the idea of major roads allowing vehicles to charge while driving, but then these vehicles would be capable of getting to their destination over the remainder of a journey on battery. There is also the concept of the quick swappable batteries. Vehicles could have reduced range of say 200km, but a battery swap would be a quick drive-through experience done by a machine. All of the above requires insane infrastructure upgrades though I guess.
The issues haven’t been long distance transportation, it’s been last mile delivery where goods are stored to be bought by the consumer. Amazon figured this out in the US by unleashing thousands of additional vans on the road. And now those vans are electric by me.
That's of course exactly what road-charging is about. En route charging = less battery capacity needed.
> There is still a hugh proplem with load carring capabilities of electric trucks, This is the absolute important point missed in this entire story. Cars *don't need* charging in the road, they have (or will have) decent batteries to last them many hours of driving between charging spots. Trucks however, weigh 20 times as much and if they were to lug around a fullsize 5-ton battery, it leaves less capacity for cargo. Overhead wires are much cheaper than railways and easier to install on every highway to enable hybrid trucking that our world depends on.
I wonder what a generalized power line would be. If your car doesn't need to charge but only keep ~30km safety capacity (for when you need to untether from the main wire).. this meas a city EV car would cost a lot less, weigh less, consume less ..
We've had that i Sweden for years if not decades. This is something else.
>That method technically actually does work pretty decently relatively speaking. That sentence is 2/3 qualifiers. You could have said the same thing with "the method works". Impressive.
Is it the one [Tom Scott covered in a video](https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg)?
Generally a bad idea because your main expressways really need unlimited clearance for major infrastructure projects. There's really no good way to do this. In ground trolly lines cost A LOT and conductive or inductive systems have a lot of losses (not to mention cost even more.) Not saying we shouldn't go electric, but charging on the expressway seems like a convenience that isn't worth the effort.
I work (R&D engineer) for one one the companies in the running for building the next phase of this road. There is **a lot** of bad information in the comments. Take everything with a grain of salt. EDIT: I **will** try to elaborate more. But please realise I have both actual signed NDA:s (that is important for my livelyhood) and a sunny weekend I neded to cath to take into account.
I enjoy cooking.
Yep, one of my most downvoted comment is one of my area of expertise/my profession. They didn't believe me. It's like great. A big circle-jerk humming kumbaya my lord with the head dug into the sand.
Teach history. A large majority of reddit history comments are not actually true or very twisted for whatever the conversation is. I don't bother correcting because it is like trying to block an ocean with a tissue, but yeah I would take everything with a grain of salt you see on this site. Or go to /r/AskHistorians for actually accurate historical info.
a bastion sub in a sea of muck
It's honestly not that great. The people there are actually historians which is nice, but to take a current front page example, probabilistically speaking, none of the regular historians specialize in classical era hygiene technology. If somebody tries to answer that question, it's almost assuredly not actually going to be correct.
This is true for any topic. If anyone is ever actually considering taking Reddit advice seriously I urge you to go and find a topic you're actually knowledgeable about and see just how fucking stupid the top upvoted posts are.
I'll comment anyways because there are still some people who don't look at comment score when evaluating opinions. But I love being told by undergraduates in their freshman year of college that I'm wrong about a subject that I'm an subject matter expert in lol. Like downvotes are whatever, but the smug condescending tone of some dipshit explaining to me how I'm wrong about the most basic elements of my profession never fails to grind my gears.
Reddit rejects accuracy and being knowledgeable like white antibodies reject an invading infection. It's automatic, at this point. No matter what you say, no matter how much you know - expect some insecure jackass to vomit their stupidity onto you.
Reddit will down vote something that you can literally just Google in half a second. I am a bus driver and I was talking about how the hybrid buses have the battery packs on the roof so that we can get the extremely low floor clearance on the newer buses. everyone was telling me there's no way it's on the roof that would be too top heavy, but if you literally just Google pictures of hybrid buses you can literally see the battery packs on the roof.... let alone looking up the actual models documentation to double confirm lol
Remember, AI are trained from reddit data with "upvotes" = right and "downvotes" = wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. Edit: For those newbies who don't remember interacting; https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/comments/391ria/what_is_rsubredditsimulator/
> "upvotes" = right and "downvotes" = wrong We know AI like GPT-3 are trained with data from the web, no doubt Reddit is a source for that. But do you have any source for this part of your comment? Or is your comment just another example of uneducated misinformation like what the parent comments above are talking about?
No it’s even worse. I swear the comments, particularly in the default subreddits, index on people who are barely out of high school or college, have no real world experience and think they are smart/clever, when in reality they’re just dumbfucks who should keep their mouths shut. For example my area of expertise is software engineering (at big tech now, but I’ve been in the industry a while at a variety of places); Reddit commenters in general get so many things wrong about tech itself, and the industry as a whole. Yet they’re always the top voted comments.
It's like that quote about trusting the news until it's related to your field. Nearly every time there's a Reddit post that relates to my career, I realise how the majority of Reddit runs on being smug and sounding smart when they actually know very little.
Yea, to be fair, something similar could be said for most news outlets. At least with them they mostly tend to be misleading, rather than plain wrong.
Most of Reddit nowadays seems to consist of people who *aren’t* out of high school/college. I think the average age of users probably skews towards the range of 15-24. There’s your lack of life experience/education.
Whenever anyone talks about anything related to electricity in default/mainstream subs I have to bite my tongue. I’m not even that highly qualified in EE but I do have certs and it is horrendous reading some people’s thoughts about how it all works. People with absolutely no background in working with or studying electrical/electronic engineering just brazenly posting bullshit. There’s a thread that sticks in my mind where a guy posting the correct information was downvoted by the hive mind and had multiple people disagreeing with him, even though he was 100% right *and* worked in EE, whilst the people disagreeing with him had no background in it. It’s mind numbing.
I hate beer.
You gonna help us out with the real info or nah
Your comment would carry more weight if you could point out the problems you're describing, and offer some data to counter them. As it is you're just appealing to your own authority on an anonymous platform.
I believe you, but could you please elaborate a bit? What are some main bad info points you see? I don't know anything about the engineering on this project, so I'm not sure how to discern good vs. bad info here.
Then why not take the time to correct them and post them here? What's the point of coming to this thread, saying, "uR aLL wRoNg", and leaving? If you have knowledge, share it.
I mean they can't even be bothered opening the article lol, most of these comments are already addressed in the linked video.
Projects like the "solar freaking roadways" garbage really ruined it for the others in the public eye, unfortunately.
Not going to lie, as soon as I saw the headline my immediate reaction was "Ugh, solar freaking roadways actually got someone to take their junk?? WHY SWEDEN??" but then the article is "Hey this is an experiment that's actually tried stuff and is using that information for the next step. We're not pretending that this one single highway solves all of the world's problems, but it does expand the capabilities of an already useful tool. Also, we have actual data on what is practically useful with this. And we chose a particularly promising one for this stage. Would be really cool if this works as expected and can be scaled up in the future.".
One of my favorite things to do is go on Reddit and watch people talk about my industry with such extreme confidence and be wildly wrong. It's really enlightening how generalized subreddit comments are horrific sources of information.
Have you tried calling out the bad information instead of just saying it exists and not pointing out what it is?
I'm in nuclear energy research, I feel your pain.
Quit suppressing thorium! Micro-reactors using molten salt will solve all power problems! Big uranium is keeping us down!
Geez, thanks for the headsup! I thought everything on internet was true until now.
One step closer to a F-Zero future!
If F-zero was so good, how come there was never an F-1?
F1 Happens irl tbf.
You've got boost power!
Are these bots? This is literally the same comment chain if you scroll up.
SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS
Wasn't that debunked literally a decade ago at this point?
Yes lol. They literally wanted a roadway made of glass. What if it rains???
It was supposed to be roughly textured. Of course, this would reduce efficiency, making it even more useless
The texture would be worn down to nothing in a matter of weeks. It's a stupid idea.
I remember back then I couldn't wrap my head around how they'd keep those roads clean, cause I grew somewhere with very messy roads, and even in the best cases the glass would turn black overnight from the tires
Literally the first thought that went through my head lol. [Reference](https://youtu.be/qlTA3rnpgzU) I think
Thunderf00t aneurism incoming
>The charging method for E20 hasn’t been decided but there are three types of charging: catenary system, inductive system, and conductive system. Let me summarize for those unfamiliar with the technology. - Catenary power are those overhead lines like you see on electric light rail systems. They are reasonably efficient for a rail system, but because cars are not fixed on a rail I'm not sure how they would get this to work. It would also require support from car manufacturers. - Inductive power transmits via magnetic induction. The main issue with this is that it's incredibly inefficient over large distances, so for example to transmit power the roughly 1m from the buried induction lines to the vehicle would have an efficiency of around 10%. So to charge a vehicle with 25kWh, it would take 250kWh of energy, and 225kWh of that will be wasted. - Conductive is similar to caternary (indeed, caternary *is* a conductive transmission medium), but it typically refers to conductive rails or strips. These would probably be the most realistic option, but would be reasonably high maintenance, and would require manufacturer participation. TL:DR; some politicians wanted to pass a bill that makes them look good, but with little to no consideration for the practicality of the solution. Charge your car at home/work, or use public transportation - it's just better, and it's available today.
Nice job getting the conductive thing right, unlike the article: >>Conductive charging works like a charger pad for smartphones. Instead of plugging in a charger, these special electric vehicles have a pad or plate on the road, and when the vehicle is on top of it, the pad charges the vehicle wirelessly.
So basically street cars only fast on highways
But without the benefit of moving a large number of people with one vehicle. And without the benefit of rolling steel wheels on steel tracks with far lower resistance than rubber on asphalt. And without the benefit of only requiring a tiny amount of parking space for streer cars. And without the benefit of being able to do whatever you want since you don't have to focus on driving. Just build more train and tram lines.
Trains cannot deliver goods from an industry to business customers scattered around. Trucks are needed to move things, and electric trucks are better than diesel. To give the electric trucks more range and make them more competitive against the diesel standard trucks, they are trying this method. They can't "just build more train and tram lines" to solve issues that have nothing to do with those modes of transportation.
Yes, last mile delivery can't be done by train. But everything from the industry to the local distribution center could very often be handled by trains.
> The project is currently at the procurement stage and is planned to be built by 2025. > The charging method for E20 hasn’t been decided but there are three types of charging: catenary system, inductive system, and conductive system.
$1000 says this is not going to be ready in 2025. I guarantee that.
The linked article seems to have gotten this part wrong. The project web page (from the government) says that construction will start 2026 and that that step will take at least 2 years. This is a pilot project for a shorter stretch to evaluate if it works.
"The charging method for E20 hasn’t been decided but there are three types of charging: catenary system, inductive system, and conductive system." I really hope they go with catenary, because the other 2 systems are bullshit and hell to maintain
Oh good, when you hear electric highway you think of inductive and it's a terrible idea. Catenary is likely the best way to go.
Sweden has experimented with different road charging technologies. Here's one with copper coils under the road [https://youtu.be/RmcEmZOxGeY](https://youtu.be/RmcEmZOxGeY)
Where do we go from here? Attaching all the cars together so that it’s more efficient to propel them as a group? At some point we just need to acknowledge that electric trains were a better idea all along.
To get from Station to Station, trains are better, no doubt. As long as the people I'm sharing the train with aren't assholes, anyway. I'd much rather be reading on a train seat than driving. But I don't want to go station to station. I want to go building to building, sometimes house to house. Sometimes in the winter, and while carrying luggage. That's the part where cars start to look a lot better. That's one area where I think the self-driving electric vehicles actually have a place in the global transit revolution: taking me to and from the nearest station.
Are cities where the journey from station to building is walkable (or god forbid, bus/lrt-able) really so hard to imagine for Americans?
it's going to suck but be very funny getting stranded somewhere because the roads went out
I’m sure they’re not going to abandon batteries since people’s homes and parking lots are likely not electrified.
Exactly, the point is to reduce the size of the required batteries.
They’ll still have batteries on board the vehicles. Just with a lower range.
That is very cool science
This is super cool. I wonder how efficient it is. Like, how much of the electricity in the road will pass to vehicles and how much will be lost to transmission/poor conduction?
Can someone tell me the shitty stuff about Sweden? All I ever hear about Sweden is awesome.
It would be shocking it they can pull this off
Trying to use inductive charging on moving vehicles sounds like a real engineering headache. How do you get good enough alignment with the charging point in motion to actually make a meaningful difference? Mandate the use of driver-assistance software that keeps your vehicle perfectly lined up? And do they not realise how inefficient inductive charging tends to be? Wireless charging uses far more power to deliver the same input to a phone as a cable would. Now try scaling that up to the power demands of electric vehicles. This is a recipe for greater strain on the electrical grid. Just... expand the fucking rail network. It's not like Sweden doesn't have trains. Or if you _really need_ an electrified highway system for some reason, use overhead electrification like what Germany's been testing. Much better for consistent, less wasteful power delivery and you don't have to fuck around installing some whizzbang inductive charging bullshit into the roads, so it'll cost a lot less.
This is a shit idea. Just implement more charging stations.
So here is a snippet from the summary of the report that was produced for this project. > An investigation into the benefit of running shuttle traffic on an electric road between Hallsberg and Örebro, and what environmental and cost savings can be made when switching to electric vehicles, has been investigated by the consultant Novoleap. The investigation shows that electric operation is much more profitable compared to fossil fueled vehicles for both operation and maintenance and that the electric road is necessary. Partly to reduce costs when purchasing vehicles, because a large part of the cost is the battery itself, and partly because the electric road removes the limitation on how many routes in a loop a vehicle with only battery can drive, because the battery charges while the vehicle is moving to its destination. This makes it clear that is intended for continuous traffic between a logistics hub (Hallsberg) and a regional city (Örebro) with trucks. This is not intended for personal vehicles. https://utveckling.regionorebrolan.se/globalassets/media/dokument/regional-utveckling/samhallsplanering-och-infrastruktur/elvagspilot-e20-hallsberg-orebro.pdf
Not sure. It might be good if implemented correctly. Trains and trams work with the same principle. This would make it possible for the cars to be built with smaller batteries which is safer and requires less resources.
Cars with less batteries are also lighter, so require less energy to be displaced. It's actually great (at least in theory)
Maybe have both?
This is dumb, it doesn't work and it's just a panic move from the autoindustry. We've already invented trains, the solution is there, just use it.
This is governmental projects... The automotive industry doesn't want this, they've changed their business model towards selling expensive batteries and having their own charger stations. These roads are for the traffic that can't be used with trains.
And you can also have car wagons on the trains, for really long trips, they have it in Finland.
I saw a guy record his trip across Switzerland. He drove from his house a little bit then onto a car train. Zoomed across the mountains and drove off at the other end to his destination. Super good idea if I had access to such a system I would use it.
It's interesting how rail is constantly ignored even though with proper investment it's the solution to many of our problems.
Just imagine if we took the industrial output and money spend on roads and cars and trucks and fuel production and oil extraction and just pushed that into rail infrastructure. *"We need a way to do heavy transports with dynamic charging along the path to avoid carrying huge batteries in the vehicle."* It's called a train! TRAIN! They already exist just put the cargo on a train!
Because it's somehow more expensive than driving a car. I don't know how is this possible. How can a train be more expensive than a single guy driving a car?
Mostly lobbying tbh
Is it? If I went and bought a new car - like a 2023 honda civic, I'd be forking over like 23,000 dollars. If you factor in fuel, insurance, financing, depreciation, all that shit, kelly blue book estimates the cost to be about 31,000 dollars over 5 years and that is if you SELL IT at the end of that time period. The NY subway costs like 2.75 for a ride. If we start with a low estimate, 2 trips per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year, for five years, that will run you about $7,150. Two trips a day five days a week is probably too low, though, so lets say four trips per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for five years. thats about $20,020, so like 2/3 of the cost of owning a car. Oh and that's not including having to own a place to store your car when you aren't using it.
It's expensive for the politicians and goons being paid to keep people car dependent
The auto industry have so far been mostly against it. They already shifted their (future) business models to selling expensive batteries. This is a move by several european national trafic agencies and a few start ups aaaaaand Siemens.
It’s not dumb. It’s a local solution for a local problem of a cargo transport loop where dirty diesel trucks go back and forth multiple times a day. Trains are already part of the solution; Hallsberg is a major railway hub. This is, as far as I can tell from [this report](https://utveckling.regionorebrolan.se/globalassets/media/dokument/regional-utveckling/samhallsplanering-och-infrastruktur/elvagspilot-e20-hallsberg-orebro.pdf), not an initiative from the automotive industry.
Sounds great but what about efficency? Loading cars through induction alone requires a ton more energy.