Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "OBF" channel.

@yeshuahdenazareth7868 what a load of bullcrap. If you don't have anything usefull to say, just don't respond.
5
@yeshuahdenazareth7868 There were quite a lot of roman cities with grid design, it just depends on when the city was founded. New cities in conquered territory often used a grid design, but ofcourse cities that sprawled out of already established villages/towns didn't get this grid design.
4
@yeshuahdenazareth7868 The city of Rome was built wel before Rome spread out and really got this disciplined engineering approach. Lutetia actually initially had a grid system, not a perfect/very strict one, but even today that is not the case for all grid cities. Overtime Paris has definitelly moved away from this grid system and even older streets/buildings moved around causing the loss of that grid system. Cologne also has been known to have used a grid system. Lausanne also is expected to have been initially grid based and Canterbury also or close to it. Don't make the mistake to take modern/medieval layout and think it is representative for the roman time. Buildings get destroyed/taken down/burned and moved, roads too get moved quite often over long periods of time. Also don't make the mistake to think grid cities are all exact grids, they aren't, some modern cities are the exception, not the rule. A grid city in the past actually shows a greater amount of civilisation since it requires a lot more planning and controle. Grids are also more effective when used correctly, something the US just doesn't do, mostly due to how mobility has changed over the past 100 years and how the US had chosen to adapt to it.
4
@kylen6430 but you can, that is the whole point. This can possibly be used in the long term to replace some of these transit systems. If Tesla develops small electric busses to drive in those tunnels, together with autmated driving, these could replace things like the subway. Ofcourse it wouldn't be any time soon, but eventually it might be possible.
3
@Coen80 Tesla semi isn't aimed for long haul duty and definitely not with a team of drivers. Most of the semi transport market is not long haul and driver teams. Most semi's will actually stand still while their drivers are sleeping/not working. Maybe the companies that want to absolutely milk everything out of their trucks will have them operating 24/7, but these will actually be few in numbers. It takes a lot more organisation to do this (especially in terms of drivers), and every small thing that messes up the schedule will cause large problems, whereas without very tight scheduling minor hiccups will not cause that many problems. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it (at least where it is my area here in Europe concerned). If you can show me data that says otherwise, I will gladly accept it.
2
@kylen6430 Vegas is more like a testproject that at the same time can be useful. Only within a few years will we really see where the boring company stands and if they can achieve what is said/expected. The boring company is proposing an expansion into the strip, where they would pay for the tunneling and casino's/hotels that want a station closeby pay for the station, though at this moment they are still talking about it with the county and other possible interested parties. And why the hell would I travel to another country just to test out a piece of infrastructure. That is like saying someone to go to Japan just because they like the maglev trains and believe in it.
2
@SeralyneYT Subways have an average speed of something between 15-30 miles per hour due to constant stop and go routine. The entire point of these boring tunnels is to travel between point A and point B without stopping, allowing to reach speeds that are several times faster than subway speeds. That is the disadvantage of rail travel especially when there are regular stops: the constant slow down-stop-speed up procedures. Also friction doesn't cause subways to go faster than busses, the max speeds of subways is often something around 50 miles/hour (which they not too often achieve/use), busses can get up to the same or higher max speeds. The main reason subways use rail is to limit energy consumption, which is admittedly a good reason. Though the question is do you want slightly lower power consumption or greater flexibility/faster travel between stops? Ideally replacing the car tires with rails is better, but I doubt they'll maintain the same flexibility due to the greater difficulty of mixing/unmixing between flows (ie. taking an off ramp, taking an on ramp).
2
I thought they'd have to be different size too, however a regular container can actually fit in a regular boring tunnel quite nicely, so a lot will just depend on how much place the trailer beds take in and the curves. Though I don't think it would be unlikely to have them be seperate tunnels regardless. As someone else pointed out, these container beds don't necessarily need something like batteries if there is some kind of powered third rail. Moreover is might pay off to have the container beds drive on rails rather than regular tires. And ofcourse you would want to avoid overcrowding of the tunnels/oversaturation, so on highly used routes it would be better to keep it in seperated tunnels, in lower used tunnels, multi-use might actually make them cost effective, where it otherwise wouldn't be. But this ofcourse is just speculation
2
@maxblinkhorn You have literally never given any argument. It is quite impossible to argue/have a discussion with someone who doesn't say anything but 'its not possible' or something like that. I guess you must be a troll.
2
@Frank71 In the EU you have a mandatory rest of 15-20 minutes every 3-4 hours and a prolonged resting period after 9-10 hours. The team longhaul freight is exactly what the Tesla semi is NOT aiming at, rather the 80% of the semi market that on average only does a few hundred miles a day.
1
@fjm9898 A supercharger point that includes 8-10 charging point would cost around $100-175k. A semi would probably use the equivalent of around 6 charging points, so per charging point for a truck you'd get around 75-125k (probably lower if you install multiple in the same location). It is also is very much possible Tesla would offer somekind of pay-off program like is done so often for cars, ie. they pay off the charger over time, just like they'd use fuel overtime. Furthermore these chargers will be fine for probably 2 decades, with maybe only minor changes needed. So yearly this would maybe come down to $4-10k, which would certainly be low enough to be more than compensated for by reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Then there is also the possibility that Tesla itself will start rolling out charging infrastructure quickly once the semi's are actually being delivered. People are now mostly talking about charging while loading/unloading, but there also is a case to be made for charging during transit on Tesla charging locations, sure the truck and driver will be stationary for 30 minutes or so, but if you can corporate this into the drivers necessary rest time, this is no problem. And even if you can't do that, the lower fuel and maintenance cost might be enough to recuperate this lost time charging. And ofcourse for companies that don't drive their trucks 24/7, but have daily scheduled downtimes of several hours (for example during the night or so), slower and less expensive chargers could be used. Yes, you might be trying to sell EV trucks now, but are you working for Tesla? Do you know what their roll-out strategy is? Just out of curiosity, which EV trucks are you selling/trying to sell?
1
@ps8432 Be real. Just how are we going to charge 1000s of trucks at night? For places that use nuclear powerplants this would actually help the powerplants, because they don't need to decrease their output. There also still can be wind and hydro during the night and eventually there should be more than enough storage capacity too. Even regular EV's can help here, they could overtime be plugged in constantly while they don't drive, during the day and night. During overproduction they charge up and during high demand they can discharge, this way they can help balance the grid (including those 1000's of trucks getting charged overnight). Because of the low power input/output the batteries won't deteriorate more and in the long time this can even help your batteries according to some studies, because you'd keep your battery charged up enough at almost anytime without putting stress on it (like fastcharging would do), so more cycles, but very small and gently cycles. Take the EU for example. It has around 4,5 million trucks on the road, lets pretend they on average would have a battery pack of 1000kWh (which is probably way too high, seeing you can cross 3/4th of France north-to-south on one charge then), this would make 4,5TWh in needed energy. The EU has 280 million cars driving on its roads, taking an average of 50kWh per car, that would make around 14TWh, so even if half of these can be used (which would possibly be much more) you'd have more than enough to charge all these trucks. And this is very conservative estimate, the average pack size of trucks is likely to be much lower, while the average for EV's now already is 45kWh, so 50 is definitely not too high. And during the night most cars would be plugged in if possible, it would be a matter of rolling out the level 2 charging grid to accomodate as many EV's as possible. This kind of system is likely to be implemented, since like I said it can also be used to help balance out the grid, especially one focused on renewables. Ofcourse there is work to be done to make everything happen, I am not going to say it will be easy, but also far from impossible. And it is not like governments won't do anything (might ofcourse depend on the kind of government), it is very likely they'll to invest in charging and grid infrastructure be it directly, in the forms of cheap loans or maybe subsidies. Pointing to Texas is a sign of ignorance on the facts. In Texas the problem was that the grid and generation not winterized, thus when cold temperatures happened, a lot of generation fell out (a fourth of its installed capacity). This compared to the unforseen spike in demand (which trucks wouldn't be, they'd be very much forseen, you don't get 1000's of trucks delivered overnight) caused the problems. What exactly are you refering to in regards to Germany?
1
@kylen6430 Yeah, an underground train at twice or more the cost vs a series of busses that act like a train, but is much more flexible. Now, what would be better hmm. There is a reason subways are used and not trains. Trains are not fit for short distances. The only disadvantage of the busses are the tires, but this again might also mean lower installation costs and more flexibility (more different vehicles can use the tunnel). Busses are in part not used underground in the past because it is much more expensive to build a tunnel for ICE vehicles than electric driven vehicles. The only other advantage is the rails, but at a cost of flexibility.
1
@kylen6430 So I guess I'll just have to assume that are you are just a ignorant naysayer seeing you haven't provided any arguments, got it.
1
@petitkruger2175 bruh, the boring company doesn't need 10+ road tunnels for 1 route, they only need one in each direction, just like a subway, only with an on and off ramp at stations. Your 2 tunnels idea would be more expensive and less efficient since you still need to regularly stop, switch trains, .... Capacity of the boring tunnel doesn't need to be tiny, it can even be higher than a regular subway, you only need enough cars.
1
@petitkruger2175 that promo video isn't about the loop idea. The loop idea is about replacing/instead of subways. The tunnels from the promo video show tunnels as underground streets to be used by private cars, not public transportation, it is meant to fight congestion on the road by giving drivers that will drive anyway more space/options. This is a completely different topic. Car sleds shouldn't be necessary in the future, FSD will do it without that. cars would work just like trains while moving (directly behind eachother), with the difference that they can go directly to the end destination. And not even the subway with the highest capacity in london comes close to 1500, highest is 1176, which makes 28224 per hour, the same amount of cars would be able to transport around 8000 per hour. A lot lower yes. However this is the stations throughput, not the line. The disadvantage of the rail is that the car stops every station, even when there is barely any space left or people coming on/off. This while the cars would just skip all the stations except the destination, this means the real capacity of the car system is how many cars can travel through the tunnel or the stations capacity. A station with huge capacity needs can just be made larger than those with lower capacity demands, allowing more cars to pass through it every hour. Moreover the cost should be looked at, if the boring company can make 2-3 times the tunnels (and everything else in terms of capacity) for the same price, it is a better option. Just to be clear, the boring loops aren't the best option everytime everywhere, it like everything depends on location and circumstances. Moreover the boring tunnels will still need to prove themselves, the idea can still bust. But especially in smaller cities with lower capacity needs it can work out much better.
1
I don't think the idea is to keep the routing unit longterm, rather have the cars autonomously drive in the tunnels, meaning they just drive in, go on, drive out without any extra steps. I don't think they'd ever let petrol cars in, even with a routing unit, this goes against Musks goal to electrify transport. Moreover by 2030 most new cars sold are likely to be electric, and by 2040 there probably won't be petrol cars sold anymore except for niche models. By 2050 finding a petrol car on the road is likely going to be very difficult. Therefor it is rather wastefull to try and include petrol cars in the boring tunnel concept. semi evacuated maglev (or essentially hyperloop), would most likely get their own boring tunnels if hyperloopcompanies decide to work together with the Boring company. For now it doesn't seem like boring company is going to go into the hyperloop concept in any other way than as a tunneling partner, but we'll see I guess. The idea also is that automated driving with (possibly) communicating cars can act as a train, just without the interlinking and therefor is much more flexible (adding, detracting "wagons"). Putting cars in a container or something similar seems like a lot more hassle for not really much gain comparatively. The advantage of the train is more the rails than anything else once automated driving is on point (which will be easier to get done in a closed off environment like the boring tunnels). As for the panic, people will get used to it and they won't be allowed to take control of the car while in the tunnel, most likely they'll either just be checking something/waiting or on longer trips distracting themselves with videos, games, talking, music, ... People that are afraid of the close distance can even just keep their eyes closed or something similar. People can get used to a lot of things, if you put people from 100+ years ago in a car on the driveway they'd freak out (even if they know everything). Humans are rather good in adapting.
1
@Herr_U If they have the cars themselves go there they they are in effect limited to about 180-200kph 180-200kph is way more then on the highway, limited to doesn't fit this sentenced. Most trains are slower then that, only highspeed rail is better, and you don't want to use a high speed train that is bigger than these cars in a small tunnel, that wouldn't be doable. Honestly 180-200kph is actually very optimistic, for cars I expect more like 150-160kph and for freight more like 100-120 kpm at most. Any higher you essentially need to start looking at the hyperloop concept with a semi-vacuum. and with horrible efficencies And how would this be different with a routing container exactly? This will be less aerodynamic, thus have much more drag. having dedicated routing containers would allow for having proper rolling (or maglev) stock With other words you are talking about a hyperloop, not the boring tunnel concept anymore, these are two distinct concepts. I'd still be in the workforce by 2050 and I know petrol cars still will be common for me How do you know that? Why would it still be common for you? (electrical cars suck when the grid is down for more than a few hours). For this you most likely would have EV with much greater range, or indeed a petrol car, like I said petrol can possibly still be used in niche circumstances. But then you might have to take some extra petrol with you in jerry cans, since petrol station will likely have become very uncommon by then. But also, having a setup for petrol cars would also allow for hydrogen cars Hydrogen cars don't stand a chance: expensive, not much more range than many EV's, expensive hydrogen stations that are rather few in numbers, high hydrogen prices, terrible efficiency, ... Hydrogen in personel vehicles will only be a niche product, if it isn't scrapper completely. Ofcourse this is unless hydrogen cars suddenly make extreme jumps forward, which is rather unlikely. so no need to have separate solutions for if you want to do boring or hyperloop. They have completely different goals. Yes, hyperloop might work together with hyperloop companies, but boring company tunnels and the tesla system won't suddenly be changed to a hyperloop concept, just not going to happen. *Rails, being able to stack in height(!), controlled airflow (resistance), booms/shockwaves whenever a joining tunnel merges (or tunnel openings), strict service schedules (breakdown will be a fun issue otherwise). Cars are quite frankly horrible in terms of effeciency (even when alone). (For the shockwaves alone - take a look at the generations of shinkansen, the "nose" are all about shockwave mitigation)* Again, this is more hyperloop, not the boring tunnel concept. Basically doing a hyperloop with automobile carriages ("normal cars") will impose some rather drastic limits This isn't even a discussion, the boring company doesn't do hyperloop, the using cars in boring company tunnels has nothing to do with hyperloop, that is a completely different issue/concept. It seems you are mixing 2 different concepts that have nothing to do with eachother, other then that the boring company could make tunnels for both and do both: tunnels with cars for shorter trips, tunnels for hyperloop for long trips. Hyperloop needs tracks of at least 10-20 km just to get up to speed (depending on the acceleration and topspeed) and another similar distance to slow down. That means you need at least a track of 20-40km, probably a lot more, since you don't want to be constantly accelerating and decelerating. Hyperloop is great to connect cities, however it isn't usefull to connects smaller area's, like part of a city, city with suburbs, a track with stops/offramps 'quite often', .... In other words the boring company Tesla/EV tunnel is meant as something more like regular streets and highways, only with faster speeds and no real traffic, the hyperloop is meant as a replacement of high speed rail systems, to connect cities/area's of large distances.
1
@Pompomatic Honestly grid cities don't really need to have many intersections if done right. A car can travel one mile extra if needed, thus you close many of these intersection if you do it right. Problem is that in a car centric society closing off access points for cars is a big no no, eventhough it likely would benefit car traffic too due to much less lights at those intersections interrupting traffic (except for pedestrian crossing, but that you have everywhere).
1
It isn't necessarily faster I'd guess, but adding extra capacity to an above ground rail network isn't easy or cheap, so once a line runs at capacity everything more will cause delays. The idea of the boring tunnel is more that you can just create more capacity. There probably are other reasons too probaby though (like geography, interconnections on the rail line, ...)
1
@maxblinkhorn It isn't faith if it is already being implemented. Then it is more a matter of expecting improvement, just like we expect pc's, smartphones, EV's, ... to improve.
1
@maxblinkhorn So no arguments, just "you'll see". Great, you could as well not have posted anything.
1
 @maxblinkhorn See, no argument => Troll or just someone that isn't to be listened too.
1
@dousiastailfeather9454 If it was workable then somebody else would be doing it already. This is such a weak argument, if flying was workable someone would have done it before the wright brothers, if smartphones were workable someone would have done it before apple, if reusing rockets was possible someone would have done it before SpaceX, ... There are plenty of things that can work, but are not done untill some company/person causes a spark on its development/idea. As for thunderfoot, I once wrote a comment about his problems with hyperloop, most of it is just stupid and either is a problem that can/is fixed, that is not really a problem or is situational. He might have brought up some good points too, but these didn't discredit the entire idea, rather forces more thinking on it. And him going after some bad companies as to show that it is a stupid idea overall is just pathetic, you always can have bad companies, or companies that put too much emphasize on show/publicity. There are several hyperloop companies that are actually keeping their development close to their chest too. Overall Thunderfoot to me comes across as the kind of guy that decides first whether something is possible, stupid, ... and then start finding reasons for it. Often these kind of people are right, because they mostly focus on controversial ideas, technologies, ... and most technologies etc never get past development due to unforseen problems, so betting against new ideas/technologies is much safer and easier than betting for them. However there are times these kind of people are shown to have been completely wrong. He is like someone that would have said plane travel could never be a thing during the 1910-20's, except maybe for the few very rich. I can perfectly make a video about this that would perfectly fit on his channel, ofcourse it would be seen as ridiculous today, with all the problems they talked about back then having been solved, proven to not be a problem.
1
@maxblinkhorn A lot of current bussiness started out as something people would say the same about as you do, I'll wait a few years before actually seeing how it will turn out. Ofcourse I won't put money in it, but it seems like hyperloop companies have more than enough funding from rich people, other companies and some future projects, so we'll see.
1
@dousiastailfeather9454 It's just not economical. Transport overland is simply cheaper. This is funny comment, seeing it is exactly contradicting itself. Hyperloop isn't meant to take over overland transport, but (short-medium) continental flights mostly, thus hyperloop would make it overland transport. As for other overland transport, if hyperloop works it won't have any competition for what it is meant to do. The only thing coming close to it would be high speed rail, but that has a lot of problems too depending on the region (like high costs, construction difficulties, lower absolute speed limit, ...).
1
@maxblinkhorn I have never said that hyperloop is going to be a guaranteed success, since I don't know how it will play out. I am rather criticizing people coming down on it so early with bad to no arguments. Hyperloop has only been in development for around 5-6 years or less, depending on the company, this is really short for these kind of developments. Maglev has been in development for 50+ years and is only now really being rolled out. At this moment there are only 6 maglev lines in operation for a total of 73 km and most of these have a lower speed than regular high speed rail, yet maglev is seen as the future of high speed rail transport (Thunderfoot even used it to criticise hyperloop and to argue why hyperloop can never work). Yet despite this hyperloop was already being criticized and put down almost immediately after the beginning of its development and has since been constantly criticized, eventhough at this moment its development can still go either way, from a big success to a big failure.
1
@maxblinkhorn Musk has had nothing to do with hyperloop since proposing the idea (which since is changed a bit by companies), the past few years critique was not meant for Musk's idea, but the idea of the hyperloop in general. If people only criticizes musk original idea, I'd have no problem with it. We should be seeing systems being built Like I said, development of these kind of things usually takes a decade or multiple decades, to expect results within around half a decade is rather stupid. There are at this moment something like 5 to 10 hyperloop companies around the world, we only hear about/from maybe 2 of them, because the others keep their development more secretive and put less emphasize on promotion/publicity. and yet there is no full speed test track in operation. it took maglev decades to get to full speed test tracks to be put in place, yet hyperloop is expected to do it in around 5 years, do you realize how foolish that sounds? And there are already plans by several companies to built a full speed test track. For example the hyperloop company hardt in the Netherlands plans to have built a 3 km track by 2022, just like another company plans to do in France. Most of the problems with hyperloop is with these tunnels, so it is rather normal that the first real test tunnel prototype take some time to get built, if these are successfull, they can speed up the building process in the future. He handed the job to students, ffs! This already shows your ignorance. Musk wants to promote the idea of the hyperloop system and because of this started a yearly contest, however a requirement of participating in this tournament is that the technology and designs used become public knowledge, usuable by anyone. Therefor we only see university teams playing part, who don't mind this requirement, but like the challenge, the knowledge the students can gain from it. The professional companies obviously are not going to let their proprietary knowledge become public property/open sourced and thus don't participate. The technology that will carry passengers has not been created! Again you seem to be focused too much on the competition, where passenger aren't central, rather the technology and speed is. And because of this teams focus now more on acceleration than usefullness due to the short competition track. This competition isn't any good indication of where the companies really stand. The pod that will carry the passengers isn't the difficulty, the propulsion and tunnel is. If anything runs before 2025 I'll be amazed I do expect longer test tracks (3-5km+) by 2025, however true passenger travel should not be expected before 2030 even if hyperloop is successful. Meantime, trains are making progress around the world You mean the thing that exists for longer than the car, tram, subway, airplane and even bicycle, which is essentailly almost only outlived by ships in largescale transportation methods? Who would have expected this. You are comparing a mature system with a completely new one. Also hyperloop isn't meant to replace trains, or rather not most trains, at best it would be long haul high speed trains that travel between major cities and don't stop between these. Its main focus though would be to replace (short to medium) continental flights between large cities. Hyperloop will die - it's several steps too far - the technology is not ready. Again, easy to claim, one I could have made about planes 100 years ago, which people actually did and which is why they focused on airships for a time instead. I don't really see any lack of necessary technology, the main question is, will they be able to deploy the technology in a way that is economical enough. Personally I'd expect a combination of somthing like boring tunnels with hyperloop to stand the best chance long term, since - it will be easier to maintain a vacuum, - tunnels normally are better protected in case of natural disasters like a flood or earthquake (I know, doesn sound logical, but it is apparently), - it doesn't need to care about aqcuiring land right/getting through urban area's, - no need to follow the geograpghy too much (shallower curves and gradients), - apparently the boring company has been able to reduce tunneling costs significantly (similar to the cost of highways) and usually the stations are part of the largest cost of a tunnel, less of a problem for the hyperloop. There might be some other advantages too, just like there obviously will also be disadvantages, but hey, this is the case for everything, including cars, ships, planes and trains. Again to be clear, I am not saying the hyperloop is a certain success, but there is nothing really that at this moment shows it will be a definite failure either, other than people's pre-conceived notions which they then try to find (stupid) reasons for.
1
Problem might be how to get the sewage into these tunnels, the deeper the tunnel, the deeper a linking system and thus more expensive. Also what if something happens, you can't easily reach the sewage tunnels and easily swap out parts. Interesting idea, but a lot of things to consider.
1
If boring company is succesfulln eventually it would almost certainly be used for these kind of things, but remember, these tunnels aren't larger, current high speed trains can't fit in it I think. And if a hyperloop company can make it work, I wouldn't be surprised that there would be a cooperation with the boring tunnel.
1
@Jehty_ Radiocentric also can be layed out out in a grid. A non-grid is more one with streets that bend a lot etc., essentially one that grew more naturally, adding streets where and when necessary without a bigger plan. And in a radiocentric grid you'll also in many cases not be able to go directly to your destination and you get a lot of traffic etc, in the focalpoint. All designs have their advantages and disadvantages, none is perfect or the ideal one, otherwise it would be adopted for new/groing cities/towns.
1
Why does it matter that people already though of this in the past as a science fiction/future concept, Musk is just trying to make it a reality.
1
The point would be that 'regular' cars can drive in it, ie. people get there car into the tunnel to avoid above ground traffic, they still need to have the rear view mirrors for regular driving. Also dedicated transport vehicles for these tunnels are unlikely to have rear view mirrors. As for a disabled cars with injured passengers, that only seems possible in case of an accident, we'll still have to see how often this happens and if necessary they'll create specially designed emergency vehicles and trained personnel, though again, the question is how likely of an occurance this would be. If you get injured passengers due to something not caused by the car, the car could just drive them to the nearest exit point (an emergency button might be nice) and maybe even raise an alarm beforehand. As for a disabled car in the tunnel without injured passengers, it probably would depend on how it is disabled, in most cases it would just be towed to the nearest exit most likely, though I don't really see many reasons as to why a car would have this happened. In all cases I guess there likely will be an emergency protocol clearing the tunnel and if on that location you have multiple tunnels (different routes or for extra capacity), cars would likely get redirected untill the tunnel is clear. Ofcourse there isn't just a great solution for these kind of problems, but that isn't really different from accidents above ground, which can cause massive traffic jams etc. and with the accident site not always easily reachable due to this traffic. I do think any car entering the tunnel most likely would need to be certified (ie definitey yearly check up etc), it helps that EV's have less things than can break and cause a car to crash/come to a standstill on its own. And automated systems tend to be safer, especially when they all are automated and thus no real unexpected behaviours happens.
1