Unmodified Tundra to pull 300,000 lb space shuttle

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: JavierG
Originally Posted By: synthetic_crazy
And now the most important question: Will 0W-20 Toyota brand oil be used?


Or will thicker be better in this situation?
28.gif
35.gif


Finally, a legitimate post. Darn good question (and still an impressive stunt). Which oil weight indeed?
confused.gif



It says this Tundra is "identical" to the one you'd find on a dealer lot, so I'd imagine that would go for the oil too.
 
I love how they say blah blah 300k lbs unmodified... blah blah rated at 10k pounds.

I see this as nothing but trouble, as toyota is implying that their truck can handle far more weight than it can/should on public roads, but some dufus will end up carrying way too much weight, kill themselves and others, and it will come to no good end.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Should be one heck of a quarter mile time. Using basic physics equations and assuming that all of the engine's 381hp are present at the wheels, and neglecting friction, the rig will do the 1/4 in 1 minute, 55 seconds at 15.4mph.


I am curious as to how you figured this one out. I especially liked how you are saying "neglecting friction". If I could neglect the friction, I could push the space shuttle with my bare hand!

Seriously, please show the calculations, it will be very interesting.


I'd like to know how he did it too, but that number
actually sounds fairly plausible to me. Then again, I've never
been particularly good at maths.
514404-roman_tee_hee.png
 
I hope this truck won't be sold to some unsuspecting customer without full disclosure of what it has been through. 30X rated capacity on a brand new truck doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

But good for them.
 
Hey, it's only going to tow one quarter of a mile, 1380 feet. This will take what, less than 5 minutes? Not even time to get the engine oil and transmission fluid hot.

What I wonder about is where the 300,000 pounds comes from. I have seen 100,000 pounds quoted several times as the weight of the shuttle as it was mounted on the 747 used to transport it on occasion.
 
Originally Posted By: 1999nick

What I wonder about is where the 300,000 pounds comes from. I have seen 100,000 pounds quoted several times as the weight of the shuttle as it was mounted on the 747 used to transport it on occasion.


150,000 for the shuttle itself. The transporter system is 27,500, the beams are 58,000, the dollies are 52,000 and they estimate 5,000 in misc weight.
 
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I hope this truck won't be sold to some unsuspecting customer without full disclosure of what it has been through. 30X rated capacity on a brand new truck doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

But good for them.


Oh, it's going to go on display at the Science Centre from what I saw in the OP, the "Super Tundra", pull of space shuttles!
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Should be one heck of a quarter mile time. Using basic physics equations and assuming that all of the engine's 381hp are present at the wheels, and neglecting friction, the rig will do the 1/4 in 1 minute, 55 seconds at 15.4mph.


I am curious as to how you figured this one out. I especially liked how you are saying "neglecting friction". If I could neglect the friction, I could push the space shuttle with my bare hand!

Seriously, please show the calculations, it will be very interesting.

OK!

381hp = 284kw = 284kJ/s
300,000lb = 136078kg
ke = 1/2 m*v^2, so v = sqrt((2*ke)/m)
If we add 284kJ of kinetic energy (381hp for 1 sec), it's moving at 0.06m/s, so it's accelerating at 0.06m/s^2.

r = 1/2 a*t^2 (r is displacement)
So t = sqrt(2*r/a).
Plugging in 400m, which is very close to 1/4 mile, and 0.06m/s^2 gives a total time of 115s.

And accelerating at 0.06m/s^2 for 115s gives a final speed of 6.9m/s, or 15.2mph.

However, it now occurs to me that, since it's sqrt(ke) in the first velocity equation, the second 284kJ added will increase velocity less than the first. Which means it'll be even slower than I calculated.
 
Since I'm better at Excel than I am at math, I used a computer to help me.

7986028118_23513bcd3e_b.jpg


So it would do the 1/4 in 7 minutes, 23 seconds at 3 mph. Does that look right?
 
So I want the manual advocates tell me that a manual would be
better than an automatic here. Because this is the kind of application where you want a constant slip torque converter. If this was a regular manual, it would go nowhere and you would burn the clutch out very quickly, or you would stall the truck.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
So I want the manual advocates tell me that a manual would be
better than an automatic here. Because this is the kind of application where you want a constant slip torque converter. If this was a regular manual, it would go nowhere and you would burn the clutch out very quickly, or you would stall the truck.


Simple for those who have ever driven a real manual.

Put the transfer case in 4L, the truck in first gear, take your foot off the clutch and give it a little throttle. On a quart mile pull like that you only give it a little throttle in first gear (no, you wouldn't shift).

Assuming Toyota will use a "real" 4WD with 4L it's almost impossible to kill the engine in first gear in 4L. With a load like that you don't want to build up any real speed; just creep along while the crowd admires the shuttle.
 
Pretty much. And a torque convertor, under slip, will make heat. Lots of heat. Efficency varies, but I recall seeing numbers from 4 to 9% loss, once above the stall speed. 1hp is 746W, so if you start dissapating say only 5hp into tranny fluid the heat really starts to climb.

Manuals are great, as long as the gearing goes low enough. Right now I'm trying to figure out how to move trailers around in my yard, as it slopes upward (while I'm trying to back up!) and my car lacks 4WD let alone 4LO. If it had a slushbox no problem creeping as slow as I wanted. As it is, for some reason VW made reverse a taller gear than 1st!
 
The article said it will replace the truck currently on display, presumably with appropriate signage touting it's great feat!

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I hope this truck won't be sold to some unsuspecting customer without full disclosure of what it has been through. 30X rated capacity on a brand new truck doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

But good for them.
 
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Since I'm better at Excel than I am at math, I used a computer to help me.

7986028118_23513bcd3e_b.jpg


So it would do the 1/4 in 7 minutes, 23 seconds at 3 mph. Does that look right?


Nice graph. Probably a pretty good estimate of the vehicle's performance towing 300k pounds. But still probably optimistic, as the truck will not put all 381 hp to the ground. But that's a good workout for 7.5 minutes and would be enough to test how well the vehicle cools. Can the engine put out full power for 7.5 minutes? No problem.
 
Oops, should have said 11.75 miles :-( So who will tell me who is doing the towing for the first 11.75 miles??

I need to recheck that math calculation. It looks plausible but something about is still bugging me. Pardon the pun, but "ignoring friction" is rubbing me the wrong way :-)

That tow vehicle has to provide enough torque to get this rig moving against the static friction first and then keep it rolling against the kinetic friction. Without taking frictional force in to account, there is really nothing which is opposing the pulling torque. If I "ignore friction" any non-zero pull would get it rolling.

Aaaaarggggg I used to be good at physics :-( This problem is even more interesting than the stupid 1/2pi computation problem we had some time ago!!
 
Nate's maths and graphs suggests that all the power output from the Tundra is used to accelerate the entire payload, that is why the velocity is increasing all the time till 450 seconds.

If static and dynamic friction is taken into account, the velocity line will start to plateau as friction starts to work against the available engine power. This will mean a longer time to achieve the quarter mile, and at a lower top speed.
 
Frankly, I think this is a stupid stunt. Why mess around with an American icon for the sake of selling a few trucks? Didn't the dummies in New York already run Enterprises wing into a bridge and then try and fix it with bondo? Not only is this stupid, it proves nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MolaKule
  • Locked
NASA and Mars Topics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Al
Back
Top Bottom