fizzle

I never said anything about not benefiting a corporation - you seem to have imagined that.

Some corporations have shit objectives, others do not.

There are loads of people who work for companies and really believe they're making the world a better place through their work.

You're trying to present an argument that you need to work for an AI company or whatever to put food on the table, but it just doesn't stack up. Plenty of people are not starving and are not doing that for a living.

Loads of people have jobs that align with their values.

There are innumerable employment options besides shitty employer or bust.

I'm not advocating for people to be unemployed, you made that up.

Loads of people have jobs that align with their values.

False dichotomy.

What do you want me to say?

"Its ok pet. Your kids will be forgive you."

"I chose a job that I find satisfying even though I could earn more if I sold out"

The maximum weight for a tractor-trailer rig in the United States is 80,000 pounds, 40 short tons or 36.36 metric tons.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Here in Australia road trains haul 90 metric tons of grain and fertilizer all the time, that doesn't include the weight of the trailers.

Regardless, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to illustrate - your example of a "streamlined vehicle" undoubtedly consumes a lot more diesel than your example of a vehicle which is not streamlined. Isn't that antithetical?

In terms of torque, EVs have a significant advantage.

Yes, but a "truck" with a 4 ton towing capacity obviously needs motors with more torque than those on a tesla.

The additional energy required to accelerate the additional weight up to speed isn’t that much of a problem as an EV will get that back with regenerative braking. Well, some of it.

As little as 5 to 10% on the highway, not particularly significant. Installing regenerative brakes on a trailer is a lot of additional cost and complexity.

It depends on the level of your objection I guess.

I don't know enough about physics or cars to really rebut you but this doesn't seem plausible to me.

I don't think aerodynamics are particularly relevant to towing? Prime movers (tractor trailers?) are about the least aerodynamic vehicle there is but they regularly tow more than 100 tonnes at highway speed.

If I had to guess I'd suggest the primary problem is the relationship between system weight of the vehicle and load, battery capacity, and the battery's weight. As in, if you want to be able to cart 1 ton for 200km then the additional battery requirement is another 300kg so that's really only an extra 700kg so you need more battery and heavier frame and so on.

Another problem I suppose, and I emphasize that this is supposition, is optimising motors for both torque and speed. The torque required to break inertia with lots of weight in sandy or muddy terrain.

I know this sounds really pathetic to say out loud now that it's a confirmed flop, but I never liked the look.