Semi-tractors are unsung heroes of logistics. Most places in the world would not run quite the same without these lumbering giants. The majority of these big trucks are powered by hefty diesel engines that guzzle fuel. Meanwhile, fully electric semis aren’t yet ready to take over the world of hauling. What if there were a middle option? Canadian firm Edison Motors thinks it has the answer with a fleet of smart hybrid trucks that work somewhat like diesel-electric locomotives. These are basically the BMW i3s of heavy hauling, and they have so much potential.
All of the semi-tractors that you see hauling heavy loads every day are beautiful pieces of modern engineering. Most of these rigs have a pretty simple, yet proven formula. Up front sits a diesel engine that’s so large it could fit a handful of smaller engines inside of it. That lump of metal and fire produces a kind of low-end power that boggles the mind. Tie that engine into a transmission geared for hauling, some air brakes, a hefty frame, and a stylish cab, and you have the recipe for a reliable workhorse.
Over the years, experiments have been conducted to power trucks with turbine engines and hydrogen engines. Lately, there have even been big developments into full battery-electric semis. Perhaps more obscure than all of these is the diesel-electric truck, and it appears that Edison Motors is leading the charge.
The Canadian brand, which markets itself as being built for truckers, by truckers, has taken diesel-electric locomotive technology and trickled it down into heavy trucking. In an Edison Motors truck, you do get a big diesel engine. But for a twist, all that engine is doing is running at a constant speed as a generator, just like the prime mover does in a locomotive. And just like in a locomotive, the wheels are driven by electric motor power. Edison Motors says its trucks are more efficient and more environmentally friendly than a regular diesel semi, while also being more versatile than a pure battery electric. Even better, the truckmaker wants to reduce the expense and complexity of keeping a new rig on the road.
If this all sounds too good to be true, the wild part is that electrifying trucks isn’t anything new.
A Century Of Electrification
Some of the earliest trucks in history were electric. Over a century ago, milkmen in Chicago and Detroit drove all-electric trucks from Walker Vehicle Company for their deliveries. These trucks had lead-acid batteries and didn’t go very far, but they got the job done. Using electric power for last-mile delivery trucks remained a thing for decades after, too. Birmingham, England, introduced all-electric garbage trucks in 1938 and then used them for over three decades.
Even hybrid diesel trucks have been around for a while now. Two decades ago, Mitsubishi launched the Fuso Canter Eco Hybrid. This truck pairs a 150 HP diesel engine with a 54 HP electric motor that work in tandem with each other. This is known as a parallel hybrid and both power units can provide propulsion either independently or together. This is how a typical hybrid car like the Toyota Prius works. You cannot get a Fuso Canter Eco Hybrid in America, but they have been in service all around Japan since 2006.
Isuzu was right on the heels of Mitsubishi back then as it launched the Elf Diesel Hybrid Truck, and like the Fuso, it uses a diesel engine and an electric motor in unison like a typical hybrid car.
Also joining in on the mid-2000s hybrid madness was Mercedes-Benz. In 2004, the marque teased a plug-in hybrid Sprinter van. A typical plug-in hybrid is similar to a regular parallel hybrid vehicle, only now you can charge the vehicle’s battery by plugging in. Usually, plug-in hybrids have smaller batteries that can provide a limited number of miles of EV-only range. Then, once the battery depletes enough, it becomes a regular parallel hybrid.
While there are plenty of parallel hybrid truck experiments to talk about, there haven’t been as many series hybrid developments. In a series hybrid, the electric motor(s) and the internal combustion engine are entirely separate entities. The engine is just there as a giant generator while the electric motor(s) do all of the work. A more common term for a series hybrid today is the extended-range electric vehicle (EREV).
Perhaps the best-known EREV is the BMW i3 Rex, which has a small-ish battery and an electric motor, but it also has a small gasoline scooter engine to generate power once you deplete the battery’s stores. The original Chevy Volt was also marketed as a series hybrid. It was even boasted as being the world’s first series hybrid production car. General Motors eventually clarified that there were some situations in which the gas engine could assist the electric motor in propulsion. This has led to debate about what kind of hybrid the Volt really is. I’ve heard some describe the Volt as a “series-parallel” hybrid. However you look at it, GM baked some amazing technology into the Volt. More than one Volt owner has told me that they’ve gone 1,000 miles on a single tank because their cars can do most of their driving on electric power alone.
Series hybrids have been the most popular on the rails, where gigantic diesels inside of locomotives power electric motors, and in ships, where a similar concept is used. These sorts of hybrids don’t have large batteries to store the energy generated by the engines, but the engines and the motors are still separate entities.
Series hybrids have also been found in submarines and in NASA’s iconic Crawler-Transporters. Mining trucks have their own diesel-electric propulsion systems where large diesel engines funnel power into electric transmissions that have electric motors.
There have been some diesel-electric highway semi efforts. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy launched the SuperTruck program. In it, three teams competed to build the truck of the future. Cummins teamed up with Peterbilt and went up against the powerhouses of Daimler Trucks North America and Navistar.
Navistar and Kenworth displayed super slick diesel-electric hybrid trucks, as did Peterbilt and Roush with some help from Walmart. Even Volvo got in on the SuperTruck action. The SuperTruck program has looked promising with the truck makers reporting awesome gains in fuel economy, huge reductions in emissions, and quite frankly some really awesome styling. Yet, I must note that the SuperTruck program is still full of experimental prototypes. You’re not going to walk into an International dealer today and buy a streamliner diesel-electric semi-tractor that gets 16 mpg.
From Truckers, For Truckers
But that’s where Edison Motors might be able to help. The company gives a helpful retelling of its history:
Edison Motors was founded by Chace Barber and Eric Little who entered their business partnership in 2016 after graduating university and starting a trucking company with a 1969 Kenworth 5 axle Logging Truck (Old Blue). They began hauling logs in Merritt, BC. moved to hauling mining equipment into the Yukon and then expanded to moving drilling rigs in Alberta before returning back to BC Logging.
The business grew, more trucks were added and due to the frustration in serviceability of newer trucks the partners started rebuilding older trucks from the frame rails up to use in their own trucking operation instead of buying new truck. The business grew and expanded to hauling and installing power generation systems. In 2019 this added business aspect and growth to taking on the role of engineering and designing off-grid solar hybrid power systems. After their first successful project design and construction of a first nations community in northern BC Canada, Eric and Chace started to engineering process of a diesel-electric semi truck using the same principles.
After reserving a Tesla semi in 2017 and not receiving the truck for 4 years, in 2021 they decided to start building their own electric trucks because that was quicker than waiting for the Tesla delivery and resulted in designing of a more robust truck tailored to the logging and heavy vocational industries their trucking company operated in.
It’s not clear from the history above, but the original idea of Edison Motors was to create a logging truck that used as close to zero energy as it could. In the eyes of Edison Motors CEO Chace Barber, a third-generation logging truck driver, you would charge your truck before a driving shift. Then, you would drive that empty truck up a mountain mostly under electric power. From there, you’ll load up and drive back down the mountain. On your way down, the truck would use its regenerative braking to charge the battery.
Of course, perpetual motion machines aren’t a thing, so you will deplete the battery. Edison’s trucks still have large diesel engines to act as generators. But these engines are still smaller than what you’ll find in a typical semi.
In case you’re wondering, yes, “Edison” is a dig at Tesla, and Chace isn’t even hiding his intentions. When Chace spoke with the Vancouver Sun in 2022, he said: “Our company’s slogan is, Edison Motors: Stealing Tesla’s Idea, a nod to Thomas Edison stealing Nikola Tesla’s idea.” Slick.
Edison’s Train-Inspired Trucks
At first, the team at Edison took an existing truck (above) and modified it, from Edison Motors:
Carl is the name we gave to our prototype truck, he’s a 1962 Kenworth LW 924 made in Vancouver BC. Carl was originally purchased in Merritt BC in 1962 where it worked for 40 years as a logging truck. The name Carl is in honour of the father of one of our investors who was a truck driver that unfortunately passed away as we were starting the built, Carl was a truck driver his whole life and believed in our idea, we thought it was only right to name our first truck after him. It then sat for 15 years in a field rusting away before we decided to restore the truck and use it for our prototype diesel-electric hybrid.
We tore it right down, added new frame rails, air ride suspension, and a CAT 3306 Generator. We reinstalled 1 fuel tank for the diesel generator and added two large battery banks to each side of the frame rails like saddle tanks. For electric drive motor we used a Tesla model S motor. We welded up the differential and spider gears on, and adapted a drive shaft to it. From that it goes into a 4 speed Spicer Aux transmission to reduce the gearing, and into a set of 4.33 rear ends.
The Generator charges the batteries in about 20 minutes as the truck is driving and the truck can drive for 2-3 hours off the batteries alone. The result is (starting out on a full charge) this truck can drive 1000 km on 120L of fuel, which works out to 12L/100km (21mpg), which is absolutely incredible for a long nose Kenworth from the 1960’s. Before as a mechanical truck it got 40L/100km (6MPG) resulting in a 70% increase in fuel mileage on a bobtail.
It’s noted that due to the Tesla Model S motor and its output shaft, the truck wasn’t able to haul a load. When Edison tried, the shaft snapped off. But this truck was really just meant to be a proof of concept. Thankfully, Edison did upgrade this truck later, and it is used for hauling now!
The firm’s next prototype truck was named Topsy (above), and yes, that’s a dark reference to Thomas Edison’s elephant of the same name. This truck took the Edison Motors concept even further. Topsy is the Edison production prototype, and it’s a beast.
In explanation of how Topsy is built, Edison starts by saying that the truck’s frame rails go the whole length of the truck, right up to the hefty tow pin. Chace explains that there isn’t a drop leaf or any extra parts; the pin goes right into the frame. The idea here is that if your Edison truck gets stuck on the logging roads, your rescue rig will be pulling directly on the half-inch frame rails rather than any ancillary parts like the radiator’s mount.
The next really important part about the front end is the headlights. The lights themselves aren’t anything special, and Edison says that’s the point. The founders of this company know that truckers are fed up with high repair bills and truck manufacturers not making repair paths clear. Edison sees itself selling its trucks with parts lists, and the trucks are also designed to be repairable by the end user. Don’t like the headlights and want to do your own thing? Edison wants to give you the freedom to do that.
Moving back, the hood is a multi-piece arrangement. First, you pop open a butterfly door and then slide out a side panel. That gives full access to Topsy’s Caterpillar C9 8.8-liter inline-six diesel. Edison notes that the only thing this engine is doing is acting as a generator, not driving the wheels. As for the hood. Chace loves the narrow hood because you can sit on the fender while you’re working on the engine, which is nice. The narrower hood is also great for outward visibility in the cab, which itself has huge windows.
Edison also notes that the truck is supposed to be built however you want it. So if diesel isn’t for you, feel free to drop in a propane or CNG engine in there. Or, just remove the engine entirely and fill the engine bay with more batteries so you have an all-electric truck. Chace says the powertrain’s inverters do not care where the power comes from, thus, Edison’s concept is fuel agnostic.
The prototype truck is almost refreshingly simplistic. A simple exposed latch opens and closes the doors, and all of the air hoses are right there exposed in the cab and blocked by nothing. Again, the whole deal is to make a hard-working rig that you can fix yourself. Creature comforts are few in here.
Edison notes that its trucks will come with a display for the drive system. That part is nothing surprising, but the cool thing is the error readout. Chace says that these trucks have to be user-repairable. That part is non-negotiable. To help owners repair their trucks, the display’s error readout won’t just give you a code, but an explanation of what it is and give you a general troubleshooting tree. The ideal result is that you don’t have to bring your rig into a service center.
Moving to the back of the cab, Chace mentions that the controls for the dashboard are at the back of the cab. That’s why the dash can be super tiny. Sitting directly behind the cab is the truck’s power distribution unit. This can be moved to the frame, but for the prototype, it’s right on the cab for Edison to show off. Inside, Chace says, the distribution unit has fuses, contactors, and safety equipment. The unit’s job here is to keep the power flowing and safe.
In the middle is a box full of inverters, which take the power from the generator and put it into the battery. The inverters also provide power from the DC battery to the AC motors. Finally, in the box on the left, you have Danfoss units that take DC current from the battery and feed DC devices with it. The electric power steering, air compressor, and other equipment all run off of high-voltage DC power. The truck also has low-voltage lead-acid batteries for lights and other 12V automotive equipment.
The second heart of the operation is bolted to the frame behind the inverters, and that’s the 280 kWh 4C battery. Chace explains that this battery can discharge at four times its capacity.
He says Topsy’s battery is good for up to 1,500 HP. However, Edison has the prototype’s rear motor set to 700 HP to 800 HP. Chace notes that the real magic of the battery is handling high-load situations that the 350 HP diesel engine itself cannot generate enough juice for. So, we’re talking about hard acceleration with a full load or climbing a mountain. He continues that the battery is key to Edison’s claimed efficiency gains. What’s also pretty cool is that Edison’s battery has its own air suspension and huge skid plates, so it doesn’t get battered off-road.
Finally, we arrive at the rear, where Chace says that Edison partnered up with a supplier to create special beefy 52,000-pound axles, each with their own motors. Currently, Edison is quoting more than 350 HP per axle, hence why Topsy is rated to make over 700 HP. Chace also says these trucks are making more than 80,000 lb-ft of torque at the wheel compared to a regular diesel, which he says will make around 70,000 lb-ft of torque at the wheel.
Heavy Hauling
In late October 2023, Edison teamed up with YouTuber Rich from DeBoss Garage. In that video, Topsy pulled its first-ever load, a Sherman tank with a Chevy body on top. This load was a heavy one. The guys said the tank weighed over 50,000 pounds on its own, plus more than 20,000 pounds for the trailer. Add in Topsy’s rough 25,000 to 26,000 pounds of weight, and the guys were looking at an entire rig of 100,700 pounds.
Edison notes that it considers these trucks to be EREVs. They will run for two to three hours on EV power alone before needing to fire up that engine. But otherwise, the team thinks of it as bringing train technology to heavy trucking. If you have an hour, I highly recommend the watch:
How does this translate to production trucks? Edison began production in 2024, and its goal right now is to crank off five production trucks for some lucky early customers. Then it’ll take more orders and make more trucks.
As of publishing, Edison is selling a custom semi-truck and a pickup truck conversion. If you opt for a big rig, the company says you’ll have three axle options with three maximum output figures:
Single – 485 HP – Torque: 36,000 ft lbs
Tandem – 970 HP – Torque: 72,000 ft lbs
TriDrive – 1,455 HP – Torque: 108,000 ft lbs
The base engine is a 9.3-liter Scania inline five good for up to 470 HP. A second, more powerful engine will come from Cummins, but details haven’t been released yet. Buyers will also be able to spec their rigs with between 140 kWh and 280 kWh batteries. The drive system is joined with an Eaton 18-speed transmission and Meritor rear ends, and air suspension. The production trucks will have finished cabs in either sleeper or day configurations and more comforts than the naked cab of the prototype.
Options include custom builds, E-PTOs, hydraulics, fuel tank sizing of your choice, and of course, however much chrome you want. It’s a big rig, after all!
More Coming Soon
Edison is even working on scaling down the big truck architecture into a kit that you can install into pickup trucks. As of right now, Edison says the pickup kit should come with a 90 kWh battery and a Cat diesel engine to work as a generator. The output is currently estimated to be 500 HP. The DeBoss Garage team just built the first prototype for the kit and is testing it, thus far reporting efficiency gains of over 50 percent depending on the situation. We’ll check in on this one a little later to see how it’s progressing.
This conversion doesn’t appear to be for the faint of heart. You’ll be tossing out your Power Stroke, Cummins, or Duramax for a Cat. Then you’ll be tossing out your axles for Edison’s eAxles. Then, once everything is said and done, you’ll also have a pretty big box added to your bed.
Edison is saying to expect to see that one begin deliveries sometime this year. Price? The team is expecting to hit a target of “for a third to half the cost of a new pickup,” but also that the pickup kit will deliver 30 percent fuel savings compared to a typical diesel pickup truck.
The big question with all of this is fuel economy. For that, Edison says that its diesel-electric semi-trucks purchased for over-the-road use should see fuel savings of five to 10 percent. The company figures the logging industry will benefit the most. If you drive an empty truck up a mountain and then ride on the regen on the way back down, Edison thinks you could see fuel savings of around 70 percent.
For now, Edison is busy with a lot of projects. Its first five trucks will go into roles hauling oil drilling rigs, hauling logs, and one that will become a highway plow truck. The company says that a rough estimate for one of its trucks would be $450,000, or about $150,000 more than a comparable diesel. Of course, the draw, Edison hopes, will be that truckers will spend more to get a more fuel-efficient truck that’s easier to repair. As far as I’m concerned, this is just plain cool. I’ve long wanted to see train tech come to road vehicles, and now here we are.
I guess I’m the only one, but none of the photos show any emissions equipment. Their “topsy” truck literally shows a stack that runs from the turbo to the sky. I question whether their “pickup truck” conversion of a factory engine for a CAT+generator benefits anyone. I support Edison’s effort to do something different, but aside from a potential benefit of fuel consumption, and maybe CO2/mile, how does that balance with NOx and PM that their setups produce?
OEMs have jumped through hoops to meet the (former) EPA regulations on emissions and these guys jump in with a literal straight pipe from the turbo and are trying to claim some sort of efficiency increase? Keep it in your home town of Merritt, BC. I don’t need straight-piped trucks where I live
These are only legal as conversions of old trucks. Is a new CAT generator engine cleaner than an old mechanical injection diesel – probably. Not nearly as clean as a new on-highway Class 8 diesel.
That’s interesting considering the 5 trucks they’re currently building are brand new.
“New” trucks with what looks like a Peterbilt 379 cab and sleeper?
They’re building the new trucks this year. All they have is renderings right now, with their own cab.
I’m not sure if the EPA has an official opinion. But they have a letter from the Canadian government saying that the engine is regulated like a generator. It does not have to meet vehicle emissions regulations and it can use off road (non taxed) diesel.
That is certainly different than the EPA. In the USA a range extended EV has to have an engine that meets on-highway emissions.
Neat stuff but nothing new. If it was such a home run it would have been done in volume by now. As an early Hyliion investor, I’m pretty skeptical of this. They had a lot more engineering might and investment but couldn’t get to full commercialization. Of course they have pivoted to stationary power now so I’m a little bit hopeful. Time will tell. Maybe these guys have found the right niche. Good luck to them but I’m not holding my breath. Also – doing this on anything smaller is ridiculous. The upfront costs would be way too difficult for fleets to justify on top of relying on a startup for continued support.
Not perpetual motion. Trees grown at a high altitude have the potential provided by the height difference thanks to gravity. Load the truck at the top of a hill and turn that potential energy into electricity on the way down. Then potentially that’s enough to drive the empty truck back up the hill.
With a quick search I found this article about a truck doing exactly that in quarry
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest-ev-never-has-to-be-recharged
Only if it is 100.0% efficient
It doesn’t have to be 100% efficient if you take an empty truck up hill and then bring a loaded truck with more mass and therefor more potential energy.
See the link – this has already been done in real life with mining trucks.
You cannot count on that every single time though.
And trains. Australia is doing this with a mining “infinity” train. And you are right it doesn’t have to be 100% efficient so long as the train has sufficent battery capacity to get up the mountain on one charge and the regen system with the added mass of the load can fully charge the batteries before it gets to the bottom. It probably takes advantage of the mass of the load to change gears to spin the generator faster so it can charge faster on the way down that the batteries discharge on the way up. So let’s say it’s fully charged 3/4 of the way down the mountain it would still have an efficiency cushion.
https://www.railtech.com/rolling-stock/2022/03/04/australian-mining-company-works-on-infinity-train-using-gravity-to-regenerating-batteries/?gdpr=accept
You occasionally see funiculars that work sort of like this. If you have a stream/spring near the top, it can be piped to fill a tank under the top carriage, adding mass. This pulls the carriage down the tracks, and the cable pulls the other carriage up. At the bottom the water is empted out of the tank, while the top one is filled and the cycle can start again.
There’s a better explanation here: https://www.cliffrailwaylynton.co.uk/about/how-it-works/
Thank you. I had never heard of that before and it’s cool.
Brilliant! I never knew these existed and I love the simplicity.
I’ve been following Edison for a few years and have been impressed with what a couple of guys have been able to do in a tent in Chase’s parents backyard.
I think their focus on the vocational niche gives them a good chance of success.
Tow trucks, welding trucks, drill rigs and similar are small volume trucks that do a lot of idling that convert well to running off of battery most of the time.
Ah, my favorite pet peeve, talking about the Volt as if it’s somehow diminished by being smart enough to use the most efficient form of propulsion based on the circumstances. Why do you (the site, collectively) insist on continuing to do this? The Volt’s powertrain is objectively better than the i3’s and should be celebrated, not denigrated as “not an actual EREV”.
At this risk of being a nit-picky a-hole, I wouldn’t call that a “dig”. It’s more of a tip of the cap since they’re acknowledging that Tesla’s work was good enough to rip off. They’re casting themselves as the villain of the piece.
Annoying semantic arguments aside, this company sounds great! My biggest fear is that it all sounds a little too good to be true and there’s got to be some big gotcha (maybe that’s the extra 150k for a hyper-price-conscious market segment?), but I sincerely hope they’re able to bring more sustainable, serviceable trucks to the market.
Your pet peeve is factual reporting?
The series hybrid that wasn’t a series hybrid is not something invented by the Autopian in a fiendish plot to diminish the Volt’s reputation.
what? it’s mentioned to be factual, what about that statement diminishes anything?
Two things:
1. I LOVE the Chevy Volt. Always have and always will. That bit is not a hit against the car, just pointing out that GM goofed up the initial marketing.
2. If you dig into Edison’s marketing, you’ll find out that they used to sell “Fuck Tesla” merch. While I’m sure it’s all for the giggles and the theme, they’re not exactly complimentary to Tesla.
Setting aside the question of whether a vehicle that spends most of its life functioning as a series hybrid should be called a series hybrid, my issue is that it is always presented in the negative. For example:
“The Volt isn’t a ‘real’ series hybrid because the engine can directly drive the wheels.”
vs.
“The Volt is a more efficient version of a series hybrid where the engine can drive the wheels when it makes sense.”
One makes it sound like a bad thing (it isn’t) and the other makes it clear that it is a positive attribute of the car.
There’s this negativity around the Volt that has so permeated car culture that I don’t think people even realize they’re doing it, and as someone who wishes the Volt powertrain had been put in all the things I feel the need to point it out whenever I can. As annoying as that may make me. 🙂
The Volt was a futurewagen that deserved a lot more love than it got.
I saw the title and knew it was Edison Motors! I’ve been following these guys for a while now, it’s fascinating watching them grow. I am rooting for them bigtime.
I wish them the best, but I think they’re going to run into a lot of head winds.
I do think in unladen climb with laden descent applications like logging it makes a ton of sense and can definitely work out for them, but for more conventional “flat” terrain operation I’m a bit skeptical.
Much of this reasoning is that you’re hard pressed to get much more efficient at transferring power over mechanical means. Now I understand that there’s savings to gain by going to a smaller engine, but ultimately I suspect it’s going to be pretty well cost neutral and that’s before considering the payload penalty that is taken when a large battery is fitted. Alternatively, a parallel hybrid solution would be a better solution for long-haul trucks.
Otherwise I would have expected the industry to have adopted a similar concept ages ago; the technology has definitely been there. Simply put, the cost added versus potential efficiency gains just don’t pencil out for steady-state operation. We’ve seen the same thing in the ag industry. Concepts like replacing hydrostatic drives with electric don’t pencil out. The added cost of the electrical drive system outweighs what it can save the customer in fuel.
I also don’t think with their simplistic designs that they’re going to satisfy comfort expectations. Flat pane windows and steel body work are definitely easier to maintain, but they’re also terrible for NVH.
Long story short, I think they’re developing an excellent logging truck, but I personally think a lot of their loftier ambitions are just investor bait and won’t come to fruition.
These trucks don’t have steady state operation, and don’t have payload penalties from the battery.
If you pay attention to what they’re often talking about and in particular the partnership with Deboss garage it’s quite clear that they’re not only focusing on logging.
By eliminating the transmission and reducing the size of the motor, Carl weighs like 440 pounds less than stock. Canada also gives a 3300 lb allowance for electric trucks. So the conversion actually gained 3740 lbs of cargo capacity.
Carl has a 280 kWh battery. According to Edison each battery module weighs 490 lbs and has a capacity of 35 kWh. So there’s 3920 lbs of battery they added.
Just to cherry pick some rough numbers:
Eaton 13 speed: 716 lbs
Cummins NTC350: 4045 lbs
CAT 3306 generator unit: 4200 lbs
So yeah, around 561 lbs of weight saved by replacing the engine and transmission with a generator unit. Let’s just split our difference and say it’s 500 lbs.
So once you factor in the battery they added 3400 lbs of weight to the truck. BC allows for a 1500kg allowance (3300 lbs), but that’s only for zero emissions trucks. Since Carl is a diesel hybrid it actually doesn’t qualify for that at all.
https://edisonmotors.ca/about/faqs/
I’m going to have to call BS on their FAQ for a couple reasons.
While they do cite the weight savings of diesel-electric, Carl is a diesel-hybrid.
https://edisonmotors.ca/trucks/carl/
They kind of contradict themselves because then they follow-up as saying the truck is registered as electric. If it has a diesel engine it doesn’t qualify as an electric truck; full stop. Any verbiage I can find from BC on the matter specifically states zero-emissions or in other words: fully electric.
They do seem to double down on the weight neutrality, but the math just doesn’t pencil out. While a smaller engine is lighter, the generator head eats into that savings (even considering the removal of the transmission) and the batteries eat into the rest. I did not consider the removal of one fuel tank which would be at most about 150 gallons of diesel or about 1050 lbs of fuel.
I still don’t see where they could have actually reduced the weight of the truck overall, but maybe my numbers for the generator unit are inflated (could be the weight of the entire sled which includes framework and cooling package). Even with that being the case I’m coming out to 1800 lbs added weight with the conversion once we consider fuel removed. The weight I used for the generator can’t be off by that huge a margin.
All of that being said, I do have to wonder if some of the search results I did got crossed up. Double checking things I can’t find for certain what size battery Carl has while I can find that Topsy has a 280 kWh battery. It seems likely that Carl could have a much smaller battery than I had originally stated.
I admittedly know nothing about big rigs, but why is it so important that truckers be able to fix their own rigs?
Yeah, it seems to make sense as a car owner, but aren’t these fleet-managed? And would a lone wolf owner-operator really be dropping close to a half million on a rig? Would it be worth their time to wrench on it? Is it really a good idea to monkey around with high voltage systems?
Edison’s whole business strategy seems to be from just the driver’s perspective (loggers, specifically) without taking into account a service and support revenue stream.
I don’t know how that market works in the USA, but where I live, most truckers own their own rigs and keep them for 10+ years. Being able to make small repairs on the side of the road, fix something on truck stops or having any shop be able to fix the vehicle without specialized tools is a huge deal.
Industry wide it isn’t important for owners to be able to wrench on their own trucks. In the USA less than 10% of on-highway trucks are owner operators. As you said, most trucks are fleet owned and when they need service or repairs they go to a mechanic – either the fleet shop or a contracted network. Many large fleet sell their trucks at 4-6 years old when the warranty expires. Manufacturers also sell a host of extended warranties.
So yes, this seems focused on a small segment of owner operators and many of those people doesn’t like EFI let alone the idea of working with high voltage.
I imagine that, either way, it reduces downtime. If something is fixable at home by amateurs, it will be quicker and easier for pros to fix. The software accessibility means greater freedom and reduced expense for any customer.
Lots of loggers in BC and Canada in general. Logging happens in remote areas. Getting parts out to you is a chore in itself, getting a mechanic could cost thousands of dollars, even before they start working on the truck.
Because of this, easy to fix in the field is a huge advantage. There’s a reason bush truckers tend to have older trucks that are simple to work on.
If you are able to go to a local auto parts store (usually within an hours drive or so) to pickup a replacement part vs scheduling a service call by a tech that may be today or may be 3 days from now and cost probably 4x as much, it makes a big difference. There’s a reason that farmers and others are so frustrated by John Deere software locking the parts, on top of the fact that John Deere parts usually cost 3-4x as much as others.
The Edison guys are slick I’ve been following them for years. They realized north American companies were run by rabid MBAs who have no idea how to do business let alone get manufacturing going and went to China where they can actually get stuff. Now they are in a town that doesn’t bother them where they can build what they want. They started working with a lot of the vocationally truck people in Canada between that, China, their own engineering and integration they seem to have to have it down. On top of that they are showing the public the dirty secrets that north American companies don’t want to work with start ups and don’t really have much to offer. They went to China and had no issues. Maybe those people in the industry that said get the MBAs out knew what they were talking about after all .
A bit earlier to start claiming the MBA’s don’t know how to run a business. The primary customer for truck manufacturers are large fleets that dominate the business. Making a few prototypes is a whole lot different than tooling up to make a production product.
They seem to be focused more on the vocational side low production. And it sounds like they will mainly be working with suppliers I don’t think there will be much tooling up on their side. I guess that could change in the future but it sounds like they wasn’t to focus on off the shelf components. If you look at equipment in the Chinese market it’s all stuff that’s basically off the shelf put together. It used to be that way in the US and Canada to an extent but there is more money in proprietary parts.
There is a MASSIVE amount of tooling required to build a production line to build vehicles.
I guess they could aspire to be a low volume manufacture stall building trucks from a pile of parts. It could be a viable business but won’t ever be more than a rounding error in the Class 8 market.
So again, it is a bit early to claim MBA’s don’t know how to run a business.
Right now from what I’ve gathered it’s just assembling from suppliers. They have a company making their frame rails they have one making the cabs. They are using Chinese eaxles, the last I saw Chinese generators, Scania engines. Their power electronics and batteries are coming from China. They have a Canadian company working on wiring harness and programming but maybe doing more of that on their own. Maybe go watch Muroe on the other thing.
I remember watching the Hammer Head Eagle-i Thrust episode of Top Gear years ago. That was the one where they made their own ‘car’.
They ended up with an electric powertrain but an onboard generator (literally one you would buy from a hardware store) to keep it charged.
And I thought at the time, I know this is for comedy but this actually seems like a great idea!
Yeah, but didn’t they eventually kill the Stig’s Vegetarian Cousin in that one?
More power to these folks! Doing innovation the right way, by actually building it and thoroughly thinking everything through from a user in the field perspective. The only thing I could see they need to address, and this is because they are not (yet) touch screen folks, is to provide a rest for the hand reaching for the screen. Waving your hand around in space to touch the right spot on the screen is prone to touching the wrong spot. Have somewhere to place the palm of your hand to stabilize it, and then the fingers can do the walking.
I’d like to preface my comment by saying that I do genuinely want this company to succeed, I love the passion from the founders, and the trucks do look kinda cool.
However… I’ve worked on similar projects at a couple of companies, and I see some similar lessons that Edison has yet to learn.
Overall, I don’t think they will succeed doing what they are planning. But they might have success if they really stick to the niche stuff (i.e. logging trucks).
What issues will they run in to?:
-Zero, and I mean ZERO OEMs are interested in working with, or supplying any components (frames, cabs, etc) to startups like this anymore.
-The cab… a very common misconception is that most of the cost of engineering, tooling, producing etc. is tied with a proven frame + powertrain. This is false, it actually costs a shitload more to design, engineer, tool, and produce a brand new cab design from the ground up AND still maintain the level of safety, comfort, technology, etc.. as a modern cab from any big truck OEM.
-If they are going to produce kits to use on other trucks (especially a RAM, Ford, GM in the Class2-5 space). Those OEMs are not going to share the CAN bus data to make that shit work. By that I mean that Edison can certainly make a Ram 4500 run and drive… but without the CAN Bus DBC files… the ABS won’t work, cruise control, maybe airbags, and plenty of other systems just won’t operate or operate correctly. With OTA and increasing concerns overy cybersecurity in vehicles (rightfully so!) OEMs really don’t want to share CAN Bus data with companies like this, and they don’t have to.
There are other reasons, these are just the first/biggest I can think of at the moment.
Disagree with me all you want, but there is a graveyard with other companies who have thought similarly.
How can they succeed? Focus on the realities, carve out a niche (super specific trucks for specific vocational stuff like logging, mining, oil/gas, etc.), and focus only on that.
Thank you so much for the insight! Based on their first customers, I do think your expectation of Edison serving a niche is probably correct. It seems these rigs would work best in vocational roles, which is probably why the crew hasn’t spent a ton of time marketing this to over-the-road truckers.
Your note about the pickups is also why that section is short. I want to see that evolve a bit more. If you saw the linked video, you probably saw that the test truck is a 2nd gen Ram, so pretty old-school.
Deboss Garage (who is doing that 2nd gen ram) will be moving to an L5P duramax afterwards, so I am excited to see how that goes. I suggest that everyone give that channel a look.
I met Rich and Aaron in person and made an appearance in one of the videos – they are the most down to earth folks and their big goal is to show that anyone can do this sort of thing. You can bet they will do their best to get it all working, and then show you how to start.
I’ll check it out for sure. Again, my comments weren’t meant to stifle a company, they were meant to provide guidance. I do wish them the best.
And hey! You never know, maybe they want some outside consultant assistance (shameless plug lol)
I really hope that folks in the community like yourself can engage and make this all more workable on newer platforms. If I knew more, I’d be in.
Send Deboss and Edison an email just for S&G – an autopian member being involved would be a an excellent viewpoint to add.
Folks have already got a lot done with say alfaOBD and forscan so I have high hopes that more can be cracked.
100% correct on what you wrote.
I’ll also add that the stationary generator engines they are using aren’t legal for on-highway use in the USA. If they want to make a new 2025 truck they will need a road legal engine complete with DEF and a DPF.
They seem to be focused on converting old pre 2007 emission trucks. That could be a niche business but those trucks are rapidly aging out and heading to the scrapyards.
I’d estimate that the cost (no profit included) based on previous discussions with suppliers:
eAxle plus inverter ~$10,000
Cummins 2.8 ~$10,000 (maybe more)
60kWh of LFP batteries, and all associated cabling, junction boxes, etc.. $7,000
Other controllers, inverters, DC-DCs, etcc.. ~$2,000
Additional framework for all hardware ~$1,000
Shipping costs of the whole kit ~$1,000
So with no NRE costs (especially on the controls side, which is big), no labor costs, no warranty reserves, and no profit margins included, we are looking at a kit that will easily be over $30,000.
If they can’t do this kit properly on a modern work truck (Ford, GM, Ram) because of CAN issues, and they have to focus on old trucks from the 90s/early 2000s….how big do they think that market REALLY is?
And how many people in THAT group are willing to risk $30k-$50k on an unproven powertrain in a 1999 F-450 that is beat to death already and has well over 200k miles on the clock.
^They need to focus on this analysis, and be very honest with themselves.
The Class 8 trucks do look cool as hell though…
Would definitely recommend anyone to check out their YouTube channel. Chace himself does most of the videos and it’s been great watching their progress over time and hearing directly from them what their plans and goals are. I believe in their philosophy of serviceability and common parts usage. If a passenger vehicle company held the same vision I’d be on board.
The 4C behind the 280KWh capacity already means what comes in the next sentence. If we knew the DC Voltage of the batteries, we’d find the Amphours and the max. Amps to be drawn.
Correct. We have a policy of explaining what might not be known by a random person reading this, and “4C” doesn’t really convey much. That’s why we’re sometimes a bit redundant. Sorry! 🙂
ah yes, of course! :counts on fingers:
The best thing about Edison is how transparent they’ve been about the whole process. Regular updates on their youtube channel that anyone can see, and honest talk about where they’ve gone wrong and how they fixed it.
It’s hard for people to claim vaporware when they actively have videos of them hauling logs and actually testing the equipment.
“The reason why we have a butterfly hood, is that it’s cool” -Edison Truck Guy
Can’t argue with that logic.
We need more “because it’s cool” in automotive design
Cool how they’re emphasizing serviceability, hopefully puts the big automakers on notice
Yes, more of this please
From the very beginning of product design we have manufacturing engineers, service, quality, plant reps, etc in our mock-ups. Even when it is still in the digital phase and even 3D printed physical parts aren’t available yet. I can’t count how many time I’ve had to tell design engineers to make all the bolts to install something the same diameter and length or point out that there isn’t enough clearance to put a socket on a nut.
Designing a vehicle is a series of tradeoffs there is a bunch of components that have to fit into a limited amount of space. However, it is in the company’s best interest to make it easier to assemble (saves labor in the plant) and repair (saves warranty labor cost at the dealer). However, sometimes serviceability and cost are at odds. Combining components together saves money. Making a potted and soldered circuit board saves money even if that means that if it fails in the future the entire board has to be replaced.
Even then swapping the whole assembly can save money. Our vehicles are meant to be serviced in a shop, with a fully trained tech, with factory tools and instructions. Our customer is the fleet that owns the truck that is primarily concerned about how long a warranty repair is going to take and when that truck is going to be back on the road. Every day in the shop is a thousand or more dollars in lost revenue. So swapping components can be cheaper – especially when we are talking labor rates over $100 per hour. You can spend $500 in labor to replace a $0.50 cent part.
I get the frustration though. I was cursing the engineer that decided to but the ATF filter in my Acura above and behind the transaxle attached with a few hose clamps. That was lots of fun to change when I can only get 1 hand in from either above or below. I’m going to bet the factory manual had a better way to do it if I had access to a lift – likely going through the wheel well. Which wasn’t really an option for me as a previous owner did an underbody rust coating that has covered all the fasteners that hold in the wheel well / splash guards.
I love Edison Motors! One thing to note is that they are very much pushing at the heavy load category of trucking, not the long distance shipping container highway hauling. Hence a complete lack of regard for aerodynamics (Who cares about aero when you’re going 20 mph down a logging track?) That lets them optimize durability, reliability, and fix-ability.
In a modern world where so many of our production capabilities are consolidating under fewer and fewer mega-corps, it is awesome to see new companies looking to carve out roles in specific places.
So excited to see an article about Edison. I’ve been following them for a few years. The 3/4-1 ton kits they are working on are awesome too! If money were no object, I’d love to stick one of their systems in my bus.
One day, after a terrible night out my i3 Rex found a strange mask in the weeds floating along the Hudson river. It took the mask home, put it on and turned into this.
This is great stuff! I wish them lots of orders and much success! Being able to advertise cleaner logging has to be some benefit. Those vehicles have to get just plain terrible fuel economy given their use. It must be terrible on brakes and transmissions too. I wonder how soon an operator would be able to recoup the $150k price premium. 70% less fuel used plus less routine maintenance needed seems like a great thing for fleets.
I imagine that the vocational applications — where the supply chain for something like diesel fuel is long — means that the fuel costs are significantly higher. A gallon of diesel in the far Canadian north is way more expensive than one at your local green-handled pump.
Would be interesting to see if Edison starts to talk about total lifecycle costs with, say, a set of solar panels to charge the trucks vs supplying the diesel for 10 years.
Good point about lifecycle costs. Operator comfort as well, not needing to listen to a roaring diesel all day every day. EV’s are also excellent about delivering the exact amount of torque needed, so less fatigue needing to shift and deciding what gear to be in next.
Oh I would love a series set up in an old power wagon please. We need more of these. People tend to wig out at the idea of an EV firetruck or school bus etc. and with a big diesel in the front they may calm down.
They’re building an Canadian ww2 International truck right now
Assuming this ever ends up as a real product you can buy, is there any reason you’d need to start with a diesel truck? It seems like saving the $12,000 up front by going gas would pay for a decent chunk of the conversion.
The fuel systems for diesel and unleaded are different so that would be why they quoted diesel to diesel swap. But the question is since it is a genset not a driving motor would you be able to get away with pink diesel vs highway?
The tax man doesn’t care how you’re burning the diesel, only where you’re burning the diesel.
I suppose there’s actually nothing really stopping you from starting with a gasser. It’s my understanding that the kit would have everything you need for the conversion.
That may just be a nod to the scarcity of gas engines in classes 4-6. I doubt this is targeting a 1-ton given the weight involved if they’re using a Cat C7 or similar.
That is pretty quickly changing in the Class 4-6 market for commercial trucks used in the city. School busses, ambulances, utility trucks, box trucks, wreckers, etc. Anything were steady stop and go driving plays havoc with the DPF systems.
You can also save about $10K by going with something like the Godzilla vs the Powerstroke in a Ford F450 – F650. That pays for a lot of gas combined with lower maintenance costs and the fact that the average price of gas is less than diesel and has been for years and years.
Heck, even Cummins is coming out with a 6.7 gas engine for the MD market.
The Octane is a stout engine – we will see how it sells.
Keep in mind that the resulting truck still needs to meet the relevant emission standards for the year it was built. If you start with a modern truck that means it has to pass the 0.2 g/hp-hr NOx standard, going to 0.035 g/hp-hr for 2027 (assuming the EPA doesn’t decide to stop regulating emissions). There aren’t any really good procedures for how a series hybrid like this would be certified, but anyone who does this becomes the manufacturer and is subject to criminal charges if it doesn’t meet the standards. This kind of conversion really only works under US/Canada law for old trucks that predate the stricter standards (so pre-2004).
To play devils advocate, how would anyone know if I had done this to my privately owned truck?
Vehicles over 8500 GVWR (and for that matter, anything powered by diesel) don’t need regular emissions testing where I live (not sure if they do anywhere)
On-highway commercial vehicles are subject to inspections and emission testing on the side of the road. CARB is also starting “Clean Truck Check” in 2027 that will require commercial vehicles to be emission tested on a regular basis.
Some places also have roadside sniffers that will then flag a dirty truck to be pulled over and checked.
Personal vehicle – that would work the same as any other mods. If Edison sells non-compliant kits I suspect CARB and EPA would go after them just like they have for companies selling delete kits or illegal turners.
I’ve kept up with the Edison project for a few years and am happy to see it tipping over the edge of fruition. Diesel-electric EREVs have always been “peak hybrid” to me for 10-15 years. I crow for them whenever I can, but (i’m guessing) the system expense is too high for it to be worthwile for most light duty cars.
That all said, would daily.
What’s on the back of that (gorgeous) blue wrecker? It looks like a propane grill styled to look like the USS Enterprise.
If they make models of these and you buy them all up and don’t tell us I’m going to be very cross. I want that wrecker and snow plow/dump configuration, ugh I love them
It looks like a rotator crane boom/tow rig with side fairings, which a lot of them have nowadays.