5 ms·
The Volvo page is so much better in my opinion. It's neat with decent information density. I'm not a fan of pages that try to do the whole dynamic immersive fu
by Unklejoe 6y ago
The Volvo page is so much better in my opinion. It's neat with decent information density.
I'm not a fan of pages that try to do the whole dynamic immersive full screen huge picture thing.
- TooCreative 6y agoThe Volvo page has a lot of text. But does it have information? On the Volvo page, I do not see a single piece of information before I scroll. Instead I see fluff like "We know that many transport operators work hard to reduce the environmental footprint..." On the Tesla page, I see four pieces of information right away. Acceleration, energy consumption, drag coefficient and that it has four independent motors.
- Someone 6y agoOn the other hand, I don’t think any of the numbers Tesla gives is of direct interest to those who buy such large trucks (with the exception of the D energy consumption, which implies “cheaper to operate”, but what fraction of a truck’s cost is spent on fuel?) Volvo’s ‘fluff’ at least hints at “this truck may be allowed to enter city centers” and “disability payments to drivers may go down”.
- kungtotte 6y agoRoughly 1/3 of the operating costs of trucking is the fuel, another 1/3 is wages, and then the remaining 1/3 covers everything else (facilities, maintenance, repairs, purchase cost of vehicles, insurance, etc. etc.). So ~33% of a truck's cost is spent on fuel.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]