Tesla Semi
tesla.com
tesla.com
* What happens when a wheel seal goes? Do I have to remove all that ridiculous plastic on #2,3 axels??
* What happens when a tire blows? Is it going to destroy all that plastic and take out a few more tires in the process?
* Why all the glass? I've spend entire days replacing windshields for a 12 or so truck shop which generally come in two (drivers and passengers), the Tesla semi would require a crane and expensive replacements.
* Why is there no bumper or frame attachment points? Bumpers save the truck from damage, no one wants to buy $xxxxx front end, lights, etc when a deer in the bushes jumps into the middle of the road.
Honestly from my point of view it seems Tesla tried to apply personal EV to a semi. Did they do any research from tractor shops or mechanics? There is a HUGE reason tractor/trailers are easy to service.
http://www.truckingoffice.com/2012/interesting-trucking-indu...
Do you think you've just pointed out something that never occurred to him? Do you think if you could share your comments with him, he would stop and stare at you blankly and say "Shit. You're right."
You haven't just deflated the plan behind this entire, multi-year undertaking with your 5-minute analysis, as if you know more than all the engineers working at Tesla. The tone you're taking is just ridiculous.
Is that why model 3 production is going so well?
Let's try this perspective instead:
"Decade-old electric car company moves up plan for mass production of new affordable long-range sedan by 2 years"
And then ask ourselves, after moving it up by 2 years, does a 3-month delay mean "things are going badly"?
If I say I'm going to leap 500 feet, and then I leap 450 feet, do you say I failed?
does it matter though?
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4122890-tesla-approaches-te...
Yes, that's what the word failed means.
I think that's the point the OP above is trying to get at.
The consequence of not living up to an expectation depends on what's riding on that expectation. For a company trying to live up to a valuation higher than companies producing orders of magnitude more vehicles, I think it matters.
I think OP is talking about the big picture, there will always be issues like the on with the production.
Amongst Model 3 fiasco Solarcity too currently has issues.
The idea has been arouns for a long time and there have ben dozens of attempts of course, just as flying cars, autonomous cars, real A.I, space elevators.
Concept an execution are vastly different animals, it is at least 1000 times more difficult to achieve resuable rockets than to have the idea and at least 100 times more difficult than to try it.
The project got taken over by NASA and the budget cut before being axed. You really do sound a bit too fanatical and should probably question more instead of accepting companies as entirely revolutionary.
Yep, SpaceX has barely innovated at all. Their contributions to space flight are not really of note.
Lots of stuff has been test or tried before, but bringing things from idea to production ready with the efficiency required and cheap production is fantastically impressive.
You can claim 'it is not basic research' or whatever, but the reality is that they are pushing the envelop on so many topics at the same time that they are leafing all competition in the dust.
Tesla makes cars. We've known how to make cars for a while now - even electric cars. What was critical for Tesla was the vision: to see that we were approaching a tipping point where battery technology and cost would make a fully- (and only-) electric car feasible, and the strength of mind and purpose to ignore and/or out-think peoples' legacy objections and misgivings - e.g. with the Supercharger network. There are some Musk-ian details that are advances, such as the single integrated computer system, but that's a relatively small part of the whole.
In contrast, yes, SpaceX (just!) makes rockets, and yes, we've known how to make rockets for a long time. But they have done some things that the rest of the rocket industry haven't even got close to. Firstly, they've revolutionised the process and cost of producing a rocket in this class, by insourcing so much of it, and rethinking the necessary components and technology. Secondly, they've taken the concept of re-use and made it orders of magnitude cheaper (versus, what, the Shuttle?) than before, to the extent that it has/will completely turn the industry on its head. And the techniques and technology they've pioneered to facilitate this --not least the ability to land a 70m rocket upright on a robot barge floating out at sea-- are genuinely, truly revolutionary.
I generally like what Musk is doing and think that Tesla is doing pretty great work, but he's not perfect and the pain points people are discussing in these threads are in no way unfounded. It's better to listen to the feedback and concerns in order to improve, rather than just fellating God-Engineer Musk and proclaiming his infallibility.
Pressing a mechanical button or two should easily disassemble the glass gracefully. At the same while the glass is fixed it should ideally be immune to damage.
The maintenance reduction basically only related to the motor itself. And, supposedly the "nuclear blast proof" windshield. A collision with a deer probably be much, much more expensive compared to a truck with a safari grill or plow mounted for safety.
Design and maintenance procedure remains the same, maintenance interval drastically increased.
According to the article, most commonly these are not used for regenerative braking, the energy is wasted as heat instead.
Eddy current brakes can be used for regenerative braking if there's an electric drive train (and high power electronics to handle it) but more typically the energy is just wasted as heat in a cooled resistor grid.
Mechanical/hydraulic braking can be used to spool up a flywheel and this was used in Formula 1 in late 2000's (now they use electrical regenerative braking instead).
Which of these techniques is commonly used in trucks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarder_(mechanical_engineeri...
Originally, it is right that retarders were introduced to just having a non-destructive brake by just wasting the energy. That was around the 1980s. This was just to save maintenance cost as brakes were a big part of that costs.
The trucking industry is about costs and every little penny you can safe. So, years ago it started: Why do we waste that energy and do not re-charge the battery with that, because that reduces load from the generator and that will reduces fuel consumption?
Retarders have a huge impact in costs when your are counting miles. Retarders are having the disadvantage you can't brake to full stop with them. That's why they never worked in cars, because they are always additional to conventional brakes. So they add complexity and weight, both of which you want to reduce in cars.
Is the energy from braking really so small that it can't even fully charge the starter battery?
Honest questions. I figured that since regenerative braking in cars seems to double fuel efficiency, that order of half the power used to accelerate was recovered and I would have thought that was a very large amount of power to store.
Or is it because of the nature of long-haul trips? I know hybrids have much less advantage on the highway, maybe for long-haul trips the ratio of energy lost as air friction to energy lost in braking is vastly different.
I believe the normal way to handle this scenario is to just fall back to mechanical braking.
Potential energy lost by a truck going 10 m (vertically) downhill: 40 000 kg * g * 10 m = 4e6 J.
Capacity of car starter battery: 40 Ah * 12V = 400 Wh = 1e6 J. Let's guess a truck battery has 4 times the capacity of a car battery, so 4e6 J to full charge.
That's just down one small hill and all subsequent braking energy for the entire trip is wasted.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09/this-cement-quarry-dump...
(I don't think you would call a vehicle with mechanical KERS system a "hybrid", although it technically is as there are multiple propulsion systems in the vehicle.)
It is always the question of what type of truck you are running. Do you just have storage goods, or do you have goods that need refrigeration? In the later you need energy to power that. As your truck does not know in advance what kind of trailer will be towed (connected, what is the right word?) the truck needs to be prepared.
Yes, extra power is dumped. But that is true for any kind of vehicle.
> Or is it because of the nature of long-haul trips? I know hybrids have much less advantage on the highway, maybe for long-haul trips the ratio of energy lost as air friction to energy lost in braking is vastly different.
Actually, Hybrid is very good concept for long-haul. Because on highways you can do coasting (sailing as we say in German) very efficient when you are in cruise control. Because with all the little hills up and down at the same speed, hybrid takes its full advantage.
(Just being pedantic)
We won't know until it ships, but the front looks plasticky/crumble-zone-ey, and I'm not sure if Tesla would settle for a simple ladder frame.
That seems like a meaningless claim without size and distance from the blast.
The only point is that it's stronger than normal glass, which is backed up with the video comparing the two different types of glass in a more realistic scenario.
If you take someone with you, you don't want to sit him/her to sit behind you. You want them to sit next to you. If you are on the road in the city, you have often colleagues with you, like in a moving company and alike. Such trucks are used in construction work where things damage easily because someone else crashes in your truck. No assistant in your truck will prevent that.
Honestly, it seems they may have talked to some friends or their delivery companies, but not with companies from the industry.
Just take a look, the very same long haul truck is also used by the construction workers. Only the the cabin is a little bit shorter.
Definitely feels like an intentional step towards "don't worry, Tesla will be driving these for you soon anyway".
5m to the explosion?
10km to the explosion?
What warhead? 10kt, 10Mt?
Supernova would be underestimating the power of your fist. Truly think about the history of the energy of your system!
… but actually breaks easier than the iPhone 8 glass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vHCBwJVeO4
I've dropped my case-less iPhone X 5 feet onto bathroom tile and not even a noticeable scratch afterwards.
(German Consumer report: iPhone X is most brittle of all iPhones)
the semi: 1. costs much more than an iphone, which we're to assume accounts for the expensive windshield. 2. the windshield can be as thick as your attitude.
Metals arent particularly strong. Glass, plastics, etc are all stronger (yield strength). But boy are they ductile, and very tough. Iron can take, literally, an infinite number of loading cycle.
You can make ceramics, glass, etc better but the overall performance package of iron is very hard to beat.
If I were to dismiss SpaceX as 1950s technology with modern electronics and engine technology the soviets mastered in the 60s would you be annoyed?
So why dismiss the truck manufacturing industry? Semis are very thought out solutions for their domain.
I have no idea how automotive glass differs, but I imagine the difference in weight and thickness requirements does impact things a lot.
This reminds me of the unfolding problem of sun roof explosions.
It might be able to withstand an atomic glass but it's still going to crack if a big enough stone his it at 70mph.
I'm not saying that Tesla windshields are vulnerable from that, in fact, most windshields aren't. However it shows that resisting a blow from a hammer that is neither sharp nor hard is not a conclusive test.
The difference is in how they break. Laminated glass will generally crack, but otherwise stick together, while tempered glass will shatter, but into less-sharp pieces (to minimize the hazard of broken glass).
I don't know how much of this matters, but it stands to reason that what works on a side window might not be the same as what works on a windshield.
The full stream is only on YouTube in pirate form so far, so I don't expect links to last. The Tesla channel itself doesn't feature it yet.
1. it makes changing a tire more complicated, and time is money, the longer it takes to change a blown tire the higher the penalties
2. when a semi tire goes, it goes hard, as GP noted with this arrangement the cowling will probably shatter, requiring a replacement (not just a replacement tire) and the pieces taking out other tire. If the cowling does not break, it will funnel bits of tire straight into the next tires, blowing all of them.
These covers could be useful, if they were made for containment. Requires something like kevlar that can stretch and absorb the impact.
... it's usually because the company was too cheap to buy anything but retreads.
DOT HS 811 060 is the study you should Google.
Sorry, not buying it.
Electric motors are brutally simple. So first that means they break down less often, second it means they're less complicated for the mechanic to figure out what the problem is.
And that's before the straight to technical advantages. Take braking. In a normal truck you turn speed into heat by rubbing brake pads. This gradually destroys the pads, so they're a consumable. But an electric truck turns much of the speed back into electricity instead. The pads get much less wear, you replace them less often.
Also, your comment is ironically pretty dismissive.
As an expert, do you think that the sporadic time/money cost of changing a tire could offset a significant reduction in fuel cost or trip time? How expensive would a tire change have to be to outweigh, say, a (conservative) 30% reduction in fuel cost?
https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/tesla-s... ? I'm not sure what you mean. Looks about the same as the linked page to me.
> nor does it have near zero clearance between the cab and trailer which would prevent articulation, and nor does it have near zero ground clearance.
https://i.imgur.com/cECtzId.png https://i.imgur.com/EPIchQz.png
Ground clearance seems smaller because of how huge it is.
In the reveal the first truck does have the covers over the wheels, the second one doesn't. Check the livestream at about 3:00 [0]
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a12771645/t...
[0]: http://www.renault-trucks.co.uk/media/image/nouvelles-gammes...
[1]: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/wp-content/uploads/2011/0...
https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/16vmzp/why_are_americ...
Seeing as you still need to do a pre-trip inspection, I assume they swing out of the way pretty easily.
Having some tough glass though as they promoted would be really nice on an RV, I'm jealous.
I'd bet those fairings are needed to get the low cD, and that without them the economics are nearly as competitive. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on having designed for blow outs as that seems rather basic.
500 miles of range at 2kwh a mile is a 1000kwh battery which is 10 model S batteries.
Model S battery weighs 1,200 lbs lets assume they somehow improved on that by 20-30% so this is a 10,000 lb battery. Not sure how much the motors weigh, the Tesla motor and inverter are about 350lbs so lets say another 1000lbs.
A Diesel engine, transmission and fuel for 500 miles is about 5,000 lbs.
So I guess they made up 6,000 lbs in lightwieght materials? Or does it have less carry capacity since the trucks can't weigh more than 80k total?
Then there is the cost of the battery. Tesla is currently saying thier cost are below $190/kwh. At $180 that battery is $180,000 dollars cost! They must be counting on the Gigafactory getting it down to $100 kwh, still $100k cost just for the battery. The battery cost is as much as a new Semi's price.
The Megacharger is 400 miles in 30 minutes, that would be a 1.6 megawatt charger. They have to be built out across the country.
I am pretty impressed, I honestly didn't think they would do a megawatt battery. 500 miles is what you need minimum for "long haul" or a solid days driving even though most diesel semis have 1000 mile+ ranges.
Just not sure how the economics work out, but I hope it does.
"On a 100-mile route, the Tesla Semi will average $1.26 per mile when operating costs are factored in to $1.51 for diesel trucks."
That 25 cents a mile savings, average trucker does 45,000 miles a year, 100,000 on the top end for long haul. Even at 100k a year that's an 8 year payback right?
Also, I'm totally out of my element here (family does trucking but I don't) but 45K miles/year seems like a super low estimate for someone who drives full time. Taking a look at this thread [1], it seems unreliable per month, but people seem to be talking about doing 3K/week or 10-12K/month like it's nothing (as long as your employers have the hours to give).
http://www.truckingtruth.com/truckers-forum/Topic-1229/Page-...
To do 2 year payback would be 400k miles a year, which is impossible without nearly 24/7 driving, which could be possible with automation but unlikely they are figuring that.
Those truckers you linked are saying 10,000 a month is realistic without pushing it for long haul OTR so that 120k a year still at least 7 year payback.
Here's how you do the calculation:
- Diesel semi: $125k
- Tesla semi: $200k ($75k more expensive)
- Miles driven per year: 150,000 (~8 hours per day at 50mph. Rotating shifts mean these trucks don't take weekends.)
- Net savings per mile: $0.25
- Savings per year: $0.25 * 150,000 = $37,500
- Break-even vs. cost of diesel: $75,000 / $37,500 = 2 years
So after two years you have more money than if you'd bought a diesel semi. That's what it means.
So if your doing short haul with the 300 mile range version and rotating shifts you can get 2 year payback, ok.
You often end up carrying more fuel than you need so you can buy it in cheaper places. And then there’s the whole art of timing your fuel stops around the weigh stations...
> still $100k cost just for the battery. The battery cost is as much as a new Semi's price.
That’s not that crazy if they can actually deliver on the operating cost savings they’re claiming. Big if though.
Timing stops for megachargers will be a whole lot more difficult than truck stops until they are as ubiquitous. If you have to use a plain old supercharger your talking 8-10 hours for a charge, don't even bother with a normal plug of any kind.
Then people with ~500 mile routes that can charge at both ends. grow from there.
Does the Semi have a sleeper cab? If not, it won't be used on long-haul routes regardless of battery.
A charging station with 10 megachargers going at the same time will draw as much power as a small city of say 10,000 homes.
I'm not sure what you mean here. In the US, scales are used to ensure compliance with axle load limits, not to determine any costs.
In any case, since they don't need the weight of a diesel engine, transmission, fuel tanks, or emissions systems I'm not sure how the weight balance will work out.
It will be fascinating to find out what is actually behind these vehicles. On a pure specs basis, it sounds incredible.
There's at least one rural delivery man who bought a Tesla Model S and paid for it by using the mileage payments he gets for his job. So as long as your route fits, the same kind of high up front cost being amortised over time applies. The more miles you drive the better the economics works due to lower fuel/maintenance costs.
Non-Tesla companies are making pretty much the same pitch in regards to battery busses, again targetting fleet managers who have the spreadsheets in place already to plan and manage this kind of expenditure.
Much smaller batteries and taking advantage of regenerative braking.
It is an obvious use case for batteries right now.
My commute is ~25 miles one way. In my Leaf, going 65+ mph, I usually burn 25-35 miles off the charge. If I'm in stop-and-go traffic half the way I usually burn 10-15 miles for the same trip.
I've taken quite a few trips where I arrived at my destination with the same amount of battery as when I left. I've yet to arrive with more charge but maybe one day...
EDIT: as a side note, efficiency takes a big drop in your ICE vehicle, too, I just notice it more in the Leaf with its gee-whiz telemetry.
Also city buses usually drive under 200 miles a day and then sit overnight so you can have relatively small batteries. All in all, it is hard to think of a type of vehicle where battery power makes more economic sense, and gives you more advantages over ICE.
Any way. Per what cousin tells me, I think short haul urban centric anything is ripe for electric vehicles. Delivery trucks, buses big and small, service vehicles. Maybe even tow trucks (wreckers).
There's a specific tax deduction for commercial vehicles that cost more than $50000.
See for instance Roadster's 200 kWh, which I'm pretty sure is not twice as heavy as that of the Model S.
The Roadster was announced with a 200kwh battery, which is twice the capacity of the best Model S. Yet the Roadster is much smaller, and the 0-60/quarter mile times indicate that it is much lighter.
So, we can conclude that Tesla is accounting for some real technology optimization in their batteries over the next 4 years, which I'm sure the Semi will see as well.
Is there anything to indicate lithium batteries will somehow get 60-70% lighter in 2 years?
The Roadster is a $250k car for people with money to burn. It doesn't seem to drastically change the equation from a Rimac Concept One with six-year newer battery and motor tech and savings from volume and automation. The Roadster is the shiny thing that sells less sexy vehicles.
The Semi has the potential to change an entire industry if executed right. They don't need to be perfect if the cost savings are real and reliability is high. We'll see if they get practical details correct and whether production models arrive within 2-3 years of target-- a common Tesla worry. But I feel this has more margin potential than the Model 3 at this stage in Tesla's development.
Regardless, I am really looking forward to seeing the Semi's on Highways, although I believe that a main roadblock to it will be the lack of Tesla charging stations across the country. Semi trucks drive throughout the US on all major highways, and they have to coordinate their routes according to where the Weighing stations are in each state. Having to add super-charging stations to their routes will certainly complicate their routes, so it should be a bigger priority for Tesla to address those first.
Correction: It is a $200k car. The $250k is for a "Founder's Series" which is really just one of the first 1,000 cars out of the factory.
Still a car for people with money to burn, though. I was hoping to be able to get one, but the price is slightly over my budget. I might be settling with a Nissan GT-R.
I'm not saying have a kid on there, but what angle do they have if not for self-driving? Poor range, unrepairability?
I was just saying about maybe the driver being in the picture isn't something Tesla is going for. A prime argument Tesla has was about eventually eliminating the need for so many drivers. "If not that, then what else?" was what I wanted to say.
EDIT: They seem to have a range of 500 miles. Which is 1/3 the range of normal diesel semi's.
Cooool! Can we have a story about this?
Tell me, have you actually worked on a new model truck? Because the days of a service manual and a backyard shed are over
I didn't mean a literal backyard shed :), but a more general mechanic.
A lot of things are this way today.
They really aren't, as much as the manufacturers like to tell you they are.
Sure, the sheer amount of sensors/vacuum systems/electronics/etc make it look too complex for the layman, but as long as you've got an OBD scanner and a laptop, you can make quick work of most things. The biggest issue is manufacturers currently having an obsession with inverse torx head bolts in unusual and frustrating places (i.e. pull the top end off the engine using only a 10mm, 14mm and 17mm, and then juuuust at the last step, there's a sudden 6.5mm inverse torx bit needed to be fetched from Narnia.). But you can always get parts.
Electric cars will be just the same - in fact, I think they'll be easier for the home electrician to work on. Most of the modular manufacturer-specific parts can be interchanged for other components (inverters, batteries, etc). It won't look as neat and clean, but considering that electric cars are fundamentally less complex than internal combustion engines I don't think people will struggle.
> possibly waiting on parts that are being overnighted.
I can not manufacture at home the parts I need for my 2003 petrol engine, my 1986 - I can.
Not only do they not contain toxic Americum 241, photoelectric smoke detectors are also both more sensitive to real fires and less prone to false alarms.
(The later is actually really important, as people will often disable smoke detectors in response to a false alarm - and then forget about them)
Tesla say their system includes all the functions necessary. I haven't seen a list but I doubt it. Even if they do it will literally take enterprise integration projects to hook them up to the largely bespoke systems used by existing trucking company backends.
(E.g. 20 year old ADP systems)
Go look at Volvo concept trucks over the last few years.
First you have to accept that the trucking industry is conservative. The mom and pop distributors, the big guys, everyone. The people who own, lease and operate the trucks. There are all sorts of legislative hurdles to deal with.
I think a winning strategy is to start with city or county distributors. Lease out trucks at _very_ competitive rates. Do this with an agreement that your backend (accounting, maintenance, inventory) systems will replace _everything_ at the distributor. At first you'll probably have to compromise on this and integrate some things.
On top of that you pretty much have to integrate your onboard sensors/telematics with consumable manufacturers. Unless you're going to manufacture your own tires and such too.
Hmmm. Doesn't Tesla usually offer a loaner car while a Tesla is in for repairs? If they did the same thing with semis, would shipping companies accept it?
You got a little doo doo on your nose.
elonoggin? Really??!
Now imagine how that might work out for the truck industry.
When desktops came along many people wondered if they could be serviced as easily as TVs. The answer turns out to be simple, they don't have to be. If the repair + component costs turn out to be in the same ball park as replacing the plug and play part, you don't have to service individual PCBs. To give you a example, recently I had a broken Dell Monitor. Got it fixed in 20 mins at a local service store. Apparently the technician simply removed the whole PCB and put a new one in its place. And there were only 3-4 such PCBs.
You only need to be as intelligent as the abstract interface allows you to be.
"Contrary to passenger cars, there are currently no direct vision requirements for trucks. Direct vision – what you can see with your own eyes – has a number of benefits compared to indirect vision (mirrors and camera’s). To measure direct vision the Commission should use a standardised methodology."
Very nice summary on truck blindspots : https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicat...
I will say that I'm impressed by their charging numbers if they can hit them though. Fuel is a huge concern for carriers, they reroute to save a cent on the gallon constantly. Getting enough super chargers in place will be key for these things.
Also, as a side thought: they could have had a much more impactful reveal by having one of the big carrier's trailers hitched to that thing. Makes me wonder how much they even went and talked to their potential customers, especially drivers, who are very...particular...about their machines.
I guess the question then would be how quickly the current manufacturers can supply an offering. Manufacturers with existing business relationships and greater domain knowledge would be in a much better market position than Tesla. Being first may not help them here.
Tesla has to design and develop an entire truck, existing manufacturers just have to develop the drivetrain and plonk it in established product lines with the kinks of semi transport already ironed out.
In Europe maybe, but the USA are still their main market, and the way things are going right now, regulations probably won't develop in their favor in the important timeframe.
"The big guys won't go for it. Therefore, it won't succeed". That's a recipe for somebody who isn't a "big guy" to start their business literally this instant, and outcompete the "big guys" in five years because they were able to throw off the shackles of tradition and learn from the past as well as embracing current technology.
5 years is a lot of time for the "big guy"-compliant suppliers like Daimler to catch up (I can't personally evaluate if there is even a lot of catching up to do, as Tesla tries to present). Especially in low-margin industries like transportation that are also highly dependent on overall market strength, the odds are stacked very much in favor of big players that are able to position themselves for slow and stable growth. Close-to-worst scenario for the big guys is that a new player gains a significant market share and they have to purchase them for a big premium.
It also seems that you underestimate the willingness to embrace new technologies in the trucking industry, which they have ingrained to survive in a low-margin industry. They won't like it not because it is any kind of innovation, but because they would be giving away significant control. The big guys are so resilient and successful because they try to have a hold of the supply-chain as much as possible, to be more independent of outside forces, which is exactly the same game Tesla (and Apple, etc.) are playing with their manufacturing partners.
The drivers and service managers can be as skeptical as they want to be. The company owners can replace those drivers or service managers.
The big dogs care about the bottom line, and their employees have felt the pinch all along. This will be no different.
New tires and rarely new brakes and you're good to go.
I'm sure any "servicing yard" will be able to handle that.
Just brakes and tires.
He explicitly addressed glass (doesn't break)
The "unbreakable" glass felt mainly like a marketing gimmick, and I'll believe it when I see it. Also, keep in mind that two years in the future, when the truck comes out, "unbreakable" glass might very realistically be a feature competitors have caught up on.
> Also, keep in mind that two years in the future, when the truck comes out, "unbreakable" glass might very realistically be a feature competitors have caught up on.
We're not discussing what competitors are doing. We're discussing how much maintenance the Tesla will need, which has nothing to do with competitors products. If you want to have a discussion about if the Tesla is competitive, that's a whole nother thing
All the other manufacturers have been "going for massive reliability" for decades.
Price per litre of diesel in the USA is about $0.75 vs $1.64 in the UK. Given that Tesla stated that the truck would pay for itself within 2 years ($200,000 in diesel savings), we're talking 11 months in the UK.
The implication is that eHGVs will radically reduce the tax revenue of countries that have focused on fuel duty creating a significant problem for road maintenance.
Dynamic road pricing, based not only on time of day, but also vehicle type, is probably the only way forward.
Wouldn't want to let poor people with inflexible work hours go un-screwed... /s
I don't know why everyone sees reduced tax revenue as a problems. Less money to spend means more critical evaluation of how it gets spent.
Someone pair up with a tiny house company or a prefab design/build architecture company and start making some housing trailers for Tesla Semis.
The easiest way is to use AAA who will handle all the DMV work for the conversion of title from commercial vehicle to something else.
So who is in on this? If that is the price this will work well.
> cruising the freeways endlessly
How about "cruising on sunlight."
I also wonder why they try to push multiple models and niches when they can't even build enough Model 3s as they had expected.
And they have electrical hook up point for times when they are stationary. If you think it through, the time a refridgerated container spends actually connected to the truck is not all that big. It will spend more time in a port or on a ship, or even stationary at the departure point or destination.
All of the reefers I've seen have electrical hookups to power them when on ship/land and they have their own diesel powered generators to power them whilst attached to a truck.
There a a couple main reasons they have the diesel powered generator whilst attached to the truck:
1. Efficiency of the generator (truck companies don't want to spend more on fuel)
2. The truck is often stopped with the engine off (rest periods etc)
So in the short term attaching a refridgerated container to a Tesla semi wouldn't need and change in operation. In the longer term I guess it's possible that these containers will replace generators with battery pack to remove that emmission source, but they're likely to still be built into the container for the same reason outline above.
It might be the case where battery in trailer makes sense.
sound of cargo falling over :P
But serious question: how important is acceleration for trucks?
It is of course irrelevant for the bright future where are no human drivers.
Because when I saw that word "acceleration", the first thing up in my head was a buffed bald man doing a car race with that truck. LOL.
Oh, I watch too many movies.
You can't use fewer in some places, but the insistence that if you can use it then you must is an zombie rule. If "less" sounds right it's fine.
Tesla semi consumption: < 2 kWh/mi
One charge: 500 miles => < 1 MWh
There are about 2 million semi trucks in the US (tractor trailers). Assume that each semi fully charges once a day, 300 days a year.
The conversion of all of the country's semis to Tesla vehicles powered with solar generation requires under 600 TWh a year, eight times current US solar level; still only 15% of current total US electricity generation. Likely within 10 years, or sooner.
You can't effectively power any vehicle with 15% efficient solar panels.
It's fairly likely one could get well below that mass using some of the more experimental solar panel designs (such as those in use for solar aircraft), but it would probably not be cost-efficient .
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse#Solar_Impulse_2_...
Trains might be closer but when single locomotives are measured in megawatts I'm not very confident.
Presumably the email is to get a notification...
Edit: Turns out you actually have to enter a email... thankfully it doesn't verify anything.
I'm sure there are niche uses, but it isn't any sort of enormous breakthrough.
Edit: Product page says 300/500 range, so some option I guess: https://www.tesla.com/semi/?new
No idea what their source is though.
It also rules out consecutive/night shifts with a second driver.
Edit: Product page says 300 miles standard, but a 500 mile option: https://www.tesla.com/semi/?new
Regional haul tractors are decent market, but much smaller than long haul.
Utility and refuse better play to the strengths of electric vehicles, but I suppose garbage trucks aren't sexy enough for Tesla.
One of the things we're learning about electrical vehicles is that they do lead to a culture change in the way people operate them.
Trucker culture currently... blows. They often eat bad food, subsist on caffeine and often other stimulants, work excruciatingly long hours, and often have or cause accidents due to those long hours. They're away from home and their families for weeks of a month. They sit in unergonomic conditions and often sleep in cramped quarters aboard their trucks. Truck drivers in India are often seen as very low class people because of this kind of living situation.
One of the biggest cultural changes happening in truck driving in India are companies switching to relaying cargo - a driver may only go 100-300 miles from home, dropping off or switching their trailer for one heading back the opposite direction, and hauling back home for the night, where the next person goes the next distance, and so on. That allows the driver to have a somewhat normal home life outside of trucking. And as it happens, relay trucking is perfect for an electrically powered system, as it forces truckers to adopt the saner living situation by having to recharge after a run. So, not only healthier, it's safer for everyone on the road and better for the environment.
In the US, this depends entirely on the company culture. Where I worked, our road drivers were home every night. In the extreme minority of cases where there wasn't a service center close enough to drive to in <4 hours, we had drivers from each end meet in the middle, exchange trailers, and go back home.
Other carriers, especially those with mostly contractors and owner/operators, don't take this approach.
TL;DR: pickup and delivery trucks don't go very far each day and pull lighter loads. There are more pickup and delivery trucks than long-haul trucks.
Full version:
I worked for the largest LTL carrier in the country for almost a decade, in process improvement. I'm not a trucker by any means but I do feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the business processes in that industry.
There are two types of trailers typically used in the US: 53', which are generally used to move things directly from point A to point B, and 28' - "pups" - which are typically used to move things that have to go through intermediate steps. Correspondingly, the freight market is divided into "truckload"/"TL" and "less-than-truckload"/"LTL" carriers.
Truckload carriers often drop off 53' trailers at customer locations. Customers fill them up, and the carrier picks them up and takes them to their destination. They also use pups for this purpose, but 53' trailers are more efficient due to the larger capacity.
Less-than-truckload carriers pick up and deliver things that are usually on pallets. Drivers run a delivery route in the morning and a pickup route in the afternoon, pulling a single pup. They bring their pup back to the terminal where its unloaded and shipments are loaded according to their destination.
LTL carriers differ substantially from TL carriers because they have to handle customer shipments, moving them from trailer to trailer. The general flow here is Pickup -> Terminal -> Hub -> Terminal -> Delivery. Shipments going long distances may move through multiple hubs over several days, each of which may handle the shipments to more efficiently use trailer capacity.
The process improvement part of LTL that I worked in was trying to reduce loss and damages by reducing the number of times a shipment is touched. If a terminal in California has a pup full of shipments that are destined for a single terminal in North Carolina, then that trailer should never be opened until it gets to North Carolina. If half of it is destined for Utah and half for North Carolina, then the Utah stuff should be in the back, and when the trailer gets to Salt Lake City the Utah stuff should be unloaded, more North Carolina stuff put on to fill it, and it shouldn't be opened again from that point to destination.
Whew. That's a lot of background information. I wrote all of that to say - for LTL carriers, most P&D trucks don't travel long distances in a single day, and are usually pulling half the load of a long-haul truck. From an operations standpoint I see no reason why the Tesla truck wouldn't be suitable for that role.
Is the listed US prices
product: "HAMSTER",
It looks amazing, but it is different enough from my normal consumer driving experience as to make the entire product a non-starter if it were in a consumer car. I've developed decades of training and muscle memory sitting on the left side of the car.
I wonder if there will be a measurable impact on accident rates.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mclaren+center+seat&tbm=isch
When you fly to a country that drives on the other side of the road from you and then rent a car, you are sitting on the other side of the car entirely.
It takes a couple of hours at worse to get used to it for a manual transmission, automatics are even easier.
That said, my brain takes the cue from looking at what side the wheel is on (I just keep the side with myself on it close to the centre line). If I got off the plane and into a McLaren F1 then I'd probably have real problems (thankfully Avis doesn't carry twenty-year-old supercars).
Now I'm driving my Left-hand-drive Jeep on the left side of the road in Southern Africa.
I have also driven right-hand-drive vehicles on the left in Canada.
It's annoying for merging and overtaking, but it's not "difficult".
Have you considered what portion of said training and muscle memory was directly attributable to compensating for cabin asymmetry?
As an American many of the streets were hell to navigate, and I understood why tiny cars are valued there
Semis are going to be less and less popular in the EU when more countries add fees for distance driven which is proportional to wear, which is twice for a semi compared to a non-semi.
Tesla will gather a lot of (electric) truck data no one has. And at the time countries decide to ban polluting trucks Tesla will release an upgraded model.
Large agricultural vehicles have always had a central driving position.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_LLV
A hybrid would well-suit the replacement of these. Something like the Chevy Volt that relies more on electricity for heavy stop/start type driving. It would also address your concerns. The engine could just run when needed to charge, and not be a constant oscillation through the RPM range through the neighborhood.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-24/even-germ...
Also I suspect that this will also be used for the last, urban part of the trip.
are their range calculations going to hold up, most truckers don't have the luxury of running across the plains or the equivalent all day. throw in they run in all weather so how much will those range numbers drop?
And you have less resistive losses if you use multiple motors (or, say, one large motor) than one motor (or a small motor) for the same load due to: Power loss from resistance = I^2*R (resistance increases, but current decreases proportionally for the same load, so your power loss reduces).
So if you're going for efficiency and long-haul battery life, you already need a big battery and lots of electric motor power. You can leverage that for really strong regenerative braking, which translates to extremely long brake life and further efficiency (as well as being quieter). This also means you can go faster up AND down hills (speed down hills for trucks is limited by brake heating... if you're doing regenerative braking, very little heat is generated).
Also, by using multiple model 3 motors, they can get access to economies of scale that a small-run truck usually can't, which means you can afford to spend more on putting more motor in there.
So you end up with a truck that can do 0-60 in 20s with full load due mostly to other engineering considerations.
So I tried a rough estimation.
TL;DR: I made a very, very rough estimation which suggests that if Tesla's original cost per mile number is accurate, it could be very successful in a handful of European countries, for companies that do not transport cargo internationally.
Making worst-case assumptions about the average costs at each step, switching to the Tesla Semi would be a net increase in costs of 19¢/mile on average.
Making slightly-more-lenient assumptions about electricity costs, switching would give a 28¢/mile savings on average (compared to their claimed 25¢/mile in the USA).
The best-case scenario for Tesla would be a trucking company in Norway that only delivers inside Norway, because then that number improves to somewhere between 59¢/mile to 80¢/mile.
Also, they need to give more context for the $200k+ fuel savings claim, because it seems a bit suspicious: they claim a savings of 25¢/mile, but fuel cost is only a fraction of that. So you would need to travel like a million miles before you reach that amount, which would take over two to three decades at the average distance covered by a truck each year.
I'm not an economist, and a lot of ridiculous assumptions were made in these calculation, so don't take it too seriously.
Still reading? Down the rabbit hole we go...
In the reveal video Tesla claims a cost of $1.51/mile for diesel vs $1.26/mile for their semi[0], so a 25¢/mile savings (I'm going to ignore the convoy savings for now). This assumes fuel costs of $2.50/gallon and 7¢/kwH.
Oh, BTW: the estimated average miles per year is 45k in the US[1]. So at 25¢/mile that would be $11.25k saved per truck in the US on average - which presumably includes costs saved on repairs. Again: where does that $200k+ fuel savings number come from?
Now, in Europe gas prices are (on average) much higher than the USA. What would be the price per mile here? Well, to estimate that that we must also look at how the price of electricity compares between Europe and the USA.
For diesel, I looked at globalpetrolprices.com[1][2]. It does not provide an average for all of the EU (nor prices per US state, for that matter). Truckers will often plan in such a way that they fill up in the countries on their route with lower gas prices, so let's err on the side of caution and make it $5/mile. To compare the relative difference I'll take the current average US price, which is $2.83/mile. So gas is 1.8x more expensive at the moment, on average.
Now, we do not know the MPG Tesla assumed for diesel trucks. Lets go with the worst-case comparison again, which would be 8 MPG. Increasing $2.83/gallon to $5.00/gallon, that mean be an increase of 27.12¢/mile. Making the improbably assumption that all other costs relevant to this calculation are equal, we can just add that to Tesla's number of $1.51/mile, and end up with $1.78/mile for diesel in Europe.
For electricity I looked up the official governmental statistics provided for electricity USA and European Union[3][4]. Taking the provided national averages, and converting the Euro to US dollars at the current rate of 1.00 to 1.18, I get these numbers:
EU: 15.51¢/kWh domestic, 8.01¢/kWh industrial (second half 2016)
USA: 12.90¢/kWh residential, 9.89¢/kWh transportation, 7.23¢/kWh industrial (August 2016 - more recent statistics exist but I figure we should compare the same time period)
Note that these numbers make Tesla's claim seem a bit fishy, since they assumed 7¢/kWh for the USA, which you don't even get with industrial scale costs.
Europe does not distinguish transportation from other sectors yet, but the worst-case scenario would be using their domestic prices compared to the USA's transportation prices. That would be about 1.5x more expensive, still not as much as diesel.
(I added industrial electricity prices because perhaps a large transportation company with a fleet of electric vehicles and their own charging stations would use so much electricity that they would need industrial energy contracts. At that point the comparison obviously gets a whole lot rosier)
We don't know how much of a factor fuel price is in the price per mile calculation of the Tesla Semi. If we take their claim of lower maintenance costs at face value, it should be a bigger portion of the total. Now, the even-worse-that-worst case scenario would be assuming it's all of it, since that would give the biggest adjustment, and that the relative difference is equal to the domestic price difference:
$1.26/mile * (15.51¢/kWh / 9.89¢/kWh) = $1.97/mile, for a net increase of 19¢/mile.
If we take the relative difference between domestic prices as our starting point, it becomes better again:
$1.26/mile * (15.51¢/kWh / 12.90¢/kWh) = $1.51/mile, for a net savings of 28¢/mile.
So, using the worst possible adjustment for diesel and electricity prices, worst MPG, and worse-than-worse price-per-mile adjustment for Tesla, the economic benefits of switching to these will still be bigger in Europe.
Now lets look at the country with (probably) the best numbers for Tesla: Norway. Despite being an oil-exporting country, it has the highest price per gallon (except Iceland), and lower price per kWh than the USA:
Diesel: $6.99/gallon, electricity: 11.30¢/kWh domestic, 6.28¢/kWh industrial
Keeping everything else worst-case-scenario for Tesla as before:
(6.99-2.83 $/gallon) / 8 MPG = 0.52¢/mile, for a total of $2.03/mile for diesel
$1.26 * 11.30 / 9.89 = $1.44/mile for Tesla, or 59¢/mile saved.
If we assume domestic-to-domestic, the ratio becomes 11.30/12.90. The worst case scenario here would be assuming equal percentage of price per mile as diesel:
$2.5/gallon / 8 MPG = 31.25¢/mile, or 31.25/1.51 = 20.7% of total price per mile
(($1.26 * 79.3) + ($1.26 * 20.7) * 11.30 / 12.90) / 100 = $1.23/mile, for a total of 80¢/mile saved.
... for a total of 80¢/mile saved.
Of course, a proper cost calculation would be much more complicated, since it would depend on the routes your transport company takes, where you are located, how big the company is, etc.
With so many countries I can only assume it requires more red tape to get their semi through all the required tests in Europe (even with EU-wide standards simplifying things there), but it would probably worth it for Tesla to target specific countries with higher fuel costs and lower electricity costs.
Tangent: in the process of looking this up, I discovered that fueleconomy.gov does not have a section for semi-trucks[5]. I wonder if that was blocked by the automotive industry on purpose.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nONx_dgr55I&t=14m
[1] https://hdstruckdrivinginstitute.com/semi-trucks-numbers/
[1] http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/diesel_prices/North-Americ...
[2] http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/diesel_prices/Europe/
[3] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
[4] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/..., http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=nrg_pc_204&languag..., http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/product?code=nrg_pc_205&languag...
620 mile range is disgustingly insane, I wonder how they were able to pull it off. I can't imagine cramming more batteries would help weight and speed, maybe it uses some kind of different battery technology to get that kind of power storage.
It's clear they want to be a design shop in the vein of an Apple, as opposed to an industrial manufacturer like GM/Ford/GE. I would not be surprised to see them offshore manufacturing more and more in the future (see their recent China deal).
-500 mile range on a full charge. On empty 30 min of charging will get you 400 miles.
-Lower drag coefficient than a bugatti veyron
-They're claiming cost per mile is less than rail for shipping goods.
-2019 availability
-Lane centering + other features (jack knife prevention)
-1,000,000 mile guarantee
----------------
Also they surprised announced a new roadster:
-New plaid mode (beyond ludicrous) 0-60 in 1.9s.
-620 mile range
Note: This only applies to "Convoy mode" where 3 or more vehicles draft off each other.
The million miles is on the drive train. I don't remember if they mentioned the battery warranty?
IIRC the cost per mile in a convoy that they quoted was $0.83/mile.
Same enhanced auto driving features of current Teslas. Automatic breaking, etc.
EDIT1: The dash is the wheel and two screens (left and right). Supposedly their software has all the integrations drivers need, so they don't need to slap other 3rd party devices into their vehicle (which they describe as a problem for existing trucks. I have no clue one way or the other).
It has a frunk.
Little of it natively works together. The contractual limitations are nuts.
From what I recall technology often isn't shared between automobile and truck manufacturing companies owned by the same parent because of these restrictions.
But over 80% of total miles are put on in the other 20% of routes
Acceleration 0-60 mph with 80k lbs - 20 sec
Speed up a 5% Grade - 65 mph
Powertrain - 4 Independent Motors on Rear Axles
Energy Consumption - Less than 2 kWh / mile
Those numbers are simply insane, for anyone who doesn't know torque figures. A Dodge Challenger Hellcat makes 650 ft-lbs for comparison.
So, a small car with more wheel torque than a Hellcat in 2nd gear, nice!
Edit: Used incorrect ratios, updated.
It’s hard to comprehend 1.9 pushing a battery pack. If that thing doesn’t break 300, it’ll flirt.
Tim Urban has a great essay about different levels of prep people do for talks [1] which he wrote when preparing to give a Ted talk. Musk's talks are on the "Wing it" side of prep while a Ted talk is suppose to be on the "Follow an exact script - Happy-Birthday-Level memorized" level.
[1] https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/doing-a-ted-talk-the-full-sto...
Tesla has a price-to-sale ration of nearly 6, while Nissan and GM are <0.5. So Tesla is mostly image and vision, not reality. Therefore it depends on Musks presentations with visions of a glorious future.
Sometimes you gotta get people to believe in a better reality :P
"[...] as long as 1) wealthy consumers in western
nations but also China are eager to seek indulgence
by way of green-washing and, 2) are in search of a
Steve Jobs replacement persona onto which they can
project their hopes for a gleaming future and,
3) are disillusioned with the establishment and
its leaders, the company will likely succeed to
raise cash again."
"Getting the Model 3 up to a production rate of 5,000 a week is what will start to prove out Tesla's current stock price, not a slick demo."
Yes, currently it looks like this is out of reach of Tesla.
The stock price is not the arbiter of whether a company is vision or reality. Nothing would change about those companies if public opinion suddenly shifted and made those ratios go the other way.
This isn't anywhere near as impressive as one might think: a Veyron has a pretty bad drag coefficient because of the amount of cooling intakes it has (turns out cooling an engine producing over 1000PS takes a lot of air).
A Chevy Tahoe has a lower drag coefficient than a Veyron. One of those super-boxy 80s Volvos has a lower drag coefficient than a Veyron.
I LOLed at this one. Supercars want lots of downforce so they don't constantly go off the road and you die. They're not built for low Cd. A Toyota Prius has 35% lower drag coefficient than a Bugatti Veyron.
It's like when the "superfruit" people go "look at this amazing berry, it has 20% more vitamin C than a lemon!" Well yeah, an orange has 70% more vitamin than a lemon. Marketing wank for the uninformed masses.
> On empty 30 min of charging will get you 400 miles.
I did a double take here. To do that we're talking ~ 1000 kWh drawn from the grid in 30 min; that's pulling 2 megawatts of power. None of the existing Supercharger installations come close to providing enough power for even one truck.
It also means that on the distribution grid, a charging station for 8 semis will need a dedicated 20 MVA 33/11 kV distribution transformer, plus 4 11kV/480V transformers. Unless you manage to keep those charging slots filled 90% of the time, that's going to be bloody expensive electricity.
Or a pile of batteries.
> a charging station for 8 semis will need a dedicated 20 MVA
20MVA is approx. 20MW, Solar Power is 100W/m2 hence that gives 0.2km2 (or 200,000m2 of needed area for 20MW)
Solar won't help you in this case
Also, the coefficient is then multiplied by the frontal area of the vehicle. A semi has a helluva frontal area.
---
[1] drag = 1/2 x air_density x frontal_area x drag_coefficient x velocity^2
They keep requesting https://livestream.tesla.com/haveReservationsStarted every 30 seconds. Most of the requests are failing with 502 HTTP errors.
a23-56-119-116.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com
Fail, using an old version of NGINX 1.10.2 and no HTTP/2 support enabled.
Kudos to Tesla for trying.
I need to stream something. I'm a car company. What's the point of making extra work for myself?
Greater control, perhaps, but for a press conference do I need this?
No, you do not need it for a press conference. But you earn credit points from me when I see you trying. Google is evil, remember?
what does this even mean?
Also, as someone says below, they're a battery company.
Should have let the Department of Redundancy Department do their capacity planning.
Says 1/4 mile is 8.9 seconds, which is just nuts for a car you can buy off the lot.
I'm guessing insurance might be high on that car.
Edit: someone else removed it
"Formula One race cars have been recorded to reach 0-60 as fast as 1.6 seconds, however the typical range for modern day F1 cars is between 2.1 to 2.7 seconds."
I browser without cookies and generally from Asian VPNs, and as far as I can tell, nobody is remotely respecting the browser’s language. Google have also recently started showing English language search results in Thailand with archaic Thai-language dates, which is also insane.
They have a lot of custom audio for bits and pieces like this. It's a neat little loop though, and I want it.
Given it's short loop I'd guess it's either a royalty-free piece they purchased or it was commissioned.
That said, if you like the style, give Ronald Jenkees a try:
In other words Tesla just put $250 million in the bank by rubbing rich peoples' egos.
I suppose it's all marketing in the end and Elon cherry picked the facts that would suit him.
Yes, I understand 80% of trips are under 250 miles. But is an almost 50% reduction in range that easily shrugged off?