Hacker News Reader

Comment by themagician | Hacker News Reader

Tesla knows all this.

This truck is for a very specific niche: owned fleets near two warehouses or within a 500 mile round trip from a major port. Basically: all the warehouses in the Inland Empire near LAX and Long Beach and the warehouses in the Newark area that service the NYC metro area. It has the potential to dramatically reduce costs for some routes/corridors.

It will be a big hit in these areas. It will have a large impact on a very specific niche. There's nothing wrong with that. These aren't going to be used by independent truckers. It's not for them. It's for drivers making the same 80-100 mile or so trip from port to warehouse every day.

View on HN

I don't see how that is relevant. Nearly all of the criticisms posed (maybe not the snow one?) would still be relevant to a driver in the situation you describe. This has nothing to do with range or even the fact that it's electric

While I largely agree with you, there are at least a subset of the complaints in the Twitter thread that are pretty inconsequential if the truck is only intended for < 500 mile routes (for example, the "no space for a bed" complaint).

You think that drivers won't be asked to do 3 trips a day, or that the truck will never break down miles from anywhere?

Who cares if they do 3 trips a day, it's not like they won't need to stop and unload on each trip. Beds-in-cabs is really only a thing for long haul truckers. There are tons of vehicles used for trips of the length that the Tesla Semi is for that don't have beds, and nobody would expect they would.

> There are tons of vehicles used for trips of the length that the Tesla Semi is for that don't have beds, and nobody would expect they would.

Citation needed.

The driver sleeps in the truck in neither of those scenarios. The driver drives back and forth from the port until his shift is over, then another driver takes over. If the truck breaks down ... you're in the middle of Los Angeles. Someone from the company picks you up, and you drive another truck, or go home.

GP's (very reasonable) thesis is that these are for truck driving as a day-job, in fair-weather locales, which obviates most of the complaints.

Not even, though. GP mentions the NYC metro area. I wouldn't call that a "fair-weather locale" in the winter. All the snow-related complaints seem to apply here.

I mentioned 3 trips a day because you could wake up in Los Angeles, drive deep into the inland empire, drive back to Los Angeles, and then back into the inland empire again. This was the context mentioned by an earlier top-level comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33926883

You are quite right that running into problems in the Los Angeles is only a minor inconvenience. Having worked at both ends of this route, I regret to tell you that the other end is not the most welcoming environment. You probably wouldn't be out there too long if you did break down, but the desert gets pretty chilly at night.

People have day cabs now that they cant sleep in... So what's your point? This is a day cab.

Most of the criticism assumes people will be in these cabs for 8 hours at a time. They won't. This is for very short trips. We are talking 80-100 mi each way. 2-3 hrs in each direction, max. It's not for independent truckers.

Even in this case what advantage it has over existing electric trucks which don’t have these design flaws?

What existing electric trucks?

Here are four examples for you:

Mercedes: https://electrek.co/2022/09/19/mercedes-benz-eactros-longhau...

Scania: https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/products-and-services/t...

Volvo: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/alternative-fuels/e...

DAF: https://www.daf.com/en/about-daf/sustainability/alternative-...

Are any of these actually for sale yet? I work for a trucking company that says they ”have” alternative energy vehicles, but nothing is shipping yet.

https://twitter.com/TOrynski/status/1600970796159336449

Mercedes, Volvo, Nikola, Renault.

In an ideal environment the operating cost of a Tesla Semi is about 1/3rd (conservative estimate) that of a diesel.

That environment is, again, very specific. But if your routes are short and predictable, you have massive warehouse space for solar, and you can get your average electricity cost as low as Tesla can then it pays off. 1 million miles in a diesel is going to cost well over $1 million dollars (including the price of the cab). With a Tesla Semi that cost is at least half… IF you can get the electricity cost low enough.

There are several other electric semis, the thread lists their manufacturers at the end.

Yes there are: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/alternative-fuels/e...

What about the 4 examples of other electric semis shared at the end of the original thread?

https://twitter.com/TOrynski/status/1600970796159336449

TFA references several competing electric truck makers such as https://nikolamotor.com/tre-bev

Nikola was convicted of securities fraud last year for faking their electric truck. They finally delivered 48 trucks this year, and then all of them were immediately recalled for safety issues. I think the fact that the author referenced them as viable alternatives is pretty emblematic of how accurate the thread is.

You have to run 3x as many of them, because they move less than 1/3 the freight per run.

Unless you are moving toilet paper or packing peanuts.

This is my issue. You're replying but clearly you are missing that there arent any electric semis to compete with.

The author of the thread also clearly hasn't ridden a tesla semi, so he is just assuming that eg the mirrors can't be cleaned either from the inside nor the outside. Isnt that a bit too bad of a take?

I mean I love to read about his experience, but many of his points of criticism seem hypothetical.

> there arent any electric semis to compete with.

What do you mean? The author of the Twitter thread mentions four electric semi options in the thread.

i see

80-100 miles from Port of Long Beach being 2-3 hours? Have you ever driven on the 110, 405, 105, or 605?

That doesn't seem to be the case at all? The windscreen complaint is about what happens when the vehicle is parked. The baffling "seat is in the middle" decision affects all drivers, both when passing (ever driven in the UK for the first time and tried to pass?) and at toll booths. The muddy floors are worse with short-haul drives, since you're in and out more often. The tablets impact anybody driving at night. The only long-haul thing I really see here is the bed thing.

I don't think Tesla knew all of this. I think they just fucked it up.

The drivers won’t even be in these things soon.

In 2017, he said they all would come with "full self driving", standard, in 2019. You could tell it wouldn't, because his lips were moving.

The main problem with these things is that they can only move 5 tons if they have to go up a hill.

Yes, we know. FSD is coming and there will be a million of them driving autonomously next year.

For what these are designed for its pretty easy.

They'll be banned from driving after the smart cruise control veers into a cyclist.

<flippant> Maybe the designers were worried about UVA/UVB exposure for truckers. </flippant>

see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage...

> Most of the criticism assumes people will be in these cabs for 8 hours at a time

Somebody has never driven from Long Beach to the Inland Empire...

The central seating position issues become less relevant for this use case.

> It has the potential to dramatically reduce costs for some routes/corridors.

This alone is extremely relevant.

What on earth are you talking about? What has that got to do with the criticisms in the post? If they were taken into consideration, how would that in any way affect their cost savings?

all the criticism is from the point of view of a european trucker dealing with weather. The only weather those trucks will be dealing with is hot and hotter, and the cab shape and size is normal for US trucks.

That tweet stream is mostly an uninformed nothing burger and this comment comes from someone that HATES Elon Musk.

These sorts of posts always show up anywhere that somebody posts anything remotely critical of a Tesla product. They could make a combination trash compactor-bassinet that randomly switches modes and somebody would come out of the woodwork and post “People don’t realize the value in maximizing functionality in small spaces”

Except the driver (user) is not the buyer.

See also - medical health record systems.

The driver is the buyer for at least half the trucks in the US.

What if it is relevant and all the criticisms are true?

It’s a big world - a company targeting a very specific narrow niche in a specific location sounds like a great strategy for getting started. And it wouldn’t invalidate the euro truck driver insights on what would work for Europe’s logistics reality.

Still can’t hand papers out the window, which happens to all trucks (weigh stations aren’t optional, etc).

Still getting mud all over the inside with the door behind the seat. Even if you aren’t sleeping in it, you’re spending time there.

Minor inconvenience. Pepsi doesn't care how you hand papers to someone. FedEx doesn't care if you get mud in the cab, you'll just have to clean it after your shift.

This is the kind of efficiency tool that will be bought by large corporations and forced on drivers.

You still have to look over you shoulder when merging and need the ability to shift your body to see in the mirror or to check where your tire is when backing up.

I get that lots of car drivers merge by faith, but you kill people and potentially spend time in jail in a CMV.

Local deliveries are far more dependant on this than OTR, and even the drivers of front discharge cement trucks with narrow cabs complain about this.

Sucks to have to drive this then.

If Pepsi believes it can cut its transport costs for certain routes by 20% it doesn't care how inconvenienced or annoyed you are.

It doesn't until there are negative externalities, you know, like labor retention rates, that cause those transport costs to go back up.

Tesla might be able to sell some of these to some companies for a while, because brand recognition and Elon stans in purchasing positions. That's not really a good strategy for long term growth, and Tesla can't just will an automotive niche into existence.

This guy genuinely has no clue what labor retention rates are. He thinks an unsafe truck that saves a tiny percentage of money will actually save large corporations cash on their bottom line

The thing you're missing, and most folks in this thread are missing is... there's already a bunch of electric semi's out there available for purchase right now.

Nobody is buying them (by nobody I mean so very few...). If Pepsi really thought electric was the way to go, they would already be doing it.

Tesla's semi is going to be a major flop...

They have already sold a bunch of these. Close to 1000 units now I believe. Pepsi ordered 100 of them.

A pre-order based on a marketing prototype is not a real sale.

Their range is awful that's why. Most of them have ranges with less than half of what the Tesla Semi has.

Pepsi probably bought their delivery slot for the publicity more than the trucks being practical. It isn't like they got the first delivery slot by finding a golden ticket in a chocolate bar.

If it really "sucks", you'd probably see incident rates go up, meaning down time, maintenance costs, legal issues, even impact on the public image. There is a point where bad mood and annoyance of a troubled work force become a serious inconvenience.

Besides the fact that other electric trucks already exist, I question the roadworthiness of a design that doesn't have any instrumentation directly in front of the driver (like a speedometer...) and that puts the driver several paces and a corner away from a door, which seems like a distinct disadvantage in the event of a crash or a fire.

There is really no difference if the speedometer is in front (actually below) or to the right. In both cases your eyes have to refocus. I tried both. It‘s a non-issue in the Model 3/Y.

> It's for drivers making the same 80-100 mile or so trip from port to warehouse every day.

Why the range, then? Surely something lower-range (and thus cheaper) would be preferable there.

Trucks tend to have lots of idle time - truckers like their comms and climate control to work while they’re waiting to get loaded, for one.

Also, you might have a local truck used in more than one back to back shift.

It sounds like Tesla has a lot to prove to skeptical truckers, so a big number on range can head off some criticism.

I think what people are saying is that there are a lot of 80-100 mile trips that this can serve, where the criticisms aren’t really a big issue. But more range still means expanded use cases.

It doesn’t have to prove anything to truckers. It’s not for truckers. It’s for large companies that want to reduce their transportation costs. They don’t care about you, the driving experience, how inconvenienced you might be, etc.

In general, companies _do_ care somewhat about worker convenience; poorly designed inconvenient things slow everything down. Particularly with trucking, actually, I'd have thought; I'm not sure how it is in the US, but there's an acute shortage of truckers in much of Europe (particularly post-Brexit), so employers won't necessarily want to annoy them for no good reason.

But why buy a truck that has such a narrow use-case? Economic situations can change a lot over the lifetime of a semi, and not being able to drive longer routes is a notable limitation.

I don’t know. Probably the same reasons people buy small day cabs today.

Many trucks have even more narrow use cases than their range. Some are built specifically for particular types of cargo. Typically these trucks are purchased when the business has a specific need, and I suspect that this truck will only be considered by buyers with that specific need.

Also note that (nearly?) all EU trucks are cab-over-engine because laws in Europe on the overall length of the truck are more strict, so you get more cargo for the same LOA vs a conventional cab. Author of TFA certainly appears to be in Europe.

Wait so Tesla knows that it's not possible for the driver to reach out the window to hand over the paperwork necessary to get into and out of a port, or through scales, because... the truck is designed for ports. Ok then.

I'm not following, how would it reduce costs over different trucks?

Cost-per-mile is cheaper from electricity than from diesel, and it's expected to have lower maintenance costs too (fewer moving parts, no oil changes, etc)

> Cost-per-mile is cheaper from electricity than from diesel

Depends where.

> and it's expected to have lower maintenance costs too

That's theory. Compare maintenance costs of a Tesla and any hybrid Toyota.

It's been almost four years for me, and I've had to spend exactly $0 in maintenance on my Model 3. We'll see what the future holds, but not bad so far.

It has been 3 years with my Toyota and all I have paid for is new windscreen-wipers (winter ruins them). I don't see how that matters though. What matters are actual numbers from a trusted source: ADAC (German motor organization) says it costs $0,51 per kilometer to drive a Tesla Model 3. My Toyota costs $0,31. Nothing exceptional about the price on Tesla maintenance.

How did you skip oil changes?

My PHEV has a two year oil change interval, I'd imagine a Toyota hybrid does too. So in 3 years of driving, there's one oil change, but they only said they didn't pay for anything other than wipers. First service paid for is a pretty common incentive with a car (may be factory included)

You didn't link your reference, so I don't know how those numbers were calculated. However, they are so large they are clearly not maintenance costs, but probably all in costs. That's apples to oranges (Tesla vs Toyota are two different segments). It's also not the topic of conversation (Tesla maintenance costs).

If its been 3 years you should really get an oil change.

ADAC's measure includes the cost of the vehicle itself so that number is completely inappropriate for the actual operating costs. Also ADAC has been called out as wrong and having biased testing many times: https://insideevs.com/news/456957/bjorn-nyland-charging-loss...

The cost per mile will be radically lower IF (big if) customers can actually achieve the wholesale electric rates that Tesla estimates are possible. Like, dramatically lower. The cost of diesel over 1 million miles is going to be north of $600k easily. At Elon's "guaranteed" 7¢/kwh the cost to run a Tesla Semi over the same mileage is about 1/3rd.

This truck is designed to be an efficient workhorse for short routes with owned fleets.

Electricity cost is much higher in the US and almost 10 times more expensive in Europe.

Also, a diesel engine can easily run millions of miles, I don't believe a battery's efficiency would hold even few hundred thousands. Teslas don't at least and degrade around 10% every 100k miles, with most dying before hitting 400k.

Like everything those calculations seem always based on best case scenarios and ignore that batteries are super expensive and degrade at each cycle.

Hence the big "IF".

Still, some companies will be able to realize the gains. They can invest in solar on site. The people purchasing these often have warehouses with 1,000,000 sq ft of roof space.

My residential retail electricity is 0.098 per kw-h. Midwest prices are generally decent, but the town is buying from ~1 large utility to get that rate, with a few solar panels perhaps lowering costs some of the time. Seems like there is room to do better just going to market, and there is certainly room to do better by buying directly from new solar installed in the next few years.

Diesel Engines are rarely getting more than 6 or 700k without a 30k+ rebuild. You make it like they are all going millions of miles, that's not accurate.

> Elon's "guaranteed" 7¢/kwh

Can somebody say more about this? I'm struggling with finding more info on it.

Further up, folk were talking about this being useful near LA in and in CA ... but the price of electricity is well above that here.

You may be thinking of residential rates which are many times higher

I just checked in the commercial rates are slightly over 7 cents today

It’s on one of the slides in his presentation. In fact, I think it’s been in multiple presentations. May not be the easiest thing to find because I remember it being skipped over and in small print somewhere but he does speak to it.

It's likely being guaranteed because he knows the cost of installing solar and battery banks and he (and his customers) doesn't have to buy directly from local power companies.

> how would it reduce costs

https://youtu.be/BiJ45_hXJe0?t=69

Doesn't that work out to like 2¢ per ton-mile??? Don't confuse yourself by only looking at the numerator. It probably costs close to $100k to refuel a train.

It snows in the NYC metro area, so all the complaints about how the truck is unsuitable for snow are still applicable.

> It's for drivers making the same 80-100 mile or so trip from port to warehouse every day.

So this truck is bad as a truck...except for the use case where it should have been a train in the first place?

If that's the use case then Tesla has entered the market late and with an inappropriate solution. You can already buy that local route electric truck from 4 different legit truck companies.

TBH, I really wonder if fuel delivery would be a big market eventually. There seems to be a lot of traffic between near-urban terminals and urban gas stations that is very inefficient with diesel semis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com