Unless you’re a hermit, you’ve most likely heard about Tesla’s big media event Thursday night, where the electric Tesla Semi was unveiled, along with the unexpected appearance of the new Roadster. The performance numbers and vital stats for both these vehicles were unprecedented, and exceeded even optimistic guesses. We don’t usually cover new vehicle reveals much here, but having a long-time interest in trucking and other heavy transport as well as new technologies, it’s an irresistible subject. And of course, a controversial one, given the swirling questions as to whether Tesla should be expanding its product range while still struggling with current production issues.
Elon Musk’s abilities to add two more balls to the many he is already juggling will be tested. But in the meantime, the vehicles make for two highly compelling stories.
The Semi’s battery-electric drive train will power the truck and trailer, at gross weight of 80,000 pounds, from zero to sixty mph in 20 seconds, about 40 seconds faster than a conventional diesel truck. The Semi without a trailer will outrun most cars from 0-60, in 5.0 seconds. It will climb 5 percent grades at 65 mph compared to the 45 mph of a diesel truck. Thanks in part to its superb aerodynamics (CD: 0.36), it has a range of 500 miles, and a 30 minute charge will take it another 400 miles. It will be warrantied against breakdowns for one million miles. And its total cost to operate (including purchase price) will be some 20% less than a diesel truck.
First off, it’s important to note that Tesla is not the first or only company to show (or even build) electric large trucks. It’s a hot arena right now, as it is in cars (VW just announced a $40 billion investment program in EVs). But the rest of the electric trucks are less radical than the Tesla (no surprise there), and the trucking industry is pretty conservative. This really is a bit of a potential game changer. The current EV trucks are mostly short-range, and typically essentially conversions of existing designs. Both Mercedes and Cummins have unveiled longer-distance concepts. But not with specs to match these.
The Tesla prototypes are built out of carbon fiber, but it’s not yet decided what the production version (due in 2019) will be built of. But the need to offset the very heavy battery pack, of which there will be two versions, with 300 and 500 mile range, is located low just above the frame between the front wheels and the first rear axle, will almost surely require aluminum and composites. Unfortunately, the vital stats for the battery were not yet announced, which suggests that exact details (in typical Tesla style) are still being worked out. But mules and prototypes have been running for some time now. And rough calculations suggest that it will take a pack with 1,000 kWh capacity for the 500 mile version, or ten times the capacity of Tesla’s current largest battery pack in the Model S 100.
These packs are of course very heavy, which will make the Tesla Semi decidedly heavier (up to 33k lbs) than a diesel semi. That will cut into maximum payload, but then realistically, most general freight trucks don’t run at the maximum. Obviously, the Tesla will not be suitable for a number of trucking tasks, but it will be attractive to many of the more common ones.
There are four independent electric motors taken from the Model 3 for each rear wheel, which allows torque vectoring to essentially eliminate fish-tailing. In addition to its electric drive system, the Tesla Semi is equipped with a full slate of electronic safety and driver-assistance systems. That’s sufficient, Musk said, to make it fully autonomous when autonomous truck operation on public highways is permitted. The trucks also will be capable of “platooning,” in which one or more digitally tethered trucks automatically follow a manned lead truck to save fuel.
In typical Tesla style, the cab and interior is a dramatic change from anything before on the road. The driver is positioned centrally. There is a jump seat behind the driver’s seat for a co-driver or passenger. There are no mirrors; cameras display all the vital information on two large touch screens borrowed from the Model 3. It’s a whole different universe from the extremely noisy, rough riding and sparse trucks I drove and rode in back in the day.
The Tesla Semi is initially designed for short- and regional-haul routes, such as those that run goods from ports to distribution centers, but a long-haul sleeper cab model is in the works. A low roof version was also displayed. A sleeper cab version is in the works.
One might be tempted to wonder how limiting its 500 mile range will be, especially until the Tesla Megachargers are in place to recharge them quickly. But trucking has been changing rapidly, and one might be surprised to know that truly long haul trucking is actually shrinking. Nearly 80 percent of freight in the U.S. is moved less than 250 miles. The average length-of-haul in the trucking industry has dropped from about 800 miles 15 years ago to about 500 miles last year, according to the American Trucking Associations, a result of port expansions nationwide and the e-commerce boom. Which explains why even the 300 mile version will be more than adequate on the majority of regional and local runs.
Electricity is far cheaper than diesel fuel. Musk said Tesla will guarantee a cost of just 7 cents per kilowatt for electricity pulled from a Tesla megacharger. Compared to $2.50 per gallon diesel fuel and factoring in insurance, maintenance and lease costs, a Tesla Semi driven 60 miles per hour with an full load on a 100-mile route would cost about $1.26 a mile to operate, versus $1,51 per mile for a diesel.
One factor in these calculations may not have been identified: road taxes. There’s no comparable road tax on electricity as there is on diesel, and trucks are a major source of road wear and damage. In Oregon, truckers pay a separate road tax, based on their weight and distance driven, and their diesel fuel is not taxed. But other states will undoubtedly not be happy to see the truckers’ share of road taxes evaporate. That has already led to annual fees on EVs in some states. If electric trucks make significant inroads, new taxing schemes will undoubtedly arise.
The final part of the story is that a number of trucking companies have already made reservations for the Tesla Semi, including Walmart, which has had a program to bring down emissions (and cost) on its huge fleet of trucks. A number of other trucking firms have also committed, obviously in small numbers to start with. The conversion of trucking to electric power is under way, and it just got quite a bit faster, in more ways than one.
And if that wasn’t enough, there was a totally unexpected surprise that drove out of the back of the Semi’s trailer: the new Tesla Roadster. Its stats make the Semi’s pale in comparison: 0-60 in 1.9 sec. 0-100 in 4.2 sec. 1/4 mile in 8.8 sec. Top speed over 250 mph. Range: 620 miles. And that’s just for the initial base version.
The Roadster has a 200kWh battery pack, which is twice the size of the current largest one used in the Model S/X. Three motors; one in front and two in the rear, and they will provide 7376 lb-ft of torque at the wheels.
The battery packs sit low under the floor, which allows for 2+2 seating and ample storage room.
The design of the Roadster, which has a lift-out roof section, is clearly an evolution of the Tesla “look”, and takes it forward with more complex shapes, sculpting and a contoured hood. It inevitably will influence future generations of Tesla cars.
The Roadster, to be available in 2020 Tesla time, is priced at $200k, which given its absolutely overwhelming performance, makes it somewhat of a bargain. The first 1000 Founder’s series are priced at $250k, and require a full reservation deposit. $50k will hold your seat for a regular one.
Where are the Semi and Roadster going to be produced? Details on the Semi’s battery pack? Pricing on the Semi? The funds to develop them and put them into production? Musk puts the stuff out there first, and then the details get worked out sooner or later. Which is obviously intended to set up Tesla for more likely capital infusions, to feed all these projects and the rest of Tesla’s rapid expansion. The Roadster is the perfect vehicle to keep enthusiasm high.
One thing is for certain: Elon Musk is determined to keep Tesla on the forefront of the rapidly emerging EV market. Some have suggested Tesla should just have stayed a small high-end company, a la Porsche. But Musk’s vision (and ego) are never going to be constrained into just a limited segment of anything he undertakes. SpaceX is determined to send colonists to Mars. His Boring Company intends to riddle Los Angeles (and other metropolitan areas) with worm holes. Hyperloop will send passenger pods through vacuum tubes at 700 mph. The Roadster will have bragging rights for the world’s quickest production car. And now he wants to deliver your goods via his electric truck.
If Elon can deliver them all, within a reasonable period of time, he will confound a lot of skeptics, as he has done repeatedly so far. But if he fails, it won’t be for hedging his bets. He’s all-in, all the time. And that makes for a hell of a show.
I watched the reveal on Thursday night and it was quite interesting, later reflection leaving many of the same questions. You identified the obvious question in the cost calculation, that being the road tax one which does have the potential to change the parameters, especially if the cab could conceivably weigh that much more than “normal” which would mean even deadheading would result in a lot of weight moving around as compared to a diesel.
Compared to personal private automobiles, I doubt anyone would/could claim a “privacy” issue if a commercial truck was tracked in order to be able to charge it for its travel. Do you know how much Oregon for example charges per mile for a fully loaded truck? It’d be interesting to add that back in to the calculus.
I don’t think you touched on the chargers (or I missed it) – Mr. Musk claimed that a 400 mile charge would be achievable in half an hour. Coupled with mandated rest breaks for drivers this effectively moots one of the largest “against” points that many make against electrics, that being charge time.
The new Roadster was an unexpected and strong shot across the bow of all others (Porsche’s Mission E etc.) that are planning something similar and no doubt will result in some serious recalculating as that market will now get a serious competitor with a strong reputation.
As I said it was extremely impressive, it’ll be very interesting to see play out over the next few years.
Here’s the tables. I don’t have time to ferret out what they typically amount to, but I assume it’s not substantially different than what trucks pay on average in other states through the fuel tax.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Forms/Motcarr/9928.pdf
Wow, very interesting, that helps fill in one of the blanks, thank you.
Using Tesla’s chart from their presentation where they compare what they figured as the Total Operating Cost per mile of diesel vs Tesla:
100 mile route
60mph average speed
80,000 GVW
$2.50/gallon diesel
7c/kWh Electricity (he says the 7c price was guaranteed, presumably that means Tesla will supply power at 7c with no swings?)
I assume included is the capital expense of the truck (not sure how or which tax deductions for the purchase or lease are figured in), driver(s), insurance, maintenance, etc. but those amounts aren’t broken out.
Anyway, using those parameters Tesla figured cost per mile at $1.51 for a Diesel truck and $1.26 per mile for the Tesla.
However, the chart that Paul referenced above seems to indicate that at 80,000 pounds, the tax collected would be 16.38 cents per mile. (that chart dates from 2010, I assume it’s still the current one).
So adding that back in to the Tesla puts the per mile cost at $1.4238 per mile. Still quite a bit less than the Diesel, but the difference has been reduced from 25c per mile to just under 9c per mile.
Interestingly, Oregon seems to charge the same price for a return trip unloaded (lighter weight). I’m not sure how that is measured/controlled especially if a truck isn’t just going from Point A to Point B and back to Point A.
Another factor: the price of diesel. Musk uses $2.50/gal. Currently in CA it’s $3.61. That’s quite a difference. The lowest price in the country is about $2.50, but it’s trending up. So that’s a significant factor.
The growing sense is that oil prices are likely to be heading up some over the next few years. That would make the economics of the Tesla semi increasingly favorable.
I’m surprised he used such a low number for the cost of diesel. So much for his hyping. 🙂
Here (CO) it’s right around $2.70 currently. Overall in the US it’s averaging $2.915 per the EIA . https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/
I’m guessing he didn’t want people to say he’s using an unreasonably high diesel cost as that’d be easy to attack and the low number is unlikely to be undercut for any sustained period in the near-term future.
But yeah, I (lazily) did not research that number at all, just compared what he said.
Elon is definitely a trailblazing figure, and I don’t think anyone can really predict where Tesla goes from here. I’ve been getting more pessimistic about the company as production of the Model 3 continues to stagnate, but many people have written off Tesla before, only to be proven wrong. I think worse case scenario has Tesla being bought out by an established automaker, or entering into more of a partnership with one, but I’m not sure Elon could operate under a corporate umbrella.
Obviously this latest presentation was designed to assuage the concerns of current and potential investors. Now that we know what the company will potentially build in the near future, what Tesla does next will probably be influenced by the competition. Consider these segments:
Pickup truck – Ford already stated their intention of introducing a hybrid F-150 within the next three years, and I imagine they’re hard at work on a fully electric model. Obviously Ford has the capacity and expertise to manufacture trucks, and by the time Tesla thinks about doing one it may already be too late.
Van – Either full size work vans or the smaller ones like the Transit Connect. I haven’t heard about any major automaker going full throttle with electric vans, but the Transit and F-150 tend to share powertrains, so its a possibility.
Taxi – Nissan already has its electric variant of the NV200, so I expect them to improve upon its range, especially if they can snag other exclusivity agreements like they did with NYC.
Compact crossover – What happened to the Model Y? Surprised we didn’t see it mentioned at all. Chevy has the Bolt and is developing at least one crossover (and a car) based on its powertrain, to arrive by 2020. Photographers have spotted Escape test mules with a plug, and the Blue Oval has stated their intention of building an electric crossover with a range of at least 300 miles.
It would also be interesting to see Tesla develop an electric aircraft, or more realistically, a boat. Maybe a motorcycle too?
You haven’t seen I think it was Faraday Futures super hyped up electric Vito?
The Model Y is the next high-volume Tesla, but Musk won’t reveal it until Model 3 production is well sorted out and the huge backlog of Model 3 reservations are serviced. he doesn’t want Model 3 buyers to change their mind now. Plus, the Model Y will require massive new production facilities; there’s no way he can reveal it until Model 3 is well under way and being built quickly and efficiently.
Musk announced these two because they in now way can impact the Model 3 buyers/reservation holders negatively.
Tesla cannot compete in every segment at this time. The capital costs are too overwhelming. They’re already a big problem. Tesla has to show it can deliver on the Model 3 before the markets will support further capital investment to expand further. GM wasn’t built in a day.
from 1998-2002 Ford offered a Ranger EV to fleets and other customers.
From 2010-2012 Ford and Azure Dynamics offered a Ford Transit Connect Electric
Both were not a big success. Now maybe the market has changed since all these Tesla cars have arrived and others will offer more electric cars.
Of course they weren’t. The Ranger had lead acid batteries and what, maybe 30-40 mile range? The TC was a bit better, but also not ready for prime time. And they were too expensive.
Time will tell whether Sir Elon will be judged as an electric Henry Ford or P.T. Barnum.
At the moment it could go either way.
“A roadster (spider or spyder) is an open two-seat car with emphasis on sporting appearance or character.” Tesla’s first car, revealed in 2006 and made from 2008 to 2012, was also called Roadster. It’s a pleasant and evocative word; I guess he can be forgiven for sticking with it, appropriate or not.
Tesla styling renders these vehicles the motoring equivalent of Apple products, as I see it: luxury writ “minimal,” sexy, suave and rational all at once. Apple’s pieces are perhaps a bit more sober, as befits stationary objects ?
I saw my first 3 on the road, the other day — and coincidentally found myself at Tesla’s front door in Fremont, yesterday, while picking up some bamboo plywood at a warehouse there. Two white sedans, apparently out for a spin from the factory, were encountered.
Thanks for the whole story ! The future is here . . .
Elon Musk and his Tesla roadster was a joke to me when he debuted it. I considered realistic electric cars for real car uses to be something of a pipe dream. I was, however, blown away by the Model S and its ability to compete successfully as a car (forget the electric) with similarly priced luxury cars. I mean, it wasn’t as good as an S550 or an E63 AMG, but it was damned close- and electric.
Elon is not PT Barnum; PT was a raw crook without much intention of being honest or doing something good. Elon is, I think, constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul. He is doing this because I believe he really wants to change the world and do all of the amazing things he is trying to do… and it costs more money than he can get his hands on. He also seems to understand that the future requires constant upgrades and R&D- and he doesn’t have the back end sales to cover that.
Which is why I think he keeps doing this; he is hoping he hits that profit point before the loans crush him. But I started my first successful business using a few dozen credit cards with little credit history. I believed I’d make a profit before the 12-18 month zero interest period ended and I’d be strangled by 27% APRs. I did it; it is not a totally uncommon strategy, and when you believe in what you are doing, it can make sense.
I see Elon the same way. He isn’t crooked, his intentions are good. He might be insane, but the distance between insanity and genius are measured only by success. In someways he is clearly a genius, in some ways clearly insane, and in most ways the jury is still out.
But I ain’t betting against him ever again.
Your comment could have been written by me, except for your initial impression. I thought the Roadster was a clever way to first show the capabilities of EVs and I wished them well with it.
BTW, Rolling Stone just did an interesting article on Musk that’s worth reading:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/elon-musk-inventors-plans-for-outer-space-cars-finding-love-w511747
Change the world? I for one do not care to live in the brave new world that Elon Musk wants to bring about. To me he will always be P.T. Barnum. Now what is that road which is paved with “good intentions”??
You obviously know very little about PT Barnum. He was a very crooked man who preyed on the poor, the innocent, and the stupid. His circuses had organized pickpocketing; he saw the average man as so stupid that it was rejecting a gift from Providence not to steal from them. I know the feeling; he is one of my heros.
He was a showman, yes, and he put on shows with smoke and mirrors, absolutely. And I will agree that there is a lot of smoke, mirrors, and showmanship at Tesla. But if you want to compare Barnum to a car person, Liz Carmichael would be a fairer choice. And the Dale is a lot closer to Barnums product than the Tesla.
But I am quite sure Elon Musk really wishes to deliver his brave new world. And that means he is not like PT Barnum- or me. I wanted to save the world when I was younger- I figured out pretty quick they have me outnumbered.
I tend to think of Elon Musk as a modern day Preston Tucker. He is challenging the automotive industry in very much the same way that Tucker hoped to, with products that are just as adventurous. His start was better than Tucker’s in that he wasn’t immediately recognized as a threat, and that he had better financing and better timing. Where the government of the day worked against Tucker though, Musk has been the beneficiary of government support both through the policies of which he took advantage and some more direct support. Still like Tucker, he lives at the edge of his finances and one stumble may knock him off the tightrope. The Model 3 may cause that stumble because it’s such a major leap. From what I’ve read, he has a lot of work to actually get the car into mass production – and when he actually does is when the problems will actually start. He simply doesn’t have the time or the resources to actually do the beta testing the such a new product in a new plant with new employees requires especially when the car contains so many new systems.
Good luck to him and may he have better luck than Tucker did
Sorry, but comparing Musk to Tucker is a bit of a putdown to Musk. He’s started numerous highly successful companies and has re-defined rocketry as well as EVs. Musk is a brilliant engineer, and the successes he’s had stem from that. Tucker was mostly a huckster looking for a quick hit. The Tucker car was not all that brilliant by a long shot. It was a ten year old Tatra with a few bells and whistles. Day and night difference, hence the outcomes. The Tucker was DOA. A modifed helicopter engine?? Sorry, although the Tucker is fun to look at, it was not going to disrupt the automobile industry.
It is sure closer than PT Barnum. Lol.
Andre Citroen is a much much better one, though.
Although, one must keep in mind what happened to Andre Citroen eventually. He finally ran out of money and one of his creditors (Michelin) took over the company. I would expect the same of Musk and Tesla eventually. They still have yet to turn a profit on an automobile.
I also have my doubts about them being able to build the Model 3 to expectations. GM has a big lead on them with the Bolt, and other manufacturers aren’t that far behind.
Paul –
Let’s just say that you have more respect for Elon Musk than I do, and less respect for Preston Tucker than I do.
“Following Tesla’s unveiling of its electric semi and second-generation Roadster last week, Lutz went on CNBC and claimed the event was intended as a distraction from the manufacturing problems it’s experiencing with the Model 3. The automaker has been struggling to ramp-up production of the $35,000 sedan and failed to meet its third-quarter delivery targets, and Lutz thinks the semi event was a way to drum up hype and raise capital amid hard times.
“The company, folks, is going out of business,” Lutz said. At this rate they’ll never get to 2019.”
“They are hemorrhaging cash. They’re going to have to go for another capital raise,” he added. ”
This whole scenario sounds very like Tucker to me. New, unproven, vaporware technology and and trying to raise cash faster than than it floods out.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/11/former-gm-exec-bob-lutz-says-tesla-going-business.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AutoGuide.com_daily&utm_source=AutoGuide.com20171120
Lokki: Bob Lutz was one of the executives who bankrupted GM. I haven’t taken him seriously since…about the time he brought over the Merkur.
Tesla might go belly up. But if they do, there’s still no comparison to Tucker, who built like what, eleven cars? Tesla has already sold over 1/4 million, and has some 500k deposits for the Model 3. Day and night.
And Tesla has disrupted the industry on a mammoth scale. All the car execs are trying to “go Musk”, and are spending mega-billions to bring out EVs.
What was Tucker’s lasting impact? Zip.
How much does EV range degrade when cabin heating or A/C is on? This is one downside I struggle with.
It varies. But in the case of the truck, it’s going to be utterly insignificant.
In a car, it might be 5-10%, possibly more in extreme conditions.
I imagine it will be much longer than anyone thinks before we see these become mainstream (particularly due to issues like taxation and liability mitigation), but it’s still interesting to watch the developments.
What I’m really waiting for, though, is to see when Telsa announces a ‘cowboy cab’ option!
Fisker claims to have devised solid-state batteries with superior energy density to Musk’s. Is this Cold Fusion again, or credible?
Fisker claims that the technology will be ready for implementation in “around 2023”. In the meantime, they will be using Li-ion. Who knows if they will meet that vague target. Henri Fisker’s credibility rep is not very good.
Solid state is very attractive, and will eventually work, but exactly when is the big question. Toyota is working hard on it too.
I had my doubts; thanks for the info. Batteries that reduce/eliminate limitations vs. petroleum are a sort of modern Philosopher’s Stone, but at least EVs do work.
The Philosopher’s Stone obsessed ancient thinkers for centuries, in both East and West.
Today battery concept is based on electrochemical principle that is similar to the vacuum tube in the 1940s, no matter how you refined them, there were limits. Until Bell Lab came out transistor to displace them. Transistor, a semiconductor, was the triumph of material science with mordern physic principle, the traditional Newton physic was just enough. To kill the internal combustion engine and fossil fuel, we need to have such quantum leap in battery, so we have not seen yet.
Even solve the battery problem, to fast charge the bettery is another challenge, power utilities just do not have the capacity of power to charge the battery fast like filling a 17 gallon tank.
Better battery technology is inherently credible/ I doubt we have reached the limit on storage density at all. But what I would find incredible is that battery technology would be pioneered in the low profit auto field before it was developed by portable device companies. Apple spends more on R&D than the entire automotive sector, for example.
It was the advent of the smartphones and their battery requirements that made Tesla vehicles possible.
I’m confused; your statement seems to contradict itself. But yes, li-ion cells were first pioneered in portable devices.
I’m saying that I have a hard time believing that the debut of a advanced battery would come from an automaker (especially a little nebbish like Fisker- it’s Henrik, not Henri- he is Finnish, not French); rather, if a battery of greater density than that found in a Tesla were to debut, it would likely come to portable devices first, having been devised as part of the profitable smartphone war to develop a phone that is smaller, more powerful, packed with more features AND a better battery life.
I see what you’re saying. But I doubt it will be the case, because things have changed. 15 years or so ago, there wasn’t really any immediate demand for li-ion cells for cars and other large devices. Also, they were quite pricey at first.
Now the demand for improved battery technology for cars, transport, large scale storage and other uses is mammoth. Nobody is doing battery research just for small devices.
Anyway, it wasn’t the phone manufacturers that did the research; Panasonic (IIRC) and/or other battery manufacturers did. Phone makesrs have never built their batteries, as far as I know. And of course Panasonic builds Tesla’s batteries, in a joint agreement.
LG makes both batteries and phones. Some LG batteries have found their way into Samsung phones too.
Panasonic makes office and cordless landline phones, though I don’t think mobiles phones, and I don’t know it Panasonic actually builds (rather than rebrands) the batteries supplied with their phones.
The semi doesn’t look like it can articulate, unless those body panels are made of some magic intelligently shrinkable metal.
The front of the trailer is a convex curve to match a parallel concave curve on the back of the tractor cab. Simple.
Actually, no; the cab side panels swing out automatically in tight turns as needed. If it was as Ed says, it would make the Tesla incompatible with all of the trailers and shipping containers out there. That would be an absolute fatal flaw.
Doh! Didn’t think about that! Maybe Musk sees a market for trailer/container replacements, too? (c:
The elephant-in-room problem that keeps getting just dusted around is weight.
Weight is everything in trucking. EVERYTHING ties to weight: payload capacity, registration costs, maintenance, fuel economy…
Truck “spec-ers” go to extremes to shave just a measly few pounds here and there, because it’s proven that it pays.
To blow off as nothing an extra 20,000 # or more is laughable.
The mentioned 33,000 # figure puts a battery truck at more than double a common power unit.
No matter where the truck’s energy is ultimately sourced, under the hood or 500 miles away, it’s still a lot of wasted energy to move dead weight.
Myself, I don’t believe that all that many long-haul trucks are regularly riding around half loaded and can yawn at 20,000 # of extra tare weight.
However, if in reality there is that much “cotton candy” regularly being hauled, then it’d seem that either consolidating the lightweight freight or matching it with lightweight equipment would make more sense then reinventing the heavy truck. But again, I don’t believe that as much “air” is being trucked as is optimistically being speculated by those who are blowing off weight as a non-issue.
So… if the battery truck is banking on half-loaded trucks being the payoff, let’s make a run that compare apples to apples.
Put one load of cotton candy on the battery truck and put the other on whatever conventional truck seems best matched to its cargo.
In 500 miles maybe we’ll compare net operating costs of Corvair Rampside vs battery truck? shrug
And in fairness another test, this time with full legal loads. Load a conventional truck to its 80,000# legal limit. Load a battery truck with the same cargo but leave 20,000# on the dock for a second battery truck to haul. Again, compare operating costs.
Weight matters.
Oh Jim, I was wondering when you would show up with your wisdom. But where were you when Elon designed this truck in an isolation chamber? If you’d been there to wise him up about his blunder, he would have saved millions by not designing a useless truck.
I wasn’t going to add more, but for the sake of others, I’ll turn off my sarcasm and explain it.
Weight matters, some of the time. Other times not. Obviously, Tesla does not expect to have 100% market share. They are targeting the share of the market where maximum weight capacity is not an issue. Which it is for very many large trucking companies. And those companies were in regular consultation with Tesla as this truck was developed. And a number of them have already committed to buying this truck.
The trucking industry has changed a lot over the years, and it’s now dominated by an increasingly smaller number of large companies that tend to specialize. They have contracts with their customers to haul their freight regularly, over specific routes and destinations. It’s not like it once was, where there were a lot of owned and operated independent truckers that would haul anything anywhere. They’re almost all gone.
These large trucking companies are ruthlessly focused on operating costs. And they know what they’re hauling, when and how much it weighs. A lot of loads typically weigh less than maximum.
Walmart is a prime example. The general merchandise they (and many other firms) haul is not all that heavy, so hence they’re very interested in this opportunity to lower costs.
No, Jim, Tesla is not going to target the heavy haulers, which are typically smaller outfits that specialize in just that. But it’s a huge market, and if Tesla can get even a small share, it can be successful for them.
Why is everything so black and white, all or nothing, good or bad? There’s many shades in between, and the trucking industry has a variety of needs. some of which Tesla hopes to fulfill. Is it that hard?
Sorry Paul, I didn’t see your reply to my comment or I would have posted my other comment here.
In a nutshell, the point is that Tesla is not comparing its truck with existing trucks of like capability.
It’s a given that a truck of greater capacity would have greater operating costs. May as well just compare Tesla “lightweight” operating costs with a heavy haul giant off-road mining truck and say “Look! See how inexpensive the Tesla is to own?”
The Tesla lacks the capabilities of the truck it’s being compared to, in many ways. It’s not a fair comparison. Is the slight needed to (wrongly) demonstrate an edge?
Good points! But maybe weight won’t matter so much then, when autonomous is good enough and/or accepted enough that the weight limits will be raised by approximately the weight of the batteries. Hundred-thousand-pound rigs? OK. The new trucks are so much cleaner, you know?
“~autonomous is good enough and/or accepted enough that the weight limits will be raised by approximately the weight of the batteries. Hundred-thousand-pound rigs? ~ ”
That’s a possibility, John McMillin. But if the Federal limit is raised to 100K the rising tide will raise all boats – nothing changes. But, much equipment and infrastructure are engineered to the longstanding norm, so a snappy increase isn’t likely. Let me detail out why I believe that the mentioned weight would be a killer.
It’s more complicated than just 20K, or so, less payload, there are specific Federal formulas for per-axle loading and a heavy 33K power unit throws a big wrench in the works. It isn’t a simple linear 20K or whatever knocked off the allowed 80K gross. Shall we look a bit closer at the problem?
To check me on this the rules can be seen here:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/brdg_frm_wghts/index.htm
In practice a combination with a 33K tractor would be tough to load to hit 80K gross. Mainly because even with the steer always optimally loaded to its difficult-to-achieve ideal maximum of 12K it’d leave the drive axles to carry the 21K balance of the tractor’s weight. That’s leaving an available capacity of just 13,000# (34K-21K=13K)additional load on the drive axles. If, per the usual reality, the steer weighs in less than 12K then the drives’ capacity is further reduced. But we’ll move on and stick to speculating with optimistic ideals.
A typical empty van trailer weighs 15K. Let’s again go with an optimistic ideal situation where just 5K of the trailer’s 15K empty weight falls on the tractor’s drive axles, with none of the trailer weight transferring to the already maxed-out steer. This now leaves the drive axles with (13K-5K=8K) 8,000# of payload capacity.
The combination still has theoretically available (80K-33K-15K=48K) 48,000# of payload capacity. However, in reality it would take freight of peculiar weight and cube to hit 80,000# because the 48,000# of payload can not add more than 8,000# to the nose of the trailer. About 30 feet of cotton candy and 20 feet of batteries might hit the mark. Or, more likely, such a combination will typically roll out at far less than 80K, leaving freight on the dock for another truck. Or… more likely, the load (plus some) would be more economically hauled on a truck that’s better spec’d for the job.
For now it seems like Battery is best suited for local (recharge at home terminal tonight) stop-and-go work. Battery is making some inroads in that market. Unfortunately the concept Tesla cab and layout would be poorly suited for in-town “pedal” work. It’s dressed for long haul but equipped for local.
As to the goal, for a manufacturer that’s never built or sold a single heavy truck to fathom turning the industry on its ear by reinventing the entire truck with its first try is more than unrealistically optimistic. Not to mention the minuscule lead time being allowed. By the way, how much does the nuc-proof windshield add to cost? The same as replacing a common windshield (which nobody considers to be a problem) at every fuel-up?
I wonder “what if” instead some manufacturer would focus on its expertise in electric-drive and leave the chassis-cab to those with that experience? More realistically an upstart could perhaps develop a power package that would be workable with current production chassis. Such a power package could be upfitted to current production truck chassis-cabs (aka glider kit) already available/represented/sold/serviced by well established truck makers. Start delivering those, hopefully at a profit, when the bugs start getting ironed out and the cash begins flowing as Diesel is kicked to the curb, then start on a radical truck complete with thermonuclear blast resistant windshield. Granted, that sort of workaday practical plan probably wouldn’t click with sensational fund raising.
Jim, You’re making too many assumptions, many of them not based on facts. The Tesla is specifically oriented to short/regional hauling as currently configures. It only has a day cab; there’s no sleeper cab option, at least not for now.
And the 20k additional weight for the batteries is only an assumption, and might not be right, for number of reasons. And that’s for the longer range (500 mile) version; the 300 mile version will be significantly lighter. And realistically, the 300 mile version may well be the more popular one, at least initially.
The Tesla semi is not aimed at the long haul market, at least not now, and not primarily. Short/Local/regional hauling is a very large percentage of trucking, and that’s what it’s aimed at.
Paul, thanks for clearing my spammer status.
You’re correct that I’m using assumptions, that’s all anybody has as not many of Tesla Semi’s facts have been revealed. Thus I said “mentioned” because I’m simply going by what’s been reported, based on logical assumptions.
However, a respected tech school has chimed in with their extensive study and calculation of the needed weight to accomplish the promised objective, and it’s in the mentioned neighborhood. Sorry I don’t recall the school this second to be able to credit them. However, the axle loading concern is a known and very real for a heavy tractor, no assumptions there.
Right, I understand that Tesla Semi is not aimed at the long-haul market. However, the unveiled cab’s configuration is not “local work” friendly whatsoever, for many reasons. Look at what’s pedaling locally, and consider that a hundred years of local truck evolution formed that to be the best possible city configuration. Now compare to Tesla’s offering. Again, Tesla is dressed for the road, not local work. I believe that other than for it’s initial novelty, a typical pedal driver is going to detest operating with the Tesla type of cab, if she has the option to use a common day-cab. It would be no problem to put “road” trucks on for local delivery, there are plenty of them available, however, they are not practical for city use, thus the ubiquitous short day-cab in local work.
And the windshield again… why?
Since guesses are the order of the day (week) on this one, I’ll toss mine in: I’m guessing the extra-tough windshield is a selling point that’ll make friends fast. A truck windshield is an expensive nuisance to replace in its own right, plus the costs of the downtime involved.
Paul, if I weren’t typing right this instant I’d give you a round of applause for high-quality reportage. Far too many writers about anything to do with Tesla or Musk just cannot resist jumping into the dogpile, siding either with the fanboi types (Tesla can do no wrong; Musk walks on water and on several occasions has sacrificed his own life so that others might live) or the gleeful hatebags (Musk is responsible for everything bad in the world going at least as far back as the Defenestration of Prague).
Just one thing, though:
I donno, sounds like a pretty interesting company to me!
»ducking« 😉
+1. Excellent article Paul. To be honest I have lost interest in following a lot of “new car” news so it’s nice to get your report on here. While I have been a bit of a Tesla skeptic in the past, it wasn’t because I think his vehicles are poor or that I think Musk is bad. In fact I think the opposite. But the way Musk does business is just so risky, my conservative nature thinks that it could all blow up in his face. (Plus I inherently go against the grain when something becomes popular and trendy). Yet he continually succeeds.
I am very impressed by the truck, much more so than the sports car. The impact of him having a high volume car and making inroads in the trucking industry would be monumental. This skeptic contiunes to be less and less so as Musk continues on his mission.
I find these 2 cars interesting and i hope the semi is a success.
I doubt the the truck (or the sports car) will be allowed to be side mirrorless, most states have laws that require them and I am sure those cameras that are to be replacing the mirrors, will fall afoul of a lot of states distracted diver laws.
I would be nice to see them integrate solar panels onto the the top of the trailer(or make the top of the trailer a huge solar panel) and have the solar panels wire harness integrated into the trailer harness that is plugged into truck (for the lights etc) that would allow them to drop a trailer at a store and take an empty one back(Walmart trucks drop off a full trailer and take back another empty one)
I suspect Tesla has looked into the mirror issue. They are coming on several cars soon, not just Tesla. It offers a meaningful aerodynamic benefit.
From DrivingVisionNews, 26 July 2016:
===
Japan Green-Lights Mirrorless Cars
Designers and aerodynamicists alike have yearned for years to use cameras to shave the protuberant side-view mirrors off their cars. There have been many iterations of development and research, and now this technology has been approved in Japan, with approval in Europe potentially to follow later this year and in the USA perhaps in 2018.
<image>Prototype of the BMW i8 using 3 cameras
Manufacturers and suppliers are already working on the implementation: BMW, for instance, showed an i8 with three cameras replacing the two side-view mirrors as well as the interior rear-view mirror. A rear-side-looking camera is perched on a slim stalk where the side mirror would usually be, and a stereo camera above the backglass provides the direct rear view.
All three images are merged and shown where the interior rear-view mirror would usually be. After a period of adjustment—old habits are difficult and unsettling to change—the driver can react faster to what’s happening around the car because the whole scene is presented in one place, instead of split amongst three. The images overlap, so the composite view covers a larger angle of view than the old way. The blind spot is eliminated, and bulky wing mirrors no longer create wind drag or obscure the driver’s view of pedestrians crossing the street.
===
As for state laws: the minute NHTSA amends FMVSS 111 to allow cameras instead of mirrors, states will no longer have a say in the matter and any state statutes requiring mirrors (to the exclusion of cameras) will be rendered null and void.
If this comes true, we’re gonna need a lot more wind turbines generating power so we can get our crap from Amazon. On the upside, environmental quality will get better.
I come to recognize the current internal combustion engine is like the CRT tube in 1990s and flim camera in 2000s. The electric motor is no doubt the engine of choice for future vehicles. But the battery technology remains a big unknown factor. Personally I convince the battery to solve problem is not a electrochemical base battery. Until then fossil fuel is still a king.
Then there is source of electricity. Tesla boss may claim from its solar farms. The reality is they are difficult to get in Michigan and Ohio during the winter months. This means getting the power from electricity from the power grid, my question is if the electric utility has enough power to spare to replace all the energy currently supplied oil companies. Everyone knows they are barely able to provide power during heat wave.
There’s a very good summary of the costs of all the sources of electricity and storage in this recent article. It says “The cost of wind generation continues to fall, solar costs are falling, too, and the cost of coal-power energy has seen no movement, while the cost of building and maintaining nuclear plants has gone up. And none of those conclusions reflect subsidies and tax credits applied by the federal government.”
Wind is a fine energy source in winter and summer, day and night. Fourteen states now have 10 percent or more of their generation coming from wind power. Most of these are in the central plains. One of the ten largest wind farms in the US is in Indiana. (Wikipedia)
Batteries are getting lighter and cheaper every year. It’ll be a very interesting mix of power sources on our roads over the next ten or twenty years.
Wind is not, and never will be, a baseload power source.
You have to have backup power generation capability at the ready, for every windfarm that you are depending upon. So now we have to own, operate, maintain, and repair two powerplants instead of one.
Talk to somebody that works on a windfarm and your mind will be blown.
I’m all for alternative energy sources, but you need to understand what baseload powerplants are and their necessity to maintaining a stable, reliable power grid (which can store no energy).
The concept of baseload power source is rapidly becoming obsolete. Small and relatively cheap natural gas plants,various energy storage schemes, and increasingly battery packs can provide the back up and fill-in power as necessary without a base load plant.
The industry has accepted that the future will be very different from the past, meaning numerous sources of renewable energy increasingly becoming primary or key sources of power, backed by various options.
I know you’re very conservative in your outlook, but I suggest you do a bit of reading on the subject. There’s a genuine revolution taking place in power generation, and it’s happening faster than anyone could have predicted. The skeptics are being proven wrong, over and over.
Did you know that solar is generating electricity for as little as 1.77 cents per kWh? And that 1 cent per kWh solar is predicted within a couple of years? And that the storage capabilities are expanding in scope and dropping in price faster than anyone expected too.
Tesla builds storage packs for utility-scale solar, and they’ve installed numerous systems world wide. And wind power is on a roll too, now that they’ve come up with floating off-shore wind farms, where the wind is much more consistent than on land.
Things are changing very quickly. As is the climate, so you’d better hope that the transition to renewables keeps accelerating.
Here’s just a few articles on the myth of baseload power.
https://www.awea.org/baseloadpower
https://skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-baseload-power.htm
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/10/why-everyone-is-talking-about-baseload-power.html
Thanks for the links, Paul – I’ll do some reading.
My best friend is a wind farm technician (and former site manager) in NE Oregon. If you want to converse with him sometime, I can set it up. He lives near The Dalles.
It may temper your enthusiasm to know some of the industry’s well-kept secrets. From what I know, I’d be surprised if many of these wind farms weren’t abandoned in another 10-15 years. Hiring a 300′ crane truck that has to drive out there from Portland, every time a large component (generator, gearbox, hub, blade, etc) needs to get replaced up top, eats a lot of money. Now multiply that by hundreds of turbines. Some of them have already had the generators rebuilt twice.
Hi redmondjp, wind turbines at this scale are still relatively new technologies. It’s likely they’ll get better at building them to last as time goes on. No fundamental reason why they wouldn’t, is there? There’s more than one major manufacturer (GE and Vestas come to mind) so competition must be active. I wonder what the warranties are like, who pays for that service call?
I especially like the recent article I linked to above because it includes the cost of storage, which is dropping fast. Both the lithium ion batteries, thanks to rising EV volumes, and stationary flow batteries, which are maturing into mainstream utility-scale application.
Another contributor to non-baseload acceptance is the growth of long-distance power transmission lines. It’s usually windy or sunny somewhere within 1000 miles of the load.
As wind and solar with storage get cheaper than coal and even natural gas, it’s getting adopted, strictly thanks to economics.
“Compared to $2.50 per gallon diesel fuel and factoring in insurance, maintenance and lease costs, a Tesla Semi driven 60 miles per hour with an full load on a 100-mile route would cost about $1.26 a mile to operate, versus $1,51 per mile for a diesel.”
The above is from this article’s opening statement.
Let’s forget all the other possible unknowns and variables and just compute this using Tesla’s own given figures.
We’ll work through what it’d take to just hit break-even traveling the 100 miles using Tesla’s figures:
Tesla 1.26 per mile x 100 mile = $126.00
Diesel 1.51 x 100 = 151.00
Tesla 126 ÷ 80,000 = $.00156 per pound
Diesel 151 ÷ 80,000 = $.00188 per pound
Tesla cost to travel the 100 miles is $.00156 per pound.
Diesel cost to travel the 100 miles is $.00188 per pound.
Tesla saves over Diesel $25.00 (151.00 – 126.00)
Obviously Diesel is dead, Tesla’s own numbers show it clear as night.
But weight!
Diesel can carry 20,000 # more payload.
At Diesel’s $.00188 per pound break-even:
20,000 x $.00188 = $37.60
$37.60 – $25.00 = $12.60
Oops, the weight has erased Tesla savings and boosted Diesel’s bottom line by $12.60 over Tesla.
That’s a T-bone steak every 100 miles! LoL
Please see my reply to your previous similarly astute comment. The short story: a very considerable percentage of trucks are regularly (always) dedicated to carrying loads less than the maximum, often considerably less. Those are the companies (and trucks) Tesla is targeting. It obviously is not going after the dedicated heavy haulers. They can keep their diesels, for the time being.
I understand that. But… see my “Rampside” comment above. The Tesla example is not comparing apples to apples.
If light-running LTL carriers are considering investing in new equipment that’s more compatible with their usual business of hauling light loads, there is already available in the marketplace equipment that will blow the stated $1.51 per mile figure to smithereens. Why not compare the Tesla with conventional equipment of like capability?
In most states shedding 20,000 # will eliminate the need for one axle altogether; to boot, trading some of axle and tire weight for payload. That can put us into another class of truck altogether. Why not compare the Tesla to a lightweight single-axle? A combination that will move as much -if not more- payload as the battery truck, with even lower operating costs than the example Diesel used for comparison.
That’s my beef with the comparison, it’s slanted and not being fair with Diesel. What’s your best guess why apples aren’t being compared to apples?
You’re telling this to the wrong person; tell it to Walmart, J.B.Hunt, Meijer, and some other large companies that have already put down money to buy some Tesla Semis. I’m sure they haven’t thought it through as well as you have.
I was simply asking why the comparison wasn’t to a like-capacity truck? shrug Anybody?
I thought the pre-purchase thing through too.
My hunch is that for the mentioned carriers to pay more for less with this truck, is, in their long-range-view, a way of subsidizing the development and implementation of driverless technology in commercial vehicles.
Because, to them, eliminating drivers no doubt would seem like a boom dang near as big as Tesla’s subsidies.
And speaking of subsidies… Did I read above that Tesla is guaranteeing artificially held below market price fueling to purchasers? That’s something else that could be a powerful incentive. Of course that wouldn’t be necessary if the new tech was all that.
Autonomous trucks certainly don’t need to be electric. That’s coming, regardless. Apples and oranges.
I was simply asking why the comparison wasn’t to a like-capacity truck?
Why did Musk use $2.50/gal diesel for his comparison when it’s currently $2.80 nationwide average and $3.60 in CA, where these trucks will most likely first be used. And what will diesel cost in 2019 or 2020 when they actually come out?
Try running the numbers again with these more accurate prices of diesel, and see how they look then.
How much more efficient is an 80k lbs diesel truck running at 60k lbs? probably a very small difference, as most of the energy goes to overcoming air resistance. In the mountains, it might be a bit more.
And let me add: there’s never been a question in my mind that there are intrinsic limitations to an electric semi, due to weight and range. I was rather dubious when Tesla first announced it a year or so ago. The low energy density of batteries seemed like an impossible hurdle compared to diesel.
And although many of these limitations are of course still there, their truck’s specs have exceeded my expectations. I’m not here to defend their choices and its potential impact in the market. And there’s no doubt it will not find much or any favor with true long haul truckers. But for shorter, local and regional hauling, it will undoubtedly be an attractive alternative that some trucking companies will want to explore.
There’s no doubt that the electrification of transportation will continue to expand, due to the huge efficiency advantage of electric motors (some 90%) compared to diesels (up to 40%), and as battery technology improves over the years, further inroads will be made. This is just a shot over the bow.
Does anyone know if the taxpayers will be subsidizing the trucks like we do the cars?
Doubtful. Even if the electric vehicle tax credit applies to heavy trucks, credits on Teslas will be phased out by the time Tesla Semis hit the road.
It’s not widely known that the US Federal EV tax credit for a given manufacturer gets phased out when they reach a certain number of EVs sold. At the rate they’re selling, credits on Tesla and GM EVs will start phasing out in 2018, Nissans soon thereafter.
In 2015 medium and heavy trucks accounted for 6% of all US greenhouse gas emissions (source here). Like all US businesses, if they’re savvy the trucking industry will try to get some sort of tax break once electric trucks start catching on. I doubt they’ll get very far with the current administration.
How much are electric car companies subsidized vs. fossil-fuel industries?
Suppose Tesla was, for whatever reason, unable to keep paying a rebate to halve New York’s 13.7 cent KWH rate. (I looked it up. It’s the highest, but many states are over 10 cents.) What happens to the value of those trucks? Relying on a public subsidy is risky enough, but long-term planning for this private subsidy is a step farther.
My goal is to see fewer big rigs on the road, whatever their fuel.
Fewer trucks is never going to happen unless people stop buying stuff.
The CC site locked me out as a spammer before I was finished with a reply to John McMillin. Hopefully it’s clear enough as-is.
Was it the link to Federal axle/weight rules that caused the lockout?
“7376 lb-ft of torque”? Seriously? That’s fucking insane.
Mads, the 7376 number’s not so insane, it’s just that we’re not used to hearing final output torque figures.
Consider a performance car’s gasoline engine that can twist out 500 ft-lbs, not an unrealistic number at all, and easy to work with.
Granted, a gasoline engine is going to have a narrow band where it hits max torque.
Now, multiply that 500 by a modest easy-to-calculate 4:1 transmission gearing, 2000 ft-lbs.
That leaves final-drive multiplication to consider, another 4:1 there isn’t extreme, puts us at 8000.
For the record, Tesla just showed that grid energy storage is practical and shipping “off-the-shelf”, by winning a bet with the state of South Australia.
“Tesla has completed construction of a massive 100 megawatt, 129 MWh battery installation in South Australia. The new facility boasts the largest megawatt rating for any grid-connected battery installation in the world. The project was completed less than two months after the contract was signed on September 29, putting it ahead of schedule. Musk had promised Australian authorities that he would complete the project in 100 days or the project would be free. Musk has said it would cost Tesla “$50 million or more” if the company failed to meet the deadline.” — Ars Technica
Tesla’s a car company, but deeper down Tesla’s a battery company.
DHL just ordered ten Tesla semi’s.
A postscript: as of today PepsiCo has reserved 100 Tesla Semis, along with Walmart, JB Hunt, DHL and Ryder, bringing the total up to 267 so far. At the announced price of $150,000 for 300 miles’ range and $180,000 for 500 miles’ range, that’s around $44 million of advance sales for the Tesla Semi.