Tesla Unveils - Semi Truck and next-gen Roadster

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The waste issue is very overblown. Most waste is incredibly small (like something like a square meter for a fuel bundle). A decommissioned mine, or an artificial cave inside a mountain, etc, and just let it sit, and it's pretty safe.

 

Add in the next gen fission reactors that can use spent fuel rods that were already used in traditional current gen reactors, and the radioactive waste goes down even further.

 

The biggest problem with waste is that too many people who aren't qualified fight over where a permanent storage facility should be. Most people end up in the "not in my backyard" thought process. Can't say I blame them, but if engineers and scientists find a safe location, the decision makers need to stop bickering - that last part is where things often fall apart.

Yes, nuclear energy is fine if handled correctly, and with new technology....but the permanent storage solution was supposed to be solved decades ago, but here we are, with Yucca Mountain shut down because, as you said, the "not in my backyard" mentality. 

 

Nuclear energy by itself isn't the issue, its politicians and bureaucracies that are making it problematic. 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

 

There's actually nuclear reactor technology not in use that can use 'spent fuel rods' from current reactors just fine. VERY little development has happened with nuclear reactors over the last 30-40 years, and in actual fact for power generation there was superior technology 30 years ago but solid fuel water cooled reactors were chosen by the US Navy due to safety so therefore it became the defacto reactor to use for everything.

 

Edit:

Due to safety for submarine use, the liquid sodium nuclear reactors were much safer but not when in a submarine under water. Sodium + water = yea....

Yeah, Salt Reactors seem very interesting and promising, and I believe that the newest nuclear reactor in the US is over two decades old, so nuclear power has really stagnated in the US due to a lot of propaganda and scare tactics. 

 

I personally see nuclear as a great option (wind/solar/water are obviously cleaner, but they're often limited in the fact that they either require a lot of space, sensitive to the seasons/weather, require proximity to some specific area), but not until the DOE gets its shit together. 

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

No I refuse to buy a electric car period. You also seem to forget all the other components that are far more expensive and intensive to fix then the parts on a conventional car. Not everyone wants to go electric ever. Your not really a gear head otherwise you'd understand where I'm coming from. So far though you just come off smug. Good day.

They also break down considerably less often.

 

And I'm not saying what I am about your choices for cars in the future out of some kind of brimming overconfidence.  It's because the market really is shifting over to EVs; most of the major car makers plan to have significantly electrified lineups within a few years, and countries like the UK and France already intend to ban sales of gas cars by 2040 (this will have a ripple effect on North America, if we haven't implemented a ban by then).  You may think you'll never buy an EV, but that won't matter if you literally don't have any choice.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

@leadeateris bringing the band Tyr back into car conversations again...

Kappa

Well it is how we spell the word in my country .

 

https://www.tonystyreservice.co.nz/

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Yeah, Salt Reactors seem very interesting and promising, and I believe that the newest nuclear reactor in the US is over two decades old, so nuclear power has really stagnated in the US due to a lot of propaganda and scare tactics. 

 

I personally see nuclear as a great option (wind/solar/water are obviously cleaner, but they're often limited in the fact that they either require a lot of space, sensitive to the seasons/weather, require proximity to some specific area), but not until the DOE gets its shit together. 

It is also rather weird for me to say nuclear is actually a good and safe option since I live in New Zealand, a country that has a zero tolerance nuclear free policy. We still do not allow US and Aus (or anyone) nuclear powered ships in to our waters lol.

[Egg-Roll]

8 hours ago, Commodus said:

And I'm not saying what I am about your choices for cars in the future out of some kind of brimming overconfidence.  It's because the market really is shifting over to EVs; most of the major car makers plan to have significantly electrified lineups within a few years, and countries like the UK and France already intend to ban sales of gas cars by 2040 (this will have a ripple effect on North America, if we haven't implemented a ban by then).  You may think you'll never buy an EV, but that won't matter if you literally don't have any choice.

I for once don't hate Quebec for something http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/quebec-electric-vehicle-law-sparks-concern-within-automotive-industry-1.3253365

While it might seem low, but i can see Tesla profiting on their laziness  I have no sympathy towards the automakers, they had since the roadster and the announcement of the S to get their act together, but did they?

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

It is also rather weird for me to say nuclear is actually a good and safe option since I live in New Zealand, a country that has a zero tolerance nuclear free policy. We still do not allow US and Aus (or anyone) nuclear powered ships in to our waters lol.

Nuclear here in Canada (ontario at least) is losing money. While the likelihood of cutting corners is very low i dont like the idea it could happen to finally turn a profit.

 

What people fail to see and put pressure on is if people with large roofs where to put solar panels on them it would help a lot. on ebay a local seller is selling a 260W panel for $210 it can provide up to 159W per sqm.

 

10 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

(wind/solar/water are obviously cleaner, but they're often limited in the fact that they either require a lot of space, sensitive to the seasons/weather, require proximity to some specific area)

Not completely true, for wind they can be placed on water, and if someone figured out how they might be able to suck some extra power by creating a "fake" dam inside it.

I don't fully agree on water due to the potential ecosystem effect, as for solar while a water based one would be neat to see the aforementioned method is likely the best route to go, tell people with flat roofs to either start growing food or solar power 

[Dash Lambda]

13 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

-snip-

It's perfectly reasonable to not want an EV, but to denounce EVs so unconditionally is kind'a... Silly, I guess is the word.

 

Both ICE and electric vehicles simply store energy and convert it into mechanical motion when needed. EVs are not only more efficient, but also much more flexible as there's a fundamental disconnect between the way the power is used and the way it's stored. In an ICE, you store it in a combustible fluid (usually liquid) that is burned. An EV can use a chemical battery, fuel cell, flywheel, capacitor, some form of reactor, and anything else that either I'm missing or nobody's made yet that can output power.

So, aside from performance and efficiency, the biggest functional difference between EVs and ICE vehicles is that EVs can charge from any power source of sufficient capacity. People give Tesla shit for how sparse supercharger stations are compared to gas stations, but in reality it's a fundamentally different set of considerations when you can 'fuel' your car from a standard household outlet.

 

ICE vehicles aren't outright inferior to EVs by any means, that's a very subjective matter, but they are inherently more limited in a number of important ways (such as flexibility as above, and also efficiency). Current ICEs based on fossil-fuels are even more limited as the only fuel they can use is both only on this planet and will only ever get harder to extract, until there's no more.

 

EVs have a lot of rather varied advantages that I'm sure have been ground to death, so I'm not going to bother making yet another list of the other stuff, but it really is good to examine the differences rather than simply hate them.

[Monkey Dust]

12 hours ago, Commodus said:

They also break down considerably less often.

 

And I'm not saying what I am about your choices for cars in the future out of some kind of brimming overconfidence.  It's because the market really is shifting over to EVs; most of the major car makers plan to have significantly electrified lineups within a few years, and countries like the UK and France already intend to ban sales of gas cars by 2040 (this will have a ripple effect on North America, if we haven't implemented a ban by then).  You may think you'll never buy an EV, but that won't matter if you literally don't have any choice.

As we are living in ever increasingly dense urban environments there will be less and less room for people to have their own metal box. By 2040 not owning a car could quite likely be the norm, replaced by more mass transit, more remote working and more cycling. So he may never buy an EV even once they become all that's available.  

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

As we are living in ever increasingly dense urban environments there will be less and less room for people to have their own metal box. By 2040 not owning a car could quite likely be the norm, replaced by more mass transit, more remote working and more cycling. So he may never buy an EV even once they become all that's available.  

That's true -- I'm just acting on the assumption that he'll insist on a personal car.  If self-proclaimed gearheads like that are freaking out at the thought that gas-powered cars are guaranteed to die out, just imagine telling them that they may not even own a car in 10-20 years thanks to self-driving buses and ridesharing cars.  Driving may eventually become something you only do at special track days using a car that will never hit the street.

[8uhbbhu8]

6 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

I for once don't hate Quebec for something http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/quebec-electric-vehicle-law-sparks-concern-within-automotive-industry-1.3253365

While it might seem low, but i can see Tesla profiting on their laziness  I have no sympathy towards the automakers, they had since the roadster and the announcement of the S to get their act together, but did they?

 

Nuclear here in Canada (ontario at least) is losing money. While the likelihood of cutting corners is very low i dont like the idea it could happen to finally turn a profit.

 

What people fail to see and put pressure on is if people with large roofs where to put solar panels on them it would help a lot. on ebay a local seller is selling a 260W panel for $210 it can provide up to 159W per sqm.

 

Not completely true, for wind they can be placed on water, and if someone figured out how they might be able to suck some extra power by creating a "fake" dam inside it.

I don't fully agree on water due to the potential ecosystem effect, as for solar while a water based one would be neat to see the aforementioned method is likely the best route to go, tell people with flat roofs to either start growing food or solar power 

What heresy is this?!!! Quebec doing something the rest of the country might actually agree with?!!!!! Its a miracle!!! (I would love to put /s but from my experience its true)

 

I don't mind electric vehicles but they are just not advanced enough for climates where really cold weather is the norm. It is well known for batteries to loose a lot of functionality once they get even remotely cold. This means where I am if people really want these cars we will need electric heaters to keep them warm 24/7 unless you are lucky enough to have a heated garage. Even most wealthy people hear don't have those cause its futile once you open the garage door for even a few seconds. Also that means that you'll be having a constant very much unneeded drain on the battery any time its not plugged in which will be a lot. Things like manual transmissions, rear wheel/all wheel/4x4 drives are very much preferred by many people here due to the added control during icy, snowy conditions and if you get stuck its a lot easier to control your vehicle when getting unstuck if you can highly control how your vehicle is acting. All the electric vehicles i've seen so far are start, put into drive, and go. Yes some are all wheel drive but that only gets you so far controlling a spinout is a hell of a lot harder in an all wheel drive vehicle then 2 wheel drive.

 

I agree with the nuclear problem in Ontario. Frankly i'm surprised they haven't taken advantage of the currents in the great lakes right next to them yet considering how much unused potential they have. 

 

Solar is an amazing thing  If my one half of my family had agreed with the other half 15 years ago we would be getting paid for putting electricity into the grid by now, not paying to take from the grid  

 

Have you seen the plans for those giant underwater generators that are being tested in the ocean right now? My thoughts are why not combine them with the current wind farms that are out at sea right now. Tether 1 or 2 of those to each turbine and boom, you've added mega or gigawatts of capacity to your system without having to build new expensive bases on/in the floor.

 

Something like 96-98% of my provinces electricity is generated by hydro. Yes it can have bad effects but if you plan it right you can very much minimize the effects. Where we have our stations are areas where we couldn't use the land around it anyway and while yes there can be tons of animals displaced by it its nowhere near as much compared to say turning it into farmland or cities where pollution will constantly be generated. Once these stations are built the land around them grows back and lots of the ecosystem actually improves due to a massive stagnant or slow moving body of water being there. 

 

One thing i've been thinking of as an alternative to more dams is why not line the reservoirs and the top of the stations with solar panels. You have all this flat wide space not being used. Specifically where I am we have 15 hydro electric stations currently running. Why not put all that space on top of them to use hey?

[Egg-Roll]

I'm on my phone,

 

But it's been confirmed, the Tesla semi is $150,000 base.

https://www.tesla.com/semi/

Which is actually makes things more confusing, unless they expect money from selling hardware for charging then at depots, but that's a one time deal and a long term loss...

 

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

I'm on my phone,

 

But it's been confirmed, the Tesla semi is $150,000 base.

https://www.tesla.com/semi/

Which is actually makes things more confusing, unless they expect money from selling hardware for charging then at depots, but that's a one time deal and a long term loss...

 

Did they say somewhere how expensive it is to manufacture?

 

I'm still not sure why half the posters assumed it would cost like $1m USD.

[Egg-Roll]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Did they say somewhere how expensive it is to manufacture?

 

I'm still not sure why half the posters assumed it would cost like $1m USD.

My initial calculations were 300-700, but it's due to Tesla's past pricing more than anything. I was the first here to say 1 million but to show how 1 million could still be cheaper past 5 years.

 

The article that brought this to my attention said some claim a 1mwh battery would cost 400,000 alone... So unless they are thinking they will recover the losses via charging i don't know what drugs they are on because i still find it too low even for a 300 mile version. I'm saying this because it's a truck not a car.

 

However after a quick calculation and a avg price of $2 per cell (18650 ones) with 11.1wh per cell a 1mwh pack is only $180,000, so i guess someone just pulled the $400,000 out of nowhere  

 

heres the article

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/23/tesla-semi-electric-truck-price/

[Monkey Dust]

3 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

My initial calculations were 300-700, but it's due to Tesla's past pricing more than anything. I was the first here to say 1 million but to show how 1 million could still be cheaper past 5 years.

 

The article that brought this to my attention said some claim a 1mwh battery would cost 400,000 alone... So unless they are thinking they will recover the losses via charging i don't know what drugs they are on because i still find it too low even for a 300 mile version. I'm saying this because it's a truck not a car.

 

However after a quick calculation and a avg price of $2 per cell (18650 ones) with 11.1wh per cell a 1mwh pack is only $180,000, so i guess someone just pulled the $400,000 out of nowhere  

 

heres the article

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/23/tesla-semi-electric-truck-price/

Yeah the $150000 price does still seem too cheap. I wonder if it's a case of a diesel unit costs x, they wanted it to pay for itself over period y, so it had to be $150000 to customers (plus options) regardless of how much it cost to build. Telsa haven't shown much inclination to turn a profit yet, so they might be intending to sell at a loss to get more charging infrastructure in, and get people used to the idea of electric trucks. I wonder if they are planing a ridged body version too? 

[Egg-Roll]

17 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

Yeah the $150000 price does still seem too cheap. I wonder if it's a case of a diesel unit costs x, they wanted it to pay for itself over period y, so it had to be $150000 to customers (plus options) regardless of how much it cost to build. Telsa haven't shown much inclination to turn a profit yet, so they might be intending to sell at a loss to get more charging infrastructure in, and get people used to the idea of electric trucks. I wonder if they are planing a ridged body version too? 

What is likely going to happen is what happened with the Model 3 where it was a barebones vehicle. Tho Elon did say all would have autonomous driving so like i said a cup holder might just cost $10,000  However with the "first 1000" as Founder editions, it means Tesla won't have to worry about money during production unless they completely screw up on the Model 3's "new" production goals. Tho i can see Convoy mode working very well with a $150,000 price tag, first one costs $250,000 with all options (lets say) but the other 2 are just $150,000+cost of the 500 mile battery.

 

Well once you have a truck fully working creating a rigid version shouldn't be too hard. According to wikipedia they are/where planning on a mini bus design using the x's chassis...

[Dash Lambda]

On 11/24/2017 at 2:12 PM, Egg-Roll said:

-1mwh-

I was very confused for a moment, because that says milliwatt-hour.

[Bit_Guardian]

On 11/24/2017 at 9:07 AM, dalekphalm said:

Did they say somewhere how expensive it is to manufacture?

 

I'm still not sure why half the posters assumed it would cost like $1m USD.

Because that's what a good freight semi truck costs (closer to 700,000 brand new, with 10mil mile caterpillar builds passing the 1 million USD mark).

[Monkey Dust]

2 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

What is likely going to happen is what happened with the Model 3 where it was a barebones vehicle. Tho Elon did say all would have autonomous driving so like i said a cup holder might just cost $10,000  However with the "first 1000" as Founder editions, it means Tesla won't have to worry about money during production unless they completely screw up on the Model 3's "new" production goals. Tho i can see Convoy mode working very well with a $150,000 price tag, first one costs $250,000 with all options (lets say) but the other 2 are just $150,000+cost of the 500 mile battery.

 

Well once you have a truck fully working creating a rigid version shouldn't be too hard. According to wikipedia they are/where planning on a mini bus design using the x's chassis...

Given how quickly lithium batteries can go from a bit of smoke to raging inferno, I'm not sure I'd get on a bus packed with them. Car or truck where the is one, maybe two people per door so you can disembark quickly, fine, a bus I'll pass thanks.

[Bit_Guardian]

18 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Given how quickly lithium batteries can go from a bit of smoke to raging inferno, I'm not sure I'd get on a bus packed with them. Car or truck where the is one, maybe two people per door so you can disembark quickly, fine, a bus I'll pass thanks.

With busses you just knock the windows out. The new ones come with quick release levers for every single one.

[dalekphalm]

39 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

Because that's what a good freight semi truck costs (closer to 700,000 brand new, with 10mil mile caterpillar builds passing the 1 million USD mark).

Do you have a source on that? I did some searching and was trying to find pricing. International's website wants you to request a quote (not gonna do that), but The Verge lists the average price at around $120,000 USD for a long haul truck:

Quote

Most long-haul diesel trucks are priced around $120,000

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/24/16695926/tesla-electric-semi-truck-price

 

Using Auto Trader Canada, I was able to find over 1000 "Highway Tractor" type Transport Trucks, and the most expensive were just about $200,000 CAD ($157K USD). By page 2 (out of 72 pages), the prices were under $120,000 CAD ($94K USD).

http://wwwa.autotrader.ca/heavy-trucks/highway tractor/on/?prx=-2&prv=Ontario&loc=M5E+1W5&sts=New-Used&hprc=False&wcp=False&inMarket=basicSearch

So yeah, I'm sure that some transport trucks can cost upwards of $700K USD to $1m USD, but without further evidence, it's hard to believe that this is the price that a "good freight semi truck" costs.

[Bit_Guardian]

20 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Do you have a source on that? I did some searching and was trying to find pricing. International's website wants you to request a quote (not gonna do that), but The Verge lists the average price at around $120,000 USD for a long haul truck:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/24/16695926/tesla-electric-semi-truck-price

 

Using Auto Trader Canada, I was able to find over 1000 "Highway Tractor" type Transport Trucks, and the most expensive were just about $200,000 CAD ($157K USD). By page 2 (out of 72 pages), the prices were under $120,000 CAD ($94K USD).

http://wwwa.autotrader.ca/heavy-trucks/highway tractor/on/?prx=-2&prv=Ontario&loc=M5E+1W5&sts=New-Used&hprc=False&wcp=False&inMarket=basicSearch

So yeah, I'm sure that some transport trucks can cost upwards of $700K USD to $1m USD, but without further evidence, it's hard to believe that this is the price that a "good freight semi truck" costs.

Those are used. Brand new the cheapest 2017 Peterbilt I can find (absolutely barebones) is $230,000, and that's with a cheap Cummins engine, no sleeper cab, no built-in refrigeration, no secondary fuel tank, no nothing.

 

And that's a cheap, cheap truck. It's by no means good.

[Egg-Roll]

22 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Given how quickly lithium batteries can go from a bit of smoke to raging inferno, I'm not sure I'd get on a bus packed with them. Car or truck where the is one, maybe two people per door so you can disembark quickly, fine, a bus I'll pass thanks.

Chances are you've been on a bus that has lithium batteries... Nickel batteries have not been used in buses for years (if ever), while i'm speculating all buses i know are using Lithium due to weight and life.

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Alexander_Dennis_Enviro400H

 

These batteries are as safe as the manufacture who build the vehicle (or battery pack), and as per the video i posted with a battery being tested, most dont really catch fire anymore unless something violent happens.  This is why i wouldn't trust GM...

 

Here's one instance of an issue with Lithium batteries but they would need to be overcharged past a point.

You're more likely to cause a fire (due to the safety precautions done by manufacturer of batteries) at the gas pump than you are with any battery.

 

 

BTW you might never want to touch your laptop ever again too. Same batteries, less protection.

 

1 hour ago, Dash Lambda said:

I was very confused for a moment, because that says milliwatt-hour.

Sorry got lazy tho if tesla did make a truck run on a milliwatt of power per hour you could charge millions for that 

Note: before anyone whines about that, the weight of batteries means less cargo, lighter truck more cargo.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Bit_Guardian said:

Those are used. Brand new the cheapest 2017 Peterbilt I can find (absolutely barebones) is $230,000, and that's with a cheap Cummins engine, no sleeper cab, no built-in refrigeration, no secondary fuel tank, no nothing.

 

And that's a cheap, cheap truck. It's by no means good.

Yes those are used, but not all of them are very used. Just like with the used car market, you can find "like new" vehicles that are little different from a brand new car.

 

Take this guy:

http://wwwa.autotrader.ca/a/International/5900iSBA124+6X4/Thunder+Bay/Ontario/5_26443693_20150630155743417/?ms=heavy_trucks&showcpo=ShowCPO&orup=35_15_1073

$160K CAD, only 3200KM on it. That's basically brand new for a transport truck.

 

Unfortunately I'm unable to find pricing on pretty much any brand new (dealer) truck, as every website I visit has "request quote" or "call for price".

 

But even in your example, $230K is FAR from $700K. You have yet to show me evidence that $700K is the normal cost for a good long haul truck.

[mariushm]

I've been thinking about the weight of the batteries and all that.

 

You've got a heavy engine,  you've got 200-250 gallons of fuel (800 liters of diesel) in two barrels on each side of the truck, you've got DEF tank that's another 10-25 gallons ), you've got a few liters of oil, of anti-freeze in the winter, water to cool the radiator if it's water cooled,  you've got the manual or automatic gears that also weight a lot, transmission may be heavy as hell ... you also have the APU (a separate 1-2 cylinder motor that produces energy for air conditioning and shit so your truck won't idle over night using 3-4 times as much diesel fuel) 

 

Seems like there's a lot of things that weight a lot which could be replaced with batteries, and the weight would be spread more uniformly at the bottom of the truck using batteries... and you're not gonna have mechanical transmission to fail, won't have as much fuel lines to break, engine to remanufacture after a million miles , expensive filters and sensors to fail after warranty...

 

I'm looking at the majority of Youtube truckers and they seem to buy trucks at around 150-170k paying 10-20k in advance and then around 1500-2000$ a month, and these are trucks with up to around 200k miles on them and 2-3 years old.  They drive them for around 3-4 years until the extended warranty or the initial warranty of 1-2 years expires or after they reach around 500k miles and then they try to trade them for around 80-100k  because they say after 500k miles they start to fail too often and parts start to be very expensive without warranty (like some DEF pump costing 2-3000$ out of warranty)

 

With these in mind, if Tesla can guarantee 1 million miles and new trucks at around $200k it's looking good for them but it's pointless without the infrastructure to charge them in place.

 

[Bit_Guardian]

29 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes those are used, but not all of them are very used. Just like with the used car market, you can find "like new" vehicles that are little different from a brand new car.

 

Take this guy:

http://wwwa.autotrader.ca/a/International/5900iSBA124+6X4/Thunder+Bay/Ontario/5_26443693_20150630155743417/?ms=heavy_trucks&showcpo=ShowCPO&orup=35_15_1073

$160K CAD, only 3200KM on it. That's basically brand new for a transport truck.

 

Unfortunately I'm unable to find pricing on pretty much any brand new (dealer) truck, as every website I visit has "request quote" or "call for price".

 

But even in your example, $230K is FAR from $700K. You have yet to show me evidence that $700K is the normal cost for a good long haul truck.

For mostly the same reason. If I send you an email you're going to accuse me of doctoring it just to prove a point. That's the problem with non-open sources.

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

For mostly the same reason. If I send you an email you're going to accuse me of doctoring it just to prove a point. That's the problem with non-open sources.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but none the less, you've found a $230K truck, not a $700K truck.

 

Literally every source I can find that gives numbers, reinforces the numbers I've seen - between $80K and 200K (and higher for all the goods). One more source:

http://www.costowl.com/automotive/auto-semi-truck-new-cost.html

Quote

New trucks begin at around $80,000 and run up to $150,000 or more. If you opt for a large number of custom features, the price tag could reach $200,000.

Quote

On the high end you can purchase a sleeper cab with lots of cargo capacity and horsepower.

 

I'll give in that some will cost over $200K USD. But over $500K? That's a big jump for features. I've seen nothing at all that even hints at $700K being a typical figure - let alone $1m.

 

EDIT (more sources):

http://www.fleetowner.com/blog/big-rigs-big-costs

Quote

the average cost of a new tractor-trailer is now estimated to range between $140,000 and $175,000, according to data analyzed by Frost & Sullivan – anywhere from $110,000 to $125,000 for a new tractor and $30,000 to $50,000 for a new trailer.