Tesla Unveils - Semi Truck and next-gen Roadster

[JCBiggs]

The batteries need to be in the trailer.  With the truck having only enough range to make it to the next pick up,  they don't dead head very far anyways so it could work.   Then you give it a 1000 mile range, slightly less load capacity, and it can charge in an hour instead of 30 minutes.  Now ur talking. ...

 

 

.a cat c15 engine weighs 3000 lbs.  That's a little under 3 tesla model s batteries.  With auxiliary equipment, transmission differnetial and fuel,   you can offset about 750 kwh off battery and a motor.    750kwh is not takin an 80000 lb load anywhere near 400 miles.   Something doesn't add up.  Either they have doubled battery capacity, or they have made the truck heavier with more battery, which mean it can carry less load weight.  Now that may be ok..food trucks and a lot of delivery trucks never get near the 80k limit.  I just tesla would be more direct about capacity.  I'm betting the above is why old dominion isn't interested in them.  

[DutchTexan]

12 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

fasest production car you can buy right now.

 

Top speed: 277.87mph

 

 

Acceleration and braking: 0 to 248.55mph to 0 in 33.29s

 

9 hours ago, James said:

I would think that vehicles that are primarily used in rural areas (ie not as well serviced by charging stations) would be near the bottom of their list of markets to enter.

The sports car is a good idea, but the semi truck are more of a fashion statement than anything else, IMO. Totally unrealistic for any serious freight.  

 

Okay. Yes. There will probably be a bunch of those semis throughout California and up and down the northeast coast, one day. It's still not going to be a revolution and the vast majority of the transportation and logistic needs will not be met.

 

It's just like that solar panel roof deal that everyone was all excited about about a while ago. Sure, it could work and technically be useful, but it already cost over 10k to redo my roof every 10-15 years. Tesla is forward thinking and innovative, but totally unrealistic the majority of the time. Again, California and NY is only a small fraction of the entire US. 

 

7 hours ago, Agost said:

Highest claimed efficiency for a coal powered plant is 47% and it's an exception. Regenerative Rankine based power plants with reheating usually get to η=0.35-0.4, maybe 0.42

 

Otto based engines usually hover around η=0.25

Coal is more efficient than internal combustion. Coal is also more efficient than solar energy (solar and internal combustion are around the same, no?) Then, wind turbines can be more efficient than even coal.

 

Truckers are going to fill up their 350 gallon tank at one of the 5 stations they pass every hour and keep on trucking across the county. A lot has to happen for that to be less convenient or more expensive than other options.

 

For the Tesla semi trucks to really work for the entire nation, they would need to cost around 100k per unit and Tesla would need to invest trillions into infrastructure, directly or indirectly. 

[Phate.exe]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

You know that plenty of sports cars that already exist today have tires that work fine both on dry pavement AND in rain??

Obviously don't expect 1.9s 0-60 in rain or dirty pavement, but only idiot drivers would try to do something unsafe like that.

That's not a problem of the tires, that's on the driver.

I'm well aware.  And none of them are running high second quarter miles, at least not on those tires.  No need to be condescending, you're making the assumption that a tire like the Pilot Supersport (even the more custom versions that they use on something like a Koenigsegg or similar, exactly the tires your referring to) is in any way remotely comparable to a DOT-legal race tire.  A prepped surface for drag racing is more than just clean.  It's actually sticky, like you'd lose a sandal walking across it.

 

I'm saying that the numbers they are claiming are extremely difficult, even for race cars running parts and maintenance schedules intended for racing.

[DutchTexan]

3 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

I'm well aware.  And none of them are running high second quarter miles, at least not on those tires.  No need to be condescending, you're making the assumption that a tire like the Pilot Supersport (even the more custom versions that they use on something like a Koenigsegg or similar, exactly the tires your referring to) is in any way remotely comparable to a DOT-legal race tire.  A prepped surface for drag racing is more than just clean.  It's actually sticky, like you'd lose a sandal walking across it.

 

I'm saying that the numbers they are claiming are extremely difficult, even for race cars running parts and maintenance schedules intended for racing.

No, but top fuel dragsters do 0-300mph in under 4 seconds. Tesla's got this  

[Enderman]

6 minutes ago, Phate.exe said:

I'm well aware.  And none of them are running high second quarter miles, at least not on those tires.  No need to be condescending, you're making the assumption that a tire like the Pilot Supersport (even the more custom versions that they use on something like a Koenigsegg or similar, exactly the tires your referring to) is in any way remotely comparable to a DOT-legal race tire.  A prepped surface for drag racing is more than just clean.  It's actually sticky, like you'd lose a sandal walking across it.

 

I'm saying that the numbers they are claiming are extremely difficult, even for race cars running parts and maintenance schedules intended for racing.

I think you're making the assumption that the tires are a limitation when it is actually the torque to weight ratio of the vehicle.

I highly doubt they got the 1.9s by running it on a drag strip with a specially prepped surface and ideal temperature and humidity conditions.

[Taf the Ghost]

7 hours ago, Aelar_Nailo said:

Personally, I was hoping to see innovation in the diesel electric area. Having that incredible versatility and simplicity while being able to just fill a tank, and go? That would be downright amazing. Maybe someone else will do it?

It's hard to explain how badly GM screwed up with the entire Volt line. It was the biggest production-level tech breakthrough in cars in decades and they've botched it at every stage.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Enderman said:

Yeah of course, point is that tires can be engineered to take what is necessary.

A $250k car would not be designed with tires that would break after a few accelerations, especially from a company such as Tesla.

Problem is you might have to cross the line of what is street legal in some countries to achieve it, and for mass(ish, it is Tesla) production cars the spec sheet is for what is street legal and complaint in all regions it's been sold in. That's why I'm looking at the numbers with a fair amount of skepticism, because the range they are also claiming indicates to me that it's not going to be that light weight. 

 

It should still be possible in an electric car though due to the very different way they accelerate, just have to not break traction on the initial start and your 90% of the way to do it. However I'd personally only be comfortable driving in such a car if it was using tyres like the RE050A I use and not Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 or similar, because I value my life more than the car being able to do 0-60 in 1.9s.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, DutchTexan said:

Top speed: 277.87mph

 

 

Acceleration and braking: 0 to 248.55mph to 0 in 33.29s

Musk is probably right, though: fastest production car you can buy.  Production for the Agera RS stopped in 2016.  He may have used clever wording to make his claim, but it seems to be true.  I don't expect someone to challenge the 0-60 time any time soon, that's for sure...

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Musk is probably right, though: fastest production car you can buy.  Production for the Agera RS stopped in 2016.  He may have used clever wording to make his claim, but it seems to be true.  I don't expect someone to challenge the 0-60 time any time soon, that's for sure...

Agera RS and cars like it generally are not considered production cars too, even this definition is what I'd consider rather generous to what is meant by production car.

 

Quote

For example, the 1968 FIA rules state that "production" for sports cars need to have at least 25 identical cars produced within a 12-month period and they were meant for normal sale to individual purchasers.[12] However, FIA rules tend to allow a degree of modification from the original.

Funny how Agera RS was limited to 25 cars .

 

Quote

Guinness were also reported in some sources as saying that at least 50 identical vehicles were needed to be made to constitute a production car.[9] In February 2014, Road and Track wrote that Guinness required 30 identical vehicles.

And even this one is hardly any better.

 

Limited edition, built to order, specialty custom cars etc aren't exactly "production cars". It's been a contested subject for a while now though and not just for trying to claim to be the fastest production car, FIA rules for certain classes require a number of cars to have been sold to allow the use of a car.

[Enderman]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Problem is you might have to cross the line of what is street legal in some countries to achieve it, and for mass(ish, it is Tesla) production cars the spec sheet is for what is street legal and complaint in all regions it's been sold in. That's why I'm looking at the numbers with a fair amount of skepticism, because the range they are also claiming indicates to me that it's not going to be that light weight. 

 

It should still be possible in an electric car though due to the very different way they accelerate, just have to not break traction on the initial start and your 90% of the way to do it. However I'd personally only be comfortable driving in such a car if it was using tyres like the RE050A I use and not Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 or similar, because I value my life more than the car being able to do 0-60 in 1.9s.

Why would a low 0-60 time not be street legal? There are plenty of hypercars that are street legal and also have insane amounts of horsepower and torque.

 

Their increase in range is probably due to their switch from 18650 to higher capacity 21700 batteries.

 

Also, you do not have to drive at full acceleration...why is this so hard for people to understand.

Just because it can do 0-60 in 1.9s does not mean you need to floor it when a stoplight turns green.

You can drive it like a regular car.

[Egg-Roll]

I'm not going threw all 5 pages of this topic  Tho damn Elon still can't do public events

 

Simply put 

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/16/16667366/tesla-semi-truck-announced-price-release-date-electric-self-driving 

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2017/11/17/16670632/walmart-tesla-semi-truck-preorder

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

http://www.fuelly.com/truck/international/lonestar/2017 (was going to do soemthing with this in comparing the cost tesla put up but eh....)

 

 

While i was expecting the pickup to come out first I'm happy they did this first.

Those who whine about milage who cares, most routes i know go from shipping(sea) yards to train yard to delivery points, when i say delivery points i mean distribution points 90% of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards Anything with marshalling and Intermodal are pickup/dropoff points where the cheaper method of fuel (trains) can be used.

 

The only thing i dont like about Teslas price comparison is the KWh prices, It's going to be hard to keep those rates low.

 

Assuming the semi will cost 1 million usd they claim it will not breakdown for 1 million miles that's a $1 a mile. Tesla claims 2kWh per mile or about $0.14 per mile, which leaves $0.12 for tires.

However next to being the only company to put "Baddass" on it's product page for a semi, it also claims a 2 year payback period. This raises a few questions, as in what do they require for that payback term? Fuel savings? sure why not it seems to be a "misleading advert" on their site, reason why i say this is because almost no one tallies their gas bill, except truckers.

 

So real quick let's see if i can figure out how much this ugly thing could (likely) costs...

$200,000 fuel over 2 years savings converted into retail price.

Avg trucker doing 400 miles a day (their target audience)

Avg truck will be on the road 5 days a week

Price 1 = 200,000+(400*520*1.12) ----0.14 for electricity removed

Price 1 = $432,960 Based on 2 years 5 days a week at 400 miles costing 

Avg truck will be on the road 6 days a week less 4 for C&E at max 10 hours @ 60 MPH 

Price 2 = 200,000+(600*620*1.12)

Price 2 = $616,640

 

As for WalMart Toronto and maybe Vancouver will likely see them due to the number of chargers we currently have, as well rail yards.

 

13 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Just because it can do 0-60 in 1.9s does not mean you need to floor it when a stoplight turns green.

You can drive it like a regular car.

On another forum i remember someone posting a rare supercar stuck in traffic like everyone else. They have a valid point in their mockery, why own it if you cant even use it to half of it's potential. It's like owning a yacht but only use it in a drydock, it's stupid. I see something like Koenigsegg or a Bugatti (which i has seen a few or at least 1 multiple times), i actually feel sorry for the rich fool, using such a thing like is was a $5000 beater or even a new $35000 car.

[DutchTexan]

26 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Musk is probably right, though: fastest production car you can buy.  Production for the Agera RS stopped in 2016.  He may have used clever wording to make his claim, but it seems to be true.  I don't expect someone to challenge the 0-60 time any time soon, that's for sure...

Well, I could challenge it right now by saying I will have something of the 'fastest' just like he did  

 

7 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Why would a low 0-60 time not be street legal? There are plenty of hypercars that are street legal and also have insane amounts of horsepower and torque.

 

Their increase in range is probably due to their switch from 18650 to higher capacity 21700 batteries.

 

Also, you do not have to drive at full acceleration...why is this so hard for people to understand.

Just because it can do 0-60 in 1.9s does not mean you need to floor it when a stoplight turns green.

You can drive it like a regular car.

The legality of acceleration is virtually up to law enforcement judgement. I don't recall any laws restricting how quickly a car can accelerate. As long as the speed limitation is not exceeded, your actions cannot be interpreted as street racing, or a law enforcement officer does not consider it reckless driving or any lesser, related form of improper driving, then I suspect one is at liberty to accelerate. 

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Why would a low 0-60 time not be street legal? There are plenty of hypercars that are street legal and also have insane amounts of horsepower and torque.

Not the time, the tyres fitted to the car to do it. Not all countries are as flexible as to what constitutes as a road tyre.

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, DutchTexan said:

The legality of acceleration is virtually up to law enforcement judgement. I don't recall any laws restricting how quickly a car can accelerate. As long as the speed limitation is not exceeded, your actions cannot be interpreted as street racing, or a law enforcement officer does not consider it reckless driving or any lesser, related form of improper driving, then I suspect one is at liberty to accelerate.

We have laws that allow police to fine you for excessive acceleration without going over the speed limit, I think it's in the provisions under either reckless driving or dangerous driving. Not that it was the acceleration speed I was actually talking about though.

 

There's been cars factory fitted with tyres that I would not drive on the road in my country as I consider them not fit for the conditions.

[Egg-Roll]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There's been cars fitted with tyres that I would not drive on the road in my country as I consider them not fit for the conditions.

It's the tires compound/sizing that usually makes the cars illegal, if not it's their engines. If the manufacturer states x tires are needed, all others would blowout from the torque or whatever, and your country claims those tires to be track only, thats why some cars are illegal. If thats not the case it's the engine, possibly the safety regulations (the cars simply cant meet them to be road worthy)

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

It's the tires compound that usually makes the cars illegal, if not it's their engines. If the manufacturer states x tires are needed, all others would blowout from the torque or whatever, and your country claims those tires to be track only, thats why some cars are illegal. If thats not the case it's the engine, possibly the safety regulations (the cars simply cant meet them to be road worthy)

The ones I'm referring to are semi-slick track day tyres that a factory standard on some cars that are street legal in my country that I still wouldn't drive anywhere other than on a track in the dry.

[Egg-Roll]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The ones I'm referring to are semi-slick track day tyres that a factory standard on cars that are street legal in my country that I still wouldn't drive anywhere other than on a track in the dry.

Ah ok, i dont think those would pass here at all but for the track, if they did and you were caught with them on esp at this time of year you'd be likely fined for improper treads or something. (i forget what, cant be careless till you lose control) I also cant be bothered to read up on local tire laws  so i could be wrong completely, but i do agree some tires are still unsafe even tho they are legal.

[DutchTexan]

5 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

While i was expecting the pickup to come out first I'm happy they did this first.

Those who whine about milage who cares, most routes i know go from shipping(sea) yards to train yard to delivery points, when i say delivery points i mean distribution points 90% of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_yards Anything with marshalling and Intermodal are pickup/dropoff points where the cheaper method of fuel (trains) can be used.

 

The only thing i dont like about Teslas price comparison is the KWh prices, It's going to be hard to keep those rates low.

 

Assuming the semi will cost 1 million usd they claim it will not breakdown for 1 million miles that's a $1 a mile. Tesla claims 2kWh per mile or about $0.14 per mile, which leaves $0.12 for tires.

However next to being the only company to put "Baddass" on it's product page for a semi, it also claims a 2 year payback period. This raises a few questions, as in what do they require for that payback term? Fuel savings? sure why not it seems to be a "misleading advert" on their site, reason why i say this is because almost no one tallies their gas bill, except truckers.

 

So real quick let's see if i can figure out how much this ugly thing could (likely) costs...

$200,000 fuel over 2 years savings converted into retail price.

Avg trucker doing 400 miles a day (their target audience)

Avg truck will be on the road 5 days a week

Price 1 = 200,000+(400*520*1.12) ----0.14 for electricity removed

Price 1 = $432,960 Based on 2 years 5 days a week at 400 miles costing 

Avg truck will be on the road 6 days a week less 4 for C&E at max 10 hours @ 60 MPH 

Price 2 = 200,000+(600*620*1.12)

Price 2 = $616,640

 

As for WalMart Toronto and maybe Vancouver will likely see them due to the number of chargers we currently have, as well rail yards.

 

On another forum i remember someone posting a rare supercar stuck in traffic like everyone else. They have a valid point in their mockery, why own it if you cant even use it to half of it's potential. It's like owning a yacht but only use it in a drydock, it's stupid. I see something like Koenigsegg or a Bugatti (which i has seen a few or at least 1 multiple times), i actually feel sorry for the rich fool, using such a thing like is was a $5000 beater or even a new $35000 car.

The semi costing 1 million upfront will be a massive deal-breaker for 99% of 'consumers' You can get a brand new 2018 Peterbilt 579, full 6x4 axles, their most powerful engine(500hp @2k rpm and 1850 lb ft @1,100rpm), their longest hood, their biggest sleeper cab with a double bunk, platinum level trim, all their fancy fairings and literally every single thing to make it as expensive as possible from the factory and it would cost.... under 160k

 

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

We have laws that allow police to fine you for excessive acceleration without going over the speed limit, I think it's in the provisions under either reckless driving or dangerous driving. Not that it was the acceleration speed I was actually talking about though.

 

There's been cars factory fitted with tyres that I would not drive on the road in my country as I consider them not fit for the conditions.

Yes, I agree. There are tires that are barely legal, but not practical, whatsoever. 

 

If it's very cold or slightly damp, then most performance tires start leaning toward unsafe. Like the dodge demon, extremely poor factory, street-legal tires for anything other than a drag strip. 

 

5 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

It's the tires compound/sizing that usually makes the cars illegal, if not it's their engines. If the manufacturer states x tires are needed, all others would blowout from the torque or whatever, and your country claims those tires to be track only, thats why some cars are illegal. If thats not the case it's the engine, possibly the safety regulations (the cars simply cant meet them to be road worthy)

That is true, but finding racing slicks are not anywhere near as easy as 'hardcore' performance tires that are street legal. What you are talking about is also why 99 out of a 100 times the rubber compound and tire tread is the most over-engineered aspect of a vehicle. Every hyper car has a hyper budget for bespoke tires. I imagine Tesla will spend big money and time figuring out how to get the power to the ground safely, reliably and legally.

 

Also, there are so many other things that make cars illegal like ground clearance, headlight and brake light height relative to the road and so on. It's really whack. 

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, Egg-Roll said:

Ah ok, i dont think those would pass here at all but for the track, if they did and you were caught with them on esp at this time of year you'd be likely fined for improper treads or something. (i forget what, cant be careless till you lose control) I also cant be bothered to read up on local tire laws  so i could be wrong completely, but i do agree some tires are still unsafe even tho they are legal.

Our roads are just generally bad and rather dangerous. We have very changeable weather here, even in summer. Our roads are narrow and chip-seal, not banked correctly, windy and often blind corners so basically everything that makes such tyres unfit for our roads even if they are legal.

 

Sort of related, this is why tourists here have such a hard time driving on our roads and get in to trouble often either by crashing or scaring the shit out of themselves. Interestingly by proportion Germans are the worst.

[MoonSpot]

Happy to see this semi-truck news.  Its a good time to introduce it since EGR/DPF/SCR have killed off almost every independent trucker out there.  Everyone is sick of dealing with, and paying for, this broken shit and need to start making money again.  Look forward to seeing some independent reviews and catching what real world experience is like when they're out in the wild.

 

And... That lane assist... I don't think that's gonna work worth a damn in the winter around these parts.  Shit, half the time I can't see the fracking road never mind trying to track white dashed lines on snow cover roads.

 

5 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

With Deisel-Electric having been around for some time on locomotives I am genuinely surprised we have yet developed a diesel-electric semi-truck already honestly. The torque that electric motors produce is monstrous.

I for one am happy to see this announcement.

"a diesel-electric semi-truck";  People/companies aren't usually inclined to pay for 2 of something when 1 does the job.  Plus you're pulling all that extra weight for the redundant motor(s)/Power plant; which murders your efficiency.

Think of it like having 2 beds, just for you, in the same room.  Whats the point when you can only sleep in one at a time?

Also, its not like cars where they can get away with 90Hp on one of the systems.  So thats 2 big heavy powerplant systems capable doing 320-525Hp(more or less) that the vehicle would be pulling around everywhere it goes, eating into its "fuel economy".

Also; Less things to maintain = less things to fix = less headaches = saves more money.  "Keep it simple, stupid" does seem to apply.

 

[EIijah]

On 11/17/2017 at 6:43 PM, mariushm said:

Too small battery for the truck imho. and it takes too long to charge, so i guess it would suck for long trips.

 

I see truckers on Youtube doing 60 miles an hour and driving for 10-12 hours with 30 minute obligatory break or something like that, basically getting up at 6 am and finding a parking spot somewhere at around 5-6 pm (before they fill up)

With 30min+ charge time, that's enough for 30 min obligatory break but with pre-trip checks and everything it could go up to 45m-1h of pause... not to mention that a lot of truckers have diesel powered generators to warm up the trucks over night in the winter, or to heat up food or watch some tv.

So i guess these aren't really designed for long trips but more like 50-100 mile long trips at a time at most ?

 

 

But they can do like 600 Miles on a charge... You can also charge it while unloading stock or w/e. Plus maintenance is meant to be cheaper

[MyName13]

Any news about the model 3?

[mariushm]

56 minutes ago, EIijah said:

But they can do like 600 Miles on a charge... You can also charge it while unloading stock or w/e. Plus maintenance is meant to be cheaper

These trucks won't charge from 110v mains sockets and 10-16A current (less than 2kWh charge) ... they'll probably need 480v AC and 25-50A or something like that, big chunky connectors and big thick cables.

Do you think every wallmart warehouse out there, or every distribution place will pull 100kV lines to the place (paying maybe thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in fees) just to help truckers from random companies fill up their trucks?

Sure, there may be some over night slow charge mode, in which you could connect the truck to regular 110v / 230v mains plugs and have it slowly top up over night, useful for some truck stop or to keep the truck warm

 

Some argue the trucks will come back to the main company yard where they'll charge over night but again... let's say you have 10-20 trucks all charging over night ... that can still a significant load on local power grid.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mariushm said:

These trucks won't charge from 110v mains sockets and 10-16A current (less than 2kWh charge) ... they'll probably need 480v AC and 25-50A or something like that, big chunky connectors and big thick cables.

Personally since it's trucks we are talking about I'd go with three phase 480V or higher voltage. I would use three phase not just because it makes sense to power delivery wise but also charging, split the battery pack in two three sections and have 3 charge controllers. Slamming all this current through single phase and through a single charge controller is not the smartest idea.

 

What I'm wondering is how big is the battery pack actually going to be. If a roadster needs a 200kWh for 600 miles then are we talking about a 1000kWh battery for the truck? More?

 

If it's 1000kWh and a 30 minute charge gives it 80% charge then holy shit that's 1,600kWh input, that's a heck of a lot of safety required and are we also now expecting truck drivers to be electrical engineers for safety reasons? Maybe this is creating the modern day Gas station attendant, "I plug trucks in to charge" lol.

[goodtofufriday]

11 hours ago, dizmo said:

They already have a network of charging stations....

 

I live a mile from the second largest shipping port in america in one of the most densly populated areas. 

 

We have pretty much zero charging stations. So i have no idea what you are talking about. 

 

And a chargong station can have plugs for cars and trucks. Why would they keep it exclusive to one vehicle? Doesnt make any sense when you consider that gas stations hold 4 kinds of gas in giant tanks under the floor. 

Tesla csn surely afford two different charging plugs and s charging area. 

 

Please think out your answer a bit more, and please think about teslas chsrging network on a global scale.