Tesla Unveils - Semi Truck and next-gen Roadster

[Nup]

I like the lorry, that has a lot of promise. But the roadster seems like an easy way for another cash injection. 

[James]

On 11/18/2017 at 7:46 AM, aubryscully said:

@Slick @James Why no OP callout on the WAN show?  Was looking forward to hearing my name

oh that's rough dude, actually sorry about that!

[mariushm]

@Nite-Ninja  Can you have a look at Nikola One and say how you'd feel about it?  :  https://nikolamotor.com/one

 

Specs down the page : https://nikolamotor.com/one#specs

 

Also, you mentioned it in the post but this Nikola One plans to have 4 super singles as drive wheels ...  and probably the Tesla will

From what I heard (granted, from Youtube videos of truckers, so huge grain of salt) , the aluminum wheels are over a thousand bucks each and tires are also super expensive... and if the tire blows, chances are it will damage the wheel as well. Sounds like expensive if you get a blowout. 

Guy on the youtube video said they use those on trailers to save weight (by replacing 2 regular wheels with just one) and a tire that's less heavy than 2 separate tires.. but if the wheel is damaged by a blowout, you may lose all the savings.

 

Also, how would having 4 of those super singles be for turning ?  i suppose unless you want to damage the tires fast, you'd fast to make very wide turns

[Egg-Roll]

1 hour ago, aus_dom said:

--

Wow, so much work... That's not fast in any way...

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well currently the Lithium Ion batteries in use today would put you are more risk of dying due to rupture of those than a hydrogen tank would, the way batteries burn is very scary. I guess it's death by explosion/concussive blast versus death by extreme heat, neither are great options. At least there is battery tech coming that will solve it though.

Run out buy a cheap electric car or anything cheap really w/o making sure it has all safety features for it's fuel source is like asking to be buried in said vehicle.

Plus what you're referring to is thermal runaway, and out of all the accidents Tesla's have been in how many have ended in a fire? If thermal runaway was to happen in a Tesla (and i hope any other electric car) you would be notified long before you were in danger.

 

About  8-10 years ago i watched a Chinese manufacturer video of a 2.5kilowatt battery (i think) short out and punch press their batteries to prove burnout times.  I think it took inside their casing about 45 minutes to completely annihilate the battery, i think they also took a gun and shot one too  I should have the video somewhere... 

 

Similar to this actually, but the video i saw theirs caught fire but it took forever to do so and to burn out.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents ( I knew the Volt was bad but come on, that's just sad!)

Tesla alone has sold 200+ thousand vehicles and only reported 4 or 5 fires 0 deaths, I would say getting into a accident with a Tesla is far safer than any compressed gas on the market. Currently because no one has died from a Tesla Battery Pack, it's safe to say (for now anyways) you're more likely to die from a shark attack .

 

Oh one thing everyone is failing to remember is in North America if you carry significant compress gas you have to know how to handle it or at the very least notify road users around you. Up here UPS has Propane driven vehicles where every single one states it, taxis have icons too, they aren't just for show either.

Here in Ontario based on my understanding anyone can operate a propane vehicle as long as you have the required vehicle license. The (i think) converted taxis are regulated under 25 of said law.

 

I have not found any laws that restrict EV/hybrid sales, im sure they exist however.

 

[Godlygamer23]

18 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

Seem's a little sketchy until you realize trains first braking system is basically what tesla is going to be using as primary braking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking

While i do hope they have a failsafe in place it's possible the brakes would simply lock up in a safe manner if power is lost.

One thing that was brought up talking about it today with someone was air brakes and compatibility, as where and how it would work.

Apparently im not the only one asking either lol https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-semi.74244/page-32

Using your link to dynamic braking as my source, it states:

"Dynamic braking reduces wear on friction-based braking components, and regeneration lowers net energy consumption."

 

Italics are mine.

[Egg-Roll]

2 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Using your link to dynamic braking as my source, it states:

"Dynamic braking reduces wear on friction-based braking components, and regeneration lowers net energy consumption."

 

Italics are mine.

Both vehicles use electric motors, only major difference is the train has no way of regaining that lost energy, whereas the semi will.

[Godlygamer23]

Just now, Egg-Roll said:

Both vehicles use electric motors, only major difference is the train has no way of regaining that lost energy, whereas the semi will.

That's not at all my point.

 

Friction based braking is still a requirement.

[Egg-Roll]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

That's not at all my point.

 

Friction based braking is still a requirement.

True, but someone else said something about reversing the motor to force it to a complete stop, something like this:

 

however he showed a flaw at the end of the video with steep grades... so it should be interesting how Tesla will approach this...

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Egg-Roll said:

Plus what you're referring to is thermal runaway, and out of all the accidents Tesla's have been in how many have ended in a fire? If thermal runaway was to happen in a Tesla (and i hope any other electric car) you would be notified long before you were in danger

In a crash if the battery bank got compromised fire is a very likely risk, Telsa do put a lot of safety provisions in to the battery bank and make them very strong but the risk is still there just like with a Hydrogen tank used in vehicles which are also safety strengthened. More just pointing out that there is risk with battery and Hydrogen fuel cell cars, heck there still risk in a normal car. 

[Egg-Roll]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

In a crash if the battery bank got compromised fire is a very likely risk, Telsa do put a lot of safety provisions in to the battery bank and make them very strong but the risk is still there just like with a Hydrogen tank used in vehicles which are also safety strengthened. More just pointing out that there is risk with battery and Hydrogen fuel cell cars, heck there still risk in a normal car. 

The biggest issue with gas for me is like the compressed air cars, even if it doesn't explode, the pressure if released suddenly still can make you go deaf, possibly for life.

 

Say an accident between both cars causing both the tank to rupture and batteries to catch fire and both people live, the likelihood of the gas one leaving deaf is still there. I've worked around 120-150 PSI and when that goes it's loud, not full hearing loss loud but loud enough to "what?", and that's pressure escaping at a known PSI usually 3-35 feet away, we are talking about a tank that could be only 2 feet possibly closer before rupturing.

 

While unlikely, i rather to not have that risk. But that's just me. Also when i typed in "cars that go" Google brought up Boom as a first result, but i was unaware of that song thinking google liked death... Luckily i was way too young for that song 

 

Edit: when normal cars do explode it's likely caused by a spark with enough fuel in the air at the right time. I've seen one youtube video with a USA explosion, and really only thing i could think of. could be a loose tube but that's likely to start a fire.

[LLEBTNCJD_its_something]

Spoiler

Not rhoom rhoom

 

Roadster.mp4

[MadyTehWolfie]

19 hours ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

The whole point of the tax breaks and credits is to make eletric cars a Thing. Name another company That has been as successful as tesla in getting consumers interested and accepting of electric cars?  Yeah the tax breaks are insane but they also are dwindling now that all the construction is done and the Tax credits when people buy them which is counted in that number are soon gone. 

 

its a problem more so with the government then the exact company Amazon is looking to build a new Office and Goverments are offering insane tax benefits and or even renaming the entire town..... At least there is more reasons to push an electric car then this.  So many buisnesses get tax free buildings and Such for building in Office Parks and Such. 

 

Towns spend billions of dollars to say they Brought X amount of jobs here cause the company they give a tax credit too is going to hire x amount of people.

 

You can be mad at Tesla But This is first a problem with governments wanting Business. and honestly imo this is one of the better waste of money of this type. Solar pannels and electric cars?

 

but it also seems like your pretty bias on the topic quoting shitty electric cars please compare it to another electric car that blows it out of the water. 

 

 

 

Electric cars are junk and it impacts the environment more to mine the nickle for the batteries then it is to just use fossil fuels. LOL at using John Oliver as a reference. My biggest problem is that without taking all of this money their business would go under and its not self sufficient. Yet everyone is ready to suck Elon Musk off like hes the beez kneez. 

[michaelocarroll007]

1 hour ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Electric cars are junk and it impacts the environment more to mine the nickle for the batteries then it is to just use fossil fuels. LOL at using John Oliver as a reference. My biggest problem is that without taking all of this money their business would go under and its not self sufficient. Yet everyone is ready to suck Elon Musk off like hes the beez kneez. 

Its used as a refernce because its simplifies the broad problem for a regular person to understand. Figuring i have no knowledge of your actual Education on the facts its a good starting place for those that do not have any. 

 

you obviously are just as bias and full of it as every one you claim is ready to suck off Elon Musk. 

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Electric cars are junk and it impacts the environment more to mine the nickle for the batteries then it is to just use fossil fuels. LOL at using John Oliver as a reference. My biggest problem is that without taking all of this money their business would go under and its not self sufficient. Yet everyone is ready to suck Elon Musk off like hes the beez kneez. 

Ah, here we go: it's That Guy in an EV forum thread who thinks he's an enlightened counterculture rebel and claims that EVs are the real danger to the environment.

 

Is the nickel mining a concern, as is what happens to batteries when they're done?  Yes.  But on the balance, EVs will ultimately be much better for the environment.  If you use renewable energy to power these cars, their emissions "debt" can be paid off in a year or two of typical driving -- after that, they're helping much more than a gas-powered car ever would.  And while we need better mining practices, focusing on those also ignores the very real, immediate benefits of EVs: less air pollution, lower overall emissions, fewer spills (and thus less ground contamination), even less noise pollution.

 

Even if the reality isn't perfect right now, the potential eco-friendliness of EVs outweighs its setbacks.  I'd rather do the smart thing and aim for the long-term payoff than stick to inferior technology simply because it's sometimes better right now.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Ah, here we go: it's That Guy in an EV forum thread who thinks he's an enlightened counterculture rebel and claims that EVs are the real danger to the environment.

 

Is the nickel mining a concern, as is what happens to batteries when they're done?  Yes.  But on the balance, EVs will ultimately be much better for the environment.  If you use renewable energy to power these cars, their emissions "debt" can be paid off in a year or two of typical driving -- after that, they're helping much more than a gas-powered car ever would.  And while we need better mining practices, focusing on those also ignores the very real, immediate benefits of EVs: less air pollution, lower overall emissions, fewer spills (and thus less ground contamination), even less noise pollution.

 

Even if the reality isn't perfect right now, the potential eco-friendliness of EVs outweighs its setbacks.  I'd rather do the smart thing and aim for the long-term payoff than stick to inferior technology simply because it's sometimes better right now.

I also personally find the argument that "Well if the electricity is coal powered, it's not environmentally friendly anyway!"

 

It's such a bullshit argument. It's basically saying "Since we already do this one bad practice, why don't we just ignore the other bad practice that EV's would fix?"

 

If your electricity comes from dirty power, that's not an argument to avoid EV's. It's an argument to move away from dirty power generation. If you have to go Fossil Fuels, at least use Natural Gas for damn's sake. But ideally, get rid of that all together and go Nuclear, combined with Wind + Solar as practical (making sure to install energy storage facilities, like gravity assist generators, battery banks, or molten salts, etc).

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I also personally find the argument that "Well if the electricity is coal powered, it's not environmentally friendly anyway!"

 

It's such a bullshit argument. It's basically saying "Since we already do this one bad practice, why don't we just ignore the other bad practice that EV's would fix?"

 

If your electricity comes from dirty power, that's not an argument to avoid EV's. It's an argument to move away from dirty power generation. If you have to go Fossil Fuels, at least use Natural Gas for damn's sake. But ideally, get rid of that all together and go Nuclear, combined with Wind + Solar as practical (making sure to install energy storage facilities, like gravity assist generators, battery banks, or molten salts, etc).

Even nuclear isn't ideal due to storage of nuclear waste.... Which there still isn't a solution for in the US, even though billions were spent investigating and then building the facility at Yucca Mountain.

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Even nuclear isn't ideal due to storage of nuclear waste.... Which there still isn't a solution for in the US, even though billions were spent investigating and then building the facility at Yucca Mountain.

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.

[MadyTehWolfie]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

Ah, here we go: it's That Guy in an EV forum thread who thinks he's an enlightened counterculture rebel and claims that EVs are the real danger to the environment.

 

Is the nickel mining a concern, as is what happens to batteries when they're done?  Yes.  But on the balance, EVs will ultimately be much better for the environment.  If you use renewable energy to power these cars, their emissions "debt" can be paid off in a year or two of typical driving -- after that, they're helping much more than a gas-powered car ever would.  And while we need better mining practices, focusing on those also ignores the very real, immediate benefits of EVs: less air pollution, lower overall emissions, fewer spills (and thus less ground contamination), even less noise pollution.

 

Even if the reality isn't perfect right now, the potential eco-friendliness of EVs outweighs its setbacks.  I'd rather do the smart thing and aim for the long-term payoff than stick to inferior technology simply because it's sometimes better right now.

Don't assume anything about me. I couldn't give two shits about the environment and take the emissions equipment off my car and never run cats. An no nickle mining is worse for the environment and you won't be able to lessen that impact by using electricity because most of it is not generated with water or solar. And second the impact of nickle mining is worse then just buying a car and fueling it for the life of the vehicle. Then there's the cost of maintaining it. Which will also turn cars that aren't worth at least 5-10k disposable when right now they aren't. Don't want a world where my mechanic has to have a AA or BS degree and charge even more to fix a pile of shit electric car.

[Egg-Roll]

10 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

My biggest problem is that without taking all of this money their business would go under and its not self sufficient.

GM tating money from everyone, OK. Alcoa, OK. Tesla? Make them Burn in Hell!!!!!

 

Yea... By simply stating their business wouldn't survive by losing all funding from the Gov is complete BS. They simply would stop spending tons of money. IMO the gov should cut Shell and GM from their programs before Tesla.

 

10 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Electric cars are junk and it impacts the environment more to mine the nickle for the batteries then it is to just use fossil fuels.

Whoa there cowboy... Tesla doesn't use Nickel nor does their partner Panasonic.

Besides for a Tesla 100D there is about 8 grams of Lithium inside the car.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/34501/how-much-lithium-in-lithium-polymer-batteries

 

50 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

and just let it sit, and it's pretty safe.

Till an earthquake.

I'm not going to say what that video says is correct but I wouldn't undermine the hazards of the waste.

 

Btw while a cheesy movie Atomic Twister was a great representative (at the time) as to what could happen in catastrophic failure next to all the hollywood movie BS, which is mentioned in the video above.

 

My grief to the video above is the carbon numbers they gave, not for nuclear or coal but everything else.

 

13 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

you won't be able to lessen that impact by using electricity because most of it is not generated with water or solar.

Yet™, Seriously this all depends on where you live, if you live near a dam or solar field your impact on the environment lessens with a EV.

13 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Don't want a world where my mechanic has to have a AA or BS degree and charge even more to fix a pile of shit electric car.

*Hands a gun*

Have Fun with yourself then  By not accepting EV's as a viable means of transport you're like those propaganda fools.

Far less can go wrong in a EV than any other vehicle on the road.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Even nuclear isn't ideal due to storage of nuclear waste.... Which there still isn't a solution for in the US, even though billions were spent investigating and then building the facility at Yucca Mountain.

 

1 hour 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.

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....

[Commodus]

43 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Don't assume anything about me. I couldn't give two shits about the environment and take the emissions equipment off my car and never run cats. An no nickle mining is worse for the environment and you won't be able to lessen that impact by using electricity because most of it is not generated with water or solar. And second the impact of nickle mining is worse then just buying a car and fueling it for the life of the vehicle. Then there's the cost of maintaining it. Which will also turn cars that aren't worth at least 5-10k disposable when right now they aren't. Don't want a world where my mechanic has to have a AA or BS degree and charge even more to fix a pile of shit electric car.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you don't give two shits about the environment... or science... or reading.  Did you check the article I linked?  And for what it's worth, I'd rather have an electric car with one expensive battery fix than a gas-powered car that has fixes strewn out over several years.  It's like you've forgotten that conventional cars have transmissions, alternators, exhausts, timing belts and other things that break down on a disconcertingly frequent basis.

 

Thankfully, your opinion basically amounts to twisting in the wind: the industry is moving to EVs.  Looking forward to seeing what happens in several years when you end up buying an EV regardless of all this talk.

[MadyTehWolfie]

2 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you don't give two shits about the environment... or science... or reading.  Did you check the article I linked?  And for what it's worth, I'd rather have an electric car with one expensive battery fix than a gas-powered car that has fixes strewn out over several years.  It's like you've forgotten that conventional cars have transmissions, alternators, exhausts, timing belts and other things that break down on a disconcertingly frequent basis.

 

Thankfully, your opinion basically amounts to twisting in the wind: the industry is moving to EVs.  Looking forward to seeing what happens in several years when you end up buying an EV regardless of all this talk.

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.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

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.

Like? Modern cars have very expensive everything on them now days, cheapest you'll get is air filters and oil filters followed by brake pads. If something goes wrong with the 7-speed transmission on my car I'm very much screwed and in for a very big bill, tyres for the car are also $2000 for a full set and that isn't going to be any different EV or not (if you want premium tyres).

 

Complaints about EV cars being too technical and computer driven is a fallacy since that is no different to a modern day petrol car anyway. Mechanics pay a fair decent amount of money to have the proper diagnostic equipment that is required to plug in to cars to get the technical fault readouts.

 

Don't like EV cars fine, there are very few decent options anyway unlike petrol cars, however no need to make up drawbacks that equally apply to petrol cars then ignore that fact.

[8uhbbhu8]

13 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Like? Modern cars have very expensive everything on them now days, cheapest you'll get is air filters and oil filters followed by brake pads. If something goes wrong with the 7-speed transmission on my car I'm very much screwed and in for a very big bill, tyres for the car are also $2000 for a full set and that isn't going to be any different EV or not (if you want premium tyres).

 

Complaints about EV cars being too technical and computer driven is a fallacy since that is no different to a modern day petrol car anyway. Mechanics pay a fair decent amount of money to have the proper diagnostic equipment that is required to plug in to cars to get the technical fault readouts.

 

Don't like EV cars fine, there are very few decent options anyway unlike petrol cars, however no need to make up drawbacks that equally apply to petrol cars then ignore that fact.

Agreed. As someone who knows several mechanics. Some of the tools they need to have to work on the electrical and computational systems, (many required in order to be certified by our provincial insurance system to do work on vehicles for them as dealers are really the only other feasible option unless you get lucky with a third party) cost hundreds or thousands of dollars each.

[Drak3]

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

 

 

 

Kappa