Tesla Semi Truck

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
AndyH said:
GRA said:
- it should be used for distribution and delivery, for which it is well suited.
One might have thought the day cab gave that away, but whatever. ;)

I take a break for a couple of years and find MNL exactly how I left it. Impressive! :lol:
Were you expecting major changes? As to the day cab only, there's been considerable discussion prior to your entry of the fact, alluded to by Sagebrush, that Tesla was planning to add a sleeper cab in the future, so there's a lot of 'assumed background knowledge' that you lack. That's my bad for responding to your comments as if they were those of someone who's been engaged in the discussion right along, and has that continuity.

My take is that the Semi is unsuited for a sleeper cab and long-haul now, and that by the time the range (and charging infrastructure) increases to the point where having one would be useful, Tesla expects the semi to be operating autonomously in platoons, eliminating any need for a sleeper cab. I believe George Bower's cost analysis shows that operating in this fashion is the only way Tesla can meet the cost estimates they've provided.
 
GRA said:
AndyH said:
GRA said:
- it should be used for distribution and delivery, for which it is well suited.
One might have thought the day cab gave that away, but whatever. ;)

I take a break for a couple of years and find MNL exactly how I left it. Impressive! :lol:
Were you expecting major changes? As to the day cab only, there's been considerable discussion prior to your entry of the fact, alluded to by Sagebrush, that Tesla was planning to add a sleeper cab in the future, so there's a lot of 'assumed background knowledge' that you lack. That's my bad for responding to your comments as if they were those of someone who's been engaged in the discussion right along, and has that continuity.
That's a lot of assuming, Guy - are you sure you know what background knowledge I lack? I'm actually aware of the truck, thanks, and have some idea of how it can be used in the real world. I'm not interested in having anyone suggest they're in a better position to tell me what I know, with our without passive-aggressive overtones. I was here when the doors opened - it wasn't like that when we started the forum.

GRA said:
My take is that the Semi is unsuited for a sleeper cab and long-haul now, and that by the time the range (and charging infrastructure) increases to the point where having one would be useful, Tesla expects the semi to be operating autonomously in platoons, eliminating any need for a sleeper cab. I believe George Bower's cost analysis shows that operating in this fashion is the only way Tesla can meet the cost estimates they've provided.
I have personal experience with two fleet operators that have built infrastructure in order to keep their trucks flowing along their routes. That's why I have zero problem seeing the current Tesla truck work for long-haul routes provided it can haul 40-80K pounds for 500 miles as Musk suggests is the target. There are a number of reasons why the the sleeper's irrelevant. One example: The company can put an incoming driver in crew rest and send the truck out for another 500 miles with a fresh driver. It's a different paradigm, yes, but so are BEV trucks. It's more of a 'transportation service' thing than a typical 'owner/operator' mindset. Hey - as long as we're all making stuff up... :lol:

That's also why I don't put a lot of stock in pre-release cost estimates. They're written from within the current paradigm. The status quo is horrible at understanding disruption until after they have tire tracks on their foreheads. ;) (FWIW grid operators have the same problem with renewable generation and storage because they see the world through the lenses of 'just in time' production and 'spinning reserves'. They're trying to make wind generation fit their belief system, rather than adjusting their systems to use the strengths of new generation systems.)

As I said earlier - we'll see what happens when/if they get on the road.
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
One might have thought the day cab gave that away, but whatever. ;)

I take a break for a couple of years and find MNL exactly how I left it. Impressive! :lol:
Were you expecting major changes? As to the day cab only, there's been considerable discussion prior to your entry of the fact, alluded to by Sagebrush, that Tesla was planning to add a sleeper cab in the future, so there's a lot of 'assumed background knowledge' that you lack. That's my bad for responding to your comments as if they were those of someone who's been engaged in the discussion right along, and has that continuity.
That's a lot of assuming, Guy - are you sure you know what background knowledge I lack? I'm actually aware of the truck, thanks, and have some idea of how it can be used in the real world. I'm not interested in having anyone suggest they're in a better position to tell me what I know, with our without passive-aggressive overtones. I was here when the doors opened - it wasn't like that when we started the forum.
Andy, my remarks were in reference to assuming you had the knowledge of someone who had been engaged in the discussion here, where these points had previously been thrashed out in considerable detail. My apologies for any offense given, as that wasn't my intent.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
My take is that the Semi is unsuited for a sleeper cab and long-haul now, and that by the time the range (and charging infrastructure) increases to the point where having one would be useful, Tesla expects the semi to be operating autonomously in platoons, eliminating any need for a sleeper cab. I believe George Bower's cost analysis shows that operating in this fashion is the only way Tesla can meet the cost estimates they've provided.
I have personal experience with two fleet operators that have built infrastructure in order to keep their trucks flowing along their routes. That's why I have zero problem seeing the current Tesla truck work for long-haul routes provided it can haul 40-80K pounds for 500 miles as Musk suggests is the target. There are a number of reasons why the the sleeper's irrelevant. One example: The company can put an incoming driver in crew rest and send the truck out for another 500 miles with a fresh driver. It's a different paradigm, yes, but so are BEV trucks. It's more of a 'transportation service' thing than a typical 'owner/operator' mindset. Hey - as long as we're all making stuff up... :lol:
My take is that '500 miles of range' is surrounded by so many caveats, as is typical of BEVs, that it's not to be taken as the basis for discussion. As I think I wrote upthread (it might have been in another topic), I expect Tesla's 500 miles will translate into 300 miles to be counted upon in all conditions, when operated in such a fashion to achieve TCO savings over the long term, i.e. limiting charge and discharge, high speeds, use of HVAC, terrain, winds, temps etc. That just isn't going to cut it for long-haul. (I was a Teamster in an earlier life, and have worked for the three biggest unionized LTL firms in the country as well as many others, and the distances that bid drivers have to cover before swapping are well beyond 300 miles. Going over to such a system would require adding intermediate barns and drivers, and that's not going to help TCO).

AndyH said:
That's also why I don't put a lot of stock in pre-release cost estimates. They're written from within the current paradigm. The status quo is horrible at understanding disruption until after they have tire tracks on their foreheads. ;) (FWIW grid operators have the same problem with renewable generation and storage because they see the world through the lenses of 'just in time' production and 'spinning reserves'. They're trying to make wind generation fit their belief system, rather than adjusting their systems to use the strengths of new generation systems.)

As I said earlier - we'll see what happens when/if they get on the road.
In Tesla's case the usual paradigm is to make cost estimates based on some future hoped-for advances, and judging by the cost estimates I've seen they are doing so here in a big way. Right now Tesla can promise pie in the sky, but what will matter is what they have to guarantee, with performance penalties if they can't meet them. As you say, we'll see what happens when the real world arrives.
 
GRA said:
In Tesla's case the usual paradigm is to make cost estimates based on some future hoped-for advances, and judging by the cost estimates I've seen they are doing so here in a big way. Right now Tesla can promise pie in the sky, but what will matter is what they have to guarantee, with performance penalties if they can't meet them. As you say, we'll see what happens when the real world arrives.

That's great! You both arrived at the same conclusion, i.e. which is always the case for any Tesla product announcement prior to an
actual deliverable product.
 
lorenfb said:
GRA said:
In Tesla's case the usual paradigm is to make cost estimates based on some future hoped-for advances, and judging by the cost estimates I've seen they are doing so here in a big way. Right now Tesla can promise pie in the sky, but what will matter is what they have to guarantee, with performance penalties if they can't meet them. As you say, we'll see what happens when the real world arrives.

That's great! You both arrived at the same conclusion, i.e. which is always the case for any Tesla product announcement prior to an
actual deliverable product.
I imagine both of us started out with that conclusion, we just have differing expectations of the likelihood of Tesla meeting their claims, as well as the suitability of the vehicle even if they do.
 
Tesla tends to miss their projections of cost and schedule. OTOH, they tend to overdeliver on performance.

I agree with GRA that a "500-mile" BEV should normally be good for about 300 miles under worst-case conditions. OTOH, my understanding is that when the EPA tested the 80-kWh Model 3 to have a range of nearly 500 miles, Tesla asked them rate it for only 310 miles instead.

Are they doing that same thing with the truck? I certainly don't know, but it is a possibility. I don't know how they will manage to fit all the necessary batteries, but I do know they are working hard (with Dr. Dahn) to improve the durability of their batteries. Dr. Dahn has stated that they double the life of their old chemistry after one year of development effort. In the case of NMC, improved life can be traded directly for increased capacity by increasing the operating voltage.

Finally, I don't expect Tesla to invest a lot of money developing a sleeper because their value proposition needs autonomous features to really pay off. But I also think they'll end up making one because some customers will insist. We'll see.
 
GRA said:
My take is that '500 miles of range' is surrounded by so many caveats, as is typical of BEVs, that it's not to be taken as the basis for discussion. As I think I wrote upthread (it might have been in another topic), I expect Tesla's 500 miles will translate into 300 miles to be counted upon in all conditions, when operated in such a fashion to achieve TCO savings over the long term, i.e. limiting charge and discharge, high speeds, use of HVAC, terrain, winds, temps etc. That just isn't going to cut it for long-haul. (I was a Teamster in an earlier life, and have worked for the three biggest unionized LTL firms in the country as well as many others, and the distances that bid drivers have to cover before swapping are well beyond 300 miles. Going over to such a system would require adding intermediate barns and drivers, and that's not going to help TCO).
I get that many here prefer to 'debate' the nits of the developing groupthink. No worries - carry on. That's not my thing, though. Case in point is the 500 miles of range. You seem to be saying that you don't believe the truck will actually travel 500 miles, so you define your own range number and then debate from there. I think that's silly. First, because this is a new product in a new category. It's not a model x with a trailer in Ohio that can't get to a charger (to whack a hopefully dead horse). I'm not going to assume that a not yet released product won't work. You're free to - enjoy!

As for total cost of ownership. Correct me if I'm wrong please. My take is that Teamsters are drivers, not business owners, right? I was working with business owners and maintenance chiefs and their accountants. I know that after the purchase price of a truck, fuel is the number 1 budget item. Maintenance chiefs and CEOs and CFOs know to a 1/4 of a cent the effect of changing tire brands. I also know for a fact that companies actually DO build barns with fueling and servicing infrastructure in order to control costs. They found that it was cheaper to build infrastructure than to pay their drivers to stop at Loves - especially with $4+/gallon diesel. I also know that fuel economy dropped when ULSD arrived - and that DPFs are an additional service cost. Electric drive is much, much less expensive per mile than ICE. Companies will change their systems in order to save 1% of their fuel bill. Think of what they'll change to virtually eliminate it!

The truck's not on the streets yet. it's still vaporware until it's not. There are pre-orders from companies that already have experience with EV and hybrid trucks. I expect we'll see exactly how they intend to use the trucks once they take delivery and not very many minutes before.

ETA...how about this exercise: Compare/contrast Tesla's estimates and real-world range for the S and X. Are they pretty close? I've not gotten the impression that Tesla have oversold range. Maybe I'm wrong though.
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
My take is that '500 miles of range' is surrounded by so many caveats, as is typical of BEVs, that it's not to be taken as the basis for discussion. As I think I wrote upthread (it might have been in another topic), I expect Tesla's 500 miles will translate into 300 miles to be counted upon in all conditions, when operated in such a fashion to achieve TCO savings over the long term, i.e. limiting charge and discharge, high speeds, use of HVAC, terrain, winds, temps etc. That just isn't going to cut it for long-haul. (I was a Teamster in an earlier life, and have worked for the three biggest unionized LTL firms in the country as well as many others, and the distances that bid drivers have to cover before swapping are well beyond 300 miles. Going over to such a system would require adding intermediate barns and drivers, and that's not going to help TCO).
I get that many here prefer to 'debate' the nits of the developing groupthink. No worries - carry on. That's not my thing, though. Case in point is the 500 miles of range. You seem to be saying that you don't believe the truck will actually travel 500 miles, so you define your own range number and then debate from there. I think that's silly. First, because this is a new product in a new category. It's not a model x with a trailer in Ohio that can't get to a charger (to whack a hopefully dead horse). I'm not going to assume that a not yet released product won't work. You're free to - enjoy!
No, what I'm saying is that any BEV with a 500 mile max. range has a count on it range that's only a fraction of that, especially when you aren't planning to toss it back to the lessor after a few years. There've been several analyses based on Tesla's announced capacity of the 500 mile pack, and they agree remarkably well with what's needed for a 500 mile max. range. Any increase over that would require much improved batteries, and with only a 2 year lead time that's really optimistic. See
Tesla Semi, Roadster battery claims prove puzzling: beyond current knowledge?
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...laims-prove-puzzling-beyond-current-knowledge It's not just us here.

AndyH said:
As for total cost of ownership. Correct me if I'm wrong please. My take is that Teamsters are drivers, not business owners, right? I was working with business owners and maintenance chiefs and their accountants. I know that after the purchase price of a truck, fuel is the number 1 budget item. Maintenance chiefs and CEOs and CFOs know to a 1/4 of a cent the effect of changing tire brands. I also know for a fact that companies actually DO build barns with fueling and servicing infrastructure in order to control costs. They found that it was cheaper to build infrastructure than to pay their drivers to stop at Loves - especially with $4+/gallon diesel. I also know that fuel economy dropped when ULSD arrived - and that DPFs are an additional service cost. Electric drive is much, much less expensive per mile than ICE. Companies will change their systems in order to save 1% of their fuel bill. Think of what they'll change to virtually eliminate it!
I wasn't talking about TCO as a Teamster, I was talking about where drivers turn and what distances turn points are spaced. Analysis of BEV truck costs in various scenarios has been provided upthread: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=507273#p507273

Actual cost breakdown for diesels, 2008 - 2015: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=24551&start=30#p511623
As can be seen, in some years driver wages exceed fuel costs, sometimes considerably. Mainly depends on price of fuel, and that's been low.

AndyH said:
The truck's not on the streets yet. it's still vaporware until it's not. There are pre-orders from companies that already have experience with EV and hybrid trucks. I expect we'll see exactly how they intend to use the trucks once they take delivery and not very many minutes before.
Yes, there are pre-orders, but AFAWK none of them is firm yet nor has anything been guaranteed. So while UPS, Fed Ex etc. have experience, this will still be a learning experience for them.

AndyH said:
ETA...how about this exercise: Compare/contrast Tesla's estimates and real-world range for the S and X. Are they pretty close? I've not gotten the impression that Tesla have oversold range. Maybe I'm wrong though.
No, they haven't oversold max. range, it's when you start to look at range given real world conditions and constraints that you get to a fraction like max. range x .6 (or less) for 'count on it for years to come in all conditions and show a profit' range. See Tesla's range chart for the Model S, and start playing with the temp, HVAC use, headwinds, wet/snowy roads, charging to less than 100% for longevity and minimizing charge time, discharging to well above 0% for longevity and to provide a reserve, etc. : https://www.tesla.com/models

To minimize charge taper typically requires stopping the charge at 80%, and assuming at least a 15% reserve you're already looking at just .65 of max. range. You owned a BEV - did you routinely plan on using 100% DoD, and ignore conditions that might alter your efficiency and reduce your range? Of course not. But every BEV manufacturer, Tesla included, has advertised max. EPA range while ignoring these factors. We won't know just what Tesla is actually guaranteeing until the truck gets a lot closer to production, and quite possibly not then either, as that's often considered proprietary.
 
Guy, the companies which with I've worked that run NAFTA routes don't space their depots at the extreme limits of any one tractor's range. They don't run just one make, model, or year tractor. They have equipment with different ranges, they run year-round, they know that summer range out of Mexico is longer than winter range coming south out of Canada. None of this is something anyone here needs to think about - the CFO and CEO of the companies get paid a lot better to do those things. They'll integrate electrics into their fleets the same way they're integrating hybrids in now. And they'll do it without bothering to read anything here or on Green Car Reports.

GRA said:
To minimize charge taper typically requires stopping the charge at 80%, and assuming at least a 15% reserve you're already looking at just .65 of max. range. You owned a BEV - did you routinely plan on using 100% DoD, and ignore conditions that might alter your efficiency and reduce your range? Of course not. But every BEV manufacturer, Tesla included, has advertised max. EPA range while ignoring these factors. We won't know just what Tesla is actually guaranteeing until the truck gets a lot closer to production, and quite possibly not then either, as that's often considered proprietary.
Minimize charge taper? Only charge to 80%? Are you kidding? We're not talking about a Nissan product here, Guy. If fleet operators need max range, and assuming the truck megach@rger operates with a CHAdeMO-like 80% initial stop, then I'd bet that when a truck comes in the operator will push the start button a second time to get the battery full before heading out.

Yes, I actually did routinely charge to 100% even if I didn't need the extra range. Yes, I did use my understanding of terrain and HVAC and OAT when managing my trips but they didn't affect my max SOC choice as I could offset all of the factors with my speed choice. I did that successfully with no battery degradation because I had a battery with active thermal management.

You suggested that the EPA range ignored those factors, but they don't - HVAC use is baked in, so is typical driving style.

You might want to actually operate an EV for a year. ;)

It's such a wast of time arguing about something that doesn't yet exist. Hell, it's a wast of time arguing about things that DO exist. Have fun, guys.
 
Just like the naysayers that cannot use an EV car because of some stipulation... fine but EVs still work great for many people and are steadily improving.

Same with Tesla Truck. There will be plenty of practical and economic uses for the Tesla Truck even if it is not a solution for everything.... yet.
So fine if it does not work for you don't buy it.
 
AndyH said:
Guy, the companies which with I've worked that run NAFTA routes don't space their depots at the extreme limits of any one tractor's range. They don't run just one make, model, or year tractor. They have equipment with different ranges, they run year-round, they know that summer range out of Mexico is longer than winter range coming south out of Canada. None of this is something anyone here needs to think about - the CFO and CEO of the companies get paid a lot better to do those things. They'll integrate electrics into their fleets the same way they're integrating hybrids in now. And they'll do it without bothering to read anything here or on Green Car Reports.
Yes, that's right, they space them within reasonable driver service hours (if not sleepers). Large fleets can swap gear much of the time. OTOH, if you've got to dispatch a load and you've got a driver who's burning up his in-service time, the tractor you have available for him had better be able to make the haul to the changeover point. In the case of owner-operators, it's very different. I forget where I heard or read it, but I remember seeing the act of filling out driver log books described as an exercise in creative fiction writing. If the government requires electronic logs on all tractors (if they haven't already, and they can't be hacked), that will eliminate much of that practice and make the roads safer

AndyH said:
GRA said:
To minimize charge taper typically requires stopping the charge at 80%, and assuming at least a 15% reserve you're already looking at just .65 of max. range. You owned a BEV - did you routinely plan on using 100% DoD, and ignore conditions that might alter your efficiency and reduce your range? Of course not. But every BEV manufacturer, Tesla included, has advertised max. EPA range while ignoring these factors. We won't know just what Tesla is actually guaranteeing until the truck gets a lot closer to production, and quite possibly not then either, as that's often considered proprietary.
Minimize charge taper? Only charge to 80%? Are you kidding? We're not talking about a Nissan product here, Guy. If fleet operators need max range, and assuming the truck megach@rger operates with a CHAdeMO-like 80% initial stop, then I'd bet that when a truck comes in the operator will push the start button a second time to get the battery full before heading out.
Uh huh, and how will that affect the TCO?

AndyH said:
Yes, I actually did routinely charge to 100% even if I didn't need the extra range. Yes, I did use my understanding of terrain and HVAC and OAT when managing my trips but they didn't affect my max SOC choice as I could offset all of the factors with my speed choice. I did that successfully with no battery degradation because I had a battery with active thermal management.
And a truck that has to meet a schedule and keep within his/her service hours isn't going to be able to adjust their speed to the extent you did. Tesla's degrade too, just less than BEVs with smaller batteries and which lack TMS. For example: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...m_campaign=ed9&utm_content=iss28#post-2517350


AndyH said:
You suggested that the EPA range ignored those factors, but they don't - HVAC use is baked in, so is typical driving style.
In which of the 5 cycles they use?

AndyH said:
You might want to actually operate an EV for a year. ;)
Operating one for a week gave me much of the info I needed, and selling battery-based off-grid systems gave me rather a lot of background about minimizing battery TCO over the long-term.

AndyH said:
It's such a waste of time arguing about something that doesn't yet exist. Hell, it's a wast of time arguing about things that DO exist. Have fun, guys.
Of course it's mostly a waste of time, but as long as we enjoy it and maybe learn something, who cares?
 
Via IEVS:
Ruan Transportation Will Order, Test Tesla Semi
https://insideevs.com/ruan-transportation-will-order-test-tesla-semi/

  • . . . “Ruan plans to add at least five Tesla semis to its fleet in 2019 and will test vehicle prototypes in California before they are delivered. Ruan and Tesla have been in frequent communication throughout the development process, with Tesla inviting Ruan representatives to take part in numerous on-site meetings and discussions in the six months prior to the November unveiling.

    The price-per-vehicle will be approximately $180,000. Most diesel-powered tractors cost around $100,000, but Tesla predicts that the electric vehicle will pay for itself within two years due to savings in aerodynamics, reliability and fuel. Some specifics, such as the targeted weight, total operating cost and charging method are still unavailable . . . .”

James Cade, Vice President of Fleet Services said:

  • “These new trucks stand to revolutionize interstate transport and change the way we do business. Ruan has always been a leader in efficient transport and logistics, so it makes perfect sense to explore what these trucks could do for us and our customers.”

    “We have many questions as the trucks continue to be developed. But we are excited for the potential they hold and are working directly with Tesla to get the answers we need before putting this technology to use.”

    “It is our hope that using the Tesla tractor-trailers will eventually reduce our costs, keep our drivers and cargo safer and help us continue our tradition of industry-leading service and reliability.”
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8MHFxB8-jM[/youtube]
https://climatecrocks.com/2018/01/26/this-100-percent-renewable-buds-for-you-and-the-whole-planet/
Last March, AB InBev announced every single bottle of beer it brews will be done with renewable energy by 2025. The company is making progress on that pledge and by this spring, every bottle of Budweiser brewed in the U.S. will be made with renewable electricity. This week the brand is unveiling a new symbol it will be putting on each bottle produced with 100% renewable energy.
 
GRA said:
And a truck that has to meet a schedule and keep within his/her service hours isn't going to be able to adjust their speed to the extent you did.
I'm intrigued. How much did I adjust my speed, and how do you think your understanding of how I drive can be applied to the Tesla truck? :?

GRA said:
AndyH said:
You might want to actually operate an EV for a year. ;)
Operating one for a week gave me much of the info I needed, and selling battery-based off-grid systems gave me rather a lot of background about minimizing battery TCO over the long-term.
The only commonality between EVs and off grid systems with batteries is that they both have batteries. I used to build batteries and BMS for ebikes and motorcycles (and supplied prototype gear for a commercial motorcycle manufacturer with an initial near the end of the alphabet and a TTXGP race team). I've also built and instrumented off-grid LiFePO4 batteries for back-up power. Different battery types in different service does not provide much information that can cross between domains. A whole week? All righty then.

How will charging to "100%" affect the TCO? It depends on the battery type, the thermal management system, the ambient climate, the load, the driving style, etc. Considering that even if a full charge with a hypercharger takes 2x 30 minutes to complete, the second period from 80-100% results in about 2 1/2 hours of drive time. Since trucks aren't making money unless the wheels are spinning, that's likely to be a worthwhile use of time - especially if it's needed to get to the next stop. If the driver ends up stuck on a closed road in a blizzard and has to use battery to stay warm and alive, I'm thinking that extra charge will be appreciated in that mode as well.

Also, while obsessing over the 'fast charging will kill my battery' even though it's been proven not to be the case, recall the costs to operate a class 8 tractor. No lube changes, orders of magnitude lower fuel costs, no overhauls, no broken axles, much less brake work... An EV tractor provides so much savings that concerns about charging to 100% is mouse nuts. (Please note that fuel is not included in the chart to follow.)

cost_of_ownership.jpg

https://www.overdriveonline.com/whats-the-total-cost-of-ownership-of-a-class-8-truck-over-15-years/
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
And a truck that has to meet a schedule and keep within his/her service hours isn't going to be able to adjust their speed to the extent you did.
I'm intrigued. How much did I adjust my speed, and how do you think your understanding of how I drive can be applied to the Tesla truck? :?
You have stated that you slowed down, well below speeds that line haul trucks typically travel at. Turn-around points are typically spaced so that a driver won't run out of hours while driving between them, with a cushion to allow for unusual conditions. Checking an old copy of the Teamsters' Western States Supplemental to the National Master Freight agreement, it specifies that turn-around points for single drivers can't be spaced more than 500 miles apart (note, these are layover points, where the driver then returns to the home terminal on his next trip). Of course, the Teamsters have far less of a presence in the trucking industry now than they used to and most trucking is now non-union, which requires drivers to drive even longer and faster if they can get away with it. If you routinely have to drive slower just to reach the destination even if conditions would otherwise allow it, you're going to have drivers running out of hours, and that's going to drive the TCO up as well as delay shipments, possibly imposing penalties. So you're going to have to move the turn-around points closer or provide two drivers, with one of them wasted for much of the time.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
You might want to actually operate an EV for a year. ;)
Operating one for a week gave me much of the info I needed, and selling battery-based off-grid systems gave me rather a lot of background about minimizing battery TCO over the long-term.
The only commonality between EVs and off grid systems with batteries is that they both have batteries. I used to build batteries and BMS for ebikes and motorcycles (and supplied prototype gear for a commercial motorcycle manufacturer with an initial near the end of the alphabet and a TTXGP race team). I've also built and instrumented off-grid LiFePO4 batteries for back-up power. Different battery types in different service does not provide much information that can cross between domains. A whole week? All righty then.
What would I have learned going beyond a week, that I couldn't have learned from reading here and elsewhere, as well as my own experience? I know the factors that affect all batteries, how to maximize range etc., the specific usage usage depends on the chemistry. How does living with a single car for a year give me anything other than anecdotal info for my specific circumstances and that one battery pack?

AndyH said:
How will charging to "100%" affect the TCO? It depends on the battery type, the thermal management system, the ambient climate, the load, the driving style, etc.
Quite so, and until the companies have the data to determine that, any claim by Tesla re TCO is unverified. The same goes for DoD. Now Jeff Dahn, who consults for Tesla and is largely responsible for the NMC chemistry they use in their power packs, has recommended that for best longevity the car packs should be charged to no more than 70% and not discharged below 30%. Obviously, you can go above and below those numbers with some greater degree of degradation, but for minimum TCO no one is going to use 100% DoD regardless of the chemistry. So, any claim of 500 miles of range based on 2kWh/mile and 1MWh total pack, which are Tesla's announced values, are maximums that will never be used in service, just as the announced max. ranges of their cars are unlikely to be except in emergencies, unless the owner simply doesn't care about longevity or TCO. Such behavior doesn't describe any trucking company I know of.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
Considering that even if a full charge with a hypercharger takes 2x 30 minutes to complete, the second period from 80-100% results in about 2 1/2 hours of drive time. Since trucks aren't making money unless the wheels are spinning, that's likely to be a worthwhile use of time - especially if it's needed to get to the next stop. If the driver ends up stuck on a closed road in a blizzard and has to use battery to stay warm and alive, I'm thinking that extra charge will be appreciated in that mode as well.
Okay, now if the driver is paid for the time they spend stopped, or if they're paid by the load, sitting twiddling their thumbs needs to be less expensive than being out on the road for 10 hours straight.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
Also, while obsessing over the 'fast charging will kill my battery' even though it's been proven not to be the case, recall the costs to operate a class 8 tractor. No lube changes, orders of magnitude lower fuel costs, no overhauls, no broken axles, much less brake work... An EV tractor provides so much savings that concerns about charging to 100% is mouse nuts. (Please note that fuel is not included in the chart to follow.)

cost_of_ownership.jpg

https://www.overdriveonline.com/whats-the-total-cost-of-ownership-of-a-class-8-truck-over-15-years/
And we've both included total costs of operation. What will matter is if the cost of fuel, maintenance etc. is reduced enough to compensate for the greater amount being paid to the driver and any delay in shipment, and until Tesla demonstrates that their trucks actually are less maintenance intensive over the long haul (their cars certainly haven't been to date), any TCO numbers they provide are nothing more than guesstimates, which is why Ruan and I expect other companies will be running tests for quite some time. Will Tesla provide performance guarantees out of the gate, or else dry or wet leases where the manufacturer provides the trucks and handles all maintenance etc., at a specified cost/mile? Volvo's doing that with some of their BEV or PHEV buses and maybe trucks too, I forget, and while everyone's learning about the real capabilities of this new tech, I expect a lot more of that. OTOH, big companies like UPS can afford to experiment on a small scale, as they've been doing for more than a decade with BEVs, PHEVs, CNG, pneumatics and fuel cells.

[Edited to fix quotes]
 
Please fix the quotes. I'll check in again when the trucks have some miles on them. Until then, I've got a house battery and BMS to build.

So long folks.
 
RegGuheert said:
The difference with the Tesla Truck is that BEV cars offer very little in terms of a FINANCIAL incentive to purchase them today.
It seems that Green Car Reports agrees: If electric semi tractors are real, their running cost advantage could be huge
Green Car Reports said:
Emotions play a big role in purchases of passenger vehicles, but fleet decisions are generally driven by numbers, spreadsheets, and the almighty dollar.
It seems we agree again:
RegGuheert said:
With the semi trucks, there are multiple avenues for the trucking companies to benefit: reduced fuel costs, bringing fuel production in-house (via solar) which can further reduce and stabilize fuel costs, reduced maintenance costs including personnel, and eventually the elimination of the driver and an increase in the number of hours the vehicle can stay on the road. Really, if Tesla can make these trucks work AND if the trucking industry can figure out how to produce enough electricity and build out the fueling infrastructure, these will take off. It will take time, but the writing is now on the wall.

But there are nearly a million jobs on the line, so expect the teamsters union to fight this transition tooth-and-nail as BEV trucking grows. Lots of people's livelihoods are on the line. It will be interesting to see how people adapt as more-and-more jobs are lost to automation.
Green Car Reports continues:
Green Car Reports said:
And it's in the equation of overall cost where early adopters of electric and other alternative-fuel semis could make a financial killing.

Haulers first out of the gate with electric trucks could operate them at a significant cost advantage over diesel-powered counterparts—and there will be no pressure in early days to reduce transportation prices.
I have to wonder how Nikola will manage to subsidize the free H2 fuel in order to meet their leasing commitment. And people questioned Tesla's inexpensive fuel offer! :roll: Seriously, there is virtually no chance for H2 FCV trucks to offer a financial advantage to their operators without other people footing the bill. A manufacturer trying to do that will quickly go bankrupt.
 
Back
Top