AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:12 pm

GRA wrote:Andy, sorry for the delayed reply, I've been sick for several days.

Sorry. I hope you're feeling better.

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:You have stated that you slowed down, well below speeds that line haul trucks typically travel at.

This is incorrect. I stated that I had to consider temperature, HVAC use, and terrain when planning my trips - but only for those that are to or beyond max range - not to the EPA range. This is important! (This is one of the reasons I wish you had at least a year of EVing under your belt because it's difficult to communicate without a common core of experience.)

As stated I know to take all of those into account, but if the car's max. range in ideal conditions is inadequate to my needs, all a year's worth of data would do is give me more precise information on just how much more inadequate it would be in various conditions, which would be a waste of my time.

The problem here, Guy, is that I'm talking about working with the results of standardized test results, while you're starting with a range target, arbitrarily derating it 40%, and declaring that the range won't work. Your error is in how you're manipulating the data, not on the decision you're making afterward. :lol:

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:My last EV was a city car with 68 miles of EPA range. As I reported in the Outl@nder PHEV thread, I find the new EPA profile to be pessimistic even with a fair amount of jack-rabbit starts and plenty of AC running. In my smart, I don't have to think to achieve the EPA range, though it is possible to get close to it. In routine driving, I found it easy to exceed the EPA range by 20% by paying attention, and by more than 40% by hypermiling. I can't say for sure if any of this will carry over to an EV class 8 tractor, but at the very least I expect the EPA range to be as conservative for this category as I've found it to be for diesel cars, an EV, and now a PHEV.

Yet driving styles vary all over the place, and there are as many people who are unable to achieve EPA range as there are people like you (and me) who know how to exceed it. A company has to allow for the LCD, and something close to worst case conditions.

And if you had real EV experience, you'd realize how far off this assertion is. The current EPA testing takes into account the typical Billy Joe Bob American driver with a lead foot and the AC blaring. And yet - commercial service is NOT like Mr. Bob running down the street burning rubber. Even the lead foot company drivers are restrained by company policies and governors - it's completely incorrect to say things like "my aunt Mable drives hard and therefore Musk's smoking crack". :lol:

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:You asked at some point about test cycles pertinent to Class 8 tractors. One of the organizations certified to perform fuel, lube, and economy testing is SouthWest Research Institute here in San Antonio. (Just in case you want to drill-down into SAE test protocols.) The second link is for a couple of the more stringent tests - those outlined by CARB.

https://www.swri.org/heavy-duty-truck-fuel-economy-testing-evaluations
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/hhddt.php

Note that the test used to evaluate 'high speed cruise' has a max speed of 59.3 MPH and an average of 39.9.

Image

Thanks, but those have no bearing on the test cycles currently being used by the EPA for cars, and I'd be willing to bet that Tesla isn't using them either when quoting ranges for the Semi (if they're even using any EPA test); as yet, AFAWK they only have one or maybe two prototypes on the road. Let'd check back when a production Tesla Semi is actually available for testing.

The test cycles have no bearing on the test cycles? :shock: All righty then...I guess we've hit part of Trump's demo walls here.

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:The ability to climb a hill is a good marketing metric, but it's not that useful in the real world when one is concerned with range/economy.

Written like someone who just did a long drive N-S on I-35 (highest point 1,578 ft. MSL), instead of E-W on I-70 or I-80 crossing the Rockies or Sierra, where the grades are often above 5% and have truck climbing lanes (and runaway ramps in the other direction), e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_80_in_California#/media/File:I-80_altitude_profile.png A BEV semi like the Tesla will be able to stay in the normal right lane instead of over in the truck climbing lane (typical speed -=45 mph) , all the way to Donner Summit (7,227 east or 7,239 ft. west), the Eisenhower tunnel (top 11,158 ft, 6% westbound) on I-70, Cabbage Hill on I-84 east of Pendleton, etc., and then benefit from regen on the way down (the parts with the runaway ramps and signs like this: https://imgur.com/gallery/wUrwF It's no surprise that Tesla is planning to use the BEVs for short hauls from the Bay Area to the Gigafactory (259 miles, net elev. gain of 4,700 ft. or so) and back.

Ah yes - now you're back to telling me what I know and what I don't know. :lol: I've driven from Superior, WI to the Mexican border, and from Cape Cod to Sebastopol. The western driving includes the low route through Arizona and New Mexico, and from the Bay area to Denver to St Louis. I know how hot brakes smell, and how underpowered vehicles chug up hills. LOL I've also ridden along in trucks hauling 2000 gallons of gas and diesel up and down hills that are closed in the winter because they're too steep. Of COURSE Tesla's going to use some of their new trucks to run a ROUTE THEY NEED COVERED! My local grocery store is 2 miles away and I use an EV to get there - that doesn't mean that's as far as the car will go! :lol:

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:I say this because when I was advising tractor operators, from owner-operators to small fleet operators (10-25 tractors) it was during the period of high diesel prices before our current artificial low. Both categories of operators adapted their operation style to save fuel money. Owner-operators acted the way we EVers act - we slowed down a bit, understanding that drag increases with the square of speed. Fleet operators don't mash the 'go pedal' on their own. If they couldn't entice drivers with a cost share for saved fuel (a nice carrot), they turned the governor down on the tractors until the average speed slowed down enough to bring in the desired fuel savings. Lots of words there - let's shrink them a bit: Class 8 operators already actively manage fuel economy and range using the same techniques used by EVers. The way they fuel will change, and the range will change, but the rest will not.

Yes, when fuel prices are high there's more incentive to slow down. Back in 2013 I had to drive 200 miles down I-5 (which is about as close as California Interstates come to the unending tedium of the plains states), and as I was early and had time to kill I was curious to see if I could drive 55 in the right lane without being constantly overtaken by semis at a time of high fuel prices (Note, California has a 55 mph speed limit for any vehicle pulling a trailer - rural interstate speed limit is 70). It was quickly apparent that no one was doing 55, so I decided to pace a variety of trucks to see how fast they were cruising; the slowest semi, a contractor hauling U.S. mail and who probably had an electronic log and/or gps telltale was doing 59. The majority of the trucks were cruising at 62-63, there were many in the 66-68 range and the fastest one I clocked was doing 69. A couple of years later when fuel prices were lower I had occasion to do the same trip, and being early again I paced trucks again. Now the slowest one was doing 63, the largest group were cruising at 67-69, and there were plenty over 70. In states without truck speed limits (and/or higher limits than California, which is all the western ones) they used to cruise a lot faster than that, but I have no recent experience so won't make any claims. It was bad enough then to see guys hauling triples at 80 mph!
[/quote]
Well there you go - you saw some guy driving fast therefore there's no such thing as governors. Gotcha. The folks I was working with were out of Texas and the companies were keeping drivers well below the 80 and 85 MPH limit on I-10 and on toll roads from San Antonio to Dallas.

Oh brother.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 8534
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:36 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Andy, sorry for the delayed reply, I've been sick for several days.

Sorry. I hope you're feeling better.

Thanks, on the mend but not 100% yet.

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:This is incorrect. I stated that I had to consider temperature, HVAC use, and terrain when planning my trips - but only for those that are to or beyond max range - not to the EPA range. This is important! (This is one of the reasons I wish you had at least a year of EVing under your belt because it's difficult to communicate without a common core of experience.)

As stated I know to take all of those into account, but if the car's max. range in ideal conditions is inadequate to my needs, all a year's worth of data would do is give me more precise information on just how much more inadequate it would be in various conditions, which would be a waste of my time.

The problem here, Guy, is that I'm talking about working with the results of standardized test results, while you're starting with a range target, arbitrarily derating it 40%, and declaring that the range won't work. Your error is in how you're manipulating the data, not on the decision you're making afterward. :lol: [/quote]
I derate just like anybody who's planning on long life cycles has to derate any battery to allow for degradation and less than ideal conditions, as well as provide an emergency reserve. Tesla's own range calculator allows you to factor the latter, as do most of the others available, (EVTripplanner etc.).

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:My last EV was a city car with 68 miles of EPA range. As I reported in the Outl@nder PHEV thread, I find the new EPA profile to be pessimistic even with a fair amount of jack-rabbit starts and plenty of AC running. In my smart, I don't have to think to achieve the EPA range, though it is possible to get close to it. In routine driving, I found it easy to exceed the EPA range by 20% by paying attention, and by more than 40% by hypermiling. I can't say for sure if any of this will carry over to an EV class 8 tractor, but at the very least I expect the EPA range to be as conservative for this category as I've found it to be for diesel cars, an EV, and now a PHEV.

Yet driving styles vary all over the place, and there are as many people who are unable to achieve EPA range as there are people like you (and me) who know how to exceed it. A company has to allow for the LCD, and something close to worst case conditions.

And if you had real EV experience, you'd realize how far off this assertion is. The current EPA testing takes into account the typical Billy Joe Bob American driver with a lead foot and the AC blaring. And yet - commercial service is NOT like Mr. Bob running down the street burning rubber. Even the lead foot company drivers are restrained by company policies and governors - it's completely incorrect to say things like "my aunt Mable drives hard and therefore Musk's smoking crack". :lol:

Then please explain how so many newbies here have to be told how to achieve the EPA ranges, and all the limitations they need to accept to do so. Pump the tires up to well over the manufacturer rating? Reduce speed? Don't use HVAC? Smooth accel? Allow for headwinds? Those of us who 6 years ago were telling people not to base their decision on whether a BEV would work for them on the car's EPA range when new under ideal conditions, but rather in worst case conditions after the battery had degraded and that most people would find a PHEV a better choice (as you have after living with a BEV's limitations), were frequently accused of being anti-BEV by the fanbois. But which group has a more realistic view of how BEVs really work over the long term? Let's ask all the LEAF owners who have lost bars and can no longer use their cars for the trips they bought them for.

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:You asked at some point about test cycles pertinent to Class 8 tractors. One of the organizations certified to perform fuel, lube, and economy testing is SouthWest Research Institute here in San Antonio. (Just in case you want to drill-down into SAE test protocols.) The second link is for a couple of the more stringent tests - those outlined by CARB.

https://www.swri.org/heavy-duty-truck-fuel-economy-testing-evaluations
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/cycles/hhddt.php

Note that the test used to evaluate 'high speed cruise' has a max speed of 59.3 MPH and an average of 39.9.

Image

Thanks, but those have no bearing on the test cycles currently being used by the EPA for cars, and I'd be willing to bet that Tesla isn't using them either when quoting ranges for the Semi (if they're even using any EPA test); as yet, AFAWK they only have one or maybe two prototypes on the road. Let'd check back when a production Tesla Semi is actually available for testing.

The test cycles have no bearing on the test cycles? :shock: All righty then...I guess we've hit part of Trump's demo walls here.

No, EPA PEV test cycles for cars have no bearing on the ones used for trucks - come on, that's obvious enough. Tesla can claim anything they want at this point, as they haven't submitted the Semi to any outside testing. Once they do, we'll have some independent numbers.

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Written like someone who just did a long drive N-S on I-35 (highest point 1,578 ft. MSL), instead of E-W on I-70 or I-80 crossing the Rockies or Sierra, where the grades are often above 5% and have truck climbing lanes (and runaway ramps in the other direction), e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_80_in_California#/media/File:I-80_altitude_profile.png A BEV semi like the Tesla will be able to stay in the normal right lane instead of over in the truck climbing lane (typical speed -=45 mph) , all the way to Donner Summit (7,227 east or 7,239 ft. west), the Eisenhower tunnel (top 11,158 ft, 6% westbound) on I-70, Cabbage Hill on I-84 east of Pendleton, etc., and then benefit from regen on the way down (the parts with the runaway ramps and signs like this: https://imgur.com/gallery/wUrwF It's no surprise that Tesla is planning to use the BEVs for short hauls from the Bay Area to the Gigafactory (259 miles, net elev. gain of 4,700 ft. or so) and back.

Ah yes - now you're back to telling me what I know and what I don't know. :lol: I've driven from Superior, WI to the Mexican border, and from Cape Cod to Sebastopol. The western driving includes the low route through Arizona and New Mexico, and from the Bay area to Denver to St Louis. I know how hot brakes smell, and how underpowered vehicles chug up hills. LOL I've also ridden along in trucks hauling 2000 gallons of gas and diesel up and down hills that are closed in the winter because they're too steep. Of COURSE Tesla's going to use some of their new trucks to run a ROUTE THEY NEED COVERED! My local grocery store is 2 miles away and I use an EV to get there - that doesn't mean that's as far as the car will go! :lol:

And this is an excellent use for them, one for which they have an operational advantage over a diesel, and which other carriers may find desirable if they travel similar routes.

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Yes, when fuel prices are high there's more incentive to slow down. Back in 2013 I had to drive 200 miles down I-5 (which is about as close as California Interstates come to the unending tedium of the plains states), and as I was early and had time to kill I was curious to see if I could drive 55 in the right lane without being constantly overtaken by semis at a time of high fuel prices (Note, California has a 55 mph speed limit for any vehicle pulling a trailer - rural interstate speed limit is 70). It was quickly apparent that no one was doing 55, so I decided to pace a variety of trucks to see how fast they were cruising; the slowest semi, a contractor hauling U.S. mail and who probably had an electronic log and/or gps telltale was doing 59. The majority of the trucks were cruising at 62-63, there were many in the 66-68 range and the fastest one I clocked was doing 69. A couple of years later when fuel prices were lower I had occasion to do the same trip, and being early again I paced trucks again. Now the slowest one was doing 63, the largest group were cruising at 67-69, and there were plenty over 70. In states without truck speed limits (and/or higher limits than California, which is all the western ones) they used to cruise a lot faster than that, but I have no recent experience so won't make any claims. It was bad enough then to see guys hauling triples at 80 mph!

Well there you go - you saw some guy driving fast therefore there's no such thing as governors. Gotcha.

Oh brother.

Sure, there are governors, and more and more big companies are forcing their drivers to drive more responsibly. When they're all autonomous the roads will be much safer, but until that point owner-operators will be free to drive whatever speed they like and feel they can get away with (unless non-defeatable governors have been invented now). Andy, I think we've beaten this to death, and until we've got some hard, real world test data further discussion/argument seems pretty pointless. At the moment IEVS is the best info we've got.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6200
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:39 am

RegGuheert on December 2, 2017 wrote:Since you brought up the issue of addressable market for semi trucks, lets have a look. There are approximately two million tractor-trailers operating in the U.S. today. Nearly 10% of these trucks are replaced each year. The global market is likely 10X the size of the U.S. market, if not more. So the addressable market is perhaps 2 million semi trucks each year. I'm sure Tesla would be happy to claim less than 5% of this market.
Let's see: 5% of 2 million trucks = 100,000 trucks. It looks like I wasn't too far off here: Tesla Semi aims to manufacture 100,000 trucks per year, says Elon Musk:
Electrek wrote:Musk said during a call with analysts yesterday:
Elon Musk wrote:It’s easier to predict, far easier to predict the endpoint or the steady state of the S-curve than anywhere on that exponential or log curve. So if you take four years, I think 100,000 units a year is a reasonable expectation. Maybe more, but that’s the right – roughly the right number, I think.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Thu Feb 08, 2018 4:06 pm

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:The problem here, Guy, is that I'm talking about working with the results of standardized test results, while you're starting with a range target, arbitrarily derating it 40%, and declaring that the range won't work. Your error is in how you're manipulating the data, not on the decision you're making afterward. :lol:

I derate just like anybody who's planning on long life cycles has to derate any battery to allow for degradation and less than ideal conditions, as well as provide an emergency reserve. Tesla's own range calculator allows you to factor the latter, as do most of the others available, (EVTripplanner etc.).

No Guy - "anybody" doesn't derate range 40%. Yes - SOME might have to - but that is not a universal EV need. For example - I know the battery in my smart lost a few percent in 3 years but I didn't notice any loss of rang in the real world because other factors are far more significant. That's really f'n important - this truck is not being made by Nissan. The battery won't be made from cells stuffed into a closed box. Nobody in their right mind should be making an EV battery without some sort of active thermal management - THAT'S WHY some on this forum have had to participate in class actions, and all of the other things you mentioned. Have you seen large numbers of Tesla owners, Benz owners, smart owners (ok, there aren't large numbers of smarts on the road - but there's no degradation stories in the smart world) or other EVs with liquid management having to jump through hoops the way LEAF owners have? The battery is why I cancelled my LEAF order in 2010 - and leased a smart instead... And no, I didn't move to a PHEV because I'm concerned about battery degradation - I chose the car I did the same way I chose the smart - because it meets my mission needs at a price I can handle. Yet again - stop putting words into my mouth.

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:Thanks, but those have no bearing on the test cycles currently being used by the EPA for cars, and I'd be willing to bet that Tesla isn't using them either when quoting ranges for the Semi (if they're even using any EPA test); as yet, AFAWK they only have one or maybe two prototypes on the road. Let'd check back when a production Tesla Semi is actually available for testing.

The test cycles have no bearing on the test cycles? :shock: All righty then...I guess we've hit part of Trump's demo walls here.

No, EPA PEV test cycles for cars have no bearing on the ones used for trucks - come on, that's obvious enough. Tesla can claim anything they want at this point, as they haven't submitted the Semi to any outside testing. Once they do, we'll have some independent numbers.

Dude - seriously? Did you not actually click the links I gave you? Those are heavy duty (IE Class 8) truck test protocols - they're not for passenger cars! Are you really fighting facts in order to support a world view?

At least we agree on this: We're done here.

edit...there/their/they're...seriously?
Last edited by AndyH on Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 8534
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:56 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:The problem here, Guy, is that I'm talking about working with the results of standardized test results, while you're starting with a range target, arbitrarily derating it 40%, and declaring that the range won't work. Your error is in how you're manipulating the data, not on the decision you're making afterward. :lol:

I derate just like anybody who's planning on long life cycles has to derate any battery to allow for degradation and less than ideal conditions, as well as provide an emergency reserve. Tesla's own range calculator allows you to factor the latter, as do most of the others available, (EVTripplanner etc.).

No Guy - "anybody" doesn't derate range 40%. Yes - SOME might have to - but that is not a universal EV need. For example - I know the battery in my smart lost a few percent in 3 years but I didn't notice any loss of rang in the real world because other factors are far more significant. That's really f'n important - this truck is not being made by Nissan. The battery won't be made from cells stuffed into a closed box. Nobody in there right mind should be making an EV battery without some sort of active thermal management - THAT'S WHY some on this forum have had to participate in class actions, and all of the other things you mentioned. Have you seen large numbers of Tesla owners, Benz owners, smart owners (ok, there aren't large numbers of smarts on the road - but there's no degradation stories in the smart world) or other EVs with liquid management having to jump through hoops the way LEAF owners have? The battery is why I cancelled my LEAF order in 2010 - and leased a smart instead... And no, I didn't move to a PHEV because I'm concerned about battery degradation - I chose the car I did the same way I chose the smart - because it meets my mission needs at a price I can handle. Yet again - stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm not suggesting that everyone has to derate 40%, although as most companies consider 70% of initial capacity to be end of life, I allow 10% on top of that for everything else, which is pretty liberal. Obviously, not every company does so - the 2011-2012 LEAF's warranty was nominally 66.25%, the Smart's (if you leased it) 80%, and the Bolt's is 60%. Every trucking company will decide for themselves what economic end of life is, based on how much loss of operational capacity they can accept.

As to why you went to a PHEV you state exactly the point I was making - the Smart's range was too constraining for your needs, so you moved to a vehicle that didn't constrain you, which you could afford.

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:The test cycles have no bearing on the test cycles? :shock: All righty then...I guess we've hit part of Trump's demo walls here.

No, EPA PEV test cycles for cars have no bearing on the ones used for trucks - come on, that's obvious enough. Tesla can claim anything they want at this point, as they haven't submitted the Semi to any outside testing. Once they do, we'll have some independent numbers.

Dude - seriously? Did you not actually click the links I gave you? Those are heavy duty (IE Class 8) truck test protocols - they're not for passenger cars! Are you really fighting facts in order to support a world view?

Yes, I read them, and they are truck protocols (for diesels) , so let's not compare them to EPA car cycles for PEVs and assume they cross over. When Tesla submits to such tests for trucks, we'll have some useful independent info to compare.

AndyH wrote:At least we agree on this: We're done here.

Yup.
Last edited by GRA on Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6200
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:31 am

I hesitate to post this video since this guy is such a rabid Tesla and Elon Musk hater, but here it is anyway:



If you want to avoid seeing much of his ranting which is completely unrelated to the Tesla Semi, skip to 5:18 in the video.

He says in the video that the battery will weigh 14 tonnes (tons?) because he read a paper from Carnegie Melon that said that was needed for a 600-mile range. We've discussed the weight of the battery and I think we can all agree that no BEV semi truck will ever have a battery that heavy.

What's funny is that toward the end of the video he is literally pleading the case for electric semi trucks for moving containers in Australia's big cities. This is the perfect application of the Tesla Semi and one which will have immediate health benefits for people of many citizens around the world.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

hyperionmark
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:46 am
Delivery Date: 31 Jan 2017
Location: Nebraska

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:40 pm

Is that guy ed or loren? Has to be one of them, right?

User avatar
EVDRIVER
Posts: 6342
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:51 am

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:49 pm

hyperionmark wrote:Is that guy ed or loren? Has to be one of them, right?



Too funny!
Forum Moderator

AndyH
Posts: 6384
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:43 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Fri Feb 16, 2018 1:56 pm

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:I derate just like anybody who's planning on long life cycles has to derate any battery to allow for degradation and less than ideal conditions, as well as provide an emergency reserve. Tesla's own range calculator allows you to factor the latter, as do most of the others available, (EVTripplanner etc.).

No Guy - "anybody" doesn't derate range 40%. Yes - SOME might have to - but that is not a universal EV need. For example - I know the battery in my smart lost a few percent in 3 years but I didn't notice any loss of rang in the real world because other factors are far more significant. That's really f'n important - this truck is not being made by Nissan. The battery won't be made from cells stuffed into a closed box. Nobody in there right mind should be making an EV battery without some sort of active thermal management - THAT'S WHY some on this forum have had to participate in class actions, and all of the other things you mentioned. Have you seen large numbers of Tesla owners, Benz owners, smart owners (ok, there aren't large numbers of smarts on the road - but there's no degradation stories in the smart world) or other EVs with liquid management having to jump through hoops the way LEAF owners have? The battery is why I cancelled my LEAF order in 2010 - and leased a smart instead... And no, I didn't move to a PHEV because I'm concerned about battery degradation - I chose the car I did the same way I chose the smart - because it meets my mission needs at a price I can handle. Yet again - stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm not suggesting that everyone has to derate 40%, although as most companies consider 70% of initial capacity to be end of life, I allow 10% on top of that for everything else, which is pretty liberal. Obviously, not every company does so - the 2011-2012 LEAF's warranty was nominally 66.25%, the Smart's (if you leased it) 80%, and the Bolt's is 60%. Every trucking company will decide for themselves what economic end of life is, based on how much loss of operational capacity they can accept.

As to why you went to a PHEV you state exactly the point I was making - the Smart's range was too constraining for your needs, so you moved to a vehicle that didn't constrain you, which you could afford.

The industry standard point for battery end of life is 80%, not 70 or 60. You're free to set your personal goalposts where you wish, but I'll be sticking with established standards.

You still don't understand why I chose the vehicles I did, but you still think you do. This has been a recurring theme that I'm still failing to get through to you that you're not reading it right. My vehicle choices are mission specific. The smart was the perfect vehicle for me at the time. And my current choice performs the functions I need long-term. (Did you detect a change in needs this time? Hopefully...)

GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:No, EPA PEV test cycles for cars have no bearing on the ones used for trucks - come on, that's obvious enough. Tesla can claim anything they want at this point, as they haven't submitted the Semi to any outside testing. Once they do, we'll have some independent numbers.

Dude - seriously? Did you not actually click the links I gave you? Those are heavy duty (IE Class 8) truck test protocols - they're not for passenger cars! Are you really fighting facts in order to support a world view?

Yes, I read them, and they are truck protocols (for diesels) , so let's not compare them to EPA car cycles for PEVs and assume they cross over. When Tesla submits to such tests for trucks, we'll have some useful independent info to compare.

Still adding info to other people's definitions. At least it's not just me. :lol: No, Guy, those aren't "diesel test protocols" - they're class 8 truck protocols - and (kicking the podium here) - they are the metrics that will be used to rate the subject tractor. You don't have to like it, but you can't hand-wave that away.

Tesla isn't 'claiming' anything at this point - and they're certainly not pointing to an ass and claiming it's an elephant. They are simply stating the design bounds. As has been previously noted, they tend to hit the goals that aren't tied to Musk Time Dilation(tm).
"The stupid become extinct."-Bill Mollison
2018 Outlander PHEV
2015 smart Electric Drive (lease ended Feb, 2018)
OpenEVSE Plus DIY

GRA
Posts: 8534
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Tesla Semi Truck

Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:28 pm

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:No Guy - "anybody" doesn't derate range 40%. Yes - SOME might have to - but that is not a universal EV need. For example - I know the battery in my smart lost a few percent in 3 years but I didn't notice any loss of rang in the real world because other factors are far more significant. That's really f'n important - this truck is not being made by Nissan. The battery won't be made from cells stuffed into a closed box. Nobody in there right mind should be making an EV battery without some sort of active thermal management - THAT'S WHY some on this forum have had to participate in class actions, and all of the other things you mentioned. Have you seen large numbers of Tesla owners, Benz owners, smart owners (ok, there aren't large numbers of smarts on the road - but there's no degradation stories in the smart world) or other EVs with liquid management having to jump through hoops the way LEAF owners have? The battery is why I cancelled my LEAF order in 2010 - and leased a smart instead... And no, I didn't move to a PHEV because I'm concerned about battery degradation - I chose the car I did the same way I chose the smart - because it meets my mission needs at a price I can handle. Yet again - stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm not suggesting that everyone has to derate 40%, although as most companies consider 70% of initial capacity to be end of life, I allow 10% on top of that for everything else, which is pretty liberal. Obviously, not every company does so - the 2011-2012 LEAF's warranty was nominally 66.25%, the Smart's (if you leased it) 80%, and the Bolt's is 60%. Every trucking company will decide for themselves what economic end of life is, based on how much loss of operational capacity they can accept.

As to why you went to a PHEV you state exactly the point I was making - the Smart's range was too constraining for your needs, so you moved to a vehicle that didn't constrain you, which you could afford.

The industry standard point for battery end of life is 80%, not 70 or 60. You're free to set your personal goalposts where you wish, but I'll be sticking with established standards.

I've listed industry 'standards', and showed how they vary. Let's use 80%, allow 10% as an emergency reserve and another 10% for less than ideal conditions, which gets us right back to 60% as dependable capacity. I consider a 10% reserve and 10% for inclement conditions to be inadequate, but the companies will determine what their needs are and whether running the battery that low routinely is a good idea from a TCO perspective, once they've got the data.

AndyH wrote:You still don't understand why I chose the vehicles I did, but you still think you do. This has been a recurring theme that I'm still failing to get through to you that you're not reading it right. My vehicle choices are mission specific. The smart was the perfect vehicle for me at the time. And my current choice performs the functions I need long-term. (Did you detect a change in needs this time? Hopefully...)

Did your needs change, or just your willingness to put up with limitations? I'm just taking your own words. In the Outlander thread you wrote:
[For a point of reference...in order to make it to my in-law's place in my smart (with her city car aerodynamics ;) ) I had no problem on the interstate, but had to keep my speed down to 55. Driving faster meant that I didn't have enough charge to make it to a charge location. As it was, I'd often drag in to Fredericksburg with 1-2% remaining and a max speed of 30. Being able to drive 63 on the highway is a nice upgrade. :lol: ]
It doesn't appear you needed to change cars to continue making that trip. In another message in that thread, you wrote:
I took a 170 mile drive up I-35 to Cabela's** starting with about half a charge and 9 EV miles showing on the guess-o-meter. Speeds ranged from suburban 35/45 mph, to afternoon rush hour stop and start, to regular interstate driving. The only thing I did for economy was kept my speed below 65...most of the time. ;) . . . **That's a drive I've been wanting to make for almost a year - I got a gift certificate for my birthday last year. My smart would have needed four charge stops to make the trip and it doesn't have fast charge capability. There isn't infrastructure in the right places to make the trip possible, even if I wanted to spend 15 hours getting L2 charges enroute.
That doesn't read to me as if your mission changed, only your willingness to put up with the Smart's limitations due to limited range and lack of infrastructure. In short, inconvenient time sucks and preventing you from going a place you wanted to for a year, which is exactly what I said about why you upgraded. It's the same reason that I don't consider any BEV to meet my mission needs yet, because I simply can't get to many of the places I want to drive to in one, of if I can it involves great inconvenience in extra time or choice of routes.

AndyH wrote:
GRA wrote:
AndyH wrote:Dude - seriously? Did you not actually click the links I gave you? Those are heavy duty (IE Class 8) truck test protocols - they're not for passenger cars! Are you really fighting facts in order to support a world view?

Yes, I read them, and they are truck protocols (for diesels) , so let's not compare them to EPA car cycles for PEVs and assume they cross over. When Tesla submits to such tests for trucks, we'll have some useful independent info to compare.

Still adding info to other people's definitions. At least it's not just me. :lol: No, Guy, those aren't "diesel test protocols" - they're class 8 truck protocols - and (kicking the podium here) - they are the metrics that will be used to rate the subject tractor. You don't have to like it, but you can't hand-wave that away.

Tesla isn't 'claiming' anything at this point - and they're certainly not pointing to an ass and claiming it's an elephant. They are simply stating the design bounds. As has been previously noted, they tend to hit the goals that aren't tied to Musk Time Dilation(tm).

Good, we agree that they haven't yet tested it to those protocols, but they are certainly making multiple claims about range and TCO. Let's also not pretend the test protocols used for passenger cars have any bearing on those for commercial trucks, as their usage cycles are completely different. And it's not just lateness at Tesla, but also QC issues (and high cycle degradation data) that will be critical for determining TCO, unless you think multiple drivetrain replacements per vehicle, or multiple trips to repair issues, as has been the case with more than a few Model S/X and RAV4s, would be acceptable for a business. There's no question that BEV trucks will have a place once they can show that they have acceptable TCO, but they've just started to enter service (panel trucks), so it's all just hot air and hand waving at the moment.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”