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.
GRA said:
Andy, sorry for the delayed reply, I've been sick for several days.
Sorry. I hope you're feeling better.

GRA said:
AndyH said:
GRA said:
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 said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
AndyH said:
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.

hhddt-cruz.png
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 said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
AndyH said:
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.
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
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 said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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.

hhddt-cruz.png
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 said:
GRA said:
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 said:
GRA said:
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.
 
RegGuheert on December 2 said:
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 said:
Musk said during a call with analysts yesterday:
Elon Musk said:
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.
 
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
AndyH said:
GRA said:
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?
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
At least we agree on this: We're done here.
Yup.
 
I hesitate to post this video since this guy is such a rabid Tesla and Elon Musk hater, but here it is anyway:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlvYv1SJJEY[/youtube]

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.
 
GRA said:
AndyH said:
GRA said:
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 said:
AndyH said:
GRA said:
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).
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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 said:
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 said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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.
 
GRA said:
AndyH said:
GRA said:
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.
You're not seeing it, are you? How about this: Tell me how many gallons of fuel I should reserve for a daytime/visual flight in a 1972 Cessna 172. Got any ideas? No? Not a pilot? Oh.

Sure - I can play BS numbers too. Let's put a 20Ah main drive battery in a 5 ton submarine. If we put a 10C load on it to get the sub moving on the surface, and de-rate it 10% for the times we need to use the searchlight and 40% for effects of next week's EMP, it can't go very far. Wow - that sucks! Who in their right mind would do that? Yeah, right: Nobody. That excursion through the rabbit hole is as valid as your suggestion that 60% is 'dependable capacity' from a ginormous truck battery. :lol:

GRA said:
AndyH said:
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.
Guy, the above is the sort of massive circle-jerk that occurs when someone without the background to understand and clearly without reading the rest of the posts tries to blame someone else for what they don't understand. Yes you are using some of my words - but out of context and twisted to fit your worldview.

I said I base my lease/purchase decisions on mission needs, and that my mission needs changed. I posted the details of how and why in the smart thread. I intended to rent a car for longer drives and did just that when necessary. The car was perfect for the grocery trips, doctor visits, and commutes to school. I did not choose to rent a car to go to Cabela's - that is NOT a limitation with the smart. It's no different than saying I couldn't use the car to get plywood from the lumber yard. I did the same thing with the smart that I did with my VWs - I used Home Depot's flat-bed.

Also - as I've also stated a number of times: My drives to the in-law's place were well beyond max range of the smart. If I drove up at 55 MPH, I could make it to the charge point closer to the destination and charge for 1 hour. I didn't 'have' to do that - I chose to do that - because driving 55 rather than 60 or 65 cut a charge stop - the overall trip was faster if I drove a bit slower. Since I didn't have cruise control on the car, I simply tucked-in behind a semi. :lol:

As I've said a number of times on this forum since it launched: I see 'mission planning' an EV trip much the same way I fly missions in small airplanes: For the local 1-hour afternoon flights to the lake and back, RPM and mixture management isn't important because the airplane can fly for 4 hours at wide-open throttle and I'm only going to be in the air for an hour. This feels exactly the same to me as getting into the smart (70 miles of range) and driving to two grocery stores and the pet shop, because the entire journey is about 7 miles. One has to pay attention to fuel stops and other factors when approaching or exceeding max range - and this is exactly the same if one is flying a small airplane, driving an EV, or driving a '96 VW Passat TDI to New England. Beyond max range is beyond max range regardless if the number is 4 hours, 70 miles, or 1100 miles. There were times I slowed down in each of the example vehicles as conditions changed. That's a 'vehicle thing' and not just a 'bev thing'.

GRA said:
AndyH said:
GRA said:
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.
Word salad from hell. :shock: So...ok...trying to follow this...

No, I don't agree that they haven't tested to the EPA protocols - I have zero information to confirm or deny. If I was them, I'd be putting the truck on a dyno and running the tests. How else does a company know if they'll hit targets unless they TEST?! EV race bike teams do the math, and then they run the prototypes on the track. GM ran the Volt all over lower Michigan, from road to test track as well as running dyno tests. That's the norm. I'd bet money that they've run at least one of the prototype tractors through the 'treadmill' tests.

I'm not saying anything about TCO - that seems to be your thing. Since it's got nothing to do with EPA test cycles or range, I'm going to ignore it.

You're the only one saying anything about car tests - of COURSE nobody in their right mind is going to evaluate trucks against LA06. (Do we really have to keep saying this?!)

Quick charging is becoming well known. It doesn't do much damage to a LEAF battery, and it does less to a water-cooled battery. Charging to 80% in 30 minutes is a less than 2C charge rate. Modern lithium cells are happy at 6-10C rates. Additionally, I'm thinking nobody on the planet is in a better position to estimate the effect of high rates of DC charging on a liquid-cooled battery than Tesla. So yeah, I'm ok giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

RAV4s and Model S/X? Panel trucks? Those have what to do with Class 8 tractors? :shock: I'm beginning to have Eliza flashbacks.
 
AndyH said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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.
You're not seeing it, are you? How about this: Tell me how many gallons of fuel I should reserve for a daytime/visual flight in a 1972 Cessna 172. Got any ideas? No? Not a pilot? Oh.
Had a friend who was CFII/ATP. Was going for my license with him but stopped when I realized I would have had to give up all my other hobbies at the time (30-odd years ago) to afford maintaining a level of proficiency I would have been comfortable with. He'd still let me fly whenever I felt like it (with him along to make it legal, of course), the occasional day trip, shoot a few landings whatever. I always enjoyed flight planning process (when it was needed. see your comments below). Never cared for the 172, much preferred the club's '74 Cardinal RG aka 177RG (modified with the slotted stabilator) for its performance, noise level (used to cruise oversquare at 25"/2100 doing 150TAS, which also saved us money as it was tach rather than Hobbs time), view and control feel, and I simply didn't fit in a 150/152; spent all my time scrunching down in the seat trying to see out to the sides, and even so we almost got T-Boned from 3 o'clock by a BAE 146 which was descending into Concord one hot, hazy day outside of Mode C airspace (IIRR, at the time Mode C was only required if you were in the San Francisco TCA Fro some reason we'd decided to see how high we could get the 150 up to, and staggered up to about 11k before we quit). Cherokee 140 was okay, if boring, and I never got any time in one of the non-Hershey bar wing versions. My friend preferred the Debonair (straight tail 225hp Bonanza with a throwover yoke) to the Cardinal, but the Cardinal was much better for sightseeing. Got a ride once in the back seat of a Mooney M20(G?) modified with a twin turbo, but all I learned from that is how cramped it was back there, although even with four of us that sucker could climb and scoot. Always wanted to try a Citabria or a Grumman (American) AA-5b Tiger, but never managed to.

AndyH said:
Sure - I can play BS numbers too. Let's put a 20Ah main drive battery in a 5 ton submarine. If we put a 10C load on it to get the sub moving on the surface, and de-rate it 10% for the times we need to use the searchlight and 40% for effects of next week's EMP, it can't go very far. Wow - that sucks! Who in their right mind would do that? Yeah, right: Nobody. That excursion through the rabbit hole is as valid as your suggestion that 60% is 'dependable capacity' from a ginormous truck battery. :lol:
Feel free to give your own numbers as to what level of degradation and allowances you feel are cost-effective. Speaking of subs, cycle life can be rather critical: Japan's late war HA-201 subs used batteries rated at only 100 cycles to save weight, which made them fast, but really screwed their practicality.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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.
Guy, the above is the sort of massive circle-jerk that occurs when someone without the background to understand and clearly without reading the rest of the posts tries to blame someone else for what they don't understand. Yes you are using some of my words - but out of context and twisted to fit your worldview.

I said I base my lease/purchase decisions on mission needs, and that my mission needs changed. I posted the details of how and why in the smart thread. I intended to rent a car for longer drives and did just that when necessary. The car was perfect for the grocery trips, doctor visits, and commutes to school. I did not choose to rent a car to go to Cabela's - that is NOT a limitation with the smart. It's no different than saying I couldn't use the car to get plywood from the lumber yard. I did the same thing with the smart that I did with my VWs - I used Home Depot's flat-bed.
Andy, you said that the SMART met your needs for three years. Now, if you put off a trip for a year, it obviously wasn't meeting all your needs for that time. That you chose not to rent a car indicates that you didn't consider going to Cabela's a priority, so perhaps this is a question of not meeting your wants rather than your needs. The car you now have doesn't so limit you, thus can meet an expanded mission set, in fact virtually any mission set that doesn't require a truck.

AndyH said:
Also - as I've also stated a number of times: My drives to the in-law's place were well beyond max range of the smart. If I drove up at 55 MPH, I could make it to the charge point closer to the destination and charge for 1 hour. I didn't 'have' to do that - I chose to do that - because driving 55 rather than 60 or 65 cut a charge stop - the overall trip was faster if I drove a bit slower. Since I didn't have cruise control on the car, I simply tucked-in behind a semi. :lol:
And if you were willing to drive even slower you could have made it without cutting it so fine, or without all the 'flight planning.' The car you now have allows you to just get in and go, knowing that whenever you need to refuel it will be available almost everywhere and can be done quickly, but most of the time you simply won't need to do so.

AndyH said:
As I've said a number of times on this forum since it launched: I see 'mission planning' an EV trip much the same way I fly missions in small airplanes: For the local 1-hour afternoon flights to the lake and back, RPM and mixture management isn't important because the airplane can fly for 4 hours at wide-open throttle and I'm only going to be in the air for an hour. This feels exactly the same to me as getting into the smart (70 miles of range) and driving to two grocery stores and the pet shop, because the entire journey is about 7 miles. One has to pay attention to fuel stops and other factors when approaching or exceeding max range - and this is exactly the same if one is flying a small airplane, driving an EV, or driving a '96 VW Passat TDI to New England. Beyond max range is beyond max range regardless if the number is 4 hours, 70 miles, or 1100 miles. There were times I slowed down in each of the example vehicles as conditions changed. That's a 'vehicle thing' and not just a 'bev thing'.
And we agree on this.

AndyH said:
GRA said:
AndyH said:
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.
Word salad from hell. :shock: So...ok...trying to follow this...

No, I don't agree that they haven't tested to the EPA protocols - I have zero information to confirm or deny. If I was them, I'd be putting the truck on a dyno and running the tests. How else does a company know if they'll hit targets unless they TEST?! EV race bike teams do the math, and then they run the prototypes on the track. GM ran the Volt all over lower Michigan, from road to test track as well as running dyno tests. That's the norm. I'd bet money that they've run at least one of the prototype tractors through the 'treadmill' tests.
As they've got one or at most two prototypes in existence, I imagine they're still trying to get them to work. Serious testing will come later, once the vehicles are reliable enough (and close enough to production configuration) to make the numbers useful. the drivetrain problems with the RAV4 and Model S are well known - Edmund's long-term test Model S had to have it's drivetrain replaced 3 times among numerous other issues, the RAV 4 forum reported similar problems, and Edmund's Model X has a similarly long laundry list of problems (although not the drivetrain IIRR).

AndyH said:
I'm not saying anything about TCO - that seems to be your thing. Since it's got nothing to do with EPA test cycles or range, I'm going to ignore it.
Actually, that's Tesla's thing, as their claims of cost savings are about TCO.

AndyH said:
You're the only one saying anything about car tests - of COURSE nobody in their right mind is going to evaluate trucks against LA06. (Do we really have to keep saying this?!)

Quick charging is becoming well known. It doesn't do much damage to a LEAF battery, and it does less to a water-cooled battery. Charging to 80% in 30 minutes is a less than 2C charge rate. Modern lithium cells are happy at 6-10C rates. Additionally, I'm thinking nobody on the planet is in a better position to estimate the effect of high rates of DC charging on a liquid-cooled battery than Tesla. So yeah, I'm ok giving them the benefit of the doubt here.

RAV4s and Model S/X? Panel trucks? Those have what to do with Class 8 tractors? :shock: I'm beginning to have Eliza flashbacks.
As noted above, Tesla has repeatedly had difficulty achieving acceptable QC and reliability in the past when they are introducing a new vehicle (the Model 3 seems to be following the same arc), so what makes you think they'll be any different next time? Any company except the biggest ones who can afford to do trials will hold off until they get some numbers and Tesla can work out most of the bugs. Their car customers have been willing to put up with this process, but I doubt most trucking companies will be willing to act as beta testers.
 
It seems Daimler's head of trucks doesn't fully understand the ramifications of being a laggard in a fast-moving technology space:
Daimler head of trucks Martin Daum said:
If Tesla really delivers on this promise, we’ll obviously buy two trucks — one to take apart and one to test because if that happens, something has passed us by. But for now, the same laws of physics apply in Germany and in California.
This statement was well-fielded by commenter "Nafnlaus":
Nafnlaus said:
Indeed. Elektrek keeps pushing this "oh, its so impossible" narrative, and the numbers just don't back up this stance.

Tesla has halved the æro drag (not by "magic", just standard streamlining techniques). That's half of 60% of the truck's cruising power. For the remaining 40%, rolling drag, they have the trailer on super singles, which is another big power slashing. 1MWh is on the upper end of possible pack sizes; 600-1000 kWh is plausible. Tesla has only stated "under 2kWh/mi", without specifying how far under.

But hey, let's go with the worst possible figure, 1MWh. And let's take Tesla's lowest energy density packs, ignoring the fact that generally as you scale a pack up, energy density gets better. So 150 Wh/kg. So 6,7 tonnes for the pack. A typical day cab is around 10 tonnes. Now the pack is heavier than an ICE drivetrain - perhaps instead of 7,5 tonnes to build the remainder of the cab they have 4 in this worst-case scenario - but so what? Does Tesla build their vehicles out of simple mild steel body-on-frame structures? Of course not. Semi will have alumium panels, a UHS steel (5x the strength as mild steel) structure, etc. They don't *need* as much mass.

This "defies the laws of physics " thing is nonsense of the highest order.
We've previously discussed the numbers in some detail in this thread.

Part of what Elon Musk does that management in slow-moving industries don't get is he "skates to where the puck will be" instead of where it is presently. That is critically important given the steady increase in battery capacity and the incredibly-fast pace at which battery prices have been coming down. This has been the modus operendi in the commercial aircraft world for many decades: Boeing and Airbus don't sell the specifications they can meet today, but rather they sell the specifications which they can meet in about five years' time, depending on the steady pace of improvement in engine, materials and aero technologies.

If Daimler needs a bigger battery pack, Proterra has one rated for 660 kWh that they developed together with LG Chem:
Proterra CEO Ryan Popple said:
We've talked to a lot of companies and when you look at the specs of our battery pack it fits right between the chassis rails of a Class 8.
Based on Proterra's specifications, I estimate the weight of that pack to be 6,000 lbs. That puts the pack-level specific energy at around 240 Wh/kg. (It may actually be just a bit lower due to some overhead weight which my estimate misses, but that is certainly the marginal, or incremental, specific capacity for that battery pack for the last 220 kWh.)
 
While DHL's President of Transportation feels the company can save tens of thousands of dollars per year with each Tesla Semi they purchase[/quote], he is also properly focused on one of the main challenges they will face as they work to electrify their fleet:
Jim Monkmeyer said:
The current penetration rates of BEVs have not yet strained the electricity grids anywhere in the world that I am aware of, but as more BEVs are fielded they will eventually put strains on the network wherever they are prevalent. This will be much more of an issue for a trucking company than for homeowners simply because while a homeowner may need to draw kilowatts or sometimes tens of kilowatts, a trucking company may try to draw TENS OF MEGAWATTS at a single location. These companies are going to begin to experience demand charges like they have never seen before. Even in areas where no demand charges currently exist, expect them to appear as the utilities work to protect their grid from unmanageable spikes in usage.

While photovoltaics can help offset energy consumption, they will not address the issue of power consumption, as some of that is certain to happen at nighttime. Some truck depots will likely require grid upgrades in order to support their fleet of battery-electric trucks.

While this might appear to be an opportunity to sell stationary batteries, I seriously doubt that will happen, simply because of the size of the battery that would be required.

Ultimately, these companies will need to do several things to achieve the operational savings that BEV trucks have the potential to provide:
1) They will need to work with the utilities to obtain network upgrades and manageable electricity rates.
2) They will need to install as much photovoltaic production capability as they can manage.
3) They will need to use operational techniques to allow them to maximize their ability to deploy BEV trucks. This could involve route planning and timing.(I just read an article about how London is using software to maximize the number of buses that can charge at the same time, but I cannot put my hands on it.)
 
RegGuheert said:
Ultimately, these companies will need to do several things to achieve the operational savings that BEV trucks have the potential to provide:
1) They will need to work with the utilities to obtain network upgrades and manageable electricity rates.
2) They will need to install as much photovoltaic production capability as they can manage.
3) They will need to use operational techniques to allow them to maximize their ability to deploy BEV trucks. This could involve route planning and timing.(I just read an article about how London is using software to maximize the number of buses that can charge at the same time, but I cannot put my hands on it.)
Re #3, see post in AFV truck topic about UPS trialing smart charging in London: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&start=90#p519846
 
RegGuheert said:
The current penetration rates of BEVs have not yet strained the electricity grids anywhere in the world that I am aware of, but as more BEVs are fielded they will eventually put strains on the network wherever they are prevalent.

But you don't live here in SoCal! Where with increasing sales of the Bolt, many charging stations are typically occupied now or vehicles are
left unattended. Within the next 6 months to a year, without any increase (not going happen) in the number of charging stations
(the network), driving my Leaf beyond its overnight charge (~ 60 miles - 50Ahrs left ) will be highly inconvenient.
 
lorenfb said:
But you don't live here in SoCal! Where with increasing sales of the Bolt, many charging stations are typically occupied now or vehicles are left unattended. Within the next 6 months to a year, without any increase (not going happen) in the number of charging stations (the network), driving my Leaf beyond its overnight charge (~ 60 miles - 50Ahrs left ) will be highly inconvenient.
True enough.

But I'm not talking about how much charging infrastructure is in place. In the case of electric semi trucks, that is an inexpensive piece which will be built as needed. What I am talking about is the demand charges that will certainly be put in place by utilities once truck depots start to draw megawatts of power from the grid. These will be intended to limit capital expenses which are required to meet the demand, but eventually both more distribution AND new production capacity will be needed to electrify transportation.
 
RegGuheert said:
lorenfb said:
But you don't live here in SoCal! Where with increasing sales of the Bolt, many charging stations are typically occupied now or vehicles are left unattended. Within the next 6 months to a year, without any increase (not going happen) in the number of charging stations (the network), driving my Leaf beyond its overnight charge (~ 60 miles - 50Ahrs left ) will be highly inconvenient.
True enough.

But I'm not talking about how much charging infrastructure is in place. In the case of electric semi trucks, that is an inexpensive piece which will be built as needed. What I am talking about is the demand charges that will certainly be put in place by utilities once truck depots start to draw megawatts of power from the grid. These will be intended to limit capital expenses which are required to meet the demand, but eventually both more distribution AND new production capacity will be needed to electrify transportation.

Yes, I was aware of that aspect (grid demand), but you also mentioned;
but as more BEVs are fielded they will eventually put strains on the network wherever they are prevalent.
.
That's what (strains on the network) is now becoming the case here in SoCal. Anyway, I agree with your overall comments.
 
Back
Top