Does The Tesla Semi Make Any Sense? 

What about scalability of using a smaller semi type E truck, such as the ones Tevva motors are rolling out in the EU? They also have a hydrogen reservoir / range extender option which I thought was an interesting twist

Any chance you could post a google spreadsheet so we could play with the assumptions? My guess is Tesla is going to do much better than the 2kWh/mile you assumed. If they get it down to 1.5 the numbers would change dramatically in Tesla's favor. Can't wait to see the final specs.

If Tesla can really sell it for that, I may go into business buying Tesla Semis and manufacturing Powerwall extenders. I could make quite a few bucks and save Powerwall buyers quite a few bucks, as well.

Talking about hydrogen, it would be interesting to see the emissions, cost and stuff considering green hydrogen and gray? Or brown (hydrogen from natural gas)

They absolutely make more money churning out model y. That’s the reason they waited 3 years to start production.

All these Elon fanboys I wonder how smart they are when they don't question what he does like the hyperloop but when you take reality into account and you find out just putting a metro train is better but than mean less profit for him because Elon don't make trains and even if he does companies like Astom that make the nyc train would make better one because they have years of experience

The fact that so many Musk worshippers just ignore when he is fudging numbers, and does things like says he's for the environment, yet builds his Berlin factory by razing 160 hectares of forest land, and will put a strain on the area's water supply. His treatment of employees seems to be all over the place as well.

@@USSAnimeNCC- 🤡

@@USSAnimeNCC- - I’m a mechanical engineer who has also designed and built quite a few solar electric systems - I can definitely do the math. It’s _because_ of the facts on the ground I’m a Tesla fanboy. (Note I said Tesla fanboy, not Elon Musk fanboy - he definitely has the engineering, and marketing, ability, but I can’t be a true fanboy until he gets over his political and “whatever I think is important” failings.)

lol.. the guy who markets his engineering thoughts for profit.

Big enough diesel gas generators could do this, though. :)

@@mmark300 maybe, although that begs the question, why going electric at all if you need to invest in extra infrastructure that will be using diesel anyways

@@Ekair42 I was joking

You are right, its almost as if the math doesnt check out, implying that this is a scam :)

@@JavaT3700 well, the Math does check out. But that doesn't mean the concept is viable in all aspects or that Tesla can actually do it. The video basically just shows that the numbers are not impossible and technically it could work. But a lot is based on the assumption that the numbers and concepts Tesla provided are correct. My assumption is, that it will not work out on the end. That's however an assumption, not math.

I was wondering about the up to 2000lbs of diesel fuel omitted from his calcs.

Also skipped three engine rebuilds, one hundred oil changes, brake battery regeneration charging, savings on three brake overhaul. Weight savings was also light parts left off: radiator, transmission, driveshaft, exhaust system, def fluid cost and system, fuel weight three to five hundred gallons at 7.5 pounds per gallon making weight loss for parts not on electric closer to seven thousand pounds and one hundred thousand dollars expense for one million miles.

@@tdevinetampa and battery replacements since you decided to switch subjects on the who's comment you replied to

@@clytle374 sorry,my fat fingers.

Yes .fluent teacher, being a genius without taking a breath.

good deal. hope you enjoy it

Thanks to the new dynamics of video editing softwares world is a much efficient place 🤩

Doesn’t the I70 corridor through Colorado have some 6%? Also that Wyoming wind will get ya too.

Do you drive 70mph in these conditions? If so that seems wasteful unless there is extreme financial incentive to burn the additional fuel.

@@MBergyman i heard from my (euro)trucker friend, that in high wind speed is your frend. Anditional momentum helps with stability, which crucial for when wind violently changes direction

He didn’t use his numbers to present an accurate adverse scenario.. just a common typical scenario. Of course you can face worse conditions

Agreed. Getting in and out of Colorado is a doozy. Also didn’t mention the cold temperatures that might effect battery efficiency. Stop and go on I-70 up 6% grade, headwind and below freezing…. Ouch.

telsa did not go that route but the idea of short range electric ones is a thing. tesla just went in the direction that least suits ev's

BYD has 100 or so short range electric trucks already in service in the US with exactly this usage profile (mostly used by Anheuser-Busch). The engineering doesn't run a close to the theoretical limits.

If you think the 4-wheeler fires was spectacular you ain't seen nothing yet; especially if they are hauling flammable or explosive cargo.

well, i live in São Paulo, Brazil.. Here, there're some delivery companies using only eletric cars and trucks inner city as you said

@@randomprotag9329 The tesla semi is being used by pepsi to deliver products from distribution centers to stores. Plenty of trucking is just delivery between warehouses and retailers.

My one criticism would be that assuming a constant speed is kind of unrealistic, and EVs typically do better in stop and go situation's compared to ICE vehicles.

@@macrumpton I completely agree but I would say in an overwhelming majority of the actual time driven, the speed is constant for trucks.

@@macrumpton The thing is, EVs are the most efficient in stop and go traffic. Highway miles reduce their range a whole lot more than city driving

@@Ignacio.Romero that’s true but I think it maybe affect it way more with all the added weight

My one criticism is he underplays the weight of the cab. He says a diesel one is 17k lb (up to 25k with sleepers), but roughly 13k lb when removing the diesel engine.. let's say knock another 2k off for the transmission so 11k lb. What is the tesla one made of? Because that 10 to 12k lb of batteries still has to go into a semi weighing 11k, and the motors and single speed transmission will likely weight 3x that of a model S, so roughly another 1k lb. Plus regen braking.. were looking closer to that 27k lb limit for EV semi trucks imo. Also I'm not sure the power band EVs have that favors lower speeds is that poorly affected at 60mph~ compared to 70, 80mph, a lot of it can be mitigated with careful application of power to the motors once cruise speed is attained and making the cab as aerodynamic as possible - as EE noted that is pretty difficult with the trailer attached without redesigning it. Maybe Tesla semis should just cruise slower to get much better range? Depending on the haulage business model, they may be able to pay truckers more for longer hours and still have lower overhead using EV semis. Also, if the semi does make use of smart regen braking (for example down hills, correct me if that would be dangerous for 18 wheelers) they might be able to extend range further.

You are right about waiting to unload and unloading, perfect time to charge. But what I am seeing here in Southern California is the warehouses being built don’t have any accommodation for a charging station. They have them inside for their electric lift trucks. And the cost per kilowatt for electricity is not cheap.

The electric grid can't even support electric cars right now.

i thought thats where the chargers or at least most of them were gonna be

@@judge831 seems to be working okay. Incentives for off-peak charging can help. And in the near future, I hope that most houses will provide and store their own energy. For home to rely on the grid should be less common in the future. We're at the tipping point.

Imo, most of long-range landlocked hauling should be done by trains. No electric semi can match the efficiency of even diesel trains for 200+ mile trips.

Also , the tesla makes 1000hp rights ? How much torque???? Diesel trucks may only make 500- 600 hp but they make about 2000lbs of torque so the power isn’t all that bad on a diesel .

Regen braking is almost useless (I have owned 2 hybrids) as the total energy to start and keep rolling is so much greater than what can be recovered braking. The EV does have one really great advantage though. A idling ICE is really wasting a lot of energy in stop-and-go traffic which is really significant in large cities.

100%, no matter how efficient you make a truck you'll never hold a candle to the efficiency of a train.

It's about fattening pockets. Politicians don't give af about the environment

This is a very logical reality. Tesla EV semis could do local deliveries all day long, using smaller batteries with reduced range. Super fast recharge stations would minimize downtime between runs. This is very possible. Any longer runs would require either a diesel semi, or an EV with reduced payload. Over time as battery tech improves, the EV range will increase and the EV semis will cut more and more into the diesel territory. Presumably, at some point the batteries could achieve a more favorable power/kg ratio than diesel. This is a long way away. Long term, yes. The Tesla EV semi could very well replace the diesel semi completely. For now, we can expect EV semis owning short run deliveries. They make sense. Long run deliveries, no. Over time, I would expect the diesels to command ever-reducing zones of competition until they're gone completely. At some point there is no profit for Mack or Kenworth making diesel semi trucks. Also if the financial situation changes enough, it becomes more economical for cargo to be sent closer by rail and then distributed locally by EV semi. And it could become more economical to send two EV semis to do the work of one diesel semi. At this point, diesel is dead. Use FSD mode, and the economies of the EV shift more and more toward the death of diesel.

The vast majority of trucking is local delivery anyway and that's the target market for electric trucks. It will take many years to produce enough trucks to satisfy the short-haul market and that will give the EV industry time to develop batteries or hydrogen range extenders for long-haul.

Yes but Americas rail network sucks now. Rail is perfect for electrification and is the most efficient way to move supplies. Honestly improving mass transit and rail infrastructure would be a much more sustainable future than any other electric vehicles but the US is so car dependent it'll never happen.

This is the biggest problem with electric trucking, maybe you can do 500 miles on a good day (seemingly closer to 250 average), maybe not buying diesel makes up for carrying ~5 tonnes less max cargo, but can you get that charge when you need it? It's all well and good looking at 1.4MW charging power, but say there's three trucks at a stop: If you want to get them all plugged in, that's 4.2MW, and you're going to need some serious electrical equipment to draw that power from the grid, convert it to DC, and send it to the trucks, that's putting huge pressure on any kind of local grid, plus it may draw peak generators online, crushing the 9 cents per kWh figure. And you're going to need a whole network of these big electrical substations in their own right around the highway system to make this really work Vs diesel. All just to halve emissions from just the trucks, not the ancillary infrastructure.

I'm pretty sure they will use huge battery storage on site, they already do this at some superchargers. Slowly charge the storage in quiet times then use it to offset the required energy.

@@craigix that makes a lot of sense to be fair

keep that coal fired Power plant running full steam to charge these batteries.

The poor electric grid.

Makes sense! Plenty of trucks out there (commercial and passenger) with an air dam blocking this section to improve drag.

Maybe you can help me with this: A rocket's drag coefficient is not affected by its launch trajectory. It's the same whether it's launched parallel with or perpendicular to the ground, and is just a function of the rocket's geometry, surface roughness and its Mach number. Outside of the brief moment when the semi's geometry changes while the front starts travelling uphill and the trailer is still travelling over flat ground, I am struggling to think of a reason why a semi's drag coefficient would be affected by whether or not it was travelling uphill.

TESLA semi cab is SUPER Streemlined, w/ ACTIVE air dams behind the cab.

@@Marmocet OK so not really an expert but he did say the higher drag coefficient was because in the example the trailer was not a special aerodynamic design made to fit perfectly with the Tesla truck. And if you look at trailers you see on the road they do vary a lot. Some are hard body refrigerated, some are canvas covered and some are open bed. Then there are container carriers. All of these have different drag coefficient so it's not unlikely that these trucks will be pulling trailers that raise the drag coefficient quite dramatically. 0.5 is still not all that horrible, especially not for a truck with trailer.

@@Marmocet In his calculations, the uphill travel didn't affect air resistance. Rather it simply imparted gravitational potential energy to the truck. I think he said 1% grade for 100 miles; I assume this means approximately 1 mile of height gain? Using U=mgh you get U=36287kg * 9.81m/s2 * 1609m = 572 million joules = 159kWh due to incline alone. Hauling the same vehicle vertically up a cliff face using a hoist powered by an electric motor would theoretically consume the same amount (and would make for an awesome video). 1 mile of height gain is a pretty brutal climb though. I guess this could be relevant if you're hauling battery modules over the Rockies. Of course, in an EV, uphill travel doesn't cost you as long as you come back down the other side

I have no idea where he got the 5.28 mpg from. From what I found online, average was closer to 6.5 mpg, and that's the AVERAGE of all trucks (new and old) on the road across all driving conditions. While the 1.25 mpg difference doesn't seem like much, it shaves off $140k from fueling costs. What I really don't understand is why he's comparing the fleet average, which includes trucks that aren't even for sale anymore, against a brand new EV Semi truck. If a trucking company is planning to buy a new truck, then they'd compare the Tesla Semi against a new truck from another company. The Freightliner Cascadia Evolution is a good example, which is supposedly capable of getting over 10 mpg. In a real world cross country test, it got 9.3 mpg. That would drop fuel price to $451,612; down from $784k. That's with a second front passenger seat and a full sleeper cabin; an option not available on the Tesla Semi. EE used the best case scenario for the EV semi when determining its fueling costs. 60 mph on a flat road. Tesla often states their range in "best case scenario", so I'd expect them to average less in real world. I can't speak to average semi truck speeds over long trips, but in my local area in Michigan, I typically see Semis driving 65 mph, a few driving 70, and a select few driving 75. I rarely see them driving 55-60 mph. EE didn't include charging losses, which I imagine could be anywhere from 5% to 15%. Then of course there's cold weather which can eat into range a bit; although maybe not so bad on a Semi given that HVAC uses a relatively tiny amount of energy versus the total size of the battery. Cold weather air resistance would be a bigger issue, but also probably not huge. The Tesla Semi still comes out ahead on cost.... which begs the question; why would a truck that's supposedly far cheaper to own and operate than a diesel truck, that'll be sold in severely limited quantities that will be bought up immediately, be eligible for a hefty $40,000 federal EV tax credit? The argument being made in this video is that this free money isn't necessary; the EV truck is far far cheaper. It makes me wonder how much Tesla is actually planning to charge for these vehicles if they save this much money over Diesel. BTW... a model S 100 kWh battery replacement runs about $20k. What would a 1000 kWh battery replacement go for? $200k? If that's the case, then how is Tesla planning to sell this truck for $180k... or maybe $220k when you account for the $40k credit. Can't forget about inflation. The model 3 RWD has jumped about 25% in price. Do the same for the Semi and we're looking at ($180k * 1.25) + $40k = $265k. About $100k more than the Cascadia, but it saves nearly $200k on fuel.

@@naaspam1185 he states in the video where he gets the mpg man. Come on.

our day cabs are getting 10 sometimes up to 15 mpg depending on load those are macs going 65 with a fleet of 40 so it's not a one off or fluke they all get that

Only problem is no matter how good it gets in MPG the electric will still pollute the air less.

@@naaspam1185 Best informative analysis I think I have ever seen in the RU-vid comments!

Hah! I didn't catch that the first time, but yea, he does say 500 mph.

Diesel isn't flammable (by definition), Every one of these trucks is a bundle of dynamite on wheels.

@@taitsmith8521 Newer cell chemistries are much more safer, like LFP and sodium and Tesla already uses LFP in their cars.

They will hold up just fine. There are batteries that make half a million miles.

@@michalandrejmolnar3715 you're someone with zero experience in industrial manufacturing, and no concept of supply chains.

kinda sound like a train

Haha I mean my last video (every other Friday!) was also whiteboard. I'm glad y'all still like the whiteboard, as I do too! :)

@@EngineeringExplainedSo in conclusion you could argue that their marketing was never ment to be deceptive because the specs were real and things like the chip shortage and a battery shortage because of greater than expected demand for 3/Y frow them back 2 Years?

@@dusselElite missing time lines is not deceptive marketing as far as I'm concerned. As long as you deliver a product in the end. The tesla semi is dependent on 4680 cells which took a lot longer to perfect than originally thought.

Maybe an additional video could be made where BioNG is compared as it was noted that it also has the additional 2000 pounds of total weight allowance. Since fuel pricing is critical, all pricing is should be calculated with and without subsidies (Federal & LCFS as in California & other states). The CARBON INTENSITY or CI of BioNG from EACH INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER is certified by the California Air Resource Board or CARB using an avoidance criteria that is scientifically supported. For the last three years the averaged CI of BioNG that is used as a transportation fuel in California is CARBON NEGATIVE using the interesting book keeping by CARB. Due to the subsidies the pricing is around $2.50 per diesel gallon equivalent for BioNG that is marketed as such and less than $2.00 if a fleet is fueled from their own internal facilities (fully amortized with subsidies), (two years ago standard NG internal fleet price was $1.30 fully amortized, incremental less than $1.00). This is why United Parcel Post (UPS) has hundreds of class 8 BioNG fueled trucks not to mention many times more BioNG fueled local delivery trucks in California. To do a correct lifetime CO2 equivalent analysis when using anything with methane, one must take into consideration any leakage occurring after the BioNG production facility (the CARB certification process deals with the production facility) and METHANE SLIP in the engine. It would be interesting to have this additional total lifetime cost added to the comparison along with the full lifetime CO2 equivalent. In addition, CARB has mandated the use of BioNG for California transit districts that use natural gas during the transition to full EV busses. As an interesting note, busses can be used as a proxy for “real world” local and regional trucking. At this time with transit busses, the use of EVs becomes problematic around 200 miles per day and hence the CARB’s interest in hydrogen fuel cells purely for range.

@@themeach011 Elon certainly should give himself more leeway when he makes time claims. People also need to get over themselves to call him a scam artist for just taking longer than you wanted…

Was this a diss at Real Engineering? It just has a different production style, but it's not less accurate. Maybe less precise, as he doesn't show you calculations of the topic, rather the mechanics and examples, but it isn't any less true as far as I can tell.

Engineering vs real life on the ground experience are often far apart. Speaking from an engineers point of view.

Real engineering isn’t inaccurate just a different style

Might just be the way Irish people speak.

​@@KevinKickChannel ...ok then, taking the latest video from that channel he cites induced drag of 3 lbf for the Spitfire at 100 fps. That is not less accurate, it is impossible. And of course, that isn't even the biggest error in there.....

That’s a bus very different situation

I believe in unicorns but, I'd never expect anyone else to buy into my delusional beliefs. So far no one else has solved the range issue, they just ignore it and try impress with shiny LED lights and pretty displays.

@@cantweallgetalong thanks, I also feel that this technology would work for most heavy equipment and farm equipment which require far more power than a car or even a semi truck. Caterpillar already has an electric drive bulldozer (about the same size as a D6 if I’m correct) but it uses a conventional Turbodiesel to turn the generator so it still requires scheduled maintenance and fluid changes while a MTG doesn’t, however the rest of the bulldozer still requires daily maintenance and inspection to keep it operating. Switching to a large MTG as the power source could have several advantages other than possibly making the equipment too light.

@@andersonnettleship845 YW, I trust your enthusiasm. Do you prefer pink or rainbow unicorns? An electric drive bulldozer using a conventional turbodiesel to turn the generator is just plain and simple cheating, but it does take us right out of fantasy world and back to real life. Damn it all!

@@cantweallgetalong It has the advantage of being able to be coupled with another power source (batteries, capacitors), to reduce the cycling load on the engine, reducing wear and increacing MTBS. Combine a turbine generator (Diesel or NG) with a battery or capacitor array, and you've got basically a hybrid heavy vehicle design.

@@cantweallgetalong I studied electrical and am a son of a man with 30 years of logistics under his belt. He's experience includes, but is not limited to: Employed by the United States Government as an armed fuel transport specialist during a time of war and transportation of Hazardous Materials (HazMat) for delivery to a major U.S. based multinational company. On his spare time he learns about the history of his industry and pertinent equipment and developments of said. With that being said, while I a not in that industry or any supporting industry, I have still learned from him and others about it. None the less, I to a one of the heretics who have not bought into the hype! I also have a marketing background. Despite being a proponent of genuine ways to lessen our species impact on th natural word, I am an opponent of pushing for regulations and supposed solutions that are actually detrimental in the long term to the environment and our liberties. In fact, I beleive that the regulations currently on the books need to be made less stringent or done away with. California Clean Idle Certification being one of them. It is because of that which I stated concerning the background of my father and I, that I hold the views I shared. As the saying goes, "Knowledge is power". I do hope that electric trucks can become commonplace in an honest manner.

Yeah but that's not profitable enough for the right people.

But didn't you hear about how great HyperLoop™ is for *CARGO*? Aka Musk's attempt to sabotage cargo rail after the same didn't work for California HSR and cars.

It would get a bit complicated to calculate because the US rail network is pretty lame, and you'd have to calculate the cost to expand the network to more areas. Tesla semis would actually work great in tandem with rail since the semis can do last mile delivery. Too bad Elon hates rail.

If only the US had preserved all of it's rail infrastructure....

Cost of electric battery buses is roughly the same as for trolleybuses (together with overhead wires, poles etc.), so electrifying the railroads might turn out cheaper...

It can be significant, but unless your trip has a relatively significant overall decrease in altitude, it will not increase range beyond what you would achieve at a sustained 0% grade and acceleration. Assuming the Semi is using a permanent magnet synchronous motor like the Model 3 and not an induction motor like most of their highest power motors have been, regenerative braking can probably convert about 75% of energy. This is of course unless they have somehow dramatically improved efficiency in their inverters, which aren't typically extremely efficient at charging. If you optimize too much for charging, you could end up compromising propulsive efficiency, so these concerns must be carefully balanced. If it uses multiphase AC induction motors, regen conversion would be closer to 65%.

This is the side that really stood out to me. It is the same issue I have with EV's when i need to drive long distances frequently. The normal retort is that you'll stop for 1-2 hours after a couple hours of driving anyway so you have plenty of time to recharge, when the reality is more fill up, grab something to eat on the road and go. It's not a Sunday drive to grandma's house... For the Semi if they achieve the 500 mile range that's at most 7 hours of driving at 70 mph without stopping to recharge. If you recharge to 70% in 30 min then you get 350 miles or about 5 hours of driving. Assuming a single driver that should get you to your daily limit of hours on the road with only the 30 min charge time and less than 40 miles of lost distance for the day. If you are driving in cold or windy conditions where you lose 50% of your range then you end up with about 3.5 hours of drive time before recharging to recover a 175 mile or 2.5 hour range. During your 11 hour day this takes your charge time from 30 minutes to 90 and your max mileage is reduced by 100 miles. This all assumes that the charge options exist and are available when you need them. I know there is more nuance than this but it's difficult seeing EV's work for long haul trucking.

Wind in SE Wyoming is no joke! Sustained for such a long time. Yeah they certainly won't work in every situation, but there will likely be plenty of routes where they do work out (short haul, or assuming you have charging appropriately spaced).

This also completely destroys the value of tandem driving OTR. This is probably okay for local/regional and that's about it.

With current battery technology, BEV Semi trucks don't make any economical sense. These type of powertrains make more sense for the Delivery sector, as for urban buses. With shorter routes and working shifts.

In europe you have to take breaks every few hours as trucker, at least 30 min, this break is great opertunity to charge up

makes it hard for me to concentrate on what he's saying

Oh and one other thing. Great for the electric semi-tractor manufacturers. It will take more of them to move the same amount of freight.

@@warrenpuckett4203 At least they have a whole trailer for extra batteries!!!

@@warrenpuckett4203 Nahhhh most loads are not at weight capacity even if the load is full! 👌🏽

@@dennissmith7214 DOT 18,000 lbs single axle. Tandem 32,000 lbs. Gross vehicle weight 73,280. That is unless there is a different standard for electrics. Maybe you can bang on the trailer and make the canaries fly. While DOT is weighing your truck.

Its only 714 trucks per Gigawatt.

That means every destination will need a 2000-2500A (600V or 480V) service. Depending on the complexity, it might necessitate an engineering firm assisting the electrical contractor. I'm seeing a significant cost for the addition of one of those charger (about 100k for equipments, work and engineering), even before thinking about the price of the charger itself which will probably at least cost 50k. That's literally the price of another truck... But depending on the situation, that installation might be used to charge multiple trucks in a day and most of the equipment will last for decades. Still, the transition will be expensive.

in an industrial setting, 1.4MW is not really all that much. e.g. electric commuter trains or subways can easily draw 3+ MW; modern electric locomotives are typically in the 6-8MW range. And you can have multiple of those accelerating at the same time even in a small station.

@@cedricpomerleau5586 In an industrial setting you're not messing around with 480V :-) There you usually tie directly into the distribution layer (> 10kV) with a small transformer on site.

In a truck that is not driven all the time, but more in daylight, it is pretty feasible for it to leave with 100% charge in the morning. And many don't need to go more than 500 miles in a day.

When you look at the price of the vehicle and the range and then they tell you not to charge above 80% or below 20% to keep the batteries healthy longer, that's literally 40% you're paying for but expected not to use most of the time 😡

The range calculation gets even murkier than that when you consider the average use case for these trucks. Even at 30minutes to charge, no long distance company will be able to justify these simply because that's a half hour of driver wages you're paying every ~400mi while not getting goods any closer to delivery. Seriously the charge time is one of the biggest problems here that can only be solved with both exotic charging solutions and massive power infrastructure upgrades, both of which are super expensive and require too many parties to cooperate to be consistent enough for a new economic standard. Comparatively, we have a huge network of fuel stations, fuel stations are way less temperature sensitive for northern economies, minimizing refueling time means more regular sales for a logistics company, and diesel engines are much easier, cheaper, and quick to repair incase something breaks down.

@@iqcool Do drivers not have to take time out anyway in the US? I figure a half hour coffee break is reasonable for a driver in a 400mi period, considerably less I would think. In Europe, goods drivers have a maximum time they are not permitted to exceed without a break, monitored electronically.

Thats for the old style batteries that they no longer use or are phasing out. All brand new LPF battery models can and are encouraged to charge to 100% every night.

A valid point (and I think I know the journalist you are referring to). However Jason's numbers don't lie. You can infer power, battery capacity, vehicle mass purely based on the published performance figures. While Tesla have their reasons (which may be nefarious) for withholding some figures, much can be accurately deduced, as Jason has done, from first principles and high-school maths. There may be other reasons why EV semi's aren't the future, but that's dangerous prediction territory these days with plenty of motoring journalists having embarrassed themselves about, say, the likely sales of the Model 3, or the possibility Tesla would ever turn a profit or build a million vehicles in a year. There's plenty that's terrible about Tesla, but that doesn't nullify historical reality of what has been accomplished. I reckon Jason is as close the the truth here as I've seen thus far when it comes to the true numbers on the Tesla semi.

@@paulschlusser1085 Yes I think the Semi will probably have at least a niche market and eventually more. I still think there may be a place for compressed hydrogen in powering trucks, though not cars. A hydrogen powered truck would have the advantage of electric motive power and quick refilling.

@@rais1953 Certainly hydrogen looks somewhat viable for heavy tracking compared to passenger cars. Jury is out. EV has/will win the passenger car space - cost, performance, reliability etc. Nothing comes close (cost is roughly/nearly parity as of 2022, even excluding fuel savings). It's just a question of time. Trucks have a way to go before the issue is settled. The biggest impact on trucking will be driverless vehicles on the horizon. 50% of trucking cost is tied up in the man in the cab - something a computer will definitely out-perform on 1000 km long hauls. Give it 5 years...

Yeah it is wiser to wait now, until he knows every details. But that is the beuty about Engineering, even if somerthing wrong here, the avarage still relevant, and that what counts really the big numbers.

The truck will be 40-60k pounds … so he Van load less then a diesel … and they will cost 6x and when they burn …. Oh boy … they the Trick will Brun for like 3-8 month hahaha

@@damjanmladic9327 your comment is just a bunch of unscientific nonsense full of misspellings.

Motor trend just reported the battery weight at 2000lb. That is a significantly lower weight than predicted here.

@@mikeclark7429 more like 11.000kg or more

These things are going to be for specific niche situations at first. Like short runs that need to be done quickly. Man would I love to be able to go through the rockies in one of these things. Climbing the hill like nothing and going down without touching the breaks. So chill.

Going downhill the battery gets charged, due to regeneration

lol

Would be interesting. To Denver you’ll have more headwind too, much less downhill regeneration.

A bicycle has a "transmissiom", you can switch to a climbing gear. Electric motors are great for instant torque and high RPM, not so great a low speeds and high loads.

True, but the first 10,000 semis will go to companies running regular routes, like Pepsi and Frito Lay. They have already installed charging stations at the start and endpoints. It will take time before an independent trucker can just head across the country. But that was the case with my Tesla once, but no longer, I can now head off without planning my route, and the chargers are there.

@@RWilliKiwi I thought of that, too. But for such applications, rail is much, much more efficient. The problem is that the infrastructure doesn't really exists in the US. So, yeah, for running regular routes, the Tesla Semi might be a decent solution. We'll see once more information about these vehicles is released.

@@LukeLane1984 Elon said that the semi is even cheaper than RAIL! Marketing spin here bordering on lying

@@itemushmush That was assuming that they could charge 7 cents per kW at the charging stations, but it has recently been raised to 50 cents.

@Garbage Ilearsi Something like that, yeah.

I calculate $500k for the battery alone in the semi 500mi model. Tesla listed the price at $200K for the vehicle. Something is not right.

@@Nill757 It's in the figures that you used then, I would say ballpark Tesla's batteries are costing no more than ~$150 per kW, and the Semi has a pack smaller than 1000 kW. A 900 kW pack at $150/kW is $135k.

My understanding is that there are no deliverable trucks. This build appears to going to be prototypes used solely by Tesla for Tesla’s purposes.

Joe, did you not watch the delivery event ?

You musk's fanboys have no working neurons. At least you can pretend you're saving the planet.

Those spreadsheets ain't gonna make themselves get to it! Ha, thanks for watching!

Accept in his math the tesla truck weighs 0 lbs because its 1/4 as fast with 80k pounds, so he assumed the truck weighs 20k lbs instead of a more realistic 25k lbs, which means all his math from that point on is bunk... no offense but I have actually worked for major cars companies and the assumption that because it's 4 times as fast "means it's 4 times as light" is also bunk. AND, don't get me started on his regurgitated cO2 emissions junk science, cO2 is your friend, not your enemy, if you like planet earth.

@@Andreoli2005 I thought the same thing at first on the 0-60 numbers, but the 80k lbs weight is for the whole system, tractor AND trailer.

This is bunk!... that is bunk!... I don't have to explain why because "I worked for major car companies" (meaninglessly vague much?)... Also, the scientists' science is junk!... because I remember in high school they said plants like co2?... duh? Lmao

I'm super triggered by the constant swapping between metric and imperial units... but still a great video.

We need to stop using fossil fuels. If that means we have to change our way of thinking on what work should look like, then we should change that. There's no way where where we keep sucking and burning fossil fuels. It's devastating for our own future on this planet.

how about a diferent number then? tell me, in case of a fire, how many months do you think it will take for it to be dealt with? unless you assume no e-truck will ever have an accident...

@@marcosdheleno I'm not sure how your question relates to my post..

@@BadKarmaM3 you were talking about numbers, so i asked you to tell me one that i find to be far more important, given how bad e-car burning is. and if you still dont get it, just do a quick search on tesla car fire, and you will.

Long haul isn't everything

If you were to transport boulders from the top of a mountain to the bottom of the mountain in several trips could you theoretically only charge once since the boulders provide potential energy? What would the numbers be transporting boulders from the bottom of the mountain to the top in several passes?

@@rquindoy In a word, yes. Search for "World's largest EV never has to be recharged" (I'd leave a link, but posts with links sometimes get deleted).

? contradict yourself much? Perhaps it's the run-on sentence.

Not sure how ideal EV trucks are for CA, considering the electricity cost here :(

@@jamesryan7684 How is your Cyber Truck running?

You’re not loading your truck properly if you’re overweight on any axle.

Day cab, single screw, Internationals are 13k, that is the lightest I know of. OTR sleeper trucks are 15k rollers, no motor or trans. His math is off by about 5k for just the truck weights. Regardless there was a discussion from someone inside Tesla that said the battery set weighs 13k. Just the battery pack. No wires, controllers, or motors. So that in a truck of typical construction is going to see 25k, empty. Which is not impossible for a really well put together sleeper truck. The biggest hurdle isn;t the up front cost, or the weight of the truck, or the design parameters. The charging infrastructure and lack of tesla capable shops is a complete no go for any type of OTR trucking. Period. Even short haul, easy climate work, like southern Cali delivery routes, this truck isn't going to beat the current productions 60k, medium duty trucks that will absolutely destroy this thing in its service life.

Tesla Semi does have space for rest.

@@MrAPCProductions There is a lot more on the Tesla Semi than the batteries. There is a lot of engineering in order to reduce weight. The cabin is diveded in two with different levels. The lower one is for driving, the higher and larger space is for resting. It has a lot more space then a reguar diesel Semi with a large cabin. There are videos of the interior of the semi.

The Tesla trucks that Tesla are currently using are day cabs that weigh about 17k my OTR truck was around 15.

I guess you weren't paying attention...

Ups have been doing final drops this way for a few years in the uk. Lot of electric servicing vans too from utility companies. But for long haul with slow charge times , the more batteries then the less cargo... Get half hour charging down it would be a good idea. Tie it in with mandatory driver rest breaks that we have in europe.

You mean electric trucks like trains? They make sense over any distance

@@nnnik3595 for OTR, they really don't. Weather diesel electric or electric.

@@jed-henrywitkowski6470Hi. Thank you for your response. What I find curious about this is which niche these trucks would fulfill. What is their use? In my mind trucks make sense when they deliver a lot. If the delivery is within the city - how do they assure that their deliveries are large enough? My research for OTR did not lead to anything useful. Could you elaborate?

watch it at 2x. Doubly enjoyable

Jerry 😮

​@@CarNacho17*Zack

Now you can tow the tesla trucks when the die on the way.

That still is going to soak up quite a bit of heat in the regen system, no?

to go downhill you need to climb that hill first. At best you'll make it even.

@@mathiasrryba yes but that's the case for every semi. going downhill, diesel semis "lose" that energy by heating the brakes, whereas electric semis convert it back to electric energy actually gaining range. i'm not saying they gain back all of it.

@@mathiasrryba which is way way better than diesel

@@GregQchi the at best assumes impossible physics. In reality it's nearly insignificant as to not matter at all

Someone is designing it right now and has a working prototype. Look up Edison Motors

@@andykokes5690 Yeah I'm aware of them but it isn't obvious if they necessarily make sense unfortunately. I can say serial hybrids almost never make sense which I believe Edison motors is doing.

I drove a plugin-hybrid for a rental. It typically makes sense for urban/suburban - short driving (18kWh battery). Sadly it was a bit pricey (50k), and EV only range was 32 miles. For a long trip, it was mostly gas, but would switch to electric only going down hills - even at 70mph. Good for ~38mpg at 65mph, and +42 mpg at ~50mph. Since it was a vacation rental, I wouldn't have wanted to kill my day with charging on the +1200 miles and looking for charging locations. Most were tier 2.

@Eric Needs I just bought a PHEV Ford Escape for $34k. 37 miles on the battery alone. Just a data point for you.

Then you’d also have to take into account the emissions of gas production and inefficiencies of that too then eh?

@@smartelectriccar this is about cost, not emissions. The efficiency of charging is high enough to do rough figures without using efficiency but if you're rapid charging you probably should tkae it into account.

@@smartelectriccar Pumping diesel faster doesn't cause any extra emissions, nor does it drop the efficiency of the transfer. However, the more electricity you force through a cable the less efficient it gets and the more energy it loses to heat and other factors. 120V charging is something like 99.5% efficient and 240V isn't too much worse at around 99.2%, but once you get into those turbo charging stations you're down around 70~75%. With the power that those mega chargers have to pump into the semi to achieve that 1.4 MW output, they might be dipping as low as 10~15% if Tesla isn't scaling up the charger cable _significantly._

I’d wager that’s mostly irrelevant given how rough these estimates are, the cost of electricity would effect the price much more

@@monhi64 With the efficiency of turbocharging you're already using 150+% the power used to charge the car at the listed rate (250kW charger actually uses closer to 350~400kW) The Mega chargers are likely even less efficient and might be needing as much as 14MW to provide the semi with the 1.4MW of charging. That's kind of a big difference.

... and thunderf00t has been corrected multiple times. He's getting more and more sloppy (not to say biased) in his research.

I think the important thing to remember with any type of energy regeneration is you will always get less back than what you put in. In this case you may get more energy back from the semi but it will also take more to speed it up again

@@ethanjungbauer1554 of course. My question is what the limits are of regeneration are. Like, do the systems in place today only work at lower forces? So braking has to slow the semi mass first? Or can the systems be just as effective as my Bolt? I would imagine the design for such huge loads would need to be different.

Regen braking likes heavier loads because it gets you into the productive torque range for a generator sooner (more efficiently). Formula One and other race series provide a lot of regen technology that could no doubt be applied to heavier weight vehicles.

@@JoeOvercoat It will be interesting to see what is implemented here. This is a much bigger load than those cases and I'd imagine the parts required need to be different, right? In F1, don't they mostly get regen only partially in braking zones? Only a small fraction of braking force is captured from what I've read about KERS. Would the size of the Semi MGU need to be huge? Would they need extra cooling for these large forces?

@@sloanNYC And it would massively increase weight

The downtime for charging is really the biggest killer. In a industry where time is literally money, having to stop every 250 miles for 30-45 minutes (or more likely 2 hours +) to recharge is not good. Of course, this is a problem that is relatively solvable with some clever thinking and investment, but its a bit of a chicken and the egg situation.

We certainly didn't get to roads full of diesel trucks overnight!

@@scottmcqueen3964 Yeah, that was the argument from a senior engineer at the time, to make them as practical as diesel lorries are right now you'd need to fill the full trailer with batteries effectively and not have much left over for your load. There are areas where this can work though, local deliveries close to distribution centres, beer delivery trucks, and a few others. It's just not the solve all solution just yet.

@@deancostello14 And doing things like putting charging stations at delivery and loading sites, utilising the already stationary time to charge them etc. Could definitely see it working here in NZ for many trucking routes.

More downtime for MX on diesels.

The end game is FSD. Trucks will drive 22 hours a day - no driver to pay.

@@danielstapler4315 never happen 🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻

Tesla truck stops with swappable batteries.

@@danielstapler4315 Not during your lifetime or mine.

@@slickstretch6391 If the charging system can deliver ~70% in 15 minutes, it's simply not practical to swap the battery.

Yes, although many idling diesels don't need to idle. If they are idling to maintain heat or cooling in the cab for a resting driver, they could be using a large battery or a small generator just to run those systems, and many trucks use these methods to minimize idling.

Or they could be keeping a refer load at a steady temperature.

@@makeitwithpam2795 conventional refrigerated trailers have their own engines; they are not powered by the truck, so the truck doesn't need to idle to run the reefer.

.. and less deadly, w/ deadly diesel PM2.5 particulates.. not just idling, but also just driving out of freight yards/ports, often past poorer neighborhoods... also, w/ regen braking, no loud compression braking down hills!

@@brianb-p6586 If you live in the northern states such as me here in the northeast you have to leave you truck idling, temps can get down to 5 below or more at night. If you turn off the truck and go inside to grab food, the engine will cool down significantly. It's a bear to get diesels running in cold weather so the truck drivers will leave them running when they stop off somewhere and go inside which burns fuel.

One area which would make me especially excited is using these trucks for driving around on factory or industrial areas. At my work our factory receives trailers full of animal products (not for human consumption) which have to be converted into animal feed (category 3) or other by products (category 2). For this, we have a lot of starting, driving 200 meters, stopping, etc. For such a situation (including driving 24/7), these tesla trucks could be very efficient.

@@sybrandwoudstra9236 I think that would be a great use for them. They might also be able cut the size of the battery down for those applications, significantly reducing the cost of the truck.

@@sybrandwoudstra9236 I think that would be an excellent use case not unlike moving containers around in some ports. Where the crucial thing is, you could access that kind of industrial power connection that’s needed to charge this large battery in a reasonable amount of time

The charging part will definitely be the biggest hurdle considering the lack of infrastructure for super charging stations.

500k probably isn't off the charts here. There's probably a reason it delays so long. Same for the cybertruck

That's engineering science v political science. 🙂

Welcome to the channel, and thanks for watching! I have a lot of these style videos, hopefully some others will pique your interest!

Yeah EV's may work for short hops but longer distances are simply impractical. Many parts of the US won't have a charging station for hundreds of miles.

Yeah the costs of the battery for those things are going to be staggeringly high, and once you start to lose battery life, the value of the truck goes way down, since there are routes it won't be able to make anymore. All those stats for maximum range are going to go down as the battery ages and that's a big problem.

It depends on the chemistry they are using, with lithium phosphate chemistry 1 million miles with 800Kw/h battery is easy with the high power nickel cobalt chemistry i guess it would have to be replaced once ore twice for 1 million miles. the batteries could still be used afaterwards in operations where power density and power to weight ratio is not that important.

Bingo! They apply in most bigger places. Overhead electrified rail, with hydrogen fuel cell 'engines' for areas that are impractical to electrify. Then run hydrogen trucks for local delivery, and to link up your absolutely tiny towns or areas that are too complex to quickly link up with rail. I wonder if you could use rail lines to conduct renewable energy into towns too?

This. I know its not apples to oranges, but he should have included them in the comparison to show how efficient they are at moving huge amounts of goods.

But then huge corporations would be wiped out, not possible in this capitalism paradise

@@leonelreymundo9907 Good on the first half, and for the second... I dunno man.

That's a great point. I can foresee a much better value proposition for a local box truck, that will drive a max of 300 miles in a day, spend a lot of time stopping and starting, then charge overnight. The CO2 *and* particulates difference could make a pretty big difference.

And the noise pollution in areas with Semi's routes.. The CT will also reduce noise inside cities and towns.

This is exactly where electric vehicles are ideal, they don’t need the speed, yard work is slow speed, you won’t get far shunting a 40 ft trailer at 70 mph, they aren’t going off site so range isn’t an issue and the can be charged up overnight and pollution is drastically reduced.

@@scrumpydrinker don’t forget the pollution of producing the battery, disposing of it, plus how this electricity is generated

@@JeepCherokeeful of course, if one is considering electric vehicles this must be taken into account. Having said that, that is going to be true for whatever form of power you wish to choose as there is pollution generated by all forms of motive power.

@@scrumpydrinker Exactly none of the options are all that clean yet EVs keep getting pushed as super clean when they simply aren't. They are an alternative and in some applications, they work better than ICE and they should stay as an alternative not being forced as the future as they are.

Volvo already have a bunch out there. Since several years. Working. Running. Buy them instead of waiting for another expensive vapor ware with like zero customer care and service.

Time to work on streamlining trailers?

​@@Xanthopteryx Volvo which loses on every metric and doesn't have self-sustainable chargers of at least mediocre speed? Way to give yourself up as old ignorant :D

@@leftcoaster67 How? Without loosing space and making it harder to use.

@@RyNiuu They exist. They sell more than they can manufacture. They are popular. They have service structure everywhere. They know how to build proper trucks. They diversify to meet all kind of needs. They are superior to Tesla semi, that does not even exist.

Problem is your range decreases overtime and EV range is lower in the cold.

There are a lot of different types of chemistry that can go much further like the new Lithium sulfur batteries that are lasting over a million miles or 5000 To 10000 cycles. Right now you lose a bit of the power but still.

No way that battery will last you for 300K mi.

@@danielroman1899 you seem really confident of that however the data is saying otherwise. I'm not talking about 18650 cells like the Model S & X but the newer & better 2170 chemistry cells going into 3, Y, and Semi. There's a picture on twitter proving 310k (500km) has already been done by a Model 3 in Canada and it is still on the original battery.

@@joetripp123 Oh a picture on twitter proved it! Science!! lmfao

There’s also supercharger locations with 40x 250 kW stalls. So at about 10 mW it should be feasible to do it.

@@nielsvandenkieboom5034 I bet they'd throttle down if 40 cars were plugged in. Would be interesting to see a specific case and find out what the max. simultaneous facility output would be

@@KiwiBro8 Not sure, I haven't noticed it throttle myself when arriving at a near-full V3 supercharger location. Only the old V2 superchargers had the stall sharing where 150 kW would be split between two cars (75 kW each) if it was very busy and the stall next to you was occupied. V3 seems to be doing a lot better in terms of actually keeping the speed despite the occupancy rate. However, some older V2 locations haven''t been upgraded to V3 yet. That might be because they want to prioritize new locations for network expansion. Or, because those sites might not allow for 250 kW on the same amount of chargers due to infrastructure.

E trucks would also lower the severe pollution around ports.

Exactly. Towing and trucking are the achilles heel of EVs for now at least.

@@deeacosta2734 for now, and for the use cases that people tow long distances. 90% of the time a 200 mile range EV is more than adequate for what someone would be using it for, and for anyone that has enough money to buy a new second car, having an EV in your garage seems like a no brainier

@@louisjov agree 💯. If you’re doing jobs around town all day or commuting to work, EV makes absolute sense. They are better rides with less maintenance too.

EVs need to pay their fair share. I predict road use tax will move to a system based on vehicle weight class and miles driven per year. Seems pretty simple to move over to this pricing scheme as the weight class is established when the vehicle is registered and the odometer miles on the vehicle is recorded during annual inspections but for those states which do not record the miles it would not be difficult to obtain this information. Then everyone pays their fair share and your tax is not tied to your choice of energy (electric/diesel/gas).

@@bobd. I agree, I would expect US states to adopt odometer verification when you renew your registration. You would then be taxed per miles driven instead of the current gas gallons purchased. They could easily have a DMV employee run out to the car and write down the number. Simply taxing electricity won't work as a large computer system that doesn't use the roads would be indistinguishable from vehicle charging.

A number of US states charge an additional tax on EVs to make up for lost fuel tax.

@@crusherven true but a flat rate tax is not fair to most. It's only an equitable tax for those who drove plus or minus a few hundred miles of the number used to calculate that fixed tax. Which means some people pay more than double what they should and the rest pay much less than they should. The per gallon tax is an equitable tax because it's tied to your actual use. The tax for EVs should be the same. And to make it the same for everyone remove the road tax from fuels and base it on weight class and miles driven.

@@bobd. And on average bigger heavier cars use more gas while wearing the road more.

Truly love to hear this, as it's a major goal of the channel. Automotive engineering is very intimidating (cars in general), so I hope to reduce that intimidation!

It was actually more like 20-22t. 11x 10-ft california style barriers, with a typical weight of ~4000lbs. btw. the cargo capacity follows directly from the weight calculation of the tractor @9:30. 82,000lbs - 20,000lbs = 62,000lbs for the trailer. Depending on the weight of the trailer itself that's ~50,000lbs of cargo capacity, give or take.

Yeah, that truck was carrying 40-45000, unless there was some serious shenanigans. It might be a little low, but it's a decent load. I top out at 46000 of cargo, so the load capacity looks fine.

It was pulling more than that. And it can have 70 000lbs of cargo in Europe. Can't just think about the IS market there's a reason they went center seat

Exactly. 100 miles at 1% climb rate is actually altitude gain of 1 mile (4800 ft high mountain). This seems unrealistic as travelling back down hill will cause gliding with almost no consumption. No truck goes constantly up hill - it would end up at orbit around Earth soon 🙂 BTW down hill regeneration will be major energy saving for EV Semi, much higher than at passenger EV. Payload vs. drag ratio is much higher at Semi trucks. And diesel trucks burns all that potential energy at brakes into heat. That's big difference. Tesla Semi will be king of mountains I'm pretty sure.

Fast Lane Truck tested the Hummer EV towing a trailer and the range dropped by more than half on flat road.

It would be great for logging as most hauls are loaded downhill empty up. A local company is going to test a few Tesla semis logging trucks. It'll be interesting how well the truck itself holds up to the awful terrible roads often encountered off highway. In theory they should be able to go all week without plugging in a charger.

@@jasonwilliams8016 Yes, exactly. Above average 3% slope (and loaded with logs only downhill) these Tesla Semi EV might regenerate downhill more energy than using for uphill - so charging needed at all. Maybe even some DIScharging back to the grid to avoid using normal brakes when battery is full downhill.

@@arm-power lol 3% grade! The regenerative braking stops working if the battery is full? That makes sense I'd just never thought about it. So they could potentially be putting power onto the grid then

Nope. The batteries would be so heavy it would make the load potential too small

@@jimdandy9118 Its not a hypothetical. It's a real thing that is in use now. Look up the eDumper. It carries over 100 tons, so the battery weight is relatively small in comparison.

@@cadekachelmeier7251 Just another thing that can fail and take the truck out of service

@@jimdandy9118 Actually, large motors have a lot that can go wrong. Simple electric motors are quite reliable.

@@lukereeves4448 You can FIX a motor on site easily with a mechanic that can fix everything on site. You have to have an electric special and mechanics. If a battery fails you cannot repair it quickly and keep the truck in service. Please sit down.

unless we talking hyperloop, or anything related to the boring company...