My largest skepticism currently is Tesla Semi purchase price: we don't know what it is exactly but reports of $180k for the 500 mi range. If that's true, and it's actually a 1000kWh pack, even at a very good $100/kWh battery price, that means the battery alone for the Semi would cost Tesla $100k (makes the truck the deal of the century). You still need the rest of the truck, and you still need profit (theoretically). If battery cost is $130/kWh, then you're at $130k just in battery! Considering Model X is priced at $120k, and comes with a 100kWh battery (1/10th!!), it's tough to see how for $60k more you can sell a battery 10x in size, and a much larger truck around it. Pricing, for now, is the biggest challenge I see for Semi. Edit: Some folks have concerns about the "deceptive marketing" comment. Let's walk through it; I don't make this claim because of Tesla missing timelines. Sometimes that happens (though they still do a terrible job with projecting timelines). I say deceptive because they say things like flying Roadster (doesn't exist), Full Self Driving (yet it's level 2, and costs $15k), 0-60 in under 2 seconds (they still haven't done it), Roadster with 10,000 ft-lbs of torque (never mentioning it's wheel torque, which isn't the standard way of presenting it, making the number about 10x higher). Using some 0-60 with rollout, some without, depending on how they want the car to look (but not sticking to a single method). On the same website (tesla.com/semi) you can watch a video that says it has 4 motors, then scroll down and it says 3 motors. Video says 400 mi charge in 30 minutes (insinuating 80% charge), but on the same website 70% in 30 mins. "7 cents guaranteed!" We'll see. Regardless, many inconsistencies exist. Tesla marketing is vague, we don't even get battery sizes or horsepower in specs anymore. They say the media misrepresents them, yet they have differing numbers on the same website, and no PR department to ask questions to get the right numbers. I stand behind the statement of deceptive marketing, and it's not because they took 3 extra years to deliver the Tesla Semi.
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)
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- - 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.)
I’ve watched your videos during high school to study for my IB courses. Now I own and run my own automotive shop. 11 years later and still watching your videos. You’re a true legend Sir, appreciate the love for knowledge 🧠 👌🏽🤩❤️
I am pretty sceptical about that charging rate. Even if they manage to do it without the truck blowing up, it would still require an insane power infrastructure, especially if you plan to charge more than one truck at the same time. You can't built a nuclear power plant at every truck stop.
@@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
@@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 have been trucking for 50 years this year. I was impressed with the accuracy on your numbers. Probably the least accurate we’re the numbers on an adverse run. Many days you will face 20 to 30 mph wind all day and more like 2 to three percent grades half of the time as you constantly roll hills or mountain. ( say like Denver to LA ) Also most of is OTR these days try to get at least 600 miles per day.
@@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
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.
I'm a Mechanical Engineer working at a global truck manufacturer.. I've got to say I was pleasantly surprised over the great analysis. Good work. I like that you remained critical all through and still came to rational conclusions.
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.
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.
@@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…
There's a bit of an error at 3:00 - for diesel tractors the average daycab is around 17,000 lbs, but the average truck with the most common 72-in sleeper weighs in closer to 20,500 lbs. I have a Freightliner Cascadia with a condo sleeper, the most common truck in North America - and with a full 240 gallons of diesel in the tanks and me in it, it weighs in about 20,800 lbs net. Source - am tanker owner-op, I have to know the tare weight of trucks that I buy because we haul bulk.
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.
It is pleasing to see the engineering correctly explained. This is the only big channel that does this stuff and gets it right. A good rule of thumb is the accuracy of a channel’s material is inversely proportional to the number of videos with “insane” in the title.
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.
@@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.....
The charging rate is insane, if a delivery warehouse got more than 2 of the Semis plugged in charging you'd be tripping local substations as Elon said they did that whilst testing out the Dojo supercomputer at 2MW, the charging stations will be massive installs to handle the capacity
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.
I feel the Electric Semi could fit a much smaller inner city type role. Maybe not a California to New York Hauler, but Moving goods from the distribution warehouse to the store seems feasable, and those shorter more constant trips are the bigger polluters.
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.
@@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.
Quick note: the frontal area kindness you have with air passing beneath the vehicle is less efficient than just increasing the frontal area and keeping it close to the ground. Volvo, Freightliner, and other leaders in the space are getting as close as they possibly can without clearance issues as it decreased the net drag coefficient because then you control smooth air instead of the chaos of turbulent air beneath acting as a significant loss compared to the increase in frontal area.
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.
@@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
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.
@@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.
Excellent and fair analysis. There are a couple of things missing though. With diesel your weight is reduced as the tankless empties, not so with batteries. Don't know how significant that is, but it is a factor. The other thing is regenerative braking. Again, I don't know of this is included in the efficiency ratings, but as the technology improves the efficiency of regeneration will also improve. Diesel is a very highly developed technology, and improvements are slow. EVs are improving at a faster rate right now.
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.
At 60 mph and fully loaded I'm getting 7.7 mpg from new. My truck currently has 260k. I have a 2020 volvo vnr, empty weight with trailer and fully fueled is 33,800 lbs. My average loaded weight is 70k. And from what I have heard the 2023 with the new engine design is getting over 11mpg. But I love the science and your channel. Biggest issue is a lot of variables.
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.
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
Well done! Ian Wright co developer and former owner of Tesla formed a new company around 10 years ago called Wrightspeed with the goal of replacing the entire drivetrain of Garbage Trucks (Class 8) and City Busses making them fully electric with regenerative brakes. The difference is these vehicles would be equipped with fewer battery packs to reduce weight and increase capacity but they would also have an onboard range extender capable of not only powering the vehicle but simultaneously recharging the batteries and eliminating the issues of range under heavy load. His choice for the range extender was a 80 KW Microturbine Generator (MTG) that would automatically startup to recharge the batteries as needed. His reasoning for starting with garbage trucks and city buses is their extremely poor fuel economy mainly due to hundreds of stops every day. I believe this is a fantastic concept which has been proven by test fleets in real world use.
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.
I'd love to see a cost comparison between replacing all of the semis in the United States with Tesla semis versus just electrifying the railroads. Because as it turns out we've had a perfectly effective way of moving land freight via electricity for about 150 years.
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.
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...
There're few variables that are missing here - 1) does it make sense from the logistical point of view, and 2) deriving from that, does it make sense from the economical point of view of the driver. 1) If you need to "fuel up" every 300 ml (and it will take you 30 min for just 70%) you will do less miles in one shift = the delivery will take longer 2) if you're doing less miles as a driver on one shift, you'll make less money (drivers are paid by the mile) = good luck on finding drivers in already problematic market.
Other variables are missing such as road and other taxes paid by petrol users. The current price of hydrocarbon fuels is artificially kept high to force the EV market. [Despicable!] In fact the cost of EVs are artificially low because the petrol vehicles and petrol fuel pay the hidden EV costs. 5-7 year battery replacement and recycling cost and their CO2 were not mentioned. Then there is the spontaneous toxic battery fire hazard they evade that take out parking structures, dwellings and...people. Are you willing to be a casualty while they figure out the solution? [Self evident answer] Once this comes to the surface the insurance will be asstronomical. The CO2 topic is a total scam. Blah, blah...!!! I do research and invent in these spaces and can confidently say that EV proponents [greenies] have significant biases [euphemism for propaganda and the big 'L'] including yours truly ↑↑↑. [The comment life is an integrity test. )) ]
It would be cool to get an update on what you got right and what you got wrong, and why. But that would require information Tesla has not released yet, such as the weight of the tractor.
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
As a fellow enginerd, I love it when you do math videos like this. You save me so much time that I would otherwise someday spend calculating all this stuff. Now I can just watch your videos!
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.
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 would love to see what the numbers would look like trying to climb the Rockies fully loaded. The 1000 mile journey from LA to Denver would be a 8-12 charge journey at least I would think. As a cyclist I would dearly love to find a 500mile road where there is under a 1% grade and under 10mph wind.
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.
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.
These trucks should be great for regular routes with chargers at the base. Moving stuff around between hubs, delivering to retail stores and such. Charge them at noon when electricity is cheap and drivers are on break. I’m not sure how the batteries will hold up if those things are on the road practically 24/7.
I've driven long haul trucks over the road and local/regional as well. They will work for local and SOME regional routes but would absolutely not cut it for over the road long haul which is actually most of the trucking in the US. My diesel long haul truck had 1400-1800miles of range and in windy situations for example states like Wyoming and Nebraska will EAT UP your fuel and reduce your range by 50% because of sustained winds coming ahead. It's scary when your range meter says 1440miles left and you've passed 200 and it shows 850left, luckily there are gas stations everywhere that take less than 10minutes to fuel and don't forget we're limited on hours driven and on duty by the federal government so we can't just waste more than 15minutes to charge/fuel once a day or once every two days
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).
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.
As everyone is requesting I too would love to see an updated calculations after the first delivery event. But I think it would be even more effective if done once you get in touch with someone to whom one of these semis is delivered to, which I think for the time being is just PepsiCo.
@@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.
Having driven a Tesla I think that the useful range will hugely differ from the actual rated range. You do your range calculation based on 100% state of charge. But a long haul truck will likely never charge past 70% (the current supercharger charge rate above 70% SOC is not fast at all). Then consider that you likely wouldn’t target arriving at a charger with less than 10% SOC. So in a more realistic calculation your range will be only 60% of rated range.
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.
i like your video, and last year i actually took a class on electricity so most of this wasnt over my head for a change. only thing i can comment on here that may have been able to have been factored in is energy reclimation. i actually have experience with this as i rode with a friend in a hybrid, and actually got to see how they were able to stretch out their milage by makeing use of the downhill grades. now, im not sure exactly how much energy you might regain doing this in an actuall electric vehicle, but i feel its worth mentioning as it will likely have a huge effect on your total distance/ energy used calculations.
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%.
I work for UPS, we been testing a Tesla truck for couple years now. These trucks are ideal for CA roads to go south or north of Sacramento, we use our trucks 24/7, none of them sit more than 1-2 hours, we will likely not get any it’s not gonna benefit us at all. I do 400 miles a day, an EV will suck
This is the first of your videos I've seen and I love it. I do these kinds of hypotheticals and calculations all the time and find great joy in it. Such a pleasure to watch. Deceptive marketing is the bane of my existences and I love to see another fighting the good fight!
As a son of a trucker, I think electric trucks for in town are a great idea. In fact, a company back in the 1900s was operating electric strait trucks in NYC.
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.
@@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?
Love the fact that you don't need a green screen, cuz the whiteboard (always present) covers that. Entertaining and INFORMATIVE math is just fantastic. This approach is clear (to those that pay attention) and easy to digest. Great info. Good content!
Anyone quoting "worker shortage" is demonstrating willful stupidity on how economics works. This phrase is code for "we don't want to pay market wages for this job." Since this is so blatantly obvious I have to assume anyone using this phrase is choosing to push forward a false narrative and therefore anything that person says is of no value. One can't look at propaganda and say we have to give it a fair listen. Propaganda is propaganda, there is no such thing as fair listen unless one chooses to submit or join in even with the propaganda.
Excellent as always! One calculation I always like doing is battery lifespan. For my Model 3, 75kwh / (300wh/mile) * 1500 cycles = 375,000 miles. So in this case, 1000kwh / (2000wh/mile) * 1500 cycles (worst case) = 750,000 miles. If these packs are capable of more cycles, they might last as long as the motor warranty. Forgive me if you already covered EV battery lifespan before, I don’t always have time for due diligence.
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.
@@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.
I'd love if you did a video on if mild hybrid or phev semis make sense. Even more fun if you walked through finding the optimal battery size for a given duty cycle.
@@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.
Amazing! I just watched 18 minutes of maths on a whiteboard while having my morning coffee and breakfast. Kudos to you for making such a dry subject so accessible.
I drive an EV double decker bus every day. They have a range of 130ish milles per charge. The saloon is heated or cooled all day, we carry thousands of customers up hills in stop start conditions. They're very reliable. I think these trucks will be just fine.
.36 sounds hard to achieve with a standard trailer..I think the rear is as important as the front and I found: "Generally, CD values for a semi-trailer truck are ranges from 0.5 to 0.9 depending on the aerodynamic design of the truck." base line is actually 0.8 and 0.5 is achieved only with side fairings hiding all the wheels area and trailer flush with the tractor. otherwise, numbers are not too far off. its still probably going to have slightly less range than they announced, a bit less payload, more expensive charging (thanks "inflation/wars..."). average maintenance cost should be way better though, as long as the battery's good. but having your truck immobilized for weeks or months because of back ordered part, etc...is not good for businesses. Tesla needs to be on a whole other level regarding repair times, or provide replacement semi during those repairs at least under warranty. Anyway, it makes way more sense to use batteries for delivery vehicles that travel less miles, at slower speeds, and spend a lot of time accelerating, braking, stopping, idling...they also don't have the same penalty that heavier means less payload, they come in all sorts of sizes and weight so if the truck's 20% heavier, it's not such a big deal. tesla should definitely consider making delivery vans or even people transportation. they don't need megacharger network they'll just charge overnight and will run all day long on a charge
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.
@@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
@@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.
I worked at Cummins Turbos during my work experience for Uni, and they didn't believe that an electric truck was very feasible any time soon back in 2014. Of course things change, but I definitely think they had a point that it's going to be a long way from the norm any time soon.
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.
@@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.
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.
Been waiting for you to feature this EXACT topic for a couple years now! Thank you! You do such a great job covering various ways of looking at propositions and establishing realistic BOUNDARY conditions for our SWAG. Basic back of the envelope analysis based on pure FACTS and not starting out with what you want to persuade folks about. I trust your opinion soooo much more because of that.
I love watching these videos, saves me a lot of time explaining numbers to other people. The 500mi limitation is going to be messy. 500mi represents about 7-8 hours of driving, where truckers are given 11h of driving in a 14h window, plus certain personal liberties. Nature calls and no one can sit for 11hours, but I happen to own a pickup truck that gets 1400mi/tank and it it REALLY nice being able to stop based on MY needs/wants, not my truck's needs. It's the difference between me getting a fresh Publix sub vs. an Arby's attached to a gas station. It's the difference between me peeing at one of the two, as well. 500mi will not be preferred by drivers who are used to having 1500-1800mi tanks. It's a lot of 30m-1hr stops. Considering the new infrastructure needed, you're not going to find many Tesla chargers around the country. A Trucker may have to make an energy stop every 300-400mi rather than risking a 475-550mi stretch to one further up the road. With no transportation, that also means that his food and bathroom choices are severely limited. 500mi really means it will make a good daily fleet vehicle. Perhaps last-mile deliveries for LTL carriers like Averiitt, Yellow, or FedEx Freight. Hub-based deliveries will guarantee the truck can park and charge overnight.
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...
@@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.
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!
Enjoy your analysis. One major factor you're forgetting in equation 5 is a fuel tax for road infrastructure. Know this will not significantly change the overall outcome but needs to be calculated for a true comparison. Keep up the amazing work.
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.
@@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.
I think in step 5, you probably have to take into account of the charging efficiency for the battery, it takes more energy to charge it to the rated capacity of the battery
@@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._
@@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.
Battery degradation over time was ignored. Fast charging accelerates the reduction of battery capacity. That 500 mile range may not last long. Cost of replacement batteries is a significant percentage of the truck.
One thing I don't think people are considering is that when trucks get to their drop off locations they often need to stay parked for awhile while being unloaded. If you have chargers in the truck loading bays, these trucks can charge at their destination. For short hauling 500mi range is more than enough.
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.
@@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.
great breakdown! a few more potential points, unless I missed them, would be: truck maintenance as part of cost of ownership overweight permit options (most states are cheap... OK being the worst I know of) road use tax(EVs)/diesel fuel tax for road upkeep I like the included CO2 emissions, because an emission tax should probably be combined with the road repair costs (both overweight permitting and fuel tax) and simplify it as a use tax based on weight, mileage, and emissions... then jurisdictions can set standard rates for regions based on repair costs, and potentially price in weights as softer asymptotic limits that would automatically "price out" loads based on their value to weight ratio.
Fantastic video, I love your whiteboard presentations. Also, you did a great job of not being either a Tesla hater or fanboy. Sticking to the math and exploring each extreme is much more helpful than having an agenda. Good job. Based on how much my model Y exceeded my expectations, I'm hoping the semi can deliver similar results.
My average load was 40,000lbs of cargo max for my rig is 47,000lbs of cargo putting my at 79000 lbs total weight. 32,000 lbs empty weight. Most of company owned trucks are limited to 65mph. I averaged 7 mpg traveling 1200 miles per tank of fuel average. 10 hours mandatory down time between 11 hours of driving. Averaged 600 miles a day. Your math is excellent. Just giving you information on what I do in real world
Nice video. My prediction, I think these trucks will have to cost well over $200k. I think we are going to see them as regional delivery vehicles, probably for well funded big businesses that want to show off as modern and green, well before we see them as long haul, over the road trucks. That’s how technology develops though. There will be many lessons learned and the technology builds on itself, often in surprising directions.
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
Thanks for the video. You answered a lot of questions I've had for years about the electric semis. It will be interesting to see how they perform in the real world. I now work for a company that's had to implement electric trucks in California because of the change in laws and they are finding out the trucks are not able to complete their routes due to battery issues. These trucks are still in their initial testing phase but they're not looking promising with the current technology. I see the same issue with the semis because we use a lot of power that's not accounted for by just running down the road, cheap air conditioning lights radio, on board communications equipment for our work. So it'll be interesting to see how well these things hold up in the long run. But I do seriously appreciate you getting a weight estimate for these trucks because that has been the big question on a lot of truckers' minds because we know how much our trucks typically weigh and that will be a big factor on what we can do with the electric ones.
Thanks for the feedback. Expect more videos very soon. Send a direct message on telegram I have something for you. Thanks for watching. Congratulations you have been selected among the lucky winners
The only way I see this working on an interstate truck, where coast to coast transport is required, is for major companies to re-create the 'Pony Express'. Whereas, drivers would swap out tractors, at a fixed interval. Granted, this is done today, as many trailers are dropped, and then re-hooked by new drivers (in different trucks). Local deliveries, may be where this would shine, considering present technology. Having owned/operated a semi-tractor, I would have loved to been able to accelerate to 60mph (loaded) in 20 seconds. Also, this works for non-refrigerated loads. If the intent is to power the 'reefer' unit off the tractor, the range will be lessened.
I think a big element is the intended use. They won't work for everything but they may work very well in other scenarios. I would love to see some math about how the air quality of smoggy cities, like my own, could be improved if electric semi's took over the short haul traffic in the area.
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.
Was just thinking about this channel's solution for grid overload--staggered charging--used level 2 chargers as a baseline; I now realize that those won't be used in future cars, which will pull much higher kW
I wonder if you could do a Tesla vs Volvo truck showdown or get some real data from a weekly or monthly service route from a logistics provider to get some harder numbers?
I've seen so many claims, debunks, fanboys, haters and so on go on and on about this. This is by far the best video on the subject, both shining light on stuff that sounds crazy but is completely doable (1400kwh charging etc), and stuff that might not be super accurate. Perfect video!
Always love your videos. Very well put and well researched. On this specific topic I think a couple factors are missing like brake wear cost, regular maintenance cost, regenerative braking (which should be significant because of the weight of the loaded truck), etc…
@@jcd-k2s I believe you’re mistaken. On Teslas the regenerative braking is so strong that you almost never use the brakes which is called “one pedal driving”. It is very effective. As for the recharge, the heavier you are, the more momentum you create which requires more energy to slow-down/stop. Therefor this energy can be re-used and put back in the battery pack. So there is definitely a difference with the amount of power you can regain as the weight increases. I am unfortunately not knowledgeable in Toyotas and WV hybrids as I’ve never driven them and never looked at how they work so I can’t tell what the differences are.
@@jcd-k2s I think you’re missing the point. Re-gen doesn’t give you all your energy back, it gives you some of it back. In the exemples shown in the video, re-gen was forgotten or just not mentioned. Every little bit count when we talk about range, especially for a truck. Teslas can charge at 250Kw and I’m sure the new semis will be able to charge with more power… Even if the re-gen gives a big spike of electricity back, I am sure the engineers thought about it and will be able to put as much as possible back in the batteries with minimal loss. Your exemple is too simplistic and on the sideline of what we are talking about. Nobody said we would get 100% of the energy back… not even 40%… If you had a Tesla you would know that driving on the highway eats up your range pretty bad. Actually, on the highway you can’t meet the advertised range unless you’re too slow for traffic. But if you’re in the city, you usually actually meet the range or even exceed it. Because of re-gen. Yes drag is less in the city but you also put some electricity back in your pack everytime you let go the “gas”. The difference between highway or city is significant due to that re-gen + lack of drag. Let’s not forget that all range are based on EPA, which is BS but that’s what everyone (?) uses.
@@jcd-k2s And also the video was about cost. And as I mentioned in my original comment, there is a significant difference in brake wear when using re-gen. Now though I’m curious to know how Tesla is going to create the hydraulic pressure and pneumatic pressure for the trailers. I’m sure they thought of it all but it might be quite different and hopefully will work just as well. Another thing that isn’t mentioned in the video (now that I think about it) is also the increase safety for the driver and people around the truck because of Tesla vision. I wouldn’t be surprised if they came with the auto(not really)-pilot. Anyway I’m just thinking out loud now. I think that truck will be good for small trips but not cross country.
I weigh trucks for a living. I can tell you from experience that a truck is normally loaded as heavy as you can get it without being overweight. Highly frowned upon to half load a truck as it is a waste of the freight potential weight
Jason you've done well in your explanation. I like the rational way you used maths and physics to analyse the claims made by this manufacturer. I think you could setup an excel model on line for people considering buying an electric or diesel rig to play with depending on the parameters, eg prevailing winds and grade. Merwin Wilder below for example might like to play with different parameters to get the analysis consisent his experience. That's a good presentation and reminds of some of the calcs we used to do in physics 101.
I think one more advantage of an electric semi is when sitting idle, many diesel trucks run when sitting idle for various reasons. Imagine how much quieter trucks stations would be 😂
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.
@@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.
The brand "Orange" is already on their third generation of electric yard goat. A yard goat is a truck used to shuttle trailers around a terminal, warehouse, fixed area. Our warehouse uses them exclusively now. I can't speak to their reliability or cost but can say they are used 10 hours a day and perform adequately. Top speed is listed at 25 mph so these aren't viable as over the road transport.
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.
@@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.
If the famous 500 miles journey was truly fully loaded, backward weight calculations(44000lb load) gives us a tractor weight around 12.5 ton. Around 4 ton more than a average diesel. This means a load capacity of 15-20% less than a diesel truck. That means less income. Shippers will need to change their entire ordering system, you'll need two ev to do the job of one diesel or they will just ship with a diesel. When a business places an order for goods from a supplier they tend to order a full truck to maximise their product vs freight cost ratio. An ev would need a real re think of this ordering. I would expect companies more likely to order diesel trucs than change the way they order freight. An ev could lower freight cost to compensate but then whats the point for the freight company.if their net profit is going to be the same,they will stay with diesel because we know diesel works. Ev is an unknown. And it's not just breakdowns,it's time off the road. If a battery pack fails, what is the cost to my business. What if it partly fails and I have reduced range. As for performance the win is actually a loss. Every own a performance car where tired last about three weeks because your hard on the gas pedal. The Tesla will have the same problem. Weight plus performance are gonna burn tyres up. Especially with wage earning drivers who don't pay expenses.
I now have a new favorite unit, the kWh/lb-ft-mi. Great analysis. I appreciate the engineer margin-of-safety rounding that you build into your calculations.
This is really going to come down to two things 1- how much the truck actually weighs. As you pointed out, the more the truck weighs, the less cargo you can carry. If it's REALLY heavy, all the gains will be offset for the need of more trips. 2- the longevity of the battery. Will a single battery do 1 million miles? I doubt it, to be honest. If you need to replace it often enough and it's really expensive, there goes all your savings again
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.
Don't forget to subtract fuel weight, semis have between 180 and 250 gallon capacity depending on the tank setup and diesel weighs about 7 lbs a gallon
Here’s what’s funny/interesting me to about the Tesla business model: throw out an idea with a rendering, then reveal a physical version of it, then actually release it years later after the Tesla engineers tried for years to reach the unlikely numbers touted at the reveal.
considering what hoovie experienced with his f150 lightning, seems that load plays a much more important part on total range in real world. My guess is that all these delays are the effect of problems getting the range up
My cousin is working on EV trucks for Muncie. The trucks require more energy than 100 homes( California can’t keep all the lights on now) and cannot summit the passes between CA. And other states, with the best engineering practices available to date. They have dug themselves a septic tank, crawled in and called it Mother Earth 😅
If a professional driver drove like Hoovie, he’d be broke and in jail. More realistic tests have been done. They also show loading losses, but only the vehemently opposed to EV’s like to “cite” The Dumbest Channel on TH-cam. That can be a huge drain on credibility.
I think it's mostly Elon delaying the production start due to lack of batteries. Only recently they have stated that they are no longer limited on batteries.
@@markstevens1729 The Dumbest Channel on TH-cam. That can be a huge drain on credibility. But when people are having a simple convo, it is the pro EV guys that always start throwing rocks and stones....
Keep in mind that all Tesla's calculations and presentations were based on full load. Load won't take them by surprise. Also, Elon had said several times that they were restrained by battery production and that the Semi and Cybertruck would be sacrificed until the battery constraints were sorted. The fact that they've announced delivery dates for the Semi indicate that they've solved those battery problems.
This makes me think of an electric dump truck that's in use for mining that rarely/never needs to charge. They ride it up a mountain empty, load it up with stuff, and use the extra potential energy to charge the battery on the way down.
@@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.
@@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.
Forget about an electric semi in Australia, just to get an electric car across the Nullabor Plains (Ceduna SA to Norseman WA) , they have installed a diesel generator to recharge the vehicles. The distance is 750 miles, but headwinds can be very strong along that stretch.
Thank you for making this type of content. Despite me not understanding lbs and gallons and whatnot, I learn so much from your videos. Keep them coming!
That's pretty childish. I work in metric but to say you can't "understand" basic imperial measurements is pretty silly. Most industries use both imperial and metric heavily and this won't change for some time.
@@sheldonholy5047you mean most industries in the US. In Europe, most probably for historical reasons, we still use PSI for local valve pneumatics. We use inches only for TV size classification.
Thanks for checking numbers, Jason. One of the factors an electric vehicle does not have to consider is the consumable diesel. At 250-300 gallons when loaded that can account for 2,000 lbs from the gvw of 80,000lbs
At least one diesel when you consume fuel, your truck will get lighter and slightly more efficient with an electric truck. You lose range but you still at the weight of the battery
Diesel is still far more energy dense for the weight than any current battery. Always some better battery coming so maybe we should park all the diesel trucks up and wait with no food or fuel or goods till the future nirvana happens....
That was a very nice break down. Just a few things to consider... Will the battery come with a recommended regular usage zone of 20% to 80% charge ? That would decrease the range quite a bit. Or will they increase the battery size to account for this, meaning the battery might need to be bigger, weight more, and cost more. Like you indicated, it will require massive power to charge. I could also see them initially using 4 or 6 Quick charging station running at the same time (2/3 on each side), but those will require infrastructure and take a lot of space... I'm thinking the early adopters might need to foot the bill for their own home charging station(s) and those charging station are not going to be cheap, and will also initially limit routes. I'm also thinking that these trucks will most likely initially be used around ports or for in town short trip that take a long time in traffic with a lots of stop and go as they will need to stay close to those charging station(s). We must also consider that to do the actual full range, there has to be a charging station where they're going, otherwise the range is cut in half because of the drive back.
Yeah I think that electric trucks make the most sense in short round trips, like from docks to train stations or in quarries where you're not as worried to get too far from a charging station and have frequent stop and gos, which take a heavy toll on clutches, gearboxes and engines
@@cwx8 Wow, thank you soo much for this detail explanation. I never knew that about "trucking and the related economics of the things they carry work"... Truly crazy the stuff you can learn in the comment section...
Since I'm in Canada and specifically Saskatchewan where the winter gets to -45C worst case but say averages -10C for highs and -19C for lows; I would love to see how that impacts range. You could take that 250 mile range and perhaps drop it another 30%
As long as you don't let the battery get cold, not by much. (This is true of a car but not by as much) Two reasons A good portion of 'range loss' in winter for cars is due to heating the cabin. The battery pack in the semi is HUGE compared to a car's battery so heating the driver of a semi takes a fraction of the pack's capacity. In a car it takes 1-5 kWh to heat the cabin or 1-6.5% of the battery capacity per hour depending on how cold it is. Drive for 2.5hrs and that's 2.5 to 16% just to heat the cabin. In a semi that 1-3kWh would be around 0.1% to 0.6%. Hardly noticeable. Second, the motors in the semi's will be running under such a load that they can help provide heat to the battery to keep it warm. Tesla cars do the same thing to help warm their batteries when driving in cold weather (as well as to intentionally warm the battery for fast charging) Let the battery get cold as you might do when driving to work, park the car for 8 hours outside, drive to a store, maybe a restaurant and yes you'll have a very significant 'reduction' in possible range. But it doesn't really matter much because you'll recharge overnight.
EV doesn't really work in such low temperatures, you have to heat the battery to above 0C and keep it at that temperature if you want to get any performance out of it, charging is practically impossible below 0C, you can charge very slowly but even that will cause accelerated battery degradation, the only solution I can see is to develop special battery chemistry and for such extreme conditions but I don't think that will be done anytime soon, first EVs has to prove itself in normal climates.
@@ekstrapolatoraproksymujacy412 you would just need to install a resistive heater in the battery compartment, run that until it's the right temp then you can start charging normally
@@phillyphil1513 we have a lot of remote areas for sure but I was just thinking of normal trade with the USA. But yeah you aren’t going to see EV’s on an episode of ice road truckers any time soon. We are still your largest trading partner and the semi traffic between our counties is considerable so temp in the winter will factor in. Just for the record I’m pro-ev but I’m waiting 5 years for the industry to mature a bit before buying one.
So as you were pointing out, the drag coefficient is going to be variable. With a 500 mile range it seems that ltl carries that haul doubles and triples would be the most likely to benefit, so that probably affects drag more than a single 53 footer (also, triples can be 105,900 lbs).
Not so much. The usual cited numbers for EV range dropping is about HEAT. Cabin or Passenger or whatever you want to call it "Comfort." And keeping ice from forming on the windshield and glass. In the case of an ICE vehicle, the waste heat from the Engine is used for Heat. In an EV, heat has to be produced from Electricity from the Traction Battery. In this case -- MOST of the Electricity will going to drive the motors, and a much smaller percentage (than a car) for Heat.
@@philtimmons722 In a EV car it's average 20-25% energy use for heat in the cold winter weather ..... Semi cabin is bigger than small car, so it would need a lot. But percentage it would still be less than 5~~8 % for heating :) Still that is about 40 miles drop in range
Regarding the "harder scenario" that starts at 6:13: The truck only ever goes uphill, never down? I ask because it has regerative braking which means that going downhill or decelerating will feed power back into the battery, extending the range. A truck that has a route that starts at a somewhat higher elevation than it's destination might set out with a battery that's only partly full and go considerably more than 500 miles before it needs charging.
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.
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
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.
The most efficient is the way locomotives or electric dosers are build. An engine running a generator to power electric drive motors. That configuration isn't considered "green" so that isn't an option according to federal legislation. This move isn't about saving fuel or climate. It's about money. My back ground is 38 years as a technician on trucks, heavy equipment etc.
@@C-Culper4874 It certainly is funny. Diesel electric is very old technology at this point. But apparently not good enough? Also, isn't it funny that all these "green" types are dead set against nuclear power? Have to shut down environmentally friendly, safe nuclear to switch to "clean" natural gas?
@@kingduckford It isn't about good enough it's the fact it is the most efficient at this point. High efficiency means less taxes and less sales. Can't have that and keep an ecomony going. People like me that have been driving the same truck for 20 years is bad for business. Lol
I think these trucks have merit for port to distribution center and other short haul loads in urban areas. We need a few more nuke plants to provide the gigawatts needed for full implementation, but yeah, I can see these being quite useful and cost effective in the right niche.
We, in Europe, already use some 44 ton trucks with the smaller battery packs on the shorter routes between the distribution hubs. Amazon will use Volvo trucks between its centers in Europe and invest 1 billion in electric trucks alone.
Good thing no one listens to you. You aren’t grasping how important this truck is to civilisation. This is an engineering marvel. Without it civilised world is gone in about 50 years.
"A few more nuke plants" pushes the cost from $400k a truck (180k my ass, never happening) to several million dollars per truck. Not such a great deal. I do suppose you have to work the entire US military budget into the operating cost of a diesel truck to be fair.
@@component9008the world you live in. How much oil do you still think is available? Also what kind of atmosphere do you think we will have if we continue on the same path.
Can you update this one we have more info about the semi after yesterday's announcement? It would be interesting to see how these numbers changes from the unknown/guessed ranges to a more precise values. One thing i noticed that in 1. the semi expected max weight is 15k in 3. it is 20k. What would be a good approach to average these in the whole calculation?
Yeah it is wiser to wait now, until he knows every details. But that is the beuty about Engineering, even if something wrong here, the avarage still relevant, and that what counts really the big numbers.
The 15,000 lbs in #1 is not expected semi weight, it is possible battery weight. It's the Hummer EV battery weight scaled to the Tesla semi kw/h for an estimated battery weight for the semi; somewhere between 8000 lbs bare minimum for the battery alone and the 15,000 lbs for scaled up Hummer EV full battery package. The 20,000 lbs in #3 is a calculated weight based on the acceleration numbers provided by Tesla, so that's probably closer to the actual weight. A quick search found that a Peterbilt 579 shows a dry weight of 17,600 lbs for reference.
@@cortransport Do you mean one metric ton of fuel? One litre of diesel weighs ~0,85 kg. So you calculate that one truck holds 1176,5 litres of diesel. Isn't that too much or does it hold true?
@@herbaHD i know it this way: a gallon weights about 7lbs. I have a truck with 150 gallons on each side so that’s 300 gallons in total. 300x7 2100lbs plus tanks.
An Australian motoring journalist who is a qualified engineer mentioned advice a senior journalist gave him when he moved over from engineering to journalism: "Listen to what they say and listen to what they don't say." Often what they choose not to say says more than what they say. In the case of the Tesla Semi the choice not to give the power and weight of the battery, the weight of the tractor and the power and electricity consumption of the motors says a lot. They do not want us to know these figures. Therefore the figures go against them.
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...
Great analysis Jason. I love how you always take the worst case, and still follow the calculations through to their logical conclusions. For future videos, it would be interesting to see the sensitivity of the various inputs for the scenarios you model (ie best and realistic cases). For example here, those for the overall Energy Needed equation (drag coefficient, speed, area etc), to get a better feel as to what’s the main driver of the change. Keep up the fantastic work! Long time fan here!
@@bobcat9501 I don't see electric semis being a thing anytime soon. But in fairness, power plants are much more efficient than individual ice vehicles. Vehicles powered by fossil fuel power plants are still greener than ice vehicles (at least as far as powering them goes, don't know about the mining to create the batteries).
@@bobcat9501 Correct, and this was also accounted for when Jason used the average US CO2 per kW near the very end of the video. As it stands now, total emissions for the electric are half that of diesel, with much room to improve further as our grid continually shifts towards renewable sources.
@@JoeRochinski But did he do the calculations using 1 battery pack for 1mil miles? I don't think there is a battery pack out there capable of such a toll. I'm betting that truck would take at least 3-4 battery replacements. That would probably put it neck and neck or worse.
@@mbrick They cant really factor that in in any meaningful way, too big differences between possible scenarios. Altitude differences and the weight of the load matters too much. And there is 2 kind of "fully laoded" trailer, you can load it with heavy stuff and then you have to stop at a certain weight, or you can run out of space before the weight limit. Or you can pull an aerodynamically different trailer. They can give you a theoretical maximum efficiency, but nothing more relevant to the real world.
You gave some very ideal numbers in a lot of these choices. I wonder how much energy regeneration these can do given the huge load size going downhill. I'm assuming there is a limit to regenerative braking. I would think going after the ports where there are a lot of short drives, load/unload from the ships, would be the place to optimize quickly given the start/stop of that...
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?
Yeah it's a fun idea to mess with, since Semis aren't quite as space limited as passenger cars. Biggest challenge hydrogen is the volumetric energy density, so you have to have a lot of space for hydrogen tanks.
@@Kevin-sy8uf Also how green they are to produce like you can stop the earth from becoming a water world but if you make t wasteland who cares about your green truck?
Why bother? Until hydrogen can be produced in a green fashion, its pointless due to the amount of energy consumed to produce it and the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere.
The problem with academics is that they do a bunch of back of the napkin calculations and think they have all the answers while completely lacking any real-world experience.
That would be really great for a country such as France which is smaller than the US and with a high nuclear energy mix (even if it's half shot down right now). Also I don't understand why other truck manufacturers don't do this as Daimler truck boss even said it was physically impossible to do even if you have quiet demonstrated the opposite...
These Tesla trucks are not yet on the road , nor they are working 11/5 like normal trucks do - yet there is a lot of claims that they are doing that most of the engineering people believe its not possible. And Musk has a record of setting up goals/milestones on the stages , so if Musk say something unrealistic you better believe that this is a made up thing that he just invented on the go. And from what we know right now is that Mercedes is already testing their Etruck in like 10 companies with short distance hauling 150-200kmm while tesla is still in their safety test stages where the vehicle itself is not even approved for mass productions.
@@Integroabysal Seriously! Tesla is about to start delivery event in few hours, but you saying Tesla is still in their test stages and not even approved for mass productions. You sound like Gordon Johnson of GLJ
I do not know if France is the best location, since they also have lots of electric rail infrastructure that could accommodate more electric rail freight which would be much better for the environment and also faster than battery electric semi trucks. The smaller semi might be better or maybe more of an Isuzu sized truck
@@Integroabysal These trucks are on the road though, they have been for over a year in rigorous testing. And at least one company in the US is taking deliveries on them this week. It's amazing how much the detractors of Tesla such as yourself seem to ignore the publicly available information regarding the development of their vehicles.
@@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.
@@carlandrews3037 is that 500 miles loaded limit even worth your while? I mean you guys can go at least a thousand miles on your tanks can’t you? Each tank being something like 120-150 Gal, 2 tanks, I don’t know what your getting for milage, but even at 6 MPG, that’s 1500 miles on 250 gal. Seems better then the 500 mile Loaded limit.
![ILLSLICK - KILLSHOT REMIX [FULL VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RIK8RrqIAzE/mqdefault.jpg)
My largest skepticism currently is Tesla Semi purchase price: we don't know what it is exactly but reports of $180k for the 500 mi range. If that's true, and it's actually a 1000kWh pack, even at a very good $100/kWh battery price, that means the battery alone for the Semi would cost Tesla $100k (makes the truck the deal of the century). You still need the rest of the truck, and you still need profit (theoretically). If battery cost is $130/kWh, then you're at $130k just in battery! Considering Model X is priced at $120k, and comes with a 100kWh battery (1/10th!!), it's tough to see how for $60k more you can sell a battery 10x in size, and a much larger truck around it. Pricing, for now, is the biggest challenge I see for Semi.
Edit: Some folks have concerns about the "deceptive marketing" comment. Let's walk through it; I don't make this claim because of Tesla missing timelines. Sometimes that happens (though they still do a terrible job with projecting timelines). I say deceptive because they say things like flying Roadster (doesn't exist), Full Self Driving (yet it's level 2, and costs $15k), 0-60 in under 2 seconds (they still haven't done it), Roadster with 10,000 ft-lbs of torque (never mentioning it's wheel torque, which isn't the standard way of presenting it, making the number about 10x higher). Using some 0-60 with rollout, some without, depending on how they want the car to look (but not sticking to a single method). On the same website (tesla.com/semi) you can watch a video that says it has 4 motors, then scroll down and it says 3 motors. Video says 400 mi charge in 30 minutes (insinuating 80% charge), but on the same website 70% in 30 mins. "7 cents guaranteed!" We'll see. Regardless, many inconsistencies exist. Tesla marketing is vague, we don't even get battery sizes or horsepower in specs anymore. They say the media misrepresents them, yet they have differing numbers on the same website, and no PR department to ask questions to get the right numbers. I stand behind the statement of deceptive marketing, and it's not because they took 3 extra years to deliver the Tesla Semi.
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.
Jason is a true engineer nerd. Marketing has no effect on him. 😂
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.
I’ve watched your videos during high school to study for my IB courses. Now I own and run my own automotive shop.
11 years later and still watching your videos.
You’re a true legend Sir, appreciate the love for knowledge 🧠
👌🏽🤩❤️
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 🤩
I am pretty sceptical about that charging rate. Even if they manage to do it without the truck blowing up, it would still require an insane power infrastructure, especially if you plan to charge more than one truck at the same time. You can't built a nuclear power plant at every truck stop.
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 have been trucking for 50 years this
year. I was impressed with the accuracy on your numbers.
Probably the least accurate we’re the
numbers on an adverse run. Many
days you will face 20 to 30 mph wind
all day and more like 2 to three percent
grades half of the time as you constantly roll hills or mountain.
( say like Denver to LA ) Also most of
is OTR these days try to get at least
600 miles per day.
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.
I'm a Mechanical Engineer working at a global truck manufacturer.. I've got to say I was pleasantly surprised over the great analysis. Good work. I like that you remained critical all through and still came to rational conclusions.
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.
Thank you Jason for going back to your whiteboard roots and giving an excellent explanation!
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…
There's a bit of an error at 3:00 - for diesel tractors the average daycab is around 17,000 lbs, but the average truck with the most common 72-in sleeper weighs in closer to 20,500 lbs. I have a Freightliner Cascadia with a condo sleeper, the most common truck in North America - and with a full 240 gallons of diesel in the tanks and me in it, it weighs in about 20,800 lbs net.
Source - am tanker owner-op, I have to know the tare weight of trucks that I buy because we haul bulk.
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.
Tesla finally released the weight of the Tesla semi tractor. It turns out it weighs 23,000 lbs.
It is pleasing to see the engineering correctly explained. This is the only big channel that does this stuff and gets it right. A good rule of thumb is the accuracy of a channel’s material is inversely proportional to the number of videos with “insane” in the title.
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.....
The charging rate is insane, if a delivery warehouse got more than 2 of the Semis plugged in charging you'd be tripping local substations as Elon said they did that whilst testing out the Dojo supercomputer at 2MW, the charging stations will be massive installs to handle the capacity
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.
I feel the Electric Semi could fit a much smaller inner city type role. Maybe not a California to New York Hauler, but Moving goods from the distribution warehouse to the store seems feasable, and those shorter more constant trips are the bigger polluters.
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.
Quick note: the frontal area kindness you have with air passing beneath the vehicle is less efficient than just increasing the frontal area and keeping it close to the ground. Volvo, Freightliner, and other leaders in the space are getting as close as they possibly can without clearance issues as it decreased the net drag coefficient because then you control smooth air instead of the chaos of turbulent air beneath acting as a significant loss compared to the increase in frontal area.
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
More freight should be shipped via rail for long haul. Electric trucks would work well for local deliveries.
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.
I'm always surprised how Jason is able to fit every topic in a single white board. Great analysis, Jason!
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.
Excellent and fair analysis. There are a couple of things missing though. With diesel your weight is reduced as the tankless empties, not so with batteries. Don't know how significant that is, but it is a factor. The other thing is regenerative braking. Again, I don't know of this is included in the efficiency ratings, but as the technology improves the efficiency of regeneration will also improve. Diesel is a very highly developed technology, and improvements are slow. EVs are improving at a faster rate right now.
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.
At 60 mph and fully loaded I'm getting 7.7 mpg from new. My truck currently has 260k. I have a 2020 volvo vnr, empty weight with trailer and fully fueled is 33,800 lbs. My average loaded weight is 70k. And from what I have heard the 2023 with the new engine design is getting over 11mpg. But I love the science and your channel. Biggest issue is a lot of variables.
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 TH-cam comments!
Well done!
Ian Wright co developer and former owner of Tesla formed a new company around 10 years ago called Wrightspeed with the goal of replacing the entire drivetrain of Garbage Trucks (Class 8) and City Busses making them fully electric with regenerative brakes. The difference is these vehicles would be equipped with fewer battery packs to reduce weight and increase capacity but they would also have an onboard range extender capable of not only powering the vehicle but simultaneously recharging the batteries and eliminating the issues of range under heavy load.
His choice for the range extender was a 80 KW Microturbine Generator (MTG) that would automatically startup to recharge the batteries as needed.
His reasoning for starting with garbage trucks and city buses is their extremely poor fuel economy mainly due to hundreds of stops every day.
I believe this is a fantastic concept which has been proven by test fleets in real world use.
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.
I'd love to see a cost comparison between replacing all of the semis in the United States with Tesla semis versus just electrifying the railroads. Because as it turns out we've had a perfectly effective way of moving land freight via electricity for about 150 years.
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...
There're few variables that are missing here - 1) does it make sense from the logistical point of view, and 2) deriving from that, does it make sense from the economical point of view of the driver.
1) If you need to "fuel up" every 300 ml (and it will take you 30 min for just 70%) you will do less miles in one shift = the delivery will take longer 2) if you're doing less miles as a driver on one shift, you'll make less money (drivers are paid by the mile) = good luck on finding drivers in already problematic market.
Here's is another variable missing from their radar:
🤯💥🤯Multidisciplinary engineer/inventor here. We are developing the revolutionary FAZE engine technology. The 𝔽𝕦𝕖𝕝 𝔸𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 ℤ𝕖𝕣𝕠 𝔼𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖 tech best solves the issues present in previous internal combustion engine designs by transforming the old paradigm into a simple, low cost, quiet, power dense, efficient, on-the-go liquid and gas fuel-flexible, ‘non-polluting’ solution for power generation of all scales and advanced transportation.
𝔽𝔸ℤ𝔼 delivers better than 25% ABSOLUTE/ACTUAL [not relative]
fuel efficiency improvement over gasoline engines, more than 15%
for Diesel engines at any operating condition - speed/load, ambient
temperature or elevation, not just at one optimal testing point at
STP. Real world driving cycle savings could be an additional 200%
higher due to the constant MAXIMAL efficiency and torque which
results in a huge turn down ratio of ~99% without sacrificing
performance. That means it's idle or running speed can be 10-50 rpm.
The `simple, low cost, native/built-in, non-electric, environmentally safe,
non-explosive, temperature agnostic 𝕊𝕦𝕡𝕖𝕣ℍ𝕪𝕓𝕣𝕚𝕕© feature
recovers more energy than EVs and provides approx.100% fuel
savings for a combined absolute vehicle fuel usage improvement of
approximately 300%, thus obviating the basic need for expensive
EVs & e-hybrids. 𝕚ℙ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝔹𝕠𝕠𝕤𝕥 adds >400% more torque. It’s like
4 engines in 1. This is all done w/o a transmission.
The fuel agnostic capability allows instantaneous use of any liquid
or gaseous fuel [natural gas at home!!!] incl. biofuels and hydrogen,
even if old/dirty/unprocessed like flare gas or employ the concurrent
multi-fuel capability…anywhere on the globe. One engine for all
locales w/o modifications! Unlike EVs, this enables fast fueling anytime,
anywhere…with no troublesome infrastructure disruptions or
changes. EV’s are not a solution to the [FAKE]climate or mobility topics as
high level of electrification globally is unrealistic
[See Patrick Boyle's video "Electrify Everything?"]
The technology offers smokeless, non-polluting, low odor heat and
noise output without costly after-treatments, etc.,… with only the
lowest CO2. It has a negative carbon footprint with hydrogen,
ammonia, biofuels or gasified municipal, agricultural and/or forest
waste and coal from a 2-stroke-like simplicity.
With virtually no electronics and emissions equipment, the cost of
purchase and reduced servicing frequency make this solution
even more appealing.
Those are my two-bits
PS.
Did I mention we're developing advanced, simple, low cost, power dense electric machines and torque dense[read - compact], infinitely variable FrictionLess transmissions?
Other variables are missing such as road and other taxes paid by petrol users. The current price of hydrocarbon fuels is artificially kept high to force the EV market. [Despicable!] In fact the cost of EVs are artificially low because the petrol vehicles and petrol fuel pay the hidden EV costs. 5-7 year battery replacement and recycling cost and their CO2 were not mentioned. Then there is the spontaneous toxic battery fire hazard they evade that take out parking structures, dwellings and...people. Are you willing to be a casualty while they figure out the solution? [Self evident answer] Once this comes to the surface the insurance will be asstronomical. The CO2 topic is a total scam. Blah, blah...!!! I do research and invent in these spaces and can confidently say that EV proponents [greenies] have significant biases [euphemism for propaganda and the big 'L'] including yours truly ↑↑↑. [The comment life is an integrity test. )) ]
It would be cool to get an update on what you got right and what you got wrong, and why. But that would require information Tesla has not released yet, such as the weight of the tractor.
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
As a fellow enginerd, I love it when you do math videos like this. You save me so much time that I would otherwise someday spend calculating all this stuff. Now I can just watch your videos!
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.
I would love to see what the numbers would look like trying to climb the Rockies fully loaded. The 1000 mile journey from LA to Denver would be a 8-12 charge journey at least I would think.
As a cyclist I would dearly love to find a 500mile road where there is under a 1% grade and under 10mph wind.
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.
These trucks should be great for regular routes with chargers at the base. Moving stuff around between hubs, delivering to retail stores and such. Charge them at noon when electricity is cheap and drivers are on break.
I’m not sure how the batteries will hold up if those things are on the road practically 24/7.
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
I've driven long haul trucks over the road and local/regional as well. They will work for local and SOME regional routes but would absolutely not cut it for over the road long haul which is actually most of the trucking in the US. My diesel long haul truck had 1400-1800miles of range and in windy situations for example states like Wyoming and Nebraska will EAT UP your fuel and reduce your range by 50% because of sustained winds coming ahead. It's scary when your range meter says 1440miles left and you've passed 200 and it shows 850left, luckily there are gas stations everywhere that take less than 10minutes to fuel and don't forget we're limited on hours driven and on duty by the federal government so we can't just waste more than 15minutes to charge/fuel once a day or once every two days
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
As everyone is requesting I too would love to see an updated calculations after the first delivery event. But I think it would be even more effective if done once you get in touch with someone to whom one of these semis is delivered to, which I think for the time being is just PepsiCo.
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.
Having driven a Tesla I think that the useful range will hugely differ from the actual rated range. You do your range calculation based on 100% state of charge. But a long haul truck will likely never charge past 70% (the current supercharger charge rate above 70% SOC is not fast at all). Then consider that you likely wouldn’t target arriving at a charger with less than 10% SOC. So in a more realistic calculation your range will be only 60% of rated range.
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.
i like your video, and last year i actually took a class on electricity so most of this wasnt over my head for a change.
only thing i can comment on here that may have been able to have been factored in is energy reclimation. i actually have experience with this as i rode with a friend in a hybrid, and actually got to see how they were able to stretch out their milage by makeing use of the downhill grades. now, im not sure exactly how much energy you might regain doing this in an actuall electric vehicle, but i feel its worth mentioning as it will likely have a huge effect on your total distance/ energy used calculations.
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%.
I work for UPS, we been testing a Tesla truck for couple years now. These trucks are ideal for CA roads to go south or north of Sacramento, we use our trucks 24/7, none of them sit more than 1-2 hours, we will likely not get any it’s not gonna benefit us at all. I do 400 miles a day, an EV will suck
? contradict yourself much? Perhaps it's the run-on sentence.
Not sure how ideal EV trucks are for CA, considering the electricity cost here :(
@@checkfactschecking How is your Cyber Truck running?
This is the first of your videos I've seen and I love it. I do these kinds of hypotheticals and calculations all the time and find great joy in it. Such a pleasure to watch. Deceptive marketing is the bane of my existences and I love to see another fighting the good fight!
Welcome to the channel, and thanks for watching! I have a lot of these style videos, hopefully some others will pique your interest!
Your systematic approach to any problem is astonishing. Great job.
That's engineering science v political science. 🙂
As a son of a trucker, I think electric trucks for in town are a great idea. In fact, a company back in the 1900s was operating electric strait trucks in NYC.
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?
Cool video! Thanks for making it.
Jerry 😮
@@CarNacho17*Zack
Love the fact that you don't need a green screen, cuz the whiteboard (always present) covers that.
Entertaining and INFORMATIVE math is just fantastic.
This approach is clear (to those that pay attention) and easy to digest. Great info. Good content!
Anyone quoting "worker shortage" is demonstrating willful stupidity on how economics works. This phrase is code for "we don't want to pay market wages for this job." Since this is so blatantly obvious I have to assume anyone using this phrase is choosing to push forward a false narrative and therefore anything that person says is of no value. One can't look at propaganda and say we have to give it a fair listen. Propaganda is propaganda, there is no such thing as fair listen unless one chooses to submit or join in even with the propaganda.
Excellent as always! One calculation I always like doing is battery lifespan. For my Model 3, 75kwh / (300wh/mile) * 1500 cycles = 375,000 miles. So in this case, 1000kwh / (2000wh/mile) * 1500 cycles (worst case) = 750,000 miles. If these packs are capable of more cycles, they might last as long as the motor warranty. Forgive me if you already covered EV battery lifespan before, I don’t always have time for due diligence.
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
I'd love if you did a video on if mild hybrid or phev semis make sense. Even more fun if you walked through finding the optimal battery size for a given duty cycle.
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.
Amazing! I just watched 18 minutes of maths on a whiteboard while having my morning coffee and breakfast. Kudos to you for making such a dry subject so accessible.
watch it at 2x. Doubly enjoyable
I drive an EV double decker bus every day. They have a range of 130ish milles per charge. The saloon is heated or cooled all day, we carry thousands of customers up hills in stop start conditions. They're very reliable. I think these trucks will be just fine.
That’s a bus very different situation
.36 sounds hard to achieve with a standard trailer..I think the rear is as important as the front and I found: "Generally, CD values for a semi-trailer truck are ranges from 0.5 to 0.9 depending on the aerodynamic design of the truck." base line is actually 0.8 and 0.5 is achieved only with side fairings hiding all the wheels area and trailer flush with the tractor.
otherwise, numbers are not too far off. its still probably going to have slightly less range than they announced, a bit less payload, more expensive charging (thanks "inflation/wars...").
average maintenance cost should be way better though, as long as the battery's good. but having your truck immobilized for weeks or months because of back ordered part, etc...is not good for businesses. Tesla needs to be on a whole other level regarding repair times, or provide replacement semi during those repairs at least under warranty.
Anyway, it makes way more sense to use batteries for delivery vehicles that travel less miles, at slower speeds, and spend a lot of time accelerating, braking, stopping, idling...they also don't have the same penalty that heavier means less payload, they come in all sorts of sizes and weight so if the truck's 20% heavier, it's not such a big deal. tesla should definitely consider making delivery vans or even people transportation. they don't need megacharger network they'll just charge overnight and will run all day long on a charge
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.
I worked at Cummins Turbos during my work experience for Uni, and they didn't believe that an electric truck was very feasible any time soon back in 2014. Of course things change, but I definitely think they had a point that it's going to be a long way from the norm any time soon.
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.
This is a masterclass in both sober, applied engineering and teaching! Well done Jason. [Standing Ovation]
7:35 "Tesla's 500mph claim is possible"
Damn, 500mph, that's competing with Aviation!
Hah! I didn't catch that the first time, but yea, he does say 500 mph.
That battery charging rate is insane. That is about 30 houses with a typical 200A service. That is an insane amount of power
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.
Brilliant, thank you. This sort of analysis is so important. It needs to be taught to everyone, not just engineers and scientists.
There what's a video on TH-cam whip a Tesla Model x while towing 4000 lbs they had to stop every 60 minutes to charge for 90 minutes
Except for totally missing out the large difference in maintenance and down-time needed for the desiel.
Been waiting for you to feature this EXACT topic for a couple years now! Thank you! You do such a great job covering various ways of looking at propositions and establishing realistic BOUNDARY conditions for our SWAG. Basic back of the envelope analysis based on pure FACTS and not starting out with what you want to persuade folks about. I trust your opinion soooo much more because of that.
I love watching these videos, saves me a lot of time explaining numbers to other people. The 500mi limitation is going to be messy. 500mi represents about 7-8 hours of driving, where truckers are given 11h of driving in a 14h window, plus certain personal liberties.
Nature calls and no one can sit for 11hours, but I happen to own a pickup truck that gets 1400mi/tank and it it REALLY nice being able to stop based on MY needs/wants, not my truck's needs. It's the difference between me getting a fresh Publix sub vs. an Arby's attached to a gas station. It's the difference between me peeing at one of the two, as well.
500mi will not be preferred by drivers who are used to having 1500-1800mi tanks. It's a lot of 30m-1hr stops. Considering the new infrastructure needed, you're not going to find many Tesla chargers around the country. A Trucker may have to make an energy stop every 300-400mi rather than risking a 475-550mi stretch to one further up the road. With no transportation, that also means that his food and bathroom choices are severely limited.
500mi really means it will make a good daily fleet vehicle. Perhaps last-mile deliveries for LTL carriers like Averiitt, Yellow, or FedEx Freight. Hub-based deliveries will guarantee the truck can park and charge overnight.
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
I love engineering but I've always been intimidated and your explanations takes all the intimidation out of the way. Awesome video.
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!
Enjoy your analysis. One major factor you're forgetting in equation 5 is a fuel tax for road infrastructure. Know this will not significantly change the overall outcome but needs to be calculated for a true comparison. Keep up the amazing work.
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.
I think in step 5, you probably have to take into account of the charging efficiency for the battery, it takes more energy to charge it to the rated capacity of the battery
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.
Battery degradation over time was ignored. Fast charging accelerates the reduction of battery capacity.
That 500 mile range may not last long. Cost of replacement batteries is a significant percentage of the truck.
One thing I don't think people are considering is that when trucks get to their drop off locations they often need to stay parked for awhile while being unloaded. If you have chargers in the truck loading bays, these trucks can charge at their destination. For short hauling 500mi range is more than enough.
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.
great breakdown!
a few more potential points, unless I missed them, would be:
truck maintenance as part of cost of ownership
overweight permit options (most states are cheap... OK being the worst I know of)
road use tax(EVs)/diesel fuel tax for road upkeep
I like the included CO2 emissions, because an emission tax should probably be combined with the road repair costs (both overweight permitting and fuel tax) and simplify it as a use tax based on weight, mileage, and emissions... then jurisdictions can set standard rates for regions based on repair costs, and potentially price in weights as softer asymptotic limits that would automatically "price out" loads based on their value to weight ratio.
Fantastic video, I love your whiteboard presentations.
Also, you did a great job of not being either a Tesla hater or fanboy. Sticking to the math and exploring each extreme is much more helpful than having an agenda. Good job.
Based on how much my model Y exceeded my expectations, I'm hoping the semi can deliver similar results.
My average load was 40,000lbs of cargo max for my rig is 47,000lbs of cargo putting my at 79000 lbs total weight. 32,000 lbs empty weight. Most of company owned trucks are limited to 65mph. I averaged 7 mpg traveling 1200 miles per tank of fuel average.
10 hours mandatory down time between 11 hours of driving. Averaged 600 miles a day.
Your math is excellent. Just giving you information on what I do in real world
Now you can tow the tesla trucks when the die on the way.
Nice video. My prediction, I think these trucks will have to cost well over $200k. I think we are going to see them as regional delivery vehicles, probably for well funded big businesses that want to show off as modern and green, well before we see them as long haul, over the road trucks. That’s how technology develops though. There will be many lessons learned and the technology builds on itself, often in surprising directions.
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
Thanks for the video. You answered a lot of questions I've had for years about the electric semis. It will be interesting to see how they perform in the real world. I now work for a company that's had to implement electric trucks in California because of the change in laws and they are finding out the trucks are not able to complete their routes due to battery issues. These trucks are still in their initial testing phase but they're not looking promising with the current technology. I see the same issue with the semis because we use a lot of power that's not accounted for by just running down the road, cheap air conditioning lights radio, on board communications equipment for our work. So it'll be interesting to see how well these things hold up in the long run. But I do seriously appreciate you getting a weight estimate for these trucks because that has been the big question on a lot of truckers' minds because we know how much our trucks typically weigh and that will be a big factor on what we can do with the electric ones.
Thanks for the feedback. Expect more videos very soon. Send a direct message on telegram I have something for you.
Thanks for watching. Congratulations you have been selected among the lucky winners
The only way I see this working on an interstate truck, where coast to coast transport is required, is for major companies to re-create the 'Pony Express'. Whereas, drivers would swap out tractors, at a fixed interval. Granted, this is done today, as many trailers are dropped, and then re-hooked by new drivers (in different trucks). Local deliveries, may be where this would shine, considering present technology. Having owned/operated a semi-tractor, I would have loved to been able to accelerate to 60mph (loaded) in 20 seconds. Also, this works for non-refrigerated loads. If the intent is to power the 'reefer' unit off the tractor, the range will be lessened.
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.
I think a big element is the intended use. They won't work for everything but they may work very well in other scenarios. I would love to see some math about how the air quality of smoggy cities, like my own, could be improved if electric semi's took over the short haul traffic in the area.
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.
Was just thinking about this channel's solution for grid overload--staggered charging--used level 2 chargers as a baseline; I now realize that those won't be used in future cars, which will pull much higher kW
I wonder if you could do a Tesla vs Volvo truck showdown or get some real data from a weekly or monthly service route from a logistics provider to get some harder numbers?
I've seen so many claims, debunks, fanboys, haters and so on go on and on about this. This is by far the best video on the subject, both shining light on stuff that sounds crazy but is completely doable (1400kwh charging etc), and stuff that might not be super accurate. Perfect video!
not 1400kwh - he said 1400kw charger for half an hour
Always love your videos. Very well put and well researched. On this specific topic I think a couple factors are missing like brake wear cost, regular maintenance cost, regenerative braking (which should be significant because of the weight of the loaded truck), etc…
@@jcd-k2s I believe you’re mistaken. On Teslas the regenerative braking is so strong that you almost never use the brakes which is called “one pedal driving”. It is very effective. As for the recharge, the heavier you are, the more momentum you create which requires more energy to slow-down/stop. Therefor this energy can be re-used and put back in the battery pack. So there is definitely a difference with the amount of power you can regain as the weight increases.
I am unfortunately not knowledgeable in Toyotas and WV hybrids as I’ve never driven them and never looked at how they work so I can’t tell what the differences are.
@@jcd-k2s I think you’re missing the point. Re-gen doesn’t give you all your energy back, it gives you some of it back. In the exemples shown in the video, re-gen was forgotten or just not mentioned. Every little bit count when we talk about range, especially for a truck. Teslas can charge at 250Kw and I’m sure the new semis will be able to charge with more power… Even if the re-gen gives a big spike of electricity back, I am sure the engineers thought about it and will be able to put as much as possible back in the batteries with minimal loss.
Your exemple is too simplistic and on the sideline of what we are talking about. Nobody said we would get 100% of the energy back… not even 40%… If you had a Tesla you would know that driving on the highway eats up your range pretty bad. Actually, on the highway you can’t meet the advertised range unless you’re too slow for traffic. But if you’re in the city, you usually actually meet the range or even exceed it. Because of re-gen. Yes drag is less in the city but you also put some electricity back in your pack everytime you let go the “gas”. The difference between highway or city is significant due to that re-gen + lack of drag.
Let’s not forget that all range are based on EPA, which is BS but that’s what everyone (?) uses.
@@jcd-k2s And also the video was about cost. And as I mentioned in my original comment, there is a significant difference in brake wear when using re-gen. Now though I’m curious to know how Tesla is going to create the hydraulic pressure and pneumatic pressure for the trailers. I’m sure they thought of it all but it might be quite different and hopefully will work just as well. Another thing that isn’t mentioned in the video (now that I think about it) is also the increase safety for the driver and people around the truck because of Tesla vision. I wouldn’t be surprised if they came with the auto(not really)-pilot. Anyway I’m just thinking out loud now. I think that truck will be good for small trips but not cross country.
I weigh trucks for a living. I can tell you from experience that a truck is normally loaded as heavy as you can get it without being overweight. Highly frowned upon to half load a truck as it is a waste of the freight potential weight
Jason you've done well in your explanation. I like the rational way you used maths and physics to analyse the claims made by this manufacturer. I think you could setup an excel model on line for people considering buying an electric or diesel rig to play with depending on the parameters, eg prevailing winds and grade. Merwin Wilder below for example might like to play with different parameters to get the analysis consisent his experience. That's a good presentation and reminds of some of the calcs we used to do in physics 101.
I think one more advantage of an electric semi is when sitting idle, many diesel trucks run when sitting idle for various reasons. Imagine how much quieter trucks stations would be 😂
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.
The brand "Orange" is already on their third generation of electric yard goat. A yard goat is a truck used to shuttle trailers around a terminal, warehouse, fixed area. Our warehouse uses them exclusively now. I can't speak to their reliability or cost but can say they are used 10 hours a day and perform adequately. Top speed is listed at 25 mph so these aren't viable as over the road transport.
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.
If the famous 500 miles journey was truly fully loaded, backward weight calculations(44000lb load) gives us a tractor weight around 12.5 ton. Around 4 ton more than a average diesel. This means a load capacity of 15-20% less than a diesel truck. That means less income. Shippers will need to change their entire ordering system, you'll need two ev to do the job of one diesel or they will just ship with a diesel. When a business places an order for goods from a supplier they tend to order a full truck to maximise their product vs freight cost ratio. An ev would need a real re think of this ordering. I would expect companies more likely to order diesel trucs than change the way they order freight. An ev could lower freight cost to compensate but then whats the point for the freight company.if their net profit is going to be the same,they will stay with diesel because we know diesel works. Ev is an unknown. And it's not just breakdowns,it's time off the road. If a battery pack fails, what is the cost to my business. What if it partly fails and I have reduced range. As for performance the win is actually a loss. Every own a performance car where tired last about three weeks because your hard on the gas pedal. The Tesla will have the same problem. Weight plus performance are gonna burn tyres up. Especially with wage earning drivers who don't pay expenses.
I now have a new favorite unit, the kWh/lb-ft-mi.
Great analysis. I appreciate the engineer margin-of-safety rounding that you build into your calculations.
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL! And this presentation is a benchmark. No bias, No spin. Like they used to say on Dragnet...... JUST THE FACTS.
This is really going to come down to two things
1- how much the truck actually weighs. As you pointed out, the more the truck weighs, the less cargo you can carry. If it's REALLY heavy, all the gains will be offset for the need of more trips.
2- the longevity of the battery. Will a single battery do 1 million miles? I doubt it, to be honest. If you need to replace it often enough and it's really expensive, there goes all your savings again
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.
Don't forget to subtract fuel weight, semis have between 180 and 250 gallon capacity depending on the tank setup and diesel weighs about 7 lbs a gallon
Here’s what’s funny/interesting me to about the Tesla business model: throw out an idea with a rendering, then reveal a physical version of it, then actually release it years later after the Tesla engineers tried for years to reach the unlikely numbers touted at the reveal.
considering what hoovie experienced with his f150 lightning, seems that load plays a much more important part on total range in real world. My guess is that all these delays are the effect of problems getting the range up
My cousin is working on EV trucks for Muncie. The trucks require more energy than 100 homes( California can’t keep all the lights on now) and cannot summit the passes between CA. And other states, with the best engineering practices available to date. They have dug themselves a septic tank, crawled in and called it Mother Earth 😅
If a professional driver drove like Hoovie, he’d be broke and in jail. More realistic tests have been done. They also show loading losses, but only the vehemently opposed to EV’s like to “cite” The Dumbest Channel on TH-cam. That can be a huge drain on credibility.
I think it's mostly Elon delaying the production start due to lack of batteries. Only recently they have stated that they are no longer limited on batteries.
@@markstevens1729 The Dumbest Channel on TH-cam. That can be a huge drain on credibility.
But when people are having a simple convo, it is the pro EV guys that always start throwing rocks and stones....
Keep in mind that all Tesla's calculations and presentations were based on full load. Load won't take them by surprise.
Also, Elon had said several times that they were restrained by battery production and that the Semi and Cybertruck would be sacrificed until the battery constraints were sorted. The fact that they've announced delivery dates for the Semi indicate that they've solved those battery problems.
This makes me think of an electric dump truck that's in use for mining that rarely/never needs to charge. They ride it up a mountain empty, load it up with stuff, and use the extra potential energy to charge the battery on the way down.
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.
I love your format. Did I say that before? I love having all the formulas, equations and values always present while you talk.
Forget about an electric semi in Australia, just to get an electric car across the Nullabor Plains (Ceduna SA to Norseman WA) , they have installed a diesel generator to recharge the vehicles. The distance is 750 miles, but headwinds can be very strong along that stretch.
Thank you for making this type of content. Despite me not understanding lbs and gallons and whatnot, I learn so much from your videos. Keep them coming!
Well if you can't learn to transfer between retarded and metric measurement systems - what can you learn here exactly, basic English grammar?
Divided by two (pound to kg), multiplied by 4 (gallon to liter) is close enough for the average guy and not hard to remember.
That's pretty childish. I work in metric but to say you can't "understand" basic imperial measurements is pretty silly.
Most industries use both imperial and metric heavily and this won't change for some time.
@@sheldonholy5047you mean most industries in the US.
In Europe, most probably for historical reasons, we still use PSI for local valve pneumatics.
We use inches only for TV size classification.
@@sheldonholy5047 you do realise a lot of us never use those, right?
Thanks for checking numbers, Jason. One of the factors an electric vehicle does not have to consider is the consumable diesel. At 250-300 gallons when loaded that can account for 2,000 lbs from the gvw of 80,000lbs
At least one diesel when you consume fuel, your truck will get lighter and slightly more efficient with an electric truck. You lose range but you still at the weight of the battery
Diesel is still far more energy dense for the weight than any current battery. Always some better battery coming so maybe we should park all the diesel trucks up and wait with no food or fuel or goods till the future nirvana happens....
You lost me at hello! I looked at the whiteboard behind you as you started talking and my brain just went 'NOPE!' ;-)
That was a very nice break down. Just a few things to consider...
Will the battery come with a recommended regular usage zone of 20% to 80% charge ? That would decrease the range quite a bit. Or will they increase the battery size to account for this, meaning the battery might need to be bigger, weight more, and cost more.
Like you indicated, it will require massive power to charge. I could also see them initially using 4 or 6 Quick charging station running at the same time (2/3 on each side), but those will require infrastructure and take a lot of space... I'm thinking the early adopters might need to foot the bill for their own home charging station(s) and those charging station are not going to be cheap, and will also initially limit routes.
I'm also thinking that these trucks will most likely initially be used around ports or for in town short trip that take a long time in traffic with a lots of stop and go as they will need to stay close to those charging station(s). We must also consider that to do the actual full range, there has to be a charging station where they're going, otherwise the range is cut in half because of the drive back.
Yeah I think that electric trucks make the most sense in short round trips, like from docks to train stations or in quarries where you're not as worried to get too far from a charging station and have frequent stop and gos, which take a heavy toll on clutches, gearboxes and engines
You are showing that you know nothing about how trucking and the related economics of the things they carry work.
@@cwx8 Wow, thank you soo much for this detail explanation. I never knew that about "trucking and the related economics of the things they carry work"... Truly crazy the stuff you can learn in the comment section...
Semi's will use dual megachargers
Thanks! Would have enjoyed your thoughts on regen braking 🧐
Regen braking is factored in the overall system efficiency that was calculated.
Yeah Dillon
I made the point that no downhill or tail wind factors were built into the assumptions
Since I'm in Canada and specifically Saskatchewan where the winter gets to -45C worst case but say averages -10C for highs and -19C for lows; I would love to see how that impacts range. You could take that 250 mile range and perhaps drop it another 30%
As long as you don't let the battery get cold, not by much. (This is true of a car but not by as much)
Two reasons
A good portion of 'range loss' in winter for cars is due to heating the cabin.
The battery pack in the semi is HUGE compared to a car's battery so heating the driver of a semi takes a fraction of the pack's capacity.
In a car it takes 1-5 kWh to heat the cabin or 1-6.5% of the battery capacity per hour depending on how cold it is. Drive for 2.5hrs and that's 2.5 to 16% just to heat the cabin.
In a semi that 1-3kWh would be around 0.1% to 0.6%. Hardly noticeable.
Second, the motors in the semi's will be running under such a load that they can help provide heat to the battery to keep it warm.
Tesla cars do the same thing to help warm their batteries when driving in cold weather (as well as to intentionally warm the battery for fast charging)
Let the battery get cold as you might do when driving to work, park the car for 8 hours outside, drive to a store, maybe a restaurant and yes you'll have a very significant 'reduction' in possible range. But it doesn't really matter much because you'll recharge overnight.
EV doesn't really work in such low temperatures, you have to heat the battery to above 0C and keep it at that temperature if you want to get any performance out of it, charging is practically impossible below 0C, you can charge very slowly but even that will cause accelerated battery degradation, the only solution I can see is to develop special battery chemistry and for such extreme conditions but I don't think that will be done anytime soon, first EVs has to prove itself in normal climates.
@@ekstrapolatoraproksymujacy412 you would just need to install a resistive heater in the battery compartment, run that until it's the right temp then you can start charging normally
TRANSLATION: no EV's on the ICE ROADS from Yellow Knife to the mines of DeBeers.
@@phillyphil1513 we have a lot of remote areas for sure but I was just thinking of normal trade with the USA. But yeah you aren’t going to see EV’s on an episode of ice road truckers any time soon.
We are still your largest trading partner and the semi traffic between our counties is considerable so temp in the winter will factor in.
Just for the record I’m pro-ev but I’m waiting 5 years for the industry to mature a bit before buying one.
So as you were pointing out, the drag coefficient is going to be variable. With a 500 mile range it seems that ltl carries that haul doubles and triples would be the most likely to benefit, so that probably affects drag more than a single 53 footer (also, triples can be 105,900 lbs).
would be great if you can update this video with all the details announced at the Tesla Semi event last night.
thanks
Great video! I would like to know how those numbers drop off if the truck is used in winter climates.
Not so much. The usual cited numbers for EV range dropping is about HEAT. Cabin or Passenger or whatever you want to call it "Comfort." And keeping ice from forming on the windshield and glass. In the case of an ICE vehicle, the waste heat from the Engine is used for Heat. In an EV, heat has to be produced from Electricity from the Traction Battery. In this case -- MOST of the Electricity will going to drive the motors, and a much smaller percentage (than a car) for Heat.
@@philtimmons722 In a EV car it's average 20-25% energy use for heat in the cold winter weather ..... Semi cabin is bigger than small car, so it would need a lot. But percentage it would still be less than 5~~8 % for heating :) Still that is about 40 miles drop in range
Regarding the "harder scenario" that starts at 6:13: The truck only ever goes uphill, never down? I ask because it has regerative braking which means that going downhill or decelerating will feed power back into the battery, extending the range.
A truck that has a route that starts at a somewhat higher elevation than it's destination might set out with a battery that's only partly full and go considerably more than 500 miles before it needs charging.
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
A huge problem would be the charging stations. You're going to have to build A LOT of them for this to be viable.
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 think it would be really cool to do a similar comparison of bus powertrains; diesel vs hybrid vs BEV vs trolleybus.
The most efficient is the way locomotives or electric dosers are build. An engine running a generator to power electric drive motors. That configuration isn't considered "green" so that isn't an option according to federal legislation. This move isn't about saving fuel or climate. It's about money. My back ground is 38 years as a technician on trucks, heavy equipment etc.
@@C-Culper4874 It certainly is funny. Diesel electric is very old technology at this point. But apparently not good enough? Also, isn't it funny that all these "green" types are dead set against nuclear power? Have to shut down environmentally friendly, safe nuclear to switch to "clean" natural gas?
@@kingduckford It isn't about good enough it's the fact it is the most efficient at this point. High efficiency means less taxes and less sales. Can't have that and keep an ecomony going. People like me that have been driving the same truck for 20 years is bad for business. Lol
@@C-Culper4874 how is carrying a generator that can't always be utilized more efficient than powering a train with overhead wires
I think these trucks have merit for port to distribution center and other short haul loads in urban areas. We need a few more nuke plants to provide the gigawatts needed for full implementation, but yeah, I can see these being quite useful and cost effective in the right niche.
We, in Europe, already use some 44 ton trucks with the smaller battery packs on the shorter routes between the distribution hubs. Amazon will use Volvo trucks between its centers in Europe and invest 1 billion in electric trucks alone.
Good thing no one listens to you. You aren’t grasping how important this truck is to civilisation. This is an engineering marvel. Without it civilised world is gone in about 50 years.
"A few more nuke plants" pushes the cost from $400k a truck (180k my ass, never happening) to several million dollars per truck.
Not such a great deal. I do suppose you have to work the entire US military budget into the operating cost of a diesel truck to be fair.
@@tigertoo01 In what world is that true?
@@component9008the world you live in. How much oil do you still think is available? Also what kind of atmosphere do you think we will have if we continue on the same path.
Can you update this one we have more info about the semi after yesterday's announcement? It would be interesting to see how these numbers changes from the unknown/guessed ranges to a more precise values.
One thing i noticed that in 1. the semi expected max weight is 15k in 3. it is 20k. What would be a good approach to average these in the whole calculation?
Yeah it is wiser to wait now, until he knows every details. But that is the beuty about Engineering, even if something wrong here, the avarage still relevant, and that what counts really the big numbers.
The 15,000 lbs in #1 is not expected semi weight, it is possible battery weight. It's the Hummer EV battery weight scaled to the Tesla semi kw/h for an estimated battery weight for the semi; somewhere between 8000 lbs bare minimum for the battery alone and the 15,000 lbs for scaled up Hummer EV full battery package.
The 20,000 lbs in #3 is a calculated weight based on the acceleration numbers provided by Tesla, so that's probably closer to the actual weight. A quick search found that a Peterbilt 579 shows a dry weight of 17,600 lbs for reference.
@@Ronald.Gollehertrucks average weight is 20k with fuel. Fuel alone is around 1 ton.
@@cortransport Do you mean one metric ton of fuel? One litre of diesel weighs ~0,85 kg. So you calculate that one truck holds 1176,5 litres of diesel. Isn't that too much or does it hold true?
@@herbaHD i know it this way: a gallon weights about 7lbs. I have a truck with 150 gallons on each side so that’s 300 gallons in total. 300x7 2100lbs plus tanks.
An Australian motoring journalist who is a qualified engineer mentioned advice a senior journalist gave him when he moved over from engineering to journalism: "Listen to what they say and listen to what they don't say." Often what they choose not to say says more than what they say. In the case of the Tesla Semi the choice not to give the power and weight of the battery, the weight of the tractor and the power and electricity consumption of the motors says a lot. They do not want us to know these figures. Therefore the figures go against them.
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...
Great analysis Jason. I love how you always take the worst case, and still follow the calculations through to their logical conclusions.
For future videos, it would be interesting to see the sensitivity of the various inputs for the scenarios you model (ie best and realistic cases). For example here, those for the overall Energy Needed equation (drag coefficient, speed, area etc), to get a better feel as to what’s the main driver of the change.
Keep up the fantastic work! Long time fan here!
What powers the power to re-power the power cells? Oh fossil fuel’s nuclear
@@bobcat9501 So? We already know that. Being "green" isn't the only thing that could be interesting about electrics.
@@bobcat9501 I don't see electric semis being a thing anytime soon. But in fairness, power plants are much more efficient than individual ice vehicles. Vehicles powered by fossil fuel power plants are still greener than ice vehicles (at least as far as powering them goes, don't know about the mining to create the batteries).
@@bobcat9501 Correct, and this was also accounted for when Jason used the average US CO2 per kW near the very end of the video. As it stands now, total emissions for the electric are half that of diesel, with much room to improve further as our grid continually shifts towards renewable sources.
@@JoeRochinski But did he do the calculations using 1 battery pack for 1mil miles? I don't think there is a battery pack out there capable of such a toll. I'm betting that truck would take at least 3-4 battery replacements. That would probably put it neck and neck or worse.
Nice to know how much the braking regeneration will on average be expected to improve the range.
I imagine Tesla is factoring that in to the 2kWh/mi efficiency.
@@mbrick They cant really factor that in in any meaningful way, too big differences between possible scenarios. Altitude differences and the weight of the load matters too much. And there is 2 kind of "fully laoded" trailer, you can load it with heavy stuff and then you have to stop at a certain weight, or you can run out of space before the weight limit. Or you can pull an aerodynamically different trailer.
They can give you a theoretical maximum efficiency, but nothing more relevant to the real world.
@@totherik91 what if i told you they used the most extremely optimistic scenarios possible
It's a lot of weight and they're probably using an independent 3phase induction motor in many wheels like a train so it could be big on some days.
@@drphosferrous Nope. They showed where they are using 3 plaid motors. One engaged all the time, two additional as needed for acceleration.
I've done some math too. And at a charging rate of 1.21 gigawatts and a speed of 88 mph, they might be able to produce a truck by 2019!
You gave some very ideal numbers in a lot of these choices. I wonder how much energy regeneration these can do given the huge load size going downhill. I'm assuming there is a limit to regenerative braking. I would think going after the ports where there are a lot of short drives, load/unload from the ships, would be the place to optimize quickly given the start/stop of that...
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
Great video. Would have loved to see a hydrogen fuel cell truck in the comparison!
Exactly what I was thinking about
Yeah it's a fun idea to mess with, since Semis aren't quite as space limited as passenger cars. Biggest challenge hydrogen is the volumetric energy density, so you have to have a lot of space for hydrogen tanks.
@@Kevin-sy8uf Also how green they are to produce like you can stop the earth from becoming a water world but if you make t wasteland who cares about your green truck?
Hydrogen has a big refuelling advantage as well.
Why bother? Until hydrogen can be produced in a green fashion, its pointless due to the amount of energy consumed to produce it and the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere.
Seeing that your channel is popular gives me hope for humanity
The problem with academics is that they do a bunch of back of the napkin calculations and think they have all the answers while completely lacking any real-world experience.
That would be really great for a country such as France which is smaller than the US and with a high nuclear energy mix (even if it's half shot down right now). Also I don't understand why other truck manufacturers don't do this as Daimler truck boss even said it was physically impossible to do even if you have quiet demonstrated the opposite...
These Tesla trucks are not yet on the road , nor they are working 11/5 like normal trucks do - yet there is a lot of claims that they are doing that most of the engineering people believe its not possible. And Musk has a record of setting up goals/milestones on the stages , so if Musk say something unrealistic you better believe that this is a made up thing that he just invented on the go. And from what we know right now is that Mercedes is already testing their Etruck in like 10 companies with short distance hauling 150-200kmm while tesla is still in their safety test stages where the vehicle itself is not even approved for mass productions.
@@Integroabysal Seriously! Tesla is about to start delivery event in few hours, but you saying Tesla is still in their test stages and not even approved for mass productions. You sound like Gordon Johnson of GLJ
I do not know if France is the best location, since they also have lots of electric rail infrastructure that could accommodate more electric rail freight which would be much better for the environment and also faster than battery electric semi trucks. The smaller semi might be better or maybe more of an Isuzu sized truck
@@Integroabysal These trucks are on the road though, they have been for over a year in rigorous testing. And at least one company in the US is taking deliveries on them this week. It's amazing how much the detractors of Tesla such as yourself seem to ignore the publicly available information regarding the development of their vehicles.
actually Renault Trucks (which is owned by Volvo) had already quite a few of them on the roads already
regen braking on electric semis is so underrated. it recaptures the potential energy on hilly trips but also protects the brakes.
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
It will be interesting to see how EE's calculations compare to the real-world numbers after real truckers use the Semi for a few years.
Lol, have you seen the ford ev truck going only 50 miles hauling a boat or something. Lol, yeah, real world going to kick ev ass.
@@jonellwanger7258 Let's see
I'm a real trucker and real truckers won't/don't want it.
@@carlandrews3037 is that 500 miles loaded limit even worth your while? I mean you guys can go at least a thousand miles on your tanks can’t you?
Each tank being something like 120-150 Gal, 2 tanks, I don’t know what your getting for milage, but even at 6 MPG, that’s 1500 miles on 250 gal. Seems better then the 500 mile
Loaded limit.
@@carlandrews3037 If you don't want then it doesn't mean that all don't want it ...