Tesla Unveils 500-Mile Range Semi Truck, 620-Mile Range Roadster 2.0

Rei writes: During a live reveal on Thursday, Tesla unveiled its new electric Class 8 Heavy Duty vehicle. As most people familiar with Tesla products would expect, the day cab truck features staggeringly fast acceleration for a vehicle of its size. It can accelerate 0-60 in 5 seconds without a trailer and 20 seconds with a 40-ton gross weight while being able to pull its maximum payload up a 5-degree grade at 65mph (versus a typical maximum of 45mph). The 500-mile range is for the vehicle at full load and highway speeds (80% of U.S. freight routes are 250 miles or less). Tesla also boasts a million mile no-breakdown guarantee; even losing two of its four motors it can out-accelerate a typical diesel truck. The total cost per mile is pegged at 83% of operating a diesel, but when convoying is utilized -- where multiple trucks mirror the action of a lead truck -- the costs drop to 57%, a price cheaper than rail. Tesla went a step further and stole the show from their own event by having the first prototype of the new Tesla Roadster drive out of the back of the truck. With the base model alone boasting a 620 mile range on a 200kWh battery pack with 10kN torque, providing a 1.9 second 0-60, 4.2 second 0-100, and 8.9 second quarter mile, the 2+2-seating convertible will easily be the fastest-accelerating production car in the world. Top speed is not disclosed, but said to be "at least 250mph." The vehicle's release date, however, is not scheduled until 2020.

Comments

Overextending themselves

[The Cynical Critic]

I hope that I'm not the only one worried about Tesla overextending themselves by launching too many new products in too short of a timeframe considering the company's size/resources?

Not saying that they shouldn't try to venture into new markets, but considering they've still got heavily negative cash flow and have still not been able to introduce a new car without significant technical and production-related teething issues they probably should down a bit. All in all the whole thing is starting to remind me of what happened to Escom*.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Overextending themselves

[Rei]

At the same time, they're dependent on scale. It's estimated that a doubling of battery production rates equals a 17% reduction in battery costs. Hence it's in Tesla's interest to sell as many batteries as possible - whether in Model 3s, stationary energy storage, or Semis. It's also notable that Tesla is doing the exact same thing with drive units: Semi uses the exact same drive units as the Model 3 - just 4 of them.

Roadster 2.0, by contrast, is more of a halo car. Pricing hasn't been announced, but it's clearly the sort of vehicle where "if you have to ask, you can't afford it". Hence Tesla's target of 2020 (ages by Tesla's normally overly-aggressive timelines) seems to be "pushing capital expenses down the road".

Re:Model 3?

[Rei]

Is "Model 3?" a question?

if you're asking how production is going: spyshots and VIN tracking currently suggests that they're up to about 100 per week. It got a bit weird because the VIN count stalled out for like a month in the lower 500s, but then suddenly leaped to nearly 1100, and then has been counting backward, filling in the gap. But there's been a real flurry of activity in the past week, week and a half. Multiple parking lots filling and emptying on a near-daily basis with Model 3s of differing VINs. So while it's not clear what exactly got uncorked, something clearly did.

CDL

[DaMattster]

I have my Class A CDL and would love to get a chance to drive one of those. I'll bet the visibility is phenomenal when you're sitting centered in the cab. Furthermore, I'll bet the ride is much smoother due to the lower center of gravity when compared to conventional tractors. This thing would be a driver's dream because you don't have to worry so much about emission system failures and other breakdowns well-known to diesel. The only thing that the driver would still need to be concerned with would be the air brake system. Air brake systems these days are very reliable with the automatic slack adjusters and redundant air supplies. Hell, you could put a solar panel somewhere and make some serious mileage in the desert southwest. You might be able to run the entire truck off of the solar panel and just use the batteries for the night time. As it is right now, re-fueling takes about 15-30 minutes of time off of a driver's clock. By the time the tanks are filled, mirrors and windshields cleaned, and other miscellaneous activities, an appreciable amount of time gets burned. Truck drivers constantly race against their 14 hour drive window.

Re:If it's only 250 MPH, it won't be fastest.

[geekmux]

The Bugatti Chiron can do 250 now, and they claim that after eventual fettling and tuning they will get it to do 300.

It might be the quickest production car, though, which is not the same as fastest.

Bugatti - Spends two years and thousands of man-hours on developing an internal combustion engine and transmission to squeeze a gain of 25MPH faster than the previous model. Eventually becomes a not-so-useful one-seater that runs out of gas in 3 minutes at top speed.

Tesla - Slaps in a bigger battery. Tells customers to hold on tight.

Yeah, I think we know how this race is gonna end...

(FYI, Koenigsegg Agera RS tops out at over 280MPH, so Bugatti already has some catching up to do.)

I beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

Not according to this.

At top speed, a Bugatti Veyron would drain its 26 gallon fuel tank in 12 minutes, having covered only 51 miles.

Re:Top speed

[Lonewolf666]

Arguably, the real limit for responsible drivers is the speed rating of the tires. With some ad-hoc Google research I find no tires for heavy trucks that are rated more than speed class "M", which is 81 mph or 130 km/h.

This said, if you look on old forum threads like http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=97985, you can find statements like this:

No, it's not a myth. A company I worked for had trucks that would go that fast. We had several tractors with Caterpillar 3406B engines set at 425 horsepower. One was always getting worse fuel mileage then the others. We had the local Cat dealer check out the tractor. They went into the computerized fuel system on the engine and were able to show how fast the driver had been running with it. He had been hitting 118 out on I-10 through Arizona pretty regularly. With a few keystrokes they cut his top end back to 85 MPH and the fuel mileage improved a lot. A lot of the tractors on the road have Detoit Diesel 60 series engines set at 500 horsepower and they will also easily run over a hundered if they are geared right and haven't had the top speed set down. Is it smart to run that fast? No way. It takes a lot more distance to stop as you get rolling faster. Trucks running close together to "draft" are just an accident waiting to happen.

But I guess in 2001, speed limiters were not as widespread as today...

Re:Cue the Musk haters in ...

[Rei]

I once read about a high altitude mine that had a custom built electric truck haul ore to where it could be processed and shipped out. The truck actually had to discharge at the bottom, not charge, as the energy it consumed going up empty was less than the energy it recovered going down full.

Re:The Tesla Semi takes 7.2 megawatt hours per cha

[Solandri]

But one thing I did see was that this hunk of shit takes about 7.2 MegaWatt hours per-charge. That's an INSANE amount of power just to keep one of these rigs running. [...] No one needs faster trucks, we need more efficient trucks.

That is in fact why this truck exists. See, the U.S. is weird in that it measures fuel efficiency in MPG. That's actually the inverse of fuel efficiency (which would be GPM, or how many gallons does it take to drive 100 miles). Because MPG is the inverse, it leads to a numerical inversion which tricks a lot of people into thinking what's small is big. (The rest of the world uses liters per 100 km to avoid this problem.) Say you needed to drive 100 miles. How many gallons of gas do you need?

• 6.125 MPG tractor trailer = 16 gallons
• 12.5 MPG large SUV = 8 gallons (8 gallons saved over tractor trailer)
• 25 MPG sedan = 4 gallons (4 gallons saved over SUV)
• 50 MPG Prius = 2 gallons (2 gallons saved over sedan)
• 100 MPG super-car = 1 gallon (1 gallon saved over Prius)

Notice how every time MPG doubles, the amount of fuel saved is only half that of the previous doubling? In other words, the majority of the fuel savings comes at smaller MPG. The +25 MPG jump from a sedan to a Prius only saves you 2 gallons. While the +12.5 MPG jump from a SUV to a sedan saves you 4 gallons. Even though the 12.5 MPG delta seems smaller than the 25 MPG delta, it saves twice as much fuel. How? Because MPG is the inverse of fuel efficiency. Bigger is smaller, smaller is bigger.

So econoboxes like the Prius are actually the worst possible place to put a hybrid or electric motor. The car is already very fuel efficient. You're adding a lot of complexity and cost for very little fuel savings. The best place to put these technologies is in the gas guzzlers - SUVs and tractor trailers. Raising that 6.125 MPG tractor trailer's MPG to 6.67 MPG (a 9% increase in MPG) yields just as much fuel savings per mile as doubling a Prius' MPG to 100 MPG (a 100% increase in MPG).

This whole obsession with high MPG vehicles like the Prius is misguided at best, a terrible waste of money and resources at worst. Musk has done the math and knows this, and knows that the best way to really cut the country's fuel consumption is by improving the efficiency of gas guzzling vehicles like tractor trailers. Which is why he made this electric truck.

Also as a second real serious complaint... who the FUCK said that ANYONE wants a semi truck that can accelerate that fast? You in no way want a semi truck that accelerates like that, you want something that can have an enormous amount of TORQUE, so you can pull heavy loads.

HP = constant * Torque * RPM. That's right, the HP and torque curves for an engine are one and the same, just both axes are scaled differently. (The value of the constant depends on what units you're using.)

Also, an electric motor deals much better with the huge range of power output that a truck needs. From low power at cruise speed, to high power during acceleration. Electric motors are so much better at this than transmissions that pretty much every modern train locomotive is electric. Even if the train still uses fossil fuels, it's energy isn't sent directly to the wheels via a mechanical linkage. It's converted into electricity, which then powers an electric motor which drives the wheels. AKA the diesel-electric locomotive.