Tesla's Electric Semi Trucks Are Priced To Compete At $150,000 (theverge.com)

Last week, Tesla unveiled its new four-motor electric Semi but left out one key detail -- the price. "Now that's changed: the regular versions of the 300-mile and the 500-mile trucks will cost $150,000 and $180,000 each," reports The Verge. "There is also a 'Founders Series' which will cost $200,000 per truck." Tesla does note that the prices are "expected" leaving the company some wiggle room on the final pricing. From the report: If those prices and specs stick then Tesla has a potentially disruptive offering with Semi. Most long-haul diesel trucks are priced around $120,000 and cost tens of thousands of dollars to operate each year. Tesla claims its all-electric Semi will provide more than $200,000 in fuel savings alone over the lifespan of the truck.

Comments

Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[RhettLivingston]

wow. Between fuel and maintenance savings, the 500-mile range version will probably pay back double its cost! If that holds true, it will become a "must purchase to stay in business" type of item.

I have long thought it insane that the EV business did not start with RVs first, then big trucks and buses, then commercial vans, then SUVs, and finally cars. The torque and maintenance benefits of electric over diesel should allow it to dominate the big vehicle applications. Anyone who has passed an RV struggling through the Rockies or pulled over to the side with steam hissing out of the engine compartment should know that the big vehicles beg for this tech.

Re:Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[Rei]

More to the point, US trucking regulations are:

  * A 14 hour window containing...
  * 11 hours of driving, with...
  * A 30 minute break no more than...
  * 8 hours since the last rest period

30 minutes break at a megacharger adds 400 miles to a Semi (900 total). At the rated 60mph, that's 15 hours - far more than the maximum drivers are allowed to drive.

Of course, those mileage figures are for 60mph. Speed doesn't affect freight vehicles as much as passenger vehicles (freight vehicles have a lower ratio of aero drag to rolling drag), but it's still significant. Likewise, at higher driving speeds, you burn through miles faster regardless. 70mph with a 30 minute charging stop should be nearly 11 hours driving exactly. For 80mph, you need two 30 minute charge periods to fill up the full 11 hours (but that still comes well under the 14 hour driving window).

Truck speed limits in the US vary greatly. In higher speed limit states, trucks tend to significantly vary in speed, with more time-sensitive goods going faster, while goods where keeping fuel costs down matters more move slower. With electric, since the "fuel" is so much cheaper, you can expect faster driving to be the more economically optimal case (since it doesn't push drivers out of their legal driving windows).

In Europe it's way too easy. It's just simply: 45 minutes break every 4 1/2 hours or less

Re: Between fuel and maintenance savings...

[swillden]

You're going to pay someone for sleeping in a truck?

Obviously not. The driver who is sleeping isn't getting paid, the driver who is driving is getting paid. A lot of couples drive this way. They make almost as much as what they'd make if both of them were driving separate trucks, but without having to spend all of their time apart. It works very well for the truck owner (which is often the couple) because the truck is rolling nearly 24 hours per day, maximizing the return on capital investment.

Of course, what would be an even better use of capital investment is a couple shift-driving the lead truck of a "train", with the following vehicles self-driving. But mega-charging a train could be tricky, and time-consuming. Plus, rolling 24 hours per day will require more capacity than Tesla is putting in the trucks, even with megacharging. The obvious answer is: put batteries in the trailers.

I mentioned this to my brother (who drives trucks, medium-haul -- for a company that has already ordered several Tesla Semis) yesterday, and he pointed out that they don't even have to give up cargo space to do that. Some haulers have experimented with using the undercarriage area for additional cargo capacity. It has some significant advantages, in that it lowers the trailer's center of gravity (good on windy routes) and eliminates the need for an undercarriage fairing, but it's not much used because loading and unloading the undercarriage compartments is difficult. So... put batteries there. It adds weight, but doesn't consume cargo space.

He also points out that his company's tractors stay in motion nearly 24x7, but the trailers spend a good chunk of each day in a depot getting loaded or unloaded. So, if the trailer batteries can be charged while that's going on, there's less need for the tractor to stop moving.

Big batteries in tractors is probably necessary at the beginning, but I don't think it will be too long before the majority of the capacity moves out of the tractors and into the trailers, at least for long-haul routes.