Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SsiSsiSsiSsi t1_izyngri wrote

You think Elon Musk would do that? Just go and make false claims for his own benefit? /s

176

burstdiggler t1_izyyjtp wrote

If Elon is lying then why am I making $2K per day using my Model 3 as a robitaxi? It fits nicely in the back of my Cybertruck which still has enough power to tow my Roadster. for like 800 miles. On one charge.

/s

41

SlickTopTommy t1_izz14ur wrote

It’s true, I’m the cybertruck

15

greenbayva t1_izzbrok wrote

The addition of the /s’ makes me sad that it’s needed on Reddit, but I get it.

3

TW_Yellow78 t1_j09yk4x wrote

Did you happen to see the guy that managed to go from San Francisco to New York without touching his steering wheel in 2017. Of course not in a Tesla, he walked.

2

burstdiggler t1_j0a2pnk wrote

I tried that once in my Tesla cause the yoke fell off, leaving me no choice. I made it as far as the first stop sign and then parked under a tractor trailer that my FSD missed.

1

lolexecs t1_izyxunz wrote

Wait, are you saying Musk is cybertrucking the shit out of this?

16

littleMAS t1_izzmemp wrote

Elon's reality distortion field is different than Steve Jobs'.

3

SpecialNose9325 t1_j01760e wrote

Steve Jobs reality distortion field actually delivered. Elon has promised "FSD next year" for the past 9 years.

5

mainelinerzzzzz t1_izzqsq0 wrote

Gross vehicle weight is the maximum weight of the vehicle with its cargo, occupants and all fluids. I’m not sure what a trucks true or rolling weight is called. No lies we’re told.

1

pwalkz t1_j00fgk3 wrote

Remember when he said that truck window wouldn't shatter?

1

PlayfulParamedic2626 t1_izytkhd wrote

There’s a federal limit to how much a vehicle can weigh in total. So the tractor and the trailer can’t be more than 81,000 ish pounds. If you’re over that the truck damages roads and bridges.

So musk is saying his truck can do what every other truck can.

In reality, a giant ass battery pack is heavy so the truck can’t legally move as much cargo because it’s electric.

As someone who’s driven professionally, truckers drive over the weight limit daily.

It doesn’t work in corporate America

133

be-like-water-2022 t1_izz0012 wrote

Don Stracci operates a fleet of freight-hauling trucks and makes a fortune because his trucks travel heavily overloaded.

So while Stracci’s trucks help ruin the highways, his road-building firm repairs the damage.

“It was the kind of business that would warm any man’s heart – business of itself creating more business.”

Godfather

71

AzureBinkie t1_izyy1bq wrote

80K for the tractor and trailer with a 2K additional weight buffer reserved for fuel (so 82K max at the scale.)

Diesel weighs 7.1lbs per gallon and they carry up to 300 gallons. That’s why electric tractors have an EXTRA 2K in weight they are allowed to carry.

44

johnboyjr29 t1_izz1hw5 wrote

I know drivers that try to run their tank down before getting weighted so they are under the weight limit. You can not do that with a electric

28

tuxzilla t1_j0062x2 wrote

My understanding is that electric trucks are given an extra 2,000 pound max weight to account for not having the extra weight from fuel.

19

EarendilStar t1_j00uq6b wrote

You’re being downvoted, but you’re right.

Diesel trucks can be weighed at empty and pass, and then add 2k in fuel weight. Electric vehicles can’t remove the “fuel” for weigh in. So, diesel trucks effectively get to travel at 82k, which means we should allow electric trucks to do the same.

7

GetYourDichotomy t1_izzzce7 wrote

It’s marginal but a charged battery weighs more than a depleted battery. E=mc^2

−8

TbonerT t1_j007ffv wrote

It doesn’t even rise to marginal. The weight gain of charging a battery isn’t practically measurable. It is probably in the single-digit milligram range. Truck scale measure in 20lb increments, or 9,071,800mg.

6

Narvarre t1_izyy1w1 wrote

The vehicle weight limit is legally allowed to be higher for ev trucks I believe.

9

DrScience01 t1_izzctyl wrote

Why? If EV trucks are allowed to do that then why give the limit to diesel trucks

0

TacTurtle t1_izzlp1j wrote

The extra 2k is a fuel allowance, which an electric doesn’t need.

9

armchair0pirate t1_j005c1u wrote

Yes they do. The battery packs.

−6

cheapcheap1 t1_j00bxkx wrote

I suppose the idea is that diesel trucks can get weighed with a near-empty tank, meaning they end up on the road with their weighed weight + fuel on top. EV trucks cannot remove the battery during weighing.

5

lankyevilme t1_izzjglr wrote

They are trying to throw a carrot to the electric truck because the batteries are so heavy. An extra 2000lbs isn't going to make much difference to the roads, but can offset some of the extra weight of the heavy battery packs of the electric semis.

7

Ok-Welder-4816 t1_izzx7f4 wrote

Actually it does make a big difference. Road damage increases proportional to the 4th power of GVW.

Some simple math shows that cars do just a couple % of damage, whereas trucks do the vast majority.

0

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03jpk5 wrote

Trucks do the vast majority of damage, but a difference of ~2.5%, which is about the weight of full fuel tanks isn't going to change that amount by an appreciable amount.

Especially since many states and provinces actually allow more than the federal standard, provided the axle count/configuration meets their rules. Michigan goes up to 164 000lbs with 11 axles and Quebec/Ontario are similar.

1

Sudanniana t1_izz0dxg wrote

It does for a train.

5

-dlb- t1_j00251c wrote

A train would be overkill when you only need one trailer load of stuff

1

atchijov t1_j013az7 wrote

I think it is 80k exactly for ICE trucks, but Electric tracks recently were allowed to be 82k… so it is possible that as a result, Tesla can haul as much as ICW trucks.

Good video with bunch of math checking Tesla claims - https://youtu.be/Uv44W7xa4IU

2

TW_Yellow78 t1_j09y9cw wrote

That assumes unloaded Tesla semi trucks weigh the same as ICW trucks. A big false assumption if you look at the weight of normal EVs compared to gasoline cars.

1

TheMichaelN t1_izyr20d wrote

My gut tells me the tractor-trailer likely had a GVW of 81K, but the unloaded Tesla semi weighs way more than its ICE counterpart, hence the half empty trailer.

Look, if there was any way the unloaded vehicle weight of the Tesla semi was remotely close to that of an unloaded ICE-powered semi, you can bet your ass Elon would hold some major event announcing the breakthrough in batter technology.

Edit: Shit. I meant “BATTERY” technology, but I’m leaving the typo as-is. For all we know, Elon is going to purchase Kodiak Cakes and up his “batter technology” game.

56

Rock_it_Scientist t1_izyv14x wrote

Bisquick has the superior batter technology.

26

Superfissile t1_izz00zd wrote

Krusteaz > bisquick

9

FaeryLynne t1_izz8jtj wrote

Pioneer is better than both Bisquick and Krusteaz

Though I do dearly love the orange and cranberry muffin mix Krusteaz makes. Mom made those every Saturday morning so that's my childhood

2

Floater4 t1_izyzbcw wrote

And BRAWNDO has what plants crave, what’s your point?

7

wtfburritoo t1_izynhf9 wrote

Chances are, if it sounds too good to be true, then it's too good to be true, especially considering the source.

21

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03ll1k wrote

Considering that these are now out in the wild being used by customers, there's not a whole lot of benefit to get out of lying and a lot of downside.

Most people who've worked the math out seem to be pointing out that the Semi weighs between 22-25k lbs, which is 4-5k more than a diesel. With the extra allowance in total weight, the penalty is pretty small.

−1

Weird-Engineer t1_izyq1gz wrote

There is no “may” about it. Tesla lied and the truck did not have a GVW of 81,000 lbs.

14

gerkletoss t1_izzegxz wrote

Unless the tractors weighs 5 tons more than a comparable ICE tractor, in which case it absolutely did.

9

skb239 t1_j02svui wrote

Why 5 tons? Wouldn’t any amount of weight above and ICE tractor/trailer mean the Tesla semi carries less of a load?

1

gerkletoss t1_j035v42 wrote

Because that's the amount that the load was short by that led people to claim that they were lying about the gross vehicle weight

1

skb239 t1_j0362kr wrote

No I get that but if the Tesla semi weight more than some of the heaviest ICE option the Tesla will have to have less load capacity.

1

gerkletoss t1_j03813p wrote

Often, yes, though trucks often drive well below the limit anyway.

And I'm not sure how multitrailer options affect the limit.

2

QuestionableAI t1_izyrl2i wrote

I took a nap yesterday and I totally missed out on what new lies Old Musty has told. Anyone got a correct tally so far? It is 1pm where I live ... how many did I miss?

12

PM_ME_C_CODE t1_izz00mv wrote

LOL...you're going to have to get more specific than "yesterday" because Musk lies on every day that ends in 'y'.

4

upyoars t1_izyrim7 wrote

Can someone translate what "lower GVW than 81,000" means? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

8

domino2064 t1_izysz49 wrote

It means gross vehicle weight and the issue is that the Tesla Semi, demonstrated only had about a quarter to half of the load of a traditional semi, which is important, because in 2017, Musk said that these trucks would be more efficient than trains. 🙄

Also, the charge times aren't super great, and while he was pushing these semis, other automakers were expanding in the short distance, delivery sector with trucks that are arguably more practical and useful.

19

fattymccheese t1_izyz5tb wrote

the article claims 72k lbs assuming a standard allowance of 35k for the vehicle and trailer itself... that's not 'about a quarter to half of the load'.. that's 3/4 of a standard load...

6

Miserable_Ride666 t1_izyttxp wrote

Someone else may do a better job but the total weight of the truck, trailer and load cannot legally exceed 81,000 pounds. Gets more specific by axle.

Most regular tucks you see on the road can haul 40,000ish pounds of freight.

Would love to know what the max cargo weight a Tesla truck can haul.

Also a not completely packed trailer does not mean it's not pulling a full load and it would be spaced out with more in the back to even out the axle weight.

19

Sans_culottez t1_izyv6iu wrote

IIRC they upped the GVW to 83,000lbs about for electric semis, but that doesn’t matter much for long haul trucking, since the current battery package for the Tesla Semi is close to 11,000lbs.

Edit: Ah, it is in fact 82,000lbs: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/pol_plng_finance/policy/fastact/tswprovisions2019/index.htm

7

privated1ck t1_izz0y0j wrote

This guy's YT video says the Semi has special permission to go to 82k pounds.

6

Sans_culottez t1_izz48r6 wrote

It’s a good video, but it has some problems.This only looks at the energy efficiency costs on a per mile basis, a lot of trucking profit is made by moving mass tonnage in a specific timeframe. Even with special dispensation to run at a higher total tonnage, if you’re still losing out on total cargo tonnage it won’t make sense yet.

It can make sense, for mid-range hops from a supplier shipping exactly one product (like coke or pepsi), and would eventually make more sense as charger infrastructure got further down the line. Especially since theoretically you also require less maintenance on EV’s in general.

But semis get in lots of accidents too, and I’ve yet to see one of these go up in flames in a tunnel.

I also question how well the efficiency and torque math works out if they have to go through a mountain range.

Edit: that actually lead me to a horrible thought, like it’s sometime before every car is an electric vehicle, but I know of tunnel accidents that have killed close to a hundred, what happens when every car involved is also a highly explosive hot burning fire that can’t be put out with water?

I could see the internal temps of the tunnel near the accident setting off other batteries and the internal temps of the tunnel in general to be too high to safely deploy rescuing teams. Hopefully this will be less of an issue if we can move to safer battery chemistries.

2

Angry_Tau t1_izz7dkt wrote

Regarding your edit, yes this is absolutely a fundamental flaw. This is one of the many reasons why from a civil engineering perspective, the Loop/Hyperloop (and similar battery-powered gadget-bahns) are laughably bad ideas.

4

Sans_culottez t1_izz7z1k wrote

You can’t even put out those fires without flooding the tunnel with chemicals that will kill humans.

3

gerkletoss t1_izzdsda wrote

Why would hyperloop have a fire problem?

3

Angry_Tau t1_izzjhyp wrote

As far as I'm aware, the basic idea is that the compressor and running gear would all be battery-powered, given that the concept relies on "gliding" through the tube without any contact--ruling out an external power source like a third rail or catenary.

Furthermore, lithium battery fires oxidize themselves--even if the tube were completely devoid of air (which isn't actually the plan anymore), battery fires would still occur.

And finally, the proposed "overhead tube" or underground tube infrastructure makes fire escape much more complicated and difficult. Conceivably, at the very least if you had limited mobility, escaping a sealed steel tube either up or down would pose a significant challenge. Given the nature of historical tunnel fires, even most able-bodied people probably wouldn't stand a chance.

3

privated1ck t1_izz6z3r wrote

This video has lots of problems, lots of assumptions, just look at the comments. But I'm pointing to the 82k weight limit assertion only.

2

Sans_culottez t1_izz7t3o wrote

I think it was worth watching even with its lofty assumptions and math favoring Tesla, because that’s like: best case scenario if they deliver on all of their claims, and only assumes transportation and vehicle costs. And that’s not something that makes them look particularly good even then.

2

privated1ck t1_izzb4h7 wrote

This particular youtuber is not a Tesla fan by any means, he wrote a highly skeptical article about electric versus gas energy efficiency.

But he made a whole bunch of assumptions here that he could have easily gotten more specific on, and left out some significant factors like brake regeneration.

5

Sans_culottez t1_izzbeun wrote

Yeah brake regen can help particularly over inclines on the down slope, but as a contrary: what about when the EV had to be stuck on an upslope in bumper to bumper LA traffic? What about transit lines through the north during winter? Like I’m actually interested in seeing real world efficiency tests.

1

privated1ck t1_izzc61g wrote

Well that's the beauty of regen. Any energy expended during acceleration can be largely recaptured during deceleration, especially if you have 80,000 lb driving the wheels that are driving the generator. the majority of energy that's lost is due to wind resistance and rolling resistance. It's a known fact that electric vehicles are more efficient in stop and go traffic than they are on sustained Highway driving. Which is exactly the opposite of an ICE vehicle. When a truck is going up a grade it is running at a lo enough speed so the drag ceases to be a significant issue. None of this was accounted for in that video that I quoted.

6

Sans_culottez t1_izzcsi0 wrote

That’s cool, I just kinda wonder about the truck that’s been stuck for 4 hours on an upward slope, like it’s not that that it doesn’t happen to ICE trucks either, if they got low on fuel and got stuck, but if that happens, they can get AAA or highway patrol to come out and give them a bit of fuel to get further down the line to the next station. What happens if an EV truck gets stuck in a situation like that where it tried to get over a hump that shouldn’t have taken much power, while not being at peak power itself, and then sat there for so long because of an accident that it could no longer get further up the hill?

1

privated1ck t1_izzg7a8 wrote

I suppose they will bring out a generator 🤣

2

Sans_culottez t1_izzgert wrote

That’s a capable enough fix in theory, but involves a lot more supply costs.

Edit: assuming both trucks have fully functional working engines and have just ran low on fuel:

You pay the person delivering the fuel to the ICE truck, the cost of their time and fuel costs, they deliver it, the truck gets on their way.

It takes maybe 15 mins to refuel the truck.

For a generator: you pay a lot more for the weight of the generator, plus fuel, plus the time it takes for the person who delivered the generator to run it and charge the EV.

It takes 15mins to set up the truck and the generator, and then at least another 30 to charge the truck assuming the best charging and generator tech available.

That’s not an insignificant amount when you consider you are also blocking off a road way to do this for a lot more time.

1

privated1ck t1_izziorg wrote

Only thing that matters to big logistics companies that buy semi tractors, is over the aggregate, does it save money?

Also. I am not an electric truckologist, but I'm not sure that sitting for 4 hours doing nothing but heating/air conditioning the cabin or even running a refrigeration unit on the (presumably well insulated) payload would put a significant drain on a 500 mile battery. And this is a bit of an extreme situation, involving someone who went into the mountains unprepared for the possibility of sitting on a road for 4 hours.

Again with regard to my first comment above, we're not concerned about "black swans", if in the aggregate significant money is being saved on shipping.

1

Sans_culottez t1_izzj0r6 wrote

That’s because at the moment they are allowed to offload a lot of the externalities of their business not only onto their drivers, but on the public as a whole, i see that getting clipped down somewhat (hopefully) as those externalities start being subjected onto the average person in a more readily identifiable way.

1

Sans_culottez t1_j005jfx wrote

Regarding “black swans” when considering a logistics fleet that does not have a fairly secured transit line like trains (again the answer is always trains.), these sort of “black swan” events happen every day on on a major truck transit hub.

And something like a battery tunnel fire is equivalent to a black swan event like the Hindenburg.

You can’t just write them off as statistical noise.

Edit: like this isn’t me just shitting on EV’s it’s obviously the way of the future if you want to survive climate change.

But it’s going to involve infrastructure costs that are not reflected in the price per kwhat hour of travel. Like in general even with ICE trucks I think there should be laws and physical barriers that slow ALL traffic during tunnel entry, and probably roadway laws that make you follow other trucks 3 car lengths away when entering a tunnel.

It’s just when a tunnel accident happens that is full of fires that can’t be put out without killing people, and even then it does millions of damages to tunnel structures, that I think these kinds of logistical costs will actually be considered.

1

privated1ck t1_j008wbr wrote

I'm pretty sure that a semi tractor with full tanks of diesel fuel is just about as dangerous. You can't put that fire out with water either, and in fact diesel fuel flows and floats, making it possibly even more dangerous than a lithium battery fire.

And in a world where major manufacturers choose to pay accident victim's families instead of recalling dangerous vehicles, you can be damn sure it's all about the money.

But that's outside my scope here.

2

Sans_culottez t1_j00a2nj wrote

Well that’s kinda my point, existing regulations about transportation of fuel trucks discourage them from going through tunnels, generally.

1

privated1ck t1_j00cisc wrote

Not talking about a fuel truck, I'm talking about a semi tractor with side tanks full of diesel fuel for the tractor.

2

Sans_culottez t1_j00d6gr wrote

Okay, we’ve already accounted for that for ICE trucking, but we don’t put that shit in our actual total volume of inventory by Mile, even now.

Like I’m not okay with how ICE trucking companies let off their externalities onto their workers and other people that have to be on the road. But they already do it.

And now you’re introducing another very different engine plan that is evaluated without any of of the logistical hurdles, only the specific engine costs.

That’s not gonna work.

1

privated1ck t1_j00eb62 wrote

When you speak of companies who "let off their externalities" onto others, I assume You're about the trucking companies that employee independent truckers who own or lease their own vehicles? Assuming I understand what you even talking about, that's not the model that works best for an emerging technology like this. I'm talking about massive logistics companies with their own fleets. They can afford to absorb the initial costs, and average out the effects of cost and risk over a large number of vehicles over a large amount of time with plenty of capital to cushion the shocks.

2

Sans_culottez t1_j00f40v wrote

Oh no, I I mean all logistics companies that happen to involve truckers. They by and large treat all of their workers like shit, it just gets a lot worse with “independent” trucking companies like you mentioned.

Even the best companies, that treat their workers the best (which basically doesn’t exist in the US), still offload a lot of externalities onto the localities that they work through, they just don’t offload it onto their workers directly.

You end up paying it through taxes to repair your roadways, only that’s the only way you see it when you’re a flyby town with only a gas station, and then wonder why no one in your town ever gets up unless they get out.

Edit: also, I’m not a demon mind that figures all this shit out for the company. I’m just someone with a weird intelligence that just so happened to have a lot of family in the trucking industry.

The demon minds will figure this shit out for the logistics companies, after your town has been burnt to the ground from them figuring it out.

1

privated1ck t1_j00wdcg wrote

This comment thread is getting way off track. The way the trucking industry treats its workers is completely independent of whether those trucks are electric or petroleum powered. The question of whether fleets will replace their petroleum-powered trucks with electric powered trucks is strictly a matter of the economics of one versus the other, all other fixed costs/common considerations being equal. And large companies will be the movers in this space because their economies of scale make the risk proposition worthwhile.

0

Sans_culottez t1_j00wqfe wrote

No honestly it is very much not. The way the trucking industry gets away with pretending it is efficient In the US is by offloading externalities onto its workers and municipalities.

It’s passing the buck right along, and that’s very easy to do so long as someone else gotta pay for it.

Edit: and yo, again about how somebody else has to pay for it, how many truckers you know ended up with a crank habit to make their deadline?

That’s company time you gotta pay on your family line.

0

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03ksye wrote

If it's in bumper to bumper traffic, it will barely be using any energy, so it would give an increase in efficiency.

Cold weather negatively affects range, but that effect will be less significant than with an EV car, since some of the factors such as interior heating and winter tires play a much smaller part in energy usage on a Semi. The cabin may be a little larger than a car, but not substantially so the amount of heat needed will be similar. Semis don't switch tires in the winter.

1

gerkletoss t1_izzdmj8 wrote

>But semis get in lots of accidents too, and I’ve yet to see one of these go up in flames in a tunnel.

EVs have fewer fires per collision than ICEs.

1

Sans_culottez t1_izzdr5l wrote

Yes, but the fires are of a completely different quality and require completely different methods of putting out.

Vodka burns different than styrofoam and gasoline.

3

Ok-Welder-4816 t1_izzynro wrote

Eventually we will get solid state batteries working. Those do not combust no matter what you do to them (short of, like, throwing them in a smelter). They also have many other advantages: much greater density, unlimited lifetime (because of no electrolyte eating away at the poles), ability to use them as structural components, faster charging...

There are such batteries in the works, but the problem they have a lot of catch-up to do. Even if they're 50% better, than current lithium, lithium keeps getting better every year, so it's a moving target... when solid state hits the market in 5 years, it's advantage may be gone, until it also benefits from years of improvement.

Hopefully, eventually lithium tech will hit a plateau, and then it will make sense to switch to pouring all our resources into solid state.

There are also partially solid (gel-like) electrolytes already in use, that are significantly less flammable than liquid.

On the other end of the spectrum, there's research into sodium batteries. These store a lot more energy than lithium, but also make a lot bigger boom. Like the difference between a car fire that's difficult to extinguish and, well, a 2000lb bomb... But for applications where performance is the only thing that matters, they sound pretty cool.

1

swanspank t1_izytcw4 wrote

GVW is Gross Vehicle Weight. That is the absolute total weight of the passengers, tractor, container, and freight typically given for the maximum capacity the vehicle is rated to carry. The question appears to be was that the specified weight capacity it is capable of transporting OR was that the weight of the vehicle and the cargo it was actually carrying during the specific test.

7

TVC15Technician t1_izz1fz5 wrote

There is insufficient evidence for either side of the argument right now. We will not know for certain until a third-party trip is done.

6

geekworking t1_izyycax wrote

Gross weight. So technically they would not be lying if the truck and batteries weighed 80,000 lbs and the cargo was just empty boxes. For all we know a damn Kia Soul could have more cargo weight capacity.

5

kveggie1 t1_izyzayj wrote

Not a surprise.... No data was shared, no independent verification.

5

steve329 t1_izzzwxg wrote

Exactly. Especially when there's a massive incentive for Elon to show the details... that is, if it came close to achieving what he claims.

1

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03mb6a wrote

What's the incentive to lie if these things are now out in the wild and this will be easily verifiable?

Also, Tesla haven't ever mentioned the weight of the tractor, so I don't know where there would be a lie. The 82k lb GVWR is an industry standard, nothing specific to them.

0

steve329 t1_j03suw4 wrote

I'm not saying he's lying. I'm saying he has an incentive to provide details if he's telling the truth. If this all does what musk claims then it will be a potential game changer and he should be shouting that from the rafters. The fact that he's not giving any detail (which he has repeatedly done in the past for his cars) is highly suspect. And, no, none of these specs are "easily verifiable". That's what this thread is all about.

0

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03tmow wrote

What part of the truck isn't easily verifiable when there's customer vehicles being delivered as we speak? You can read the tare weight off the trailer on any Semi you find on the road.

This isn't a Musk thing, it's Tesla, I don't know why people keep referring to a company as "he" here.

It is a game changer, hence the extremely high interest in the product, what specifically are you skeptical about?

0

steve329 t1_j03twd7 wrote

You're saying this as if he's delivered several vehicles. He's only delivered one. If this stuff is so easily verified you should have no trouble providing a link. I'll wait.

0

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03v5uz wrote

What stuff? They showed a fully laden truck in two separate videos, one running up Donner Pass, the other doing an SF-SD run to showcase its range. Is it the range, the acceleration, the efficiency that you're disputing?

Where are you getting your idea that only one was delivered when there were 5 of them at the event and several have been spotted in various places?

And why do you keep referring to Tesla as "he"?

I know you want to hate for the sake of hate, but if you're going to shout conspiracy, at least point out what exactly you think is wrong.

1

steve329 t1_j03w6zx wrote

You know exactly who I'm talking about when I say he. You're not arguing in good faith and I'm not interested in having an argument with a Tesla fanboy anyway. I can't prove a negative either. If you have proof of all of those things "he" said--the very detailed specs that every other semi manufacturer provides-- feel free to post them. I'm sure the reddit community will be happy and your investment in $tsla will finally seem like a good idea.

1

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03ypjk wrote

You keep dodging the question as to what exactly you're not believing and you're accusing me of not arguing in good faith?

Tesla is the company that's making this truck, I'm just telling you to stop anthropomorphicizing it. We don't say GM is a her because Mary Barra runs it, or Ford is a he because Jim Farley's at the helm. Musk is repeating the official specs, just as they would do the same.

The specs are:

500 miles range Tri motors Less than 2kWh/mile efficiency 0-60 in 5s unladen/20s at full load 82k lb GVWR 1+ MW charging (10-80% in 30 mins) 1KV electrical architecture Able to maintain hwy speed up a 5% grade

Which are you disputing?

The only things left open ended are exact pricing, power and the weight of the tractor, which are things we'll know once they're thick on the ground. Pricing is irrelevant at the moment, since all of them are going to the large fleet operators that put orders in. It's also kind of vague since those fleet operators are buying Superchargers and Megapacks alongside the trucks in a package.

0

p38fln t1_izysm79 wrote

How does that video prove anything? Eaton did a demonstration of their new (at the time) Ultra Shift Plus automatic transmission for us in a tractor trailer loaded to max gross weight...it had a dozen jersey barricades in the trailer and nothing else. It wasn't the full but the weight was maxing it out. We weighed it on our scale before leaving.
Fyi the transmission was awesome, we tried to break it right in front of the Eaton reps by doing full stops on steep hills and it just took everything we threw at it.

4

FunkyPete t1_izyujsv wrote

If you google "jersey barricade weight," they weigh 4000 pounds each.

12 of them would weigh 48,000 pounds.

If that means the tractor trailer is loaded to max gross weight, either the tractor weighs 33,000 pounds or max weight is not 81,000 lbs.

6

p38fln t1_izywz9s wrote

Yes, that sounds right. We usually couldn't get more than 47000 pounds on but you could get 48000 if you can precisely control where the load is going and have a sliding 5th wheel and don't fill the fuel tanks up all the way. This truck would have had an 80,000 pound limit, it wasn't an EV.

3

dyyd t1_j00qt1k wrote

Correction: tractor + empty trailer weigh 33,000 pounds.

2

Dan_Flanery t1_izzcggx wrote

We have no idea what the weight of those barricades was, tho. They vary - a lot - and come in many different sizes.

0

p38fln t1_j000bmh wrote

He's probably dead on accurate since that weight would put a standard tractor with a 53 foot dry van at max GVWR of 40 tons

5

J-ShaZzle t1_izyw3t9 wrote

It's trying to prove that the cargo wasn't that heavy and the weight of the truck was high. Which leads to a false "wow" this truck can move this much and still retain miles before charging.

As with the Ford lightning real world tests prove, towing with an electrical vehicle significantly reduces your miles. I can imagine that if the Tesla semi was max cargo, their claims would have to be significantly lower than what they demonstrated.

As it stands, the E350 cargo van seems like the only sensible electric hauler. It is geared towards short sprints around town and daily charging while home though.

I'm not knocking the idea of electric and towing, but there is a ROI with packing weight into a vehicle and it's ability to get miles. Personally, I think current tech allows for a swap of battery packs or trucks to keep drivers going for the amount of hours they travel. It's not like long haul drivers can just stop and charge midway, let alone the infrastructure needed for pull through overnight charging at rest stops. Logistics and tech are currently holding back electric for long hauling, but any progress is good coupled with, having to start somewhere.

3

PM_ME_C_CODE t1_izz0r60 wrote

Current battery tech limitations are why some people are pushing hydrogen as an alternatives specifically for long haul trucking.

Even after taking things like embrittlement and leakage into account, it's probably the best liquid fuel alternative until we can improve battery/capacitor tech to the point it's a non-issue.

Improving battery tech will take time.

We can start mounting hydrogen fuel cells for an all-electric drive-train today.

"But hydrogen is actually grey hydrogen! Why do you hate da urth?"

Fuck you. EV electricty isn't 100% clean either and you're letting theoretical perfection (not even real perfection, you fucking wankers) be the enemy of improvement.

Heavy batteries on big-rigs is a bad idea.

Elon should have been laughed off of the stage when he first unveiled these fucking piece of shit trucks.

2

p38fln t1_j04ykv9 wrote

The infrastructure needed is completely insane, I think Tesla said it would take 2kwh per mile...can you imagine recharging 100 trucks at once after all of them did a 500 mile drive, all at the same truck stop? You get 10 hours to do it before they have to be rolling again. That's a crazy amount of power being sucked in all at once.

1

Makelovenotrobots t1_izyvntx wrote

What no way! I seriously doubt Tesla would lie. /s

3

thebudman_420 t1_izzcm6h wrote

How does this compare to what regular semis can carry as far as weight of a single trailer legally?

Because if they have to make double or triple trips then cheaper electric is negated.

Apparently. Copy paste.

The maximum weight limit on designated state and local streets and highways is 20,000 pounds on a single axle; 34,000 pounds on a tandem; and up to 80,000 pounds on a 5-axle combination, depending upon axle spacings.

Copy paste.

80,000 pounds

Federal law controls maximum gross vehicle weights and axle loads on the Interstate System. Federal limits are 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, 20,000 pounds on a single axle, and 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle group.

3

Badfickle t1_j00qml5 wrote

I've never heard of this website before.

3

Particular-Summer424 t1_izz221k wrote

Where are the specifics posted when this truck went through the Weigh Stations? Need actual unbiased proof.

2

thebudman_420 t1_izzc2z0 wrote

Includes weight of all those batteries?

2

Money4Nothing2000 t1_izz0uf5 wrote

If you look at how many of the concrete highway dividers were loaded, it looked like about 12 tons worth. If that's the max loading of a Tesla truck, that's pathetic.

1

Ancient_Persimmon t1_j03mikc wrote

11 Jersey Barriers weigh roughly 45 000lbs, or 20 metric tonnes.

2

Money4Nothing2000 t1_j08ffmg wrote

I was actually wrong.

Those were 6ft Jersey barriers, which weight about 2400 lbs each, give or take. That's 26,400 lbs for 11 of them.

I've seen flatbeds carrying 20. Here's a truck carrying 18.

−1

Laika_JR1390 t1_izzy5gr wrote

What!? One of Elon Musk’s companies was lying about how well their product worked?

Well I am just shocked, shocked I tell you.

1

TheCrimsonFreak t1_j03kx9n wrote

Musk's flunkies lied to cover a shitty product? Color me surprised.

1

TW_Yellow78 t1_j09r0fg wrote

I'm pretty sure it weighs 81,000 lbs. The empty looking truck bed is easily explained by the weight of the batteries you need for a 500 mile range 81k lb vehicle. That's part of what people told him would be the issue with EV semi trucks, not that its impossible to do now but that its stupid to make one now because semi-trucks are meant to haul lots of cargo long distances. Of course his now became 6 instead of 1 year later but still some of the same issues apply.

If your semitruck is allowed 81,000 lbs but unloaded it weighs 70,000 lbs, it sucks for hauling cargo. Notice he never mentions anything about how much CARGO WEIGHT it can haul. Based on how heavy Tesla's current batteries are for cars (and yes, their cars typically run 25% heavier than gas cars of the same class), a semi truck with their specs would be ~15,000 lbs heavier than a full 2000 mile tank diesel trucks carry. Electric motors would also be heavier than a semi truck's diesel engine.

The 80k weight limit isn't a cap on the limits of a diesel engine, its the cap on how much they calculate roads/bridges/highways can withstand. The weight limit isn't a strongman contest, its because heavier vehicles damage roads. Diesel trucks can in fact haul well over 80,000 lbs. They don't because the law stops them. He's selling to an audience that's never seen a truck weighing station before or something.

1