Tesla delivers there first semi

[FlatBroke]

Tesla semis deliveredhttps://www.foxnews.com/auto/first-tesla-semis-delivered-tech-mystery

Tesla delivered its first production Semi trucks on Thursday night to PepsiCo for use at its California facilities.

The all-electric tractor debuted as a concept in 2017 with an eye on entering production in 2019, but its development and later the coronavirus pandemic caused the date to be pushed off.

The truck arrives with many of the specifications originally promised, however, including a range of 500 miles per charge fully loaded.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk boasted at the event that it is more powerful than a diesel, and that it can accelerate to 60 mph in 5 seconds unladen and in 20 seconds with a full load, but did not reveal its exact specifications."

[time2roll]

Buford's range will get impacted when he loses aerodynamics as the doors and top come off.

[RoyJ]

And its autopilot pulls over on demand...

[Grit_dog]

time2roll wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
^Was first thinking how tough it’d be to play real life Smokey n the Bandit if you had to find the Super charger while dodging Smokey Bear.
Then I realized the truck will probably rat itself out if overweight before u even leave the loading dock!

And what is Buford T. Justice driving? A 350 mile Tesla?

And the Bandit has a Plaid!

[time2roll]

Grit dog wrote:
^Was first thinking how tough it’d be to play real life Smokey n the Bandit if you had to find the Super charger while dodging Smokey Bear.
Then I realized the truck will probably rat itself out if overweight before u even leave the loading dock!

And what is Buford T. Justice driving? A 350 mile Tesla?

[JRscooby]

Grit dog wrote:
^Was first thinking how tough it’d be to play real life Smokey n the Bandit if you had to find the Super charger while dodging Smokey Bear.
Then I realized the truck will probably rat itself out if overweight before u even leave the loading dock!

LOL.
IIRC, the issues Bandit had where not weight. At the time Coors was not distributed in many states, so that tax issue. Another was it would be considered "hot freight", a load he did not have regulator's authority to haul. The time constraints? Montfort of Colorado fleet each did longer distance/shorter times as SOP.

[Grit_dog]

^Was first thinking how tough it’d be to play real life Smokey n the Bandit if you had to find the Super charger while dodging Smokey Bear.
Then I realized the truck will probably rat itself out if overweight before u even leave the loading dock!

[JRscooby]

ford truck guy wrote:
Nearly sure 82k is gross. After all, with the Federal limit of 80, plus the tolerance of 2000 for EV, the legal payload would be zero.

BTW, where does the 2000 fit in the 12/34/34 idea?

I am almost sure the WEIGHT OF 82,000 is the ACTUAL, loaded weight.. There IS NO WAY the empty combo would weight in that heavy.

my freightliner M2's with 48' Conestoga trailers weight in roughly at 30,000 empty with a payload of 50k.... my old Mack R1 and 45' steel trailer was 27,000 empty. unless YOU NEED a 50,000 battery to go 500 miles ?????:h

1977, I picked up pinch over 45,000 of meat in Nebraska, on a company brand new 42 ft Tempe refer and my '67 Pete long nose. Got captured on a outlaw trail in Iowa, escorted back to scale. I expected a big fine, but they axled me out, charged me the $30 for over length, turned me loose. I called the claims department to give them a heads up about my load would be short. When the receiver counted and weighed the boxes, I got clean bills. That means tare for that rig was less than 28,280.
Then in 1997, a friend got hurt, begged me to take his Volvo with 53 ft refer, pick up 45,000 lbs of pork in Mo. Over gross, play hide and go seek to San Antonio

[Reisender]

JRscooby wrote:

Reisender wrote:



From what I gather the YouTube compressed video test shows a 500 mile trip with 82000 pound tare using 94 percent of the battery. San Diego Fremont.

Most likely just a slip, but a normal 5 axle tractor-semi trailer combination with a tare weight of 82,000 would be totally useless.

I would like to know what real tare is.

Yep. Just a slip. Thinking of one thing, writing another. The loaded weight was (I think they used the word) “roughly” 82000 pounds.

[ford_truck_guy]

blt2ski wrote:

JRscooby wrote:

Reisender wrote:



From what I gather the YouTube compressed video test shows a 500 mile trip with 82000 pound tare using 94 percent of the battery. San Diego Fremont.

Most likely just a slip, but a normal 5 axle tractor-semi trailer combination with a tare weight of 82,000 would be totally useless.

I would like to know what real tare is.

I'm wondering if the use of tare in this case, is actual gvw.

I would agree, if that 82k is actual empty tare wieght, it has very little actual payload. My 1509 might have more payload.

Marty

I am almost sure the WEIGHT OF 82,000 is the ACTUAL, loaded weight.. There IS NO WAY the empty combo would weight in that heavy.

my freightliner M2's with 48' Conestoga trailers weight in roughly at 30,000 empty with a payload of 50k.... my old Mack R1 and 45' steel trailer was 27,000 empty. unless YOU NEED a 50,000 battery to go 500 miles ?????:h

[blt2ski]

JRscooby wrote:

Reisender wrote:



From what I gather the YouTube compressed video test shows a 500 mile trip with 82000 pound tare using 94 percent of the battery. San Diego Fremont.

Most likely just a slip, but a normal 5 axle tractor-semi trailer combination with a tare weight of 82,000 would be totally useless.

I would like to know what real tare is.

I'm wondering if the use of tare in this case, is actual gvw.

I would agree, if that 82k is actual empty tare wieght, it has very little actual payload. My 1509 might have more payload.

Marty

[JRscooby]

Reisender wrote:



From what I gather the YouTube compressed video test shows a 500 mile trip with 82000 pound tare using 94 percent of the battery. San Diego Fremont.

Most likely just a slip, but a normal 5 axle tractor-semi trailer combination with a tare weight of 82,000 would be totally useless.

I would like to know what real tare is.

[time2roll]

RoyJ wrote:
If you read the quote closely, it doesn't say actual range is cut form 425 down to 100 miles, just that they'll test on shorter 100 mile routes. Perhaps until there's data to show what's the actual range.

It likely won't be a factor of 4, or even 2. Maybe 425 down to 300 miles. Regardless, it's enough of a range reduction they're willing to test first before sending it out on the same route of a light load.

Yes and that 100 miles might be 200 round trip as there may not be Mega Chargers along the route.

[Reisender]

RoyJ wrote:

Groover wrote:
Personally, I believe that either the quoted VP doesn't have a clue what he is talking about or there is much more to the range reduction than just weight and range. Note that O'Connell never said why the trips would be shorter or why just the initial trips will be shorter. Since he used the term "initially" it is implied that the trucks will eventually be put to work on longer trips.

My personal experience with a Tesla is that weight has almost nothing to do with range. The increased rolling resistance from the extra weight is nearly negligible. There is no way that a legal load would make power consumption increase by a factor of 4.

The reason that ICE engines are affect more by load is that every time they apply the brakes momentum is turned into heat and the only way to replace that momentum is by burning more fuel. An EV turns the motor into a generator which puts the momentum back into the battery for later use. About 10% of the energy is lost as heat but 85 to 90% gets put back to useful work. You can see that in the energy graph where the range actually comes back up when going down hills. You don't see that with ICE engines.

If you read the quote closely, it doesn't say actual range is cut form 425 down to 100 miles, just that they'll test on shorter 100 mile routes. Perhaps until there's data to show what's the actual range.

It likely won't be a factor of 4, or even 2. Maybe 425 down to 300 miles. Regardless, it's enough of a range reduction they're willing to test first before sending it out on the same route of a light load.

From what I gather the YouTube compressed video test shows a 500 mile trip with 82000 pound tare using 94 percent of the battery. San Diego Fremont.

[RoyJ]

Groover wrote:
Personally, I believe that either the quoted VP doesn't have a clue what he is talking about or there is much more to the range reduction than just weight and range. Note that O'Connell never said why the trips would be shorter or why just the initial trips will be shorter. Since he used the term "initially" it is implied that the trucks will eventually be put to work on longer trips.

My personal experience with a Tesla is that weight has almost nothing to do with range. The increased rolling resistance from the extra weight is nearly negligible. There is no way that a legal load would make power consumption increase by a factor of 4.

The reason that ICE engines are affect more by load is that every time they apply the brakes momentum is turned into heat and the only way to replace that momentum is by burning more fuel. An EV turns the motor into a generator which puts the momentum back into the battery for later use. About 10% of the energy is lost as heat but 85 to 90% gets put back to useful work. You can see that in the energy graph where the range actually comes back up when going down hills. You don't see that with ICE engines.

If you read the quote closely, it doesn't say actual range is cut form 425 down to 100 miles, just that they'll test on shorter 100 mile routes. Perhaps until there's data to show what's the actual range.

It likely won't be a factor of 4, or even 2. Maybe 425 down to 300 miles. Regardless, it's enough of a range reduction they're willing to test first before sending it out on the same route of a light load.