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]

https://www.msn.com/frito-lay-tesla-semi-spotted-on-the-road

[RCMAN46]

stsmark wrote:
So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.

Are you going to quit buying products from all companies that may purchase an electric truck or vehicle in the future? If so be prepared to not to be able to purchase anything in the future. EV's are in the future.

If you do not like the handouts, then make your vote count.

[stsmark]

Ok, sorry Time. Ah the glory of being taken out of context. What I was implying is Pepsi could have said thanks to the People of CA for the 15.1 million. I’d imagine we paid for the whole charging facilities. To me it makes it a sort of risk free project on their part and will bias the actual cost of ownership as those numbers won’t be included when they talk about it in the future.
I get that the Petro industry has been getting handouts for ever. I reviewed the grant guidelines for the billions in charge network money in the recent Fed legislation. A large portion is available to private companies for onsite charging facilities.

[time2roll]

stsmark wrote:
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.

That implies the wrong context. Never liked the Pepsi taste. Not switching brands for having a few Semi in the fleet is what I meant.

[JRscooby]

I bet this post I'm quoting will not be considered "political" but any contrary response would be.

Groover wrote:

stsmark wrote:
So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.

I can't blame anyone for taking a handout that is being pushed their way by the government, unless it effects their vote or political donations. The blame lies mostly with the people making the policies.

I think that most often the government policy makers are more often influenced by the donations to help the ones making the donations at the expense of voters.
Maybe if tax policy treated oil industry same as all others as soon as they showed they could be profitable EVs would not need subsidies now?
Or maybe, if back in the '70s when government decided the economy should not be hostage to OPEC, we had done things like leave solar panels on White House, instead of letting the oil companies hold the economy hostage?
Maybe a decade of data from those panels would of spurred development of that industry/reduced fossil fuel dependence without needing the subsidies?

[Grit_dog]

Groover wrote:

stsmark wrote:
So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.

I can't blame anyone for taking a handout that is being pushed their way by the government, unless it effects their vote or political donations. The blame lies mostly with the people making the policies.

Here here…
I’m still a little bent that not only are there no handouts but most of my tax deductions have vaporized as well!
That said, I still like Pepsi over Coke. And I especially like Pepsi over Crown Royal! And I haven’t quit drinking Crown even though Canada is socialist!

At least Pepsi guy didn’t totally drink the Musk koolaid and realizes a truck full of cellophane bags that are mostly air will go further on a charge than a truck full of aluminum cans filled with liquid in more volumetric efficient packaging!
Good to know really cause I’d hate for there to be a BEV surcharge on my BEVerages! Seattle already does that….bad enough!

[Groover]

stsmark wrote:
So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.

I can't blame anyone for taking a handout that is being pushed their way by the government, unless it effects their vote or political donations. The blame lies mostly with the people making the policies.

[Groover]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Reisender 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.

It’s not implied, it’s stated.

Have you done the math? I have. There is a reason that other electric trucks have x amount of range / KWH and and Tesla has 2X's-X/KWH. And it's not because they have a magic battery or battery formula. All you have to do is look at electric pickups and see what they get when towing a tiny trailer and then look at the numbers that Tesla is "alluding" to. All the other truck companies state their numbers and everything is in the open. Tesla is the only company where almost no numbers are given. Funny how that works hu? :S

BTW, you must have a magic Tesla car. Because the more people I pile in my electric car the less miles I get / KWH. It's math and it works. You can't even get a sun roof in my electric car because of the weight and aero penalty.

I do know that when my son used his Model 3 to pull a trailer that was empty one direction and had 3,000lbs in it the other way his overall efficiency was about the same. The effect of the hills was more pronounced but what he lost going up the hills he got back going down.

Aero is a huge factor. It seems to me that many people here are laser focused on weight and mostly ignore the aero effects on efficiency. Weight is important when you are looking a frame strength, hitch setup, drive train cooling and brakes but when just cruising down the road it makes little difference, especially if regeneration is going to be used.

[stsmark]

So I’m thinking this Pepsi douche should be thanking the People of California and the United States for making this possible.
Like Time, I’m buying somebody else’s products here on out.

[Grit_dog]

So what’s the explanation for the worlds most unusual looking temporary barrier?

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

free radical wrote:
Stil shorting T stock,,?keep at it. Don't cry when you're broke tho :B

LMAO

Tesla longs wrote:
Tesla stock declined 15.4% for the week, marking the company’s worst one-week performance in 20 months.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

Reisender 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.

It’s not implied, it’s stated.

Have you done the math? I have. There is a reason that other electric trucks have x amount of range / KWH and and Tesla has 2X's-X/KWH. And it's not because they have a magic battery or battery formula. All you have to do is look at electric pickups and see what they get when towing a tiny trailer and then look at the numbers that Tesla is "alluding" to. All the other truck companies state their numbers and everything is in the open. Tesla is the only company where almost no numbers are given. Funny how that works hu? :S

BTW, you must have a magic Tesla car. Because the more people I pile in my electric car the less miles I get / KWH. It's math and it works. You can't even get a sun roof in my electric car because of the weight and aero penalty.

[free_radical]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

Grit dog wrote:
Just a quick scroll through that video, something weird about those jersey barriers from someone who’s been in heavy highway work his entire career.
Aside from them appearing to be “used” IE a little chipped up at the ends, which makes sense, they are far “whiter” colored than any of the million yards of concrete I’ve poured, set barriers, been around.
That in itself is not a dead giveaway. But the fact that there are no loops for the barrier pins nor evidence of cutoff loops in the ends of the barrier means they are definitively not actual concrete barriers. Period end of story.
They are Jersey barrier shaped pieces of something.

I said that a long time ago Grit. But the fan boi's went all cracker dog crazy on me. :B

And now this comes out:

VP of PepsiCo Mike O'connell wrote:
PepsiCo’s new Semis can haul Frito-Lay food products for around 425 miles (684 km), but for heavier loads of sodas, the trucks will do shorter trips of around 100 miles (160 km), O’Connell said.

Link

Weird? 25 tons of chips must weigh less that 25 tons of Pepsi? Wait what? Ooooooooooohh never mind. It must be the same reason 25 tons of feathers weighs less than 25 tons of lead. Silly me anyway!!!

When Tusk said "fully loaded semi" he must have meant "fully loaded with chips" I get it now!!! :B

Stil shorting T stock,,?keep at it. Don't cry when you're broke tho :B

0.48 sec

https://youtu.be/Foy2FX_g7GU

[Reisender]

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.

It’s not implied, it’s stated.

[time2roll]

Does the VP drive an EV? I would guess not.