I work with very large fleets making and selling software to them.
Basically none of them are operationally able to go from 15 minute diesel fill ups on any corner to the infrastructure and load planning EVs require. Like they literally don’t have the software or expertise to plan the loads around electric needs without losing money on every load.
Trucking is a single digit percentage margin business. These trucks are more expensive, require infrastructure that doesn’t exist, charge slower, and don’t go anywhere near as far as diesel trucks. And no fleets in North America are ready to figure out converting a 2000 mile long haul over the road route into 5 400 mile EV relays.
Short haul loads? Sure. In places that demand EV on certain timelines (like California).
But for everything else, these vehicles require a fundamental reshaping of transportation in America. Not saying that’s not possible, but it ain’t happening any time soon.
> These trucks are more expensive, require infrastructure that doesn’t exist, charge slower, and don’t go anywhere near as far as diesel trucks. And no fleets in North America are ready to figure out converting a 2000 mile long haul over the road route into 5 400 mile EV relays.
I see this all or nothing argument when discussing new stuff. Same thing was said about passenger cars and quoted as one of the main reasons EVs would never catch on. It looks like a chicken and egg problem until you look at it less idealistically and more pragmatically. If you watch the presentation (and I hope everyone commenting here did that first), it's most likely that the charging infra is part of the package fleet operators buy. They showed battery+solar backed Megachargers that the fleet operators are likely to be using for the near term. With this in mind, those companies that are currently buying these trucks in high numbers, are also definitely buying the charging infra with it. So with this context in mind, charging infra isn't a problem right now. And just like Superchargers for passenger cars, they will only ever increase in numbers.
Slow charging is only a temporary problem and as evolution of Superchargers has made quote evident to date.
From my understanding of US laws and human biology, no one can drive 2000 miles non-stop without taking multiple breaks in tens of minutes each. In fact, Tesla Semi's range is 500 miles because it's right at the edge of how long a driver can safely drive non-stop and right before they are legally required to take a break, during which time they can charge the truck.
If anyone is interested in the opinion of an actual CDL holder, I think the technology has amazing promise and will eventually be adopted for many kind of CDL driving. I used to work for a public utility company (water/waster water), and we had a fleet of about a dozen or so dump trucks then we used whenever we had to dig something up. These were big machines, full size tractors with a dump bed instead of a fifth wheel (the mechanism that semi tractors normally have installed to tow trailers). They also served to tow flatbed trailers loaded with a backhoe, out to the dig site.
Now these machines never left our service area. They were always parked in the same lot every night. Putting in charging infrastructure in that lot would be trivial, and would almost certainly cost less than maintaining our own diesel storage and pumping infrastructure (which we did do because it saved us so much of our working day to be able to fuel everything up in the morning instead of having to drive to a truck stop before starting the work day).
A lot of trucking is local or regional. Those will be the markets that EV makes the most sense for. Where the trucks normally go back to the same lot every night, and the owners can cheaply put in slow charge infrastructure. Could we get EV trucking working for long-haul (a kind of trucking I've also done in the past)? Sure. It will require fast charge infrastructure though. 500 miles is a lot of range, but in long haul trucking, very often you operate in two driver teams, and your truck is always moving. Fast charging could solve that too, but perhaps the solution is to reduce the number of miles that freight spends on the road. Multi-modal shipping could be expanded. Use trains to cover large distance, and try to keep road transportation of freight to the regional level and local level. This is already an option that exists. Multi-modal is already a sub-industry in trucking. This seems like the most logical option to me, but I'm not an expert. Just somebody who has lived the industry for a few years.
Thanks for your perspective. There are lots of people who like to shoot down technologies simply because they're ignorant of all the scenarios that exist. They see only one possible use (e.g. long haul trucking), correctly identify that the technology won't work in that scenario, then proceed to dismiss it entirely because they're unaware of the myriad of other applications.
The problem with these people is that they will go to great lengths to explain to you why your technology won't work in their specific application and feel smug because they think they've cleverly identified a flaw that you didn't think of.
Even slow overnight charging will have to be pretty beefy for these trucks and their batteries though. They're going to expend significantly more energy than your commuter car so they'll have to suck down a lot of juice overnight.
In the areas that companies build their truck lots with diesel depot's there is typically significant power available. The US electrical grid has expanded at a fairly steady rate. I don't see why it wouldn't be able to handle a continued growth rate via electric trucks.
Just to put some numbers out there, the semi battery pack is probably around 850kWh-1MWh. Imagine if this gets drained every day and a company has 10 trucks, the trucks have roughly 10-12 hours to charge (~6pm to 6am). So you'd need 1MW of electrical capacity.
This is equivalent to about 20 modern US homes (200A*240VAC) and not that crazy in the scheme of things. A medium sized factory in the US probably has a grid connection around this size depending on what they do.
The grid also has lots of excess overnight capacity. From the California Independent system operator data, the state has 42,000 MW of total capacity. Overnight demand is below 23,000 MW for much of the night. Even if we exclude the top 20% of capacity as too expensive or polluting, we still have 11,000MW of available capacity today in the overnight window in California alone.
I wonder how much longer the excess in CA will be there. As we are moving more and more towards solar we need more storage to handle shadow and the loads at night.
It's certainly doable but it's not going to be cheap at all. That's at 1300 amp service of 480v 3-phase just for charging plus the chargers to handle that ~100KW of load per truck, to provide that power you're likely going to have the external charger setup instead of just one on the truck itself and those aren't cheap.
If the numbers work, they'll do it. It's not like they're going to get 95% of the way through the design process and then give up because power delivery costs a little more.
If the ROI is there, they'll do it. If it's not, they won't.
Well yeah my point is the ROI is pushed out because of the extra expense of the install and acquiring sufficient electrical service above and beyond the cost of the new fleet.
No, but installing an maintaining diesel tanks and pumps ain't cheap either! Especially if you have to deal with any environmental destruction caused by spillage or leaking tanks (happens way, way more than most people think).
Battery swapping seems like it circumvents the slowness-of-charge problem, both for short haul (port and local urban service) and later for long haul. (Dealing with detours on the latter could be tricky though.)
5 - 10 minute battery swap vs however many minutes charging. Sure it reduces the load carrying capacity and/or range a bit, but it should still be viable for many heavy goods vehicles. Swapping makes it easier to manage battery condition and vehicle utilisation. Over time battery provision/swapping could be outsourced, so the transport company can focus on trucking, not on batteries and their needs.
>I see this all or nothing argument when discussing new stuff.
That's one way to look at it. The other is that you can't pretend that real, tangible, identifiable problems don't exist. And Tesla has a habit of ignoring those.
>Slow charging is only a temporary problem and as evolution of Superchargers has made quote evident to date.
What have the Superchargers proven? That under increased load the locations can become completely overwhelmed? Even with EVs having a single-digit market share?
I haven't met a single person in my neck of the woods that thinks waiting 30 minutes to "fuel up" is remotely reasonable. And that's state-of-the-art. We have a ways to go.
>In fact, Tesla Semi's range is 500 miles because it's right at the edge of how long a driver can safely drive non-stop and right before they are legally required to take a break, during which time they can charge the truck.
Let's wait for some real-world testing before making claims to Telsa Semi's range.
Tesla definitely has a habit of ignoring problems, but in all cases I'm aware of, they're non fundamental issues that can be addressed along the way. They see the bigger picture and aren't focusing on non-crucial details.
> What have the Superchargers proven? That under increased load the locations can become completely overwhelmed? Even with EVs having a single-digit market share?
I'm referring to speed of Superchargers increasing over time. Newer superchargers don't have the drop in charging speed problem when two adjacent stalls are used at the same time.
> I haven't met a single person in my neck of the woods that thinks waiting 30 minutes to "fuel up" is remotely reasonable. And that's state-of-the-art. We have a ways to go.
Well your neck of the wood aren't the current intended audience. Thanks to everyone else who's buying the cars at their current state. They are enabling a future where your neck of the wood can have cars that charge in a few minutes. Oh, and I'm one of them. You're welcome.
> Let's wait for some real-world testing before making claims to Telsa Semi's range.
oooor, they'll ignore the naysayers and make bank eventually, if they don't run out of funding before that. (Or don't go under because their CEO can be a raving nutbar sometimes.)
This. I purchased an EV for the daily commute ~3 years ago. A family member got angry and railed about how it was already a failed technology as they likely couldn't replace their f350 towing 4-wheelers deep into the woods.
Infrastructure takes time; and you don't have to solve every use case at once.
I am very pro EV...but a little concerned that the one thing we do (Hauling a 5th wheel with a diesel) will get legislated away or cot prohibitive before a reasonable alternative is available.
But for the other transportation needs, when I replace the 40mpg commuter, I'm all for it. When we bought the commuter, due to covid math, it was an $8k purchase plus trade. An EV would have been a $25k purchase with trade and I really didn't want to incur that much debt.
You should probably understand that somebody who uses an efficient vehicle for commuting, and a big truck for real big truck things, is utterly an outlier. Most trucks in america have never left the pavement, and the largest thing they carry is a 40 pound bag of dog food. The vast majority of americans buy the biggest truck they can get credit for and drive it everywhere at 12mpg, usually while boasting "It's got a hemi!" as if that even matters after 1980
There's a lot of anecdotal stuff when it comes to these conversations, You see the folks in the 7 seat SUVs commuting (that was me...but at the time I was also schlepping cubscouts a couple of times a month)...The SUV often got airport duty or the wife was taking her girlfriends somewhere....but during the week...it was me in one seat, driving 22 miles each way.
Also, the pollution is a massive issue in the cities, but a guy rolling coal in pudunk nebraska isn't a threat to the ecology, because there's so much ecology. I hate it, it's reprehensible, but it's leff of a factor...also, we're down in the trenches complaining about our neighbor, when the top polluters globally aren't the cars in the metroplex.
> the largest thing they carry is a 40 pound bag of dog food
No. Sorry. People do work with trucks. Tens of millions of people work in professions that it is necessary. More still do home projects or have hobbies that require high tow capacity like hauling an RV or a boat or other trailers. I drive an F350 to haul my fifth wheel. It actually gets 20 mpg when I'm not towing the RV.
You're misconstruing his comment. Not 'No one needs a Truck'. But, 'Most truck owners don't need a truck". I also will say I don't think anyone is talking about taking the option for owning a Truck away either. There will always be incredibly valid use cases for Trucks (and for a long time still; gas/dies. powered ones).
As you gave an anecdotal response, I'll respond in kind. I actually traded in a Tacoma for my EV. I miss the bed ~5x/year. I didn't need a truck; but i liked the option value. I'll likely get another Truck in the next vehicle cycle in a few years.
The vast, vast majority of truck owners use it in some way that a passenger vehicle is completely unsuited for. That there exist a handful of urbanites who drive a truck for the looks alone does not discount this fact. I see the trope a lot, however, from people who have never done blue collar labor in their lives. I had a Tacoma before the F350, I used it for camping and carried a roof top tent on a bed mounted rack. It was great, I never went camping more than when I had that truck. It was so easy and carefree to take a trip to the woods with no packing or planning required.
Those camping trips are why I <3'd my Taco and will likely get something similar in the future as the kids get older.
> The vast, vast majority of truck owners use it in some way that a passenger vehicle is completely unsuited for. That there exist a handful of urbanites who drive a truck for the looks alone does not discount this fact.
No one claimed otherwise. I feel like we've become a nation of, "This isn't right for me so it isn't right for anyone" bigotry.
None of you are bringing any stats to the table, just a bunch of personal anecdotes. And there is a lot of people in the US, no way any of you know enough people to make a reliable claim about what 'most people do' across that large land. But there must be some statistics on this, no?
5th-wheel + truck can be addressed with a giant battery on the 5th-wheel itself. RVs, camper vans, 5th-wheels, etc. are going to have a lot of cool tech and builds here soon.
> It'll cost more...
Yea, everything will. We didn't account for the negative externalities of using fossil fuels properly. Now we're starting to. You also have the rest of the world being lifted out of poverty and there's nothing we can do about it and we'll have to adjust to simply not being as wealthy.
> Sure, but you should stop selling your product like it can do all of those things and more. Its outright lying.
This is the response I hate. Detractors say that to argue against any adoption. It's not a claim any sane proponent (Musk is not sane and no one should listen to him) will make. Will it work eventually for (most) use cases? Yea! But likely not everywhere. Just like there are edge cases Gas or Diesel still don't work well. That doesn't mean to ignore potential where it makes sense.
I bought a commuter car. That's it. When I bought; was more of a novelty as I didn't know anyone else with anything similar.
I repeatedly got angrily shouted at while driving (in a relatively major city), coal-rolled; and heckled by strangers and family members around the dinner table about how poor of a decision I made. 3 years later; I have a nice/fun/convenient commuter car that hasn't needed any maintenance and the trade in is higher than I paid for it. Is it for everyone? No. But that doesn't mean there is a void in value.
I'd never heard of 'rolling coal' before. It's where you modify a diesel vehicle to dump fuel and emit a lot of smoke from the exhaust. As you might expect, people who do this to their trucks are very proud of it; it's usually a 'statement' against environmentalism.
It purposefully wastes diesel which is already much more expensive than gas. It's dangerous for a variety of reasons. It's illegal in the US and parts of Canada, though apparently not well policed. It's stupid.
Picture you're going down the highway not really paying attention to cars around you outside of general safety. Lifted dodge aggressively pulls infront of you; forcing you to spike breaks before it's engine revs and you're completely blind in a giant smog cloud as the truck spews all over you. It's nasty and some seem to hunt EVs to vomit on.
> I have a nice/fun/convenient commuter car that hasn't needed any maintenance and the trade in is higher than I paid for it. Is it for everyone? Is it for everyone? No. But that doesn't mean there is a void in value.
I'm sure you have reasons for downplaying this, but I would follow this with "and told them, in your face losers", or something to that effect.
Saying "saving money and hassle" isn't for everyone is suspicious to say the least. Why wouldn't it be for everyone?
> I'm sure you have reasons for downplaying this, but I would follow this with "and told them, in your face losers", or something to that effect.
Why would I ~ever mention it when it's somehow contentious? Family member in question has a truck that costs ~50% more. Why would I care?
> Saying "saving money and hassle" isn't for everyone is suspicious to say the least. Why wouldn't it be for everyone?
I never told anyone it saved money. I paid ~50% more for an electric Honda Civic. For my area/family group I was a new-tech adopter. I wasn't getting told, "You wasted money!" I was told, "That death trap will explode/catch on fire/not make it through the snow, battery will randomly empty, etc", harangued on the absolute basics on simple fallacies.
You are aware that manufactures face penalties for lying and deception, right? I can't recall Tesla ever being fined for misleading marketing, ever.
> Tesla semi was production ready in 2020
I guess you've never missed a deadline. That's not lying. It's miscalculation.
> and was more efficient than train
A Semi convoy is expected to be cheaper than a train and they re-iterated that in the latest event. No evidence to the contrary so far.
> And whatever other lies musk said back then.
Promised 500 miles. Delivered 500 miles. Turned the impossible (according to pretty much everyone, from Bill Gates, to CEO of truck making companies who joked that Tesla Semi will be breaking laws of physics) into late. Still not lying.
> Musk is prolific deceiver, I dont trust a single thing coming out of his mouth nor his websites.
He doesn't have websites. He has companies that have websites.
> Tesla cars are notorious for its expensive repairs. Its a huge cost and risk switching to it.
Is that why Hertz, that puts the most number of miles on a passenger vehicle has ordered 100000 Teslas, 20% of its global fleet, because it loves to waste money on cost of repair?
Simple answer: the thread has become a tribal flame war. It's not about the content of your comment, but which side you're on.
That said, negative karma on such comments is usually transient, and for that reason, HN guidelines recommended that you don't complain about downvotes. Such cases typically self-correct after a few hours.
In 2017 at the event he said they already had the technology to do truck automated follower convoys today (2017), it was only stopped by regulators. Seems like a complete lie given what we know of how their technology played out and even the single track tesla in tunnels in vegas still use drivers.
On Tesla's own website since around 2016 they said the cars could operate on their own but they only have a driver there for legal reasons (opening scrawl to the video at tesla.com/autopilot). Complete lie, the Nvidia stack and the software Tesla had for it couldn't do it, nor could several later stacks over the years. Regulators weren't what was stopping them unless they are saying they at Tesla are murderous psychopaths and would kill if it weren't illegal.
Tesla making empty claims on this is even more annoying since Toyota, which has a far more conservative approach to AV announcements, thinks this is near-term attainable for their Hino semis.
Tesla hasn't been fined by California because a.) the threat was a stop sale not a fine and b.) the process is still underway. I mean hey, Germany told Tesla to stop advertising autopilot because it was deceptive. But the only punishment that counts is monetary, right?
Some people are intimidated by success of others, especially if they don't have much going on in their own lives. And some people get excited and motivated by it and want to do more. Those would be the caliber of people who end up working at Tesla or SpaceX or Apple, etc and join the fun.
It's really weird isn't it, how at some point Musk became the new focus of Two Minutes of Hate[1]?
Sure, there are plenty of valid and harsh criticisms to make about Musk. I'm sure he'd even agree with a lot of them. But the level of obsession people have with hating him is clearly irrational. There's more anti-Musk sentiment than anti-Putin sentiment!
It's as if people were left feeling empty by Trump's disappearance and then latched onto Musk as the new target for their manic vitriol.
It may be that once these people have become accustomed to hating a public figure in this way that they have trouble letting go of the addiction.
It seems a lot like what happened in ancient Athens when one public figure after another would become the target of a citizen mob and then be banished[2] or executed[3]. It also seemed like an addiction in their case.
Usually the mob would quickly come to regret their decision, which is likely what would happen if Musk went away. Many of these same people would come to realize the value of having Musk around, despite his flaws, to advance space exploration, pro-environment technology, brain injury technology, etc.
> It's as if people were left feeling empty by Trump's disappearance and then latched onto Musk as the new target for their manic vitriol.
I've has the exact same thought. The timeline fits, and it's exactly the same mob of people. Not saying I didn't dislike Trump, but not spending all my time hating him on Twitter.
I will speak honestly and say that drawing from my own experience, it is because people feel duped.
When Musk came to public notice he was a fast-talking, confident, seemingly self-made rich tech autodidact who had personally created industries through sheer force of will and a vision.
He talked to a certain type of person who grew up with sci-fi and optimism for the future through technological advancement, only to see a disgusting anti-intellectualism and fatalism take over during the Bush Jr. years. He really spoke to me and I thought he was the real deal.
Then, slowly and over the course of years we started learning that he was a charlatan who's success was the result of luck, connections, or usurpation. He promises and promises and a lot of the big promises turn out to be laughably impractical or unrealistic to the point that no person learned in the applicable fields would take it seriously.
We learn about the subsidies that underpins the success, we learn about the terror that he puts his employees through, we learn about how he treats his family, and how he uses real people's lives and serious events as ways to increase his publicity and image with no concern for any negative effects on others.
The real 'ah-ha' moment for me was when he accused the British diver who risked his life and career to rescue trapped children in an underwater cave of being a 'pedo', because they didn't want to use his useless submarine idea.
And all the while, whenever he announces something, the fans and public rant and rave about a new revolution -- "vacuum tube transportation", "going to Mars in 5 years", "exactly like trains, but instead, cars!", etc. When we mention the problems with these ideas, and that Musk isn't really the best person to be advocating things that he knows nothing about, the fans retaliate with personal insults. "You are just jealous"... etc...
And then when he starts to lose popularity he turns 'free speech' and starts catering to a very unpleasant type of crowd (in many people's opinion). When you start appealing to the right-wing because your reputation took a nose-dive, then you are, um, "not a good person".
After a while it becomes a binary thing -- Musk == bad. I have to stop myself from thinking that way, but every time there is a raving fan talking about the new thing he is a genius at, it rears its head again.
> it's most likely that the charging infra is part of the package fleet operators buy
That inherently means short haul trucking which parent says is feasible. With long haul trucking, I’m almost never at a location owned by the fleet operator. Pepsi and Anheuser Busch may have long haul routes that are exceptions, but you can see from the other trucks they are buying they are doing a lot of short haul trucking. They’ve both also bought BYD trucks for the same locations that have a range of 125 miles, so they don’t need the 500 mile range for their activities.
Short-haul EV trucking in an area eventually leads to building enough charging stations that longer-haul becomes feasible on some routes, because charging infrastructure is several areas overlaps, or almost overlaps. This fuels (heh) further expansion.
Who has the financial incentive to build charging stations?
Both out and back and point to point operators will build charging infrastructure at their own hubs/terminals and use them for themselves.
You might see truck stops adding "public" chargers after that EV trucks become commonplace (in the same way that truck stops have fuel discount programs for member fleets) but how will EV trucks going to become commonplace if private operators using their own infrastructure are 99.99% of users?
Truck stops are thin margin. I don't see them making the investment without a need. Maybe if a big player (e.g. Swift, Walmart, etc) wants to convert to EV and kicks in a bunch of money to have their fuel partner make the capital investment. But I don't think that's going to happen until EVs are so good that it's a "profitably without nearly any doubt" type investment. You'll probably need to see a decade or two of short haul EV trucks and the accompanying refinement before that happens.
> Who has the financial incentive to build charging stations? Both out and back and point to point operators will build charging infrastructure at their own hubs/terminals and use them for themselves.
Don't forget that Tesla will probably end up building the most number of chargers over time. Charging is its own business with its own margins (e.g. Supercharger network). In other words, it's a source of net income for Tesla so as they build more trucks, they'll build more chargers as they've done to date with passenger cars and Superchargers.
I think in most states within the US, generation is a hard problem to solve because of state regulation. There are some outliers (Texas) but in general its hard to just start your own power plant thats connected to the grid.
Yep. Kinda like manufacturing cars is highly regulated. Or selling them without local dealerships. Or manufacturing industrial warehouse-sized batteries. Or building and operating an international network of charging stations.
They have a well-known solar roof program, which is generation, but home-scale.
Maybe a huge charging station which has to have large buffer batteries anyway would benefit from a large solar-panel field nearby / above it, if land price is acceptable. That would be a natural extension of the solar roof business.
Charging stations are cheap compared to diesel pumps, it’s not a huge logistical challenge, just some hardware, space, and an electrician to turn things on.
Chargers at truck stops can only be good for their margins, who would have to cater to people waiting for their trucks to charge on things they actually make money in (hint: it’s not diesel or electrons).
In the UK I imagine electric trucks will first be involved in deliveries between regional distribution centers on routes with known logistics.
I'm not convinced we'll see electric trucks take over the world in the medium term but I'm sure they'll be visible on our roads in the next 10 years, if only in limited roles.
In 10 years we will be deep into the decarbonization of transportation.
Maybe that doesn't mean electric. But if you can get 500miles today at reasonable efficiency then this is one of the really really easy things to decarbonize early. All you need are truck stops with good charging every couple of hundred miles. There are other sectors that are infinitely harder and almost certainly won't work with electric barring unforeseen breakthroughs (e.g. aviation).
In reality most truck drivers struggle to find an overnight parking space with access to a toilet or shower. Drivers work long hours and don't have any flexibility to just drive onto the next place if they can't plug in at one station, often only having minutes left of their allowed driving hours. The availability of charging stations would need to be far better than even existing parking spots.
It might not be impossible but it's not easy by any stretch.
Sure but even within the UK there are people who "tramp" in trucks. They set off on Monday morning and don't return home until Friday night taking mixed loads between premises and sleeping in lay-bys and industrial estates each night without so much as access to a toilet. They don't do 2000 mile runs but they still cover 2000 miles in a week. It's hard to imagine acceptable infrastructure being added to make this work.
Eastern Europe companies operate for months with the drivers living in the trucks. It’s brutal how money is made there. German highways are full of these trucks. 2 guys in a truck do 1000 miles every day except Sundays when the trucks can’t move on highways.
> That inherently means short haul trucking which parent says is feasible.
The parent put a weird disqualification on it that it will only work if demanded by the state. That’s a weasel word word of saying that it will be terrible and nobody will use it unless forced.
I don't spend huge amounts of capital for no reason, so why would a low-margin trucking company?
That said, if the price of diesel keeps up, there is a chance that Tesla trucks plus all the charging infrastructure will be worth it economically for short haul fleets.
I'm honestly surprised they didn't try to launch a truck in Europe first, it seems like a better market.
Rough math on this: $5/gallon diesel with 5mpg = $1/mile fuel cost. 1.7kwh/mile * $0.1/kwh = $0.17/mile. $0.83/mile savings * 400 miles/day * 250 days a year = $83,000/year in fuel savings.
I suspect that charging infrastructure is going to be expensive, but cheap enough that if an operator has multiple trucks, the payback will be pretty fast and the low margins will incentive faster adoption for short haul trucking. Long haul is another beast entirely (don't hold your breath for that industry to come around before well into the 2030s), but short haul should eat this up!
Just in fuel savings over the life of a truck that pays for those whole truck. Not the difference, the entire cost of the truck. Margins in trucking are too tight to ignore that much money.
Getting charging in place is critical, but nobody in trucking can afford to ignore that.
A little cheaper, but in the parts that are different between an EV and a ICE are very reliable. You miss oil changes, but most routine maintenance is still needed (though few people rotate their tires as often as they should)
That's in CA though - and at retail pricing. I suspect most customers will have captive chargers and will be running at industrial rates (so even less than $0.1/kwh).
It is pretty common for anybody with even the smallest fleet to own their own gas pump. Say a farmer with one tractor, or a flower shop with two vans.
In a world with gas stations on every corner, your argument would suggest this is foolish.
So perhaps the owners don't consider it a huge amount of capitol. Or perhaps they've found a reason or two.
But if I operated a distribution center where dozens of trucks were parked at my docks pretty much around the clock, I'd do a bit of napkin math. 1000 square meters of rooftop solar feeding giant batteries connected to 10 charging stations selling juice at $.25/kwh to trucks who are stuck here for the next hour regardless.
And I don't have to pay Exxon a penny and I wouldn't need a constant stream of tankers refilling underground tanks?
Hand me another napkin. How much battery do I need? How often would I have to replace the cables that reach from the dock to the cab? How much do those cables cost? Hmmm. Hand me another napkin...
The nice thing about EVs is we aren't starting from scratch either.
Most distribution centers, factories, etc where trucks load/unload at docks already have 3-phase power from the utility. They may need a transformer and service upgrade or for really large fleets they may even purchase 480 or KV power but when you compare it to the fuel savings its a total no-brainer. If you can save $50-80k per truck per year vs diesel that savings makes the EV trucks free. $1m for electrical upgrades? Sold. Will utilities need to perform distribution upgrades? Yes, but not all at once. They will do the upgrades as demand rises just like they do today.
As many others have noted in this thread it all comes down to your routes and logistics. For local and short-haul where the trucks return to a home base they are an excellent fit. Even if you need 50% more trucks because some of them are always on the charger as I noted the fuel savings make the trucks free so it doesn't matter at all.
It remains to be seen what the maintenance burden is. If it resembles passenger cars in any way I'd expect maintenance costs to be much lower since more components can be permanently sealed with lifetime sealed electric motors so no belts, hoses, bearings that wear out because someone couldn't be bothered to grease them, etc. Some consumables like brakes should also last much much longer.
Short haul, for sure. Long haul the truckers are independent from the place where they deliver to, and so there will be some friction - will the warehouses install charging or - like today - will they expect truckers to take care of charging.
Part of this is how the law catches up. In some states only a utility can legally sell electricity which means billing for charging is weird.
What we have today followed adoption closely, and that existing infrastructure is ripe for adjusting as EVs become popular. Especially the larger truck/interstate stops, that have Starbucks, Subway, showers, etc.
They will have to build some electric infrastructure, the way most EV owners do. The best time to charge a short-haul truck is while it is waiting to be loaded or while it is parked overnight, and both of those will need the operator to own chargers.
For an owner-operator it is indeed all or nothing, and these are more than 50% of all semis.
Stake his livelihood on a dubious technology or stick to the proven one?
Only a handful of companies run thousands of trucks and could afford a small scale experiment.
Package delivery is a different beast, the vans are guaranteed to spend the night at the base every night.
It will take a long time to make enough Semis to replace a large fraction of ICE trucks. So this will be a smooth transition where they are deployed first for duties which make it a nobrainer, like scheduled routes which are driven every day. As the market share raises, the usage scenarios will expand.
It’s hard to find exact numbers but it is likely that OTR trucking accounts for more than 50% of all miles but less than 50% of all trucks.
Many smaller companies have a small fleet of trucks for local deliveries to their branches, and some will be willing to take a look (even if just for the publicity, etc).
Which is one reason for team driving. One person drives while the other person sleeps. E-semis might not have cracked that nut yet.
But they don't have to solve every challenge at once. D-semis have been around forever and still haven't displaced trains. Obviously, they still have value. Where e-semis make sense, people will use them. Same for e-vans and e-bikes and e-tugboats.
And yes, people will still use d-semis and d-vans and gas scooters and horses. And clever people will keep finding ways to get the job done, whatever that job may be.
By "All or nothing" under the 'all' category, I'm assuming you mean huge government handouts for ev companies while poor people get to continue to live constrained to the market of a dwindling supply of used efficient and once cheap petrol engine vehicles.
Inequality has only become worse under the old regime of subsidized private technology and manufacturing.
Sounds like a case of needing to read up on history of innovation and how you don't get overnight mass adoption. I suggest picking up a book on advent of internal combustion engine and the five decades that followed.
> I see this all or nothing argument when discussing new stuff.
When did it become popular to start selling beta products? Did it begin when we all bought into social media?
Apple produced a computer, music player and phone that were a polished step up from what was happening before: build-your-own computer, music with insufficient storage and crap interfaces, and blackberries that only targeted business people.
Underpromise and overimpress me. Enough with this overpromising-because-have-to as if that's the only way to innovate or get investment. It isn't the only way and I wish investors would do a little more due diligence to get behind innovators who know what they are doing, not just throwing money at cool things saying they'll be ready by the end of the year over an 8 year period.
Outcomes speak for themselves. Tesla has had their timelines set back years and they're still ahead of everyone else in every category and their products sell like hot cakes. People who actually care about innovation and progress aren't pedantic about slipped timelines, panel gaps or hiccups, ESPECIALLY on projects that are on the cutting edge. If you think investors, most of whom worked their ass off to build their capital, are so gullible, over so many years, then you're not giving them enough credit (unless you think Tesla is misleading investors Theranos style - at which point, I'm off).
As for the whole Apple situation. If all companies tried to do what Apple does all the time, we'd be living in the stone age. Apple is an exception to the rule in that they're perfectionists in their tiny little bubble. Perhaps you didn't catch Apple's abondoned plan to build their own car. Did you hear about Dyson? Making an EV you can actually sell for profit is something even Apple, with all their money and talent, can't do and Tesla does like it's child play. Tesla has has the highest per unit margin of any automaker out there by factors of 3x and more. Apple does not hold a single candle to Tesla.
Tesla is about to overtake companies like BMW who have existed for 100 years. They already outsell Porsche.
And without having entered into major markets like Pickups, Semis and a number of others.
And they make their margin on EV, while many other companies simply lose money on EV and simply hide that fact. Or make minimal margin on the cars and lose money on EV overall.
Only a few years ago it was widely believed that you can't make money on EVs.
Another concept to look at for margin comparison is the fact all the other manufacturers are still playing the dealer network game. Lots of the profits on the cars aren't going to the old manufacturers, it's going to the local dealers.
Tesla doesn't have dealers, so all the dealer profits go to Tesla.
They are caught up when they start outselling Tesla (or heck become available so one can actually buy one).
Great cars (which I don't think Hyundai/Kia are by any stretch of imagination, from piss-poor software to poor charging infrastructure, but let's discount this for now) can exist at great prices all they want, but if I can't get my hand on one and the 500 or so that show up once every few month get gobbled up in seconds, they practically do not exist at all.
And mind you, the disparity in production is not gonna go away any time soon. They're all limited by battery production and unless they make their own batteries, Tesla has long been in the line to buy batteries from anywhere they possibly can, as much as they can. They don't screw around.
BYD is far more of a competitor to Tesla than Kia/Hyandai have been to date.
EDIT: and Tesla is no exemption here - once they have a Cybertruck selling in competitive "numbers", it becomes competitive. Until then, Rivians and Fords are leading the pack (and I must say, beautifully).
>>they're still ahead of everyone else in every category
Your definiton ^ ...
And, in terms of sales, that might be your definition of 'caught up' but it's not mine.
Well-used analagy applies here: if sales are your KPI then I assume McDonalds is your idea of a fine meal. Sorry, no.
And your dismissal of Hyundai/Kia by definition singles you out as far out there in biased land. I've test drove all three (including Tesla) and done the research. The only reason I haven't bought an ioniq 5 is because I simply can't justify it at the moment (my work-life means it'll just sit in the driveway however much I want it). But they are all ... great cars.
I'll say Tesla are great cars with groundbreaking technology, if ugly. But the Hyundai/Kia are now the better cars (interior, build, comfort) and the all around package. Again, unless you count "sales" as the definition of 'in the lead'.
*Disclaimer: I have a driveway where I can charge over night. If you don't have this, perhaps the supercharger network means something to you. That appears to be the only advantage.
> And, in terms of sales, that might be your definition of 'caught up' but it's not mine.
Good for you
> Well-used analagy applies here: if sales are your KPI then I assume McDonalds is your idea of a fine meal. Sorry, no.
Thanks for that analogy. Yes, one can brag all they want about the best Italian cuisine they had at a top bistro. It means nothing to most people if: they can't afford it, if they can't get a booking for months. McDonalds delivers round the clock, food that's safe and does it fast. I take McDonalds over all of so called "fine" food any day. I value my time and don't want to waste it, waiting on food.
> And your dismissal of Hyundai/Kia by definition singles you out as far out there in biased land. I've test drove all three (including Tesla) and done the research. The only reason I haven't bought an ioniq 5 is because I simply can't justify it at the moment (my work-life means it'll just sit in the driveway however much I want it). But they are all ... great cars.
I have driven all the above (some through friends and Ioniq 5 by asking a stranger nicely), in addition to BYD, Polstar and anything that's available to drive in Australia, multiple times for some. I've owned a Tesla for the past 2 years and have test driven every other model as well. The handling, software, ambiance and interior of all but Tesla (and specifically Model 3) is vastly inferior. As for handling, they all feel like they'll run away and off the road any moment. I'm sure I'll get used to them after longer drives, but Tesla's doing something there that gives me more confidence when handling.
If any of these was significantly cheaper as to make up for their shortcomings, I'd happily recommend them to friends and family. But as they sit right now, no frigging way.
> if ugly.
I don't know what you're talking about!
> But the Hyundai/Kia are now the better cars (interior, build, comfort)
Interior of all the cars above make me feel suffocated. Their build qualities are definitely good but virtually no one I know actually cares, unless shit's falling off the car. Tesla's quality is only getting better. As for comfort, Model 3 has the most comfortable seat of any car I've ever owned (out of 3).
At least with McDonalds, you know what goes into it. They actually have a nutrition label. Show me the nutrition label of the Italian bistro. If you asked, you'd probably get kicked out because you insulted the chef.
So, actually, I'll be way more confident about my health (that's what it's called, not safety, food safety is about you not getting poisoned) eating at McDonalds, than at some rando uptown joint.
Do you really know though? McDonalds has lied in the past quite a bit. For example, they touted their hamburger meat as 100% beef with no additives for quite awhile, then had to fess up when the truth about Pink Slime came out.
Then when they tried to climb on the vegan/vegetarian bandwagon, they had to quickly admit that their fry shortening had beef flavoring added to it, then switch to an entirely different shortening.
> When did it become popular to start selling beta products? Did it begin when we all bought into social media?
Since forever? You're comparing a new product category with already existing and optimized one. To keep close to the topic, think about the history of ICEs and cars in general: the first ones that got popular were all pretty much beta products.
> Apple produced a computer, music player and phone that were a polished step up from what was happening before: build-your-own computer, music with insufficient storage and crap interfaces, and blackberries that only targeted business people.
That's some pretty revisionist history. Apple made solid, polished hardware, in an established market with plenty of competition. About the only large leap they made was with the first iPhone, and it's considered both transformative and very much a beta version.
People forget just how basic (and sometimes bad!) the original of many things was. And everyone has an iPhone now but they didn’t all buy the first one, neither.
The original iPod was Mac only and FireWire, for goodness sake! People made do and it improved over time.
People want EV transportation because the world population is at risk. So they cut some slack to Tesla. Tesla makes compelling vehicles even if flawed. It's ok because it's a step in the right direction. Nothing wrong with that, or is it wrong to have ideals?
People want point of care testing, and everyone is at risk of dying of cancer. Theranos makes compelling equipment even if it is a little rough around the edges. It's ok because it's a step in the right direction. Nothing wrong with that, or is it wrong to have ideals? Oh wait...
The problem with that, is that “Theranos makes compelling equipment even if it is a little rough around the edges. It's ok because it's a step in the right direction.” wasn’t true, and that’s why Elizabeth Holmes was convicted for fraud.
Now, I’m not happy that Tesla is still calling the driving assistance software “autopilot” given some governments are criticising this name choice as misleading, but it’s not like the (limited and not ready) software is completely fictional — it can actually get people from A to B by itself, even if though it really isn’t at the quality level where this is a generally wise replacement for most humans, but only for, e.g. impaired humans in a medical emergency and even then it’s really only sane on highways (old story, but probably still illustrative based on the published safety statistics): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/08/tesla-mod...
However, considering Tesla as an EV company rather than as an AI company: it does what it says on the tin. There’s no secret gasoline tank hiding inside the batteries.
It was true. They had 2-3 working tests running on their machines by the end of the company. They sold over 100.
In my mind, this is the same as advertising "the human is only there for liability reasons" on an L2 ADAS system.
As to what Tesla is, the moment people accept that it's an EV company, I will be happy. The market currently does not, largely due to the insane promises of the company's CEO.
Let's not forget that Elizabeth Holmes was acquitted of defrauding patients. She was convicted of defrauding investors. What's the difference?
What a disingenuous analogy to make, between Tesla that has delivered time and time again and surpassed expectations, led the market for the past 10 years and continues to outsell all of its century old competitors, with Theranos which burnt investor money and never produced a working machine, ever.
"We want FSD some day and are working on it" is aiming high.
Calling it's driver assist Autopilot, calling its software FSD, repeatedly saying "FSD is coming next year" is overpromising, misleading marketing and lying
> Calling it's driver assist Autopilot, calling its software FSD, repeatedly saying "FSD is coming next year" is overpromising, misleading marketing and lying
OK, finally an actual example and the one I expected.
TL;DR is that if Tesla was in fact doing anything the regulators found to be hurting the customers, they would be forcing Tesla to make changes (and they have re FSD in some minor ways). It's fun to make a big deal about nothing but no one is buying FSD and thinking, Tesla robbed me $10K. They get it, play with it, it doesn't do what they promised, they can get a refund for the FSD package, and even a full refund for the entire car. People tend to keep their Teslas, so that's a non issue.
Majority of people don't buy Teslas for promise of FSD (in fact, most don't even believe it). They buy it because right now, it's a great car. As far as delivering great cars is concerned (which is the vast majority of cases), Tesla has delivered time and again.
Also, Tesla has never lied about FSD, only missing deadlines. If anything, their progress has shown anything but any attempt to lie to customers. They are moving as fast as they can and no one in the industry comes close.
I'll be happy to see, for once, someone talk about misleading marketing about anything but FSD. You can take FSD away any day and it won't make a blip of difference to Tesla's sales or margins.
Also, regulators are catching up to "FSD" in many places, but they work slowly. They are also catching up on the promised ranges - unlike "mpg," there is no standard by which the range of an EV is required to be evaluated. All of these rules take a LONG time to put in place.
As far as a refund on the package is concerned, I'm not sure you can actually get one. A friend of mine paid the $10k as a "line jumping fee" to get his car 4 months earlier, and I assume that most informed buyers treat the FSD package the same.
> The Model 3 sedan was being described on Tesla’s Korean website claiming 'can drive more than 528 km on a single charge'. However, on its US website, Tesla describes Model 3's performance as "Go anywhere with "up to" 358 miles of estimated range on a single charge." 358 miles equates to about 576 kms, and much less than what Tesla claimed in South Korean markets. After local media raised the issue and the regulator stepped in, Tesla changed the range from ‘more than’ to a ‘maximum’ 528 kilometres.
What??!! 576km is not much less than 528km, it's more! So Tesla was in fact correctly indicating that the range is more than 528km, because it is! Either this is awful reporting or there is a mistake in there. Also saying "can drive more than" instead of "up to" isn't necessarily an exaggeration, it may simply be a mistake in wording of the website. I give them the benefit of doubt here because I've never seen Tesla advertise range like that. It's often a single number with a testing methodology suffix (like EPA). There is no "up to" or the like qualifiers.
As for the second link, super interesting content. But EPA has certified the range and all other manufacturers are free to do what Tesla does to make their range more appealing. Nothing fishy going on here as far as I'm concerned. Exaggerating range in context of a certification program is moot (unless you're cheating and Tesla is clearly not, according to this article).
> A friend of mine paid the $10k as a "line jumping fee" to get his car 4 months earlier, and I assume that most informed buyers treat the FSD package the same.
Really? You thought this was a compelling example?!!! Have you never bought an "as-is" item from a shop which was on display. You pay cheaper but you can't bring it back for refund if you change your mind. This is common practice in every industry. You wanna be treated differently, you give up some perks.
People who buy FSD package as a way to jump the queue aren't buying FSD, they're buying time and as such doubt they will care about functionality of FSD.
I was referring to people who buy FSD for its current and future capabilities.
> From my understanding of US laws and human biology, no one can drive 2000 miles non-stop without taking multiple breaks in tens of minutes each. In fact, Tesla Semi's range is 500 miles because it's right at the edge of how long a driver can safely drive non-stop and right before they are legally required to take a break, during which time they can charge the truck.
IIRC the same was the case back when Model S was rolled out - the range was intentionally developed to be a little above the legal limit of non-stop driving, which to me provided a pretty solid argument against range anxiety: there's hardly a way to run out of charge on a trip and be a safe and responsible driver.
There is no legal limit for non commercial drivers in the US though? Certainly it's a bad idea and impractical to drive for, say, 24 hours without stopping, but not illegal?
Fair, I checked and it turns out I must have misremembered the legality aspect. There are, however, safety recommendations that strongly urge to take a 30-45 minute break every 3-4 hours of continuous driving, and - IIRC, that was many years ago - the model S range was more than enough if you followed those recommendations and recharged during downtime.
Most, probably 40-something, states regulate it either explicitly or implicitly.
As we know from many other subjects, anything short of federal regulation is roughly equivalent to “unregulated” for the purpose of internet hand wringing.
Typically the drivers attention drops after 2-3 hours of driving, so it is recommended to take a break then. The legal limit for truck drivers in Europe is 4.5h of driving, after which there needs to be a break of at least 45 minutes. The maximum total driving time per day is 9 hours.
While these times are of course not enforced for private driving, they are a good measure for what is safe. Yes, you can drive 5 hours or more without a break, but you need to be aware that this is risky behavior.
Well, it's hard to maintain 80mph in the mountains, it's also less likely to be very warm as you go up. A summer trip to Tahoe from where I live in the central valley is about 2.5 hours and it easily makes that. I am even close to making it home on the same charge.
My memory of driving Washington/Iahado/Montana is that holding speed wasn’t that difficult. Lots of opportunities for acceleration and deceleration. I have never driven a Tesla. Curious to know if it can handle my driving style.
Could it make it from San Diego to Anza Borrego and back?
Commercial truck drivers are subject to different rules. They used to have a bunch of problems, like taking speed and driving for ridiculous stretches. Apparently, the rules in the states are 11 hrs/day max w/ 3 hrs of rest breaks [1].
My mistake, well I certainly don't remember learning anything about legal driving limits- I'd be shocked if those were laws and not some agencies guidelines.
It’s actually kind of crazy that limits don’t exist as it has been demonstrated that lack of sleep is essentially equivalent to driving inebriated at a certain point. I suspect it’s only the logistics of enforcement that prevent it from happening.
Short haul trucking makes up about 80 percent of the industry, while long haul trucking only comprises 20 percent. I’m not worried about these EV semis finding their niche and thriving. For a first gen product it’s a good place to start.
Also the pollution from diesel engines has a far greater impact when used in cities instead of long-haul. Not to mention that trucks put out far more pollution when doing stop-start in cities.
Replacing short haul trucks with electric trucks makes many kinds of good sense all at once.
The same argument can be made for making school buses electric.
I'm worried about the pollution argument. Not in the climate change sense, that's clear. But in the "local air is cleaner".
I've discovered recently that tire wear actually creates about as many particles as exhaust fumes, at least for cars. Tire wear is directly affected by vehicle weight.
Won't electric trucks weigh a lot more than classic trucks?
Actually, I checked now, and Volvo trucks for example, weigh somewhere between 10 tons and 24 tons, but 24 tons for the long cabin, sleeper, a ton of extra features, etc.
So the starting point of the Tesla Semi, for example, is 27 tons according to the article. That puts it at double the average Volvo.
And the worst part for the wire tear (and I think road tear), apparently it scales to the POWER OF 4 (!!!).
Now, trucks also have cargo, so I guess electric trucks will carry less cargo and then we're back at the same values?
> I've discovered recently that tire wear actually creates about as many particles as exhaust fumes, at least for cars. Tire wear is directly affected by vehicle weight.
Even better: in terms of particulates, tire and brake wear creates much more nowadays thanks to particulate filters on exhausts.
That being said local air quality measurements generally don't follow. The air around highways has an increased amount of PMs, but not by a significant amount.
The main difference in favour of EVs is the NOx emissions - diesel trucks produce a lot of that.
Internal combustion cars do filter a lot of the ambient air already - a 2.0l engine at 2500RPM filters 150m3 of air per hour - that's as much as a small air purifier. It's just that it takes all this clean air and uses it for combustion, thus putting in more dirt than it filtered out.
Audi Urban Purifier's turns autos into Roombas. Neat.
Also, I'm wondering about tires which pollute less. Both in their production and usage.
To reduce particulates during use, I'm guessing tires will need to be tougher, less grippy. So might require better active suspension and braking systems to maintain current comfort and safety standards.
Electric vehicles definitely help with particulates from braking. I don't see why they couldn't do active electric braking if required, as apposed to just regeneration.
I imagine most American states have their own limits on axle weight as in Europe. In the UK 44t is the heaviest you can run without additional permitting etc.
It will just be an additional constraint, there are lots of loads which are limited by cubic volume rather than weight. However, it wouldn't work well for say bulk tippers which are almost always at their weight limits (and transporting lots of low value products).
I'm not sure about the braking argument. Trucks spend most of their time cruising along. They also have exhaust brakes and retarders to avoid using the service brakes on hills for example.
Assuming that trucks are weighing the same due to cargo weight (and, usually, you're either space or weight limited... usually both if possible), then tire wear should be roughly the same. It'll be a little more since there is a small allocation (2000 lbs?) extra for electric semis, but not enormously so. The big difference though, is if much of the brake particulates are eliminated thanks to regen braking. That could easily outweigh the particulate addition of the small weight factor.
Also, from a pollution argument, this assumes that you have trucks that are all compliant and healthy. With EVs, there is no opportunity for a truck to have its emission control fail or just are grandfathered in due to age. There's PLENTY of semi trucks I see around where I live that seem to belch black smoke when they accelerate. Replace those with EVs (which, the value proposition would make itself for short-haul diesels should make itself) and you have a noticeably cleaner city.
That isn't even accounting for trucks that idle for long periods of time. When talking about local construction jobs, I've seen rows of semis idling downtown waiting for their turn to pick up rubble or deliver materials.
> I've discovered recently that tire wear actually creates about as many particles as exhaust fumes,
> And the worst part for the wire tear (and I think road tear), apparently it scales to the POWER OF 4 (!!!).
That's very interesting. I'm a default sceptic, but would love to learn more, because if true, that could nullify a lot of the local air arguments. Do you have any sources for these?
Our local high school already has electric school busses! They look exactly like the traditional American school bus, but with a small green stripe, which was surprising, given how many passenger EVs look futuristic.
The school parking lot has solar panels over it, so I assume it charges at school.
Europe has mandatory rest stops of at least 45 minutes, so any software with the ability to plan around those should have the ability to convert them easily to recharge stops.
That doesn’t mean the recharge infrastructure exists overnight, but those same stops are being converted to support the rollouts of electric car fleets (e.g. belgium is going to mandate corporate car fleets convert to electric from 2026).
Furthermore, there are now multiple cities that banned diesel vehicles entering cities. This would actually give electric trucks an edge over diesel ones, this could be a great solution for resupplying supermarkets. Could be good for increasing the margin.
Article 7
After a driving period of four and a half hours a driver shall take an uninterrupted break of not less than 45 minutes, unless he takes a rest period.
This break may be replaced by a break of at least 15 minutes followed by a break of at least 30 minutes each distributed over the period in such a way as to comply with the provisions of the first paragraph.
Does the software actually need to plan the rest stops precisely? Planning to drive X hours over Y hours of real time doesn’t require choosing where the rest stops are in advance, which allows a driver to stop where convenient depending on traffic and other conditions. But if charging is required, then the stop needs to be at a charger, which is a much stronger constraint.
I thought truckers commonly work in teams specifically so the truck can keep moving during mandatory breaks. The driver on break goes to sleep, and their partner takes over.
Here in Europe, that is rather an exception. Also, sleeping while the other driver drives isn't considered as legal resting time. Only time outside the truck is considered legal resting time.
It’s not “common” but it’s definitely frequent for critical pieces of hardware where the cost of 2 days of labor for a second trucker is irrelevant. (e.g. Getting a replacement industrial component blocking a business from resuming operations.)
Whether they are ready or not, they'll have to deal with competitors that won't have to worry about diesel fuel expenses. Tesla is not going to have any demand issues here. If this thing works as advertised (and that seems to be the case) and they ramp up production to 50k vehicles/year over the next two years, there are going to be two classes of truck companies: those driving electrically and those who don't. My guess is that when the dust settles, there won't be a huge market for ice trucks in a few years. Unlike cars, trucking companies operate based on financials. With razor thin margins, decimating fuel cost is going to matter a lot.
Yes - if there is money on the table, someone is going to grab it. Perhaps it's true that "Like they literally don’t have the software or expertise to plan the loads around electric needs without losing money on every load.", but if so those guys are going to end up having their lunches eaten by more nimble competitors that do.
Before Tesla launched model 3, targeted at 35k$, there was another EV launched. Chevrolet bolt launched at the same price range, and at a similar range. It didn't have the sleek look of a Tesla, lacked a supercharger network, and didn't have the lies of self driving, the hype machine and status symbol of a Tesla. As a result, it was a failure. When model 3 was actually launched, and much costlier than originally announced for, it was 50% costlier than the bolt. People still bought the model 3 over the bolt.
So, no, financial scrutiny is not why Tesla sells vehicles. It does because of the hype, the status symbol, the better design, and lies of self driving. And these don't really matter for trucks (except stock market rewarding hype, just like Bitcoin mania). So no, Tesla won't dominate the niche of short haul trucks that EV trucks have opened up.
> Tesla is not going to have any demand issues here. If this thing works as advertised (and that seems to be the case) and they ramp up production to 50k vehicles/year over the next two years
Pretty big “if” they’re chief. While they very well may not have any demand issues, I’m going to go out on a limb and say they’ll probably will have supply issues. Launching the production of a new model is no walk in the park and the organization already seems to have problems with QA on the existing models.
Tesla has a lot of experience with this. They managed growth and profit throughout the covid crisis and related supply chain disruptions and invested in expanding production capacity further all while many of their competitors were basically struggling with staying profitable.
So, I would not dismiss their ability to execute on what they've announced here. They are obviously well aware of supply chain challenges and have been heavily investing in solutions for that. And they obviously waited with this until they had the logistics and manufacturing in place. And it seems that they are re-using a lot of components they already have - like their drive train and batteries. And they do have a lot of new production capacity coming online.
I don't think Ford has particularly struggled to stay profitable making the MachE and Lightning truck. Neither has Volvo (Tesla's biggest competition in the Semi market).
> Basically none of them are operationally able to go from 15 minute diesel fill ups on any corner to the infrastructure and load planning EVs require [... for] electric needs without losing money on every load.
> Trucking is a single digit percentage margin business.
This is a basic economics problem then. The cost of writing the software. The cost of hydrocarbons. The cost of electricity. The cost of time. The cost of maintenance. The cost of breakdowns.
I don't know too much about long haul trucking, but I know a decent amount about vehicles in general, and I have an engineering degree so my knowledge of physics is better than average.
I have yet to see a compelling reason why non-electrified trucks will survive. If you only look at the cost of breakdowns and fuel, and compare it to the cost of time, those breakdowns will pay for themselves. Completely leaving aside self driving technology. Even if we have to pay for drivers for the next thirty years. It does not matter.
Everything else will bend around the basic economics of electrified trucking. The law, the charging stations, the software, the schedules, everything. When an industry has such tiny margins as you correctly observe, an entrance of a technology can that can only serve a niche, but at extremely wide margins compared to existing players, will absolutely dominate.
There is a reason Pepsi is one of their first major buyers. The soft drinks are in the cities. But as these trucks dominate there more research will go into supporting them elsewhere. Fast swappable batteries, MASER charging along highways, more charge points per truck.
It doesn't matter. All these problems will be eaten by the massive wave of cash coming towards them by the early entrants that applied the technology where it was most suited in the short-term.
And then after that we'll get self-driving and it will be truly lights out for the legacy logistics companies. The only question is where in the five to fifty year period that will be.
For trips to very remote places that get shipments once a week or so diesel with the ability to strap on extra tanks seems like a niche that will last for a long time. And collectors will keep a handful of engiens going.
Probably other niches too, but the vast majority seem like ev is the future.
A close friend of ours drove for a food service delivery company.
He picked up a load in the morning, drove a few hundred kilometre highway/city route with a dozen stops during the day, and parked back at the depot at end of day.
Perfect for the Tesla Semi.
There are hundreds of trucks doing similar routes just in our metropolitan area.
There is a huge potential market for these trucks.
Trucks this size. Plenty of full-size semis with full trailers doing deliveries for larger businesses, especially in dense urban areas (like downtown regions) where you need that much trailer space for all the stuff you load.
>But, then how come all of the above companies built empires?
By leveraging credit on those consistent low margins and not being ran as badly as most software companies that could not function without 50+% margins or infininte free credit.
Or by coming up with an adjacent industry that does make profit. (airlines, desktops, phones not made by the korean or fruit companies)
>Or by coming up with an adjacent industry that does make profit.
Or being owned by the company making the profit , after said company realised how much they were spending on 3PL when they already had HR/depots/etc that could be used for trucking companies.
> But, then how come all of the above companies built empires?
Scale based on insane amounts of venture capital and debt. If you're running 450M transactions a day like Mastercard, you only need a few cents per transactions in profit and you have a money making machine.
For example, car companies hand out huge bonuses to employees who figure out even a dollar in lower costs - at the scale of, say, Toyota with 8.6 million cars a year [1], that amounts to 8.6 million dollars more in profit. Give the employee in question a hundred thousand, the employee is happy and the beancounters even more.
Or airlines... when your average plane will always have a number of no-shows (around 5% [2]), it is more profitable to overbook and in the rare case that it does go wrong, pay off someone with 500$ in cash.
Well, do you need profit to make an empire? If your $major_company takes in $100B in revenue and spends it all, that's a lot of money to spend that will pay a lot of people across many industries. I'd say that counts as an empire, and I dare say I like it better than the one where the emperor gets all the ducats.
I have worked in "lower tech"" fields and have worked extensively with trucking companies, so I can somewhat relate to what you are saying and agree it is a bigger obstacle than people in tech give it credit for. However, it is also a nice business opportunity for a software team to build a really important product. Somebody should be able to get VC funding for this. BTW, in my experience, once someone wins this business and a trucking company is using your software, if you don't screw it up badly, you are locked in for a LONG time.
No disagreement with what you said but hasn't the whole pitch for Tesla Semi been for short hauls right now? Short hauls make a ton of sense on paper, limited highway miles where energy use can be highest, lighter loads and more stop and go. With a ev semi it seems that you might be able to take a large part fleet maintenance out as well as fueling logistics.
Probably just throwing food under the bridge but here we go.
Short hauls:
1) Are at slower speeds which for most EVs means greater efficiency.
2) Have more stop and go driving which is more efficient in EVs compared to ICEs. I don't have the papers handy but IIRC there can be more pollutants generated in the acceleration phase of a vehicle, another reason EV makes sense for short hauls.
3) Park at the same facility at night which can have charging setup. Long hauls, unless specific corporate routes, do not have charging infrastructure.
1 goes for any vehicle.
2 yeah, nope no source. EVs weigh more and therefore pollute more when braking so should not be used in cities.
3 no advantage compared to combustion engines.
I've seen some fleets plan their fuel stops using software to take advantage of fuel card discounts they get at certain gas stations, which helps stretch the single digit margins you mentioned. I can see this kind of software being extended to EV charge planning as well.
How many developers can there be making and selling software to truck fleets? Makes me think these are small time operations ripe for disruption a la what Uber did to taxi companies. No offense meant of course! Just wondering :-)
Do you mean the trucking companies or the software developers? The trucking companies aren't small companies by any measure.
Werner Enterprises for example has 13k employees, 8k trucks, and $700M in revenue. And they're a small fry in shipping.
JB Hunt has 30K employees and $12B in revenue.
Swift Transportation has 22K employees, 23K trucks, and $6B in revenue.
Schneider Transportation has 19K employees and revenues of $5.5B.
Many of these companies have in house developers working on custom logistics packages to optimize every single detail of their operations. It's a very small margin business.
I’m in the midst of job search right now and I’m interviewing with two different companies doing shipping logistics. I’ve seen at least one other in the course of this job search. I’m guessing that there’s been a lot of thinking happening in this space already.
> Short haul loads? Sure. In places that demand EV on certain timelines (like California).
> But for everything else, these vehicles require a fundamental reshaping of transportation in America. Not saying that’s not possible, but it ain’t happening any time soon.
Electric trucking doesn’t have to (immediately) take over the entire industry. All that counts is for that first part to be large enough. You see that with electric shipping, too. Short-distance ferries may already be economically feasible. That shipping stuff around the world on battery power isn’t, and maybe never will be, doesn’t matter.
> And no fleets in North America are ready to figure out converting a 2000 mile long haul over the road route into 5 400 mile EV relays.
Uh... I worked for one of the largest LTL companies in the US for years, and to my knowledge all of their road drivers were "home every night". Several runs out West were "hook and turn" - two trucks drive toward each other half the day, meet in the middle, swap trailers, and drive back home.
Further, a 500mi range is starting to get awfully close to the "11 consecutive hour" DOT Hours of Service limits.
In what case is a long haul really required? Other than specialist superheavy or extra wide/long loads, everything should be on a train for those long runs. Modalohr [1] wagons make it very easy, although I have seen a specialised forklift setting semi-trailers onboard [2] trains in Rotterdam. This sort of handling is probably ripe for automation (there is a standard for the trailers, add some tags for computer vision and work on it from there). I saw something recently about a Modalohr-esque system to put hooklift containers on wagons for local waste collection in Switzerland.
My personal dream is that not only is port to industry fully on rails, but local distribution is rail-oriented also, to the point that a significant proportion of deliveries to shops in cities are made using pallets or trolleys loaded on freight trams. I do understand that the unusual nature of America makes this sort of change nigh-impossible, but maybe they could ship their semi-trailers on trains?
Rail companies don't know how to operate the business model required for that. They can get you a train load every day no problem, but if you want a truck once in a while at times not planned well in advance they are lost.
This is a rather unhelpful response given that I'm not sure many would guess correctly. Paper books have been used in the US for decades and electronic devices were made mandatory for most drivers (>8 days out of 30, apparently). Canada is now planning to emulate the US regulations on this.
> An ELD is an Electronic Logging Device that became compulsory in 2017 in the US for commercial driving operations required to keep hours of service records. If a driver has eight or more days worth of duty status logs (out of 30) they will be required by law to use an ELD.
Well, it's still far from EU, but it's something. Although rest times are VERY short.
US:
- max 11h driving after 10h of rest (that sums 21h, so I guess you can drive 14h a day)
- rest 30min every 8h of uninterrupted driving
- max 60h driving a week
EU:
- max 9h driving a day (10h driving allowed twice a week)
- rest 45min every 4.5h of uninterrupted driving
- max 56h driving a week. max 90 every two weeks.
> Basically none of them are operationally able to go from 15 minute diesel fill ups on any corner to the infrastructure and load planning EVs require. Like they literally don’t have the software or expertise to plan the loads around electric needs without losing money on every load.
I understand you saying this is largely a software problem. Taking this at face value, I trust no other transportation related company but Tesla to deliver the best possible software for route planning (or anything really given they're just as big a software company as are in hardware -- see AI day presentations to get a feel of just how large a software effort they're running) if that is indeed a barrier to companies putting orders in for the Semi. I may even have heard them mention something about that in the presentation.
> I think you sorely underestimate how much emphasis large trucking firms put into route optimization.
I know software and I know Tesla's involvement in it. Based on your comment, I'm going to assume, they put maximum emphasis on route optimization, more than any other industry (which is probably false anyway). With that assumption, Tesla is in as good a position as a software company could ever be to hire the expertise (or outright purchase existing companies) and make the best software for fleet management IF that means they'll sell to significantly larger customer base.
That’s the exact same things you could hear 10 years ago regarding electric cats. And now every single car company is panicking to adopt electric, and many countries are going to make burners illegal.
So give out some years. Production capacity isn’t that high anyway, mostly because of battery production capacities.
Isn't the vast majority of trucking 'short haul'. At least in Europe on a long haul, you have to stop quite frequently.
I do see an issue that these truck stops will require massively more electric power and some investment. (Please lets build more nuclear plants).
And in terms of maintenance and fuel cost these trucks should outperform diesel trucks by a wide margin and make up the capx different multiple times over.
The side of the equation you're ignoring is maintenance. Commercial fleets also have garages and FTE mechanics maintaining the vehicles in the fleet. That all costs money and needs to be factored into your cost analysis.
I work for a large public utility generating electricity. We switched our fleet to electric trucks years ago, and not because we're an electric company - frankly our bean counters don't care about that! It all came down to lower operational costs, higher reliability, and vehicle longevity. Being an electric company we don't have to worry about charging infrastructure, but still - the electric vehicles proved to be significantly cheaper to operate, and not just in fuel costs.
> And no fleets in North America are ready to figure out converting a 2000 mile long haul over the road route into 5 400 mile EV relays.
If there are genuine advantages to EV trucking, then I don't see how any of this matters. This isn't a heavily regulated industry and there's very little barrier to entry. If you can save money on shipping by buying a bunch of Teslas and converting long hauls to relays, then someone will just do it regardless of whether the existing players are "ready to figure it out".
Now, are there advantages? We'll see. A lot depends on what happens in the fuel markets in the coming years. But the long term trends point away from diesel for sure.
This is a poor design for Europe which has limits on the length of the tractor and trailer combined. Anybody using this tractor in Europe will have to use a shorter trailer.
Well this only create a market opportunity for a new software, or new software version.
Imho the biggest global challenge is electric supply. And I mean globally, not US + Canada. If we want EV trucks and cars globally we need way more nuclear power than we have right now.
It is all fun and nice to fill USA, Canada and some wealthy countries in Asia, Oceania and Europe with EVs. Will that change a lot in term of climaye change if other countries cannot develop and decent charging network, are struggling already with energy demand or still rely mostly on coal to produce electricity?
I can't take you seriously if you only cite the negatives and not the positives. There's $60k/year of fuel savings to be had here. Show why that isn't enough, rather than ignoring it.
Diesel Trucks margin will go down as more and more regions make it financially less attractive to use diesel trucks. Then the prices for hauling will go u, infra will catch up, software will catch up too, and EVs will become the best choice.
That’s how I expect this evolution to happen. Timelines are difficult to predict though. Looking at the current momentum I really expect the poitn where most new trucks are EV to happen within a couple of years at most, not a decade.
While you have compelling arguments, there's others in favor of taking the hit on efficiency; lower fuel costs, higher efficiency / speed, but probably more importantly, environmental impact. Unfortunately, being more environmentally friendly frequently comes at a cost. But the lower maintenance and fuel costs will help offset some of those costs, in theory.
Geo-Arbitraging Fuel is also not easily attainable. Like they do here in Europe, where you can fill up your >1400-Liter-Diesel tanks with cheaper eastern Europe Diesel and bypass all the expensive Western Europe Fuel that drives you 5000KM.
I would think that for trucks it's make sense for the battery to be in the bottom rail of the trailer and for pit stops for fuel where you could drive over a pit and swap the whole battery.
Battery swaps make no sense for trucking (and never really did for cars). The storage required for batteries would be prohibitive, and the charging location would have to keep a decent number of expensive batteries on hand.
But tesla could own all of it.
If tesla could make the truck 2 batteries, 1 in the truck one in the trailer. Then you make all trucks flatbed, Refueling could be as simple as hitching a new trailer, swapping a container form 1 flatbed to another. Tesla could own the trailers and essentially rent the space. People could buy the trucks and get access to the trailers. And then it's just shipping with iso containers.
Trailers really wouldn't be the ideal place for a battery since they're often dropped off at a site. And that would also take up space in the trailer, adding weight as well. Two batteries would make the entire deal heavy and expensive, and the idea of Tesla owning them wouldn't fly with most shipping companies. Lots of containers are used in intermodal transportation, and that would rely on 100% Tesla Semis everywhere they were used.
Imagine a remote controlled truck and then, later, a fully autonomous truck.
This is what Tesla is aiming for here, they just have to begin somewhere.
This Semi is not a truck, is a data collection tool.
For some customers in some settings this already make sense as it is, but the goal is hit the road and start collecting data as soon as possible.
If that in mind, now imagine a fleet of 20 trucks being remotely monitored by a single driver. Does that make sense for you in terms of logistics and economics?
Basically none of them are operationally able to go from 15 minute diesel fill ups on any corner to the infrastructure and load planning EVs require. Like they literally don’t have the software or expertise to plan the loads around electric needs without losing money on every load.
Trucking is a single digit percentage margin business. These trucks are more expensive, require infrastructure that doesn’t exist, charge slower, and don’t go anywhere near as far as diesel trucks. And no fleets in North America are ready to figure out converting a 2000 mile long haul over the road route into 5 400 mile EV relays.
Short haul loads? Sure. In places that demand EV on certain timelines (like California).
But for everything else, these vehicles require a fundamental reshaping of transportation in America. Not saying that’s not possible, but it ain’t happening any time soon.