Huh. That's quite an assumption on your part to know for certain what their reasons are. Perhaps another possibility is that they don't want to continue annoying customers who have orders in by continually delaying deliveries because of taking all of the produced semis for their own internal use. Just another idea.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Semi General Discussion
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
The truth is that all of the truck manufacturers besides Tesla can produce EV Semis in quantities beyond current demand as all are desperate to sell them, even at huge losses, so that they can continue to sell the allotted number of diesels in CARB states.
It's a demand problem, not a supply problem.
Frito Lay has several times more Paccar EV's, than Tesla EVs, for example. They just don't 'market' in the same way Musk does.
All of these EV semis are limited by the same things, energy density of existing battery packs. Tesla isn't doing anything special here plus they have the complexity of manufacturing heavy duty rigs from scratch competing against manufacturers that have been doing it for a century+.
The fact is that Tesla, has to operate a very significant delivery fleet, and they choose to do it with Peterbilts, not Teslas. Because the plant locations and sales locations are pre-determined, they could could set up the charge locations, haul 3-5 less cars per haul, and pass the increased transportation costs on to the delivery costs of each vehicle, but they choose not to.
...except for where it already is being done. Is this like that "Man shakes fist at cloud" thing?
The world's first semi electric truck with 1,000 kWh capacity is plowing snow in Norway like a boss
For the first time, Norway has used a semi electric truck with 1,000 kWh battery capacity to clear heavy snow on challenging mountain passes.electrek.co
"In Sandefjord, electric plow trucks are already a regular sight, as they’re working well."
All I would say, is be careful believing everything that you read. This doesn't pass the smell test for me personally.
Here is the thing though: Norway and a few other very 'green' countries have unique circumstances that can not be replicated throughout the world. They have small populations, small economies, and importantly a huge number of geo-thermal and other green energy sources that naturally occur for the production of green electricity to serve these small populations. This simply can't be scaled to the rest of the planet.
Burning 182 KWh over 100km 62 miles and with a range up to 630 km 391 miles empty. Either the Truck was going very slow or they were driving very short distances. I just don't see how they were able to get 9 hours of driving time and Plowing.
Exactly. Like I said, just because it was said, doesn't make it completely true or applicable.
The reality is that plow trucks have an important function, in the early very cold hours, while getting terrible economy.
The EV plow truck just doesn't pass the sniff test in real world conditions.
10% of fleet down for weeks or months (wait time on a DEF system for a Kubota skid steer can be weeks and weeks). Then 20% HIGHER fuel expenses on our heavy equipment with DEF systems. $60-80 a day more is not unusual for us between the two heavy logging machines 1 with and 1 without emissions. No longer simple wrenching either, the DEF system goes and you are on a mountain and to resolve things they have to send a service truck 500 miles or send you computers by fedex. Not lovely.
Then there is the maint, a whole set of maint procedures. Keeping DEF from freezing, keeping filters clean, keeping idiots from placing anything other than DEF in the DEF tanks, on and on.
On smaller heavy equipment the emissions systems represent 20-30% of the costs of the system. On the larger systems it is still more, $50k grand reportedly on our $976k harvester. I could really use the fuel savings, less maint, and $50k back.
God help all the little guys doing real jobs without a full time mechanic. I have an emulator coming that should, in theory, work to remove the def system from the harvester, we will see. The emulator would pay for itself just in DEF costs by years end. Then I could hock all the DEF system and save quite a bit on fuel and it will substantially help getting to profits.
Apologize for the rants.
It does tell you the 4860 is not delivering as needed.
The Tesla reveal was almost 7 years ago. Since then only one customer has seen deliveries.
Another very relevant point regarding Tesla EV Semis is this salient point:
All of the other manufacturers have to sell EV Semis, so that they can continue on with the money-making portion of their businesses, which is selling diesel trucks and the associated parts.
Now I don't have a window into what the manufacturers are doing in this regard, but I do know that they are desperate to sell EV Semis and it's not about making money on them. Consider this: for the other manufacturers to sell 19 diesels into a CARB state in 2024, they have to sell 1 EV (5% EV's in 2024, 7.5% in 2025, etc.). Unfortunately, the EV Semis just aren't selling well enough, so that they can continue to sell diesels to match current demand. Dealers in CA have been turning away diesel orders, since about Jan. 8th because they have no allotment as they have not sold enough EV's.
If I was those diesel truck manufacturers, I'd simply give away the Semi EV's, maybe exactly at the cost of the current rebates ($180K/ unit currently). Then I'd take the $500k or so loss per EV unit and simply divide it by the number of diesels the sale of that EV gave them in CARB states. For instance, they could just add $26,316 to each diesel semi to pay for the 'free' EV semi they sold in 2024. In 2026 when they need to sell 10% EVs, well they can spread the EV losses over the 9 diesels they can sell, or $55,555/ diesel unit sold.
Eventually California residents would either elect new leadership that would alter these laws as the cost of everyday goods continues to climb, or the EV Semis would begin to stand on their own and the manufacturers could actually charge a fair market rate for them.
Now consider, Tesla has no diesel's to sale. They are not going to be in the business of selling them at a loss, or even break even. So how can they ever compete in this arena, from a cost perspective? Maybe Tesla can sell their EV credits to the diesel manufacturers and make money back that way?
The one place where EV's make a lot of sense in trucking, is moving trucks used locally. They are hauling household goods (very lightweight), usually less than 80 miles in a day. They spend time in traffic and at slow speeds, and they go home every night where they can charge. Now that industry is very cheap, and they can't afford EV trucks (most find it the best value to just rent their trucks from Hertz or Penske or whatever) but I see a window where the manufacturers could essentially 'give' moving trucks away to this industry to earn credits so that they can sell their diesels to other clients.
All of the other manufacturers have to sell EV Semis, so that they can continue on with the money-making portion of their businesses, which is selling diesel trucks and the associated parts.
Now I don't have a window into what the manufacturers are doing in this regard, but I do know that they are desperate to sell EV Semis and it's not about making money on them. Consider this: for the other manufacturers to sell 19 diesels into a CARB state in 2024, they have to sell 1 EV (5% EV's in 2024, 7.5% in 2025, etc.). Unfortunately, the EV Semis just aren't selling well enough, so that they can continue to sell diesels to match current demand. Dealers in CA have been turning away diesel orders, since about Jan. 8th because they have no allotment as they have not sold enough EV's.
If I was those diesel truck manufacturers, I'd simply give away the Semi EV's, maybe exactly at the cost of the current rebates ($180K/ unit currently). Then I'd take the $500k or so loss per EV unit and simply divide it by the number of diesels the sale of that EV gave them in CARB states. For instance, they could just add $26,316 to each diesel semi to pay for the 'free' EV semi they sold in 2024. In 2026 when they need to sell 10% EVs, well they can spread the EV losses over the 9 diesels they can sell, or $55,555/ diesel unit sold.
Eventually California residents would either elect new leadership that would alter these laws as the cost of everyday goods continues to climb, or the EV Semis would begin to stand on their own and the manufacturers could actually charge a fair market rate for them.
Now consider, Tesla has no diesel's to sale. They are not going to be in the business of selling them at a loss, or even break even. So how can they ever compete in this arena, from a cost perspective? Maybe Tesla can sell their EV credits to the diesel manufacturers and make money back that way?
The one place where EV's make a lot of sense in trucking, is moving trucks used locally. They are hauling household goods (very lightweight), usually less than 80 miles in a day. They spend time in traffic and at slow speeds, and they go home every night where they can charge. Now that industry is very cheap, and they can't afford EV trucks (most find it the best value to just rent their trucks from Hertz or Penske or whatever) but I see a window where the manufacturers could essentially 'give' moving trucks away to this industry to earn credits so that they can sell their diesels to other clients.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
Not one of your many statements has rung true to me or convinced me.
When tesla semis are available in large enough numbers, diesels will be completely uneconomic and worth scrap value.
It's adorable that you believe this, and it shows why many people's 'policy' positions just aren't valid in the real world.
So I'm in the industry in several capacities (i.e. fleet sales, green energy sales, fleet owner) and I hear everything that you are saying. And I too sadly once deleted a diesel semi that I owned (and immediately regretted it).
I don't know the logging side of the business, but I will say that in trucking, the emissions have become a nearly non-issue. Yes, I'm aware of the tragedy that befell us all when the DEF sending units were failing in mass, were backordered for 90 days, and shut down entire fleets.
Ultimately, the cost to maintain the equipment is an expense and needs to be built into every job. I know it's tough when competitors cheat and drive down rates. However, society as a whole has determined that the increased cost of regulation, is a cost they are willing to bare for the goal of cleaner air. Hopefully emissions cheaters will eventually be dealt with by the law.
Lastly, I will say that I have tons of experience with pre-emissions diesels, Glider kits (new emissions exempt diesels) & all of the latest emission trucks and will say that the mpg has never been higher than it is with the newest trucks. It's not a small difference either. I have had had friends and clients that bought the Fitzgerald Glider kits with the wholly grail for economy and reliability, new FL/ KW or Pete, a pre-emissions Detroit Series- 60, manual trans & no emissions. Without fail they all found that: 1) the mpg was well below what people like to imagine from the good old days, 2) the trucks weren't even that reliable.
I personally have a low mileage (91K miles) '16 sort of perfect spec tractor running with a driver in it currently and firmly believe that a brand new '25 model, speced correctly will yield an absolute minimum of a 20% increase in economy and I hope to test my hypothesis this summer.
What I like to tell people about diesel emissions is that they only started really in 2008 and there were a ton of problems. But if you look back at cars you know that when they began adding emissions to cars they ran absolutely horrific. Mid '70s corvettes were making like 130 hp. Now look at a Corvette. So clean, so efficient, so reliable & so incredibly powerful.
Emissions technology is catching up with diesels and it's all going to be fine.
Most manufacturers are not willing to take a wash to sell electric trucks. I don't know what their strategies are but commercial vehicles aren't willing to take a wash like passcar because the margins and volume are totally different.
I'm not sure the selling GHG credits will work out well either as manufacturers have their own EVs and the regulations are clamping down on giving credit multipliers to EVs (at least in HD). Tesla would have to be selling large numbers of trucks now for the credits to have a ton of benefit.
California passed the ACF (advanced clean fleets) along with the ACT (advanced clean trucks). The ACT says how much of the sales volume needs to be EV by the model year, the ACF requires fleets of a certain size to have a certain percentage of trucks purchased to be EV to create the demand. Not sure if the ACF is completely finalized yet and I think both are waiting for waivers from EPA so there is still room for some tweaking before finalization.
Tesla semis can only cover a portion of the use cases semis have. It's still a positive step forward, but it's not a solution for everything. It will work well in Drayage and regional haul stuff though as it is being used now. It can never be a long haul (no EV semis currently available can be either). The drayage/vocational/regional market is a very high percentage of the market.
The electric trucks are multiple times more expensive than a diesel truck, and you have to provide your own chargers, and you need to get the utility to run the line and have a local grid that can support it, etc. The TCO (total cost of ownership) is really just not there yet and the electric trucks are more expensive to run. Also keep in mind how many cycles a NMC battery can take (assuming that's what the proto semis have that are out now) and how many times a day you need to charge, and you realize you will need to replace the battery pack at least once in the truck's lifetime. Thats not cheap!
Even the EPA does not think there will be TCO cost parity between diesel and electric until the early-mid 2030s for regional haul based on the 21st century truck report.
Some good info on commercial vehicle analysis (beware a lot of times cargo vans and pickup trucks are included depending on weight capacity, its not always what you think of with heavy duty):
Last edited:
1) Not sure how you are willing to determine if manufacturers are willing to take a wash or not selling EVs? Because of your location I had initially suspected that you worked for KW, and you very well might in development, but not in the sales division.
2) I really have no idea what this sentence is supposed to say: " but commercial vehicles aren't willing to take a wash like passcar because the margins and volume are totally different.". Um Paccar is in fact a Heavy Duty vehicle manufacturer, that's what they do. Maybe you were trying to say that Tesla isn't willing to take a loss. Yah I agree, which is why they are unlikely to even build more Tesla Semi-EVs anytime soon.
3) I not only used to work in trucking in CA, but still have many close friends and clients over there. Once again, CA has already run out of diesel slots for all of 2024 because the clients taking EV's is too little. I have clients already setting up businesses in other states so that they can purchase trucks because without more diesel slots available for CA registration, a customer or dealer can not just 'register' a diesel truck in CA. The selling dealer has to have the slots based on EV sales. This is the law right now today and is not based on fleet size. The dealer simply can't sell a diesel engine, manufactured in 2024 (previously built engines are okay), to register in CA, unless the selling dealer has sold the EV offset. CA dealers as such are scheduled to sell a fraction of the number of diesel units they typically sell, as it's a HUGE market.
To be frank, any POTUS with common sense would Federalize the Ports and the Federal highways leaving the ports and have those only require current EPA guidelines. I wouldn't care what CA residents vote for, except it affects the entire country as the Long Beach port is where all the Asian goods enter for the entire country.
I assume they were being lazy and that "passcar" meant "passenger cars" not Paccar.
I am glad to hear of your optimism. On heavy equipment...it's not caught up would be my input. I can compare a new harvester with DEF vs a 7 year old machine with 12k hours (same model and harvesting heads) and no def and 7 year old machine has no issues and much better fuel costs. On skidsteers it is startling more expensive, little 100hp diesel being run all out due to the needs of the emissions systems...sucks. Fuel costs is bonkers, in fact if I really am using a Kubota SVL 95 I am using as much fuel as a Ponsse Bear (will leave you to compare). Absolutely insane fuel requirements. I hope they get better or have. Regardless we have had 2 issues on the Bear. SUCKS. 1 issue required a week downtime due to mailing parts and what not. Terrible, that's $30k in lost revenue and the lost week wrecks havoc with planning everywhere. I believe the second issue was 4 days. Also bad. If we were hot seating the machine and had 2 operators it would be that much worse. I simply can't risk it.
I would much rather gut out the emissions and simply pay a $50k tax to offset any impacts. I think every farmer/forester in the USA would jump on that.
I know the industry well, but I can’t speak to every manufacturer.
In heavy duty generally if you will not be able to sell the vehicle at cost + margin you just don’t sell it. I dont expect the industry to shift from this because why would they? Thats just my opinion and I have been known to be wrong so I could be here too. I think there is a reason why EVs are priced much higher than ICE though and it has to do with not selling the vehicle for less than it costs to make.
Passenger cars can sell one platform at a loss to sell another at higher margin. Heavy duty does not operate this way, especially when the tracking of emissions and sales is done by class and use case (vocational vs over the road).
Its actually not the formalized law currently. The issue is if the EPA grants ARB the waiver to enforce their own more stringent rules the regulation will be retroactive. No one is willing to gamble the EPA does not grant the waiver and be responsible for selling too many diesels. Its a technicality but its how it is.
I recognise the rules as they are, that does not mean I think they are smart. For 2024 CA has more strict emissions for HD ICE and its going to push a lot of business out of their state. That was their choice though, so I hope they realize how it was going to go down and not be surprised.
Correct, passcar is industry standard terminology for passenger vehicles (cars and trucks).
Not trying to argue, but just trying to clarify:
Re: The first highlighted portion: they would sell at a loss because it's the only way they can legally sell diesel semis in CA as of today that actually make money and the Net profit is higher for the company.
Re: The second highlighted portion: You are incorrect. I am in the industry. Heavy Duty truck dealers are already out of slots for diesels in CA for 2024, at least until they sell more EVs. You cannot register a 2024 built engine in the state of CA unless the selling dealer has the available slots as a result of them selling EV's. This is the law right now, today, for every truck bought in CA. Furthermore, if you didn't get a diesel truck registered with CalTrans by 12-31-23, that truck will never be allowed in the LA Port. Only EV's from here going forward.
Also worth noting is that several manufacturers have taken 9 figure baths on their EV businesses, so it's not really fair to say that know one sells at a loss. Ford does, GM does. People do it all of the time for various reasons and in fact Tesla did it at first.
