-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Semi Volume Production
- Thread starter ValueAnalyst
- Start date
3Q20
1000 per week × 800kWh pack = 800MWh/ week = 40GWh/year->requires bringing up another large section of Gigafactory for packs and drive units. Need a factory for churning out tractors every 5 minutes. Once all that is in place along with suppliers, then they ramp up.
Would finding an existing factory to refurbish help much?
1000 per week × 800kWh pack = 800MWh/ week = 40GWh/year->requires bringing up another large section of Gigafactory for packs and drive units. Need a factory for churning out tractors every 5 minutes. Once all that is in place along with suppliers, then they ramp up.
Would finding an existing factory to refurbish help much?
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
a quick google search says 22,000 a month for the market as a whole Class 8 Orders Increase in Healthy, Growing Market. I don't know this market that well so I'm not positive that is US or Worldwide or somewhere in-between.http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel...rders-increase-in-healthy-growing-market.aspx
I'd be surprised for even 15% market share any time soon. Which if anywhere near a reasonable goal gets you to about 800 per week.
I voted "never" before the google search thinking the market smaller than that, switched it to "later" after seeing numbers.
I'd be surprised for even 15% market share any time soon. Which if anywhere near a reasonable goal gets you to about 800 per week.
I voted "never" before the google search thinking the market smaller than that, switched it to "later" after seeing numbers.
That’s only the US market, which by the way, will most certainly increase in size due to Tesla Semi’s cost savings.
So many “never” votes is surprising given that the threshold in the question represents 15% of the US market, and that no other company will have the battery production capacity to compete in the next ten years.
I don’t understand how you came up with those options for the poll. Elon said production starts in 2019, which means that if everything goes right they’ll deliver a few trucks in 4Q19. And it will take at least a couple of quarters to ramp up production. That takes us to 2Q20 as something close to the most optimistic case.
Because I’m feeling optimistic today I would have voted 2Q21 if that had been an option. Zachary Shahan just predicted 47k in 2022 over on CleanTechnica, and he’s usually pretty optimistic about these things.
Because I’m feeling optimistic today I would have voted 2Q21 if that had been an option. Zachary Shahan just predicted 47k in 2022 over on CleanTechnica, and he’s usually pretty optimistic about these things.
Note that semi shares key parts with model 3, which will already be in volume production.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Tesla started production mid 2019, but even if we assume December of 2019, why would it take three years to reach 1,000 units per week?
Volume production in Class 8 trucks is not the same as volume production in cars--unless the pickup variant becomes popular
Could you please elaborate? Some say a class 8 truck is easier to build, but maybe you have a different view?
Last edited:
My prediction was 1.5 years after December 2019, not 3 years. (Or was that a comment on Zach’s prediction?)
Sure, the Semi shares some parts with model 3, but based on historical trends I’ll go ahead and predict some production hell for the Semi as well.
As of right now over 30% have picked the “Later” option. Everybody on this board knows that you’re optimistic, all I’m saying is you should take that into account when picking the poll options to give the “careful bulls” more options to choose from.
Because of the much lower volume (hundreds vs tens of thousands for the same time frame), and larger variety of options (e.g. wheelbase, frame width, axle weights, cabin style) fewer steps tend to be automated. Some manufactures have no automation because every order is different. (Not that Tesla will chase the highly customized market for the foreseeable future.) If there are, for example, 32 wheelbases, 4 frame widths, 6 axle weights, and 3 cabin styles, that's 2304 variations that would have to be programmed and tested (Okay, it's really less than that because some options won't go together, such as a short wheelbase and a large cabin.) Now I realize that when Tesla first builds them there will be just a couple so it won't matter at first, but as they catch on more will need to be added, and the more varieties, the more extensive testing (of the robots) will need to be done. This means more throw-away prototypes. It's easy to create fifty or so prototypes for a car because of the large volume. It's not so easy to throw away that many trucks.
And I agree it's easier to build them because the current manufacturers just order parts and only make the frames and the cabin. Axles, fifth wheels, engines, transmissions, and electronics are all purchased off the shelf and assembled. Tesla will be making more in-house than the current manufacturers, so their difficulty will increase. Front axles and fifth wheels are about the only places where standard components will be used.
Thank you. I see it evolving in a different direction. I would expect, especially in 2019/20, high automation and limited customization.
Let's see if management provides investors with more details and timeline in a few weeks, and then we can revisit.
Part of this depends on if Tesla outsources the frame (but that is not much more work with more versions). Different wheelbases only require different frame rail lengths, relocated mount points and updated hose and wiring lengths. The change in automatic assembly can be as simple as different set of rail coordinates. Would 32 wheelbases really provide value? That would be 6 inch resolution, if I'm guessing correctly (16 foot min/max length difference). A long and a short for each cabin style (assuming no size overlaps) would be 6 lengths.
The frame width is determined by the pack width, I don't see Tesla making different packs or widths (unless they expand from base). 1 option.
Same with axles. The drive unit is built for the worst case, no reason to increase part count for a lesser option. 1 option (well two if a single rear axle)
Cabin: I agree with three styles. 3 Options
Many of the options you listed are orthogonal, as in they are independent enough that a change in one does not invalidate the ability to build the other (axle capacity and cabin for instance).
I see 6x1x1x3 = 18 build options based on all permutations, but only 6 real production variations (3 cabins x 2 lengths per cabin) with perhaps population option for wind deflector and side skirts.
For axles, I was mainly thinking of front axles. The way they are ordered normally is as a complete assembly. Now what this really means is that there is a weight factor and a tie rod length factor. Weight is generally for different jurisdictions which have different maximum load requirements. Tie rods depend on the wheelbase. If the tie rod length is incorrect for the wheelbase, severe tire wear problems can occur. Severe can mean as little as 9K miles on the front tires rather than the 100 to 375K miles that an on-paved-road truck tire should get during the original tread life. Trucks that run on some or all gravel won't get nearly that much tread life. (Note that to be able to carry the weight, a truck tire casing has about 500K miles built in to it. Right now tread compounds and belt design doesn't quite go that far. The goal is to have the original tread wear out shortly before the casing wears out 450-475K miles.)
Most of the other items I was thinking in terms of future possibilities, not within the first five to eight years, as the production expands internationally and into non-fleet use. A small change can make a big difference in the revenue a truck can provide. Even just within North America, different states and provinces have different regulations, and a truck optimized for a particular set of rules can generate more revenue, which is why there is a large market for custom trucks.
I'm glad the poll prompted further research. I look forward to discussing this with you as more facts/guidance become available.
Ah, that all makes sense. Great point about needing different Ackermann setups for the different wheelbases. There could definitely be more variants down the long tail of use cases once the core fleet is saturated. Although I could see then moving into the walk-in van type vehicles first. Would really have liked to see Tesla bid on the NGDV program, but they only have so many resources to work with.
My impression looking at the videos taken at the semi reveal, is that the motors and transmissions are massive...far more than small car motors. This would be expected when they have to work at least an order of magnitude harder than in a 3. Also, have you ever looked at the size,hauling options available for a big three pick up? It is possible for them never to make the same truck twice if you add all the color/comfort options offered. What applies to semis applies in spades to pickups. The people I know who buy trucks of any size tend to be picky.
The gearbox is massive and unique, but the motor (rotor stator inverter) portion can be reuse.
Personal truck selections are varied, but large fleets of company owned tractors tend toward commonality.
Moderator Input:
One of the reasons multiple threads about a similar subject are dissuaded is well-demonstrated in the above posts: some good discussion regarding semi trucks, but topics that bear basically not at all on the very specific thread title topic.
I'll give this thread a little time to get back on track and if there is no regression to its putative title, will merge it. This is irrespective of my own thought - that not one of you has even the slightest ability to provide any kind of answer to the question.
One of the reasons multiple threads about a similar subject are dissuaded is well-demonstrated in the above posts: some good discussion regarding semi trucks, but topics that bear basically not at all on the very specific thread title topic.
I'll give this thread a little time to get back on track and if there is no regression to its putative title, will merge it. This is irrespective of my own thought - that not one of you has even the slightest ability to provide any kind of answer to the question.
Don't you think it's still useful to measure the group's mean/median expectation as well as the variance in responses? I agree though that manufacturing discussion should probably occur in the dedicated Semi thread.
Similar threads
