Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Class 8 Semi Truck Thoughts

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
You guys are silly, why are you arguing about physics that applies to both Diesel and EV semis. Can anyone answer why the ICE vehicle can be so much more efficient at higher speeds. Is it simply just the gear box? Why couldnt a Tesla semi with more HP, more Torque just add a gear box for higher speed cruising. Assuming that it will be more efficient at stop and go speeds because EVs are more efficient then ICE in that scenario today.

If you just scale up the BYD T9 188KWh/94Mi range by 4x and add some for Tesla being more efficient with lighter batteries and better motor/inverters, you get 400 miles on less then 600KWh:

http://www.byd.com/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/T9-final.pdf

EVs can achieve 90% efficiency in the real world. ICE top out at about 35%. For EVs, how you achieve maximum efficiency is very different than for ICE. With an EV, there are two primary loss areas, friction and aerodynamics. At low speeds EV efficiency suffers because friction is higher, but that drops away by about 25 mph. Aerodynamics builds as you go faster. The efficiency sweet spot for an EV is around 25 mph and there is nothing you can do about it. That's why the hypermiler records are all set at driving around 25 mph for 24 hours.

ICE are vastly more complex, but they get their best efficiency when running constantly at the sweet spot RPM. Hybrid cars attempt to squeeze as much as they can out of the ICE by running it at or close to that sweet spot all the time and augmenting what the engine puts out with batteries.

ICE have a narrow band of RPM where they can run without either stalling or ripping themselves apart, which is why you need a transmission. A single gear transmission on an ICE that wouldn't stall starting from a stop would rip the engine apart by about 20 mph. ICE have been getting more and more gears in recent years and even CVT transmissions in an attempt to keep the engine RPM as close to the most efficient spot as possible at as many speeds as possible.

With say a 3 speed transmission, the car won't kill itself driving 35 mph in 3rd gear, but it won't be turning over at the optimum RPM to get the best gas mileage. Most ICE are geared to get the best RPM for gas mileage around 60 mph, so their efficiency usually peaks around there when you're driving constant speed. Some ICE also have other features that help improve gas mileage on the highway like shutting down cylinders when not needed. Cadillac did it first in the late 1980s, but they discontinued the engine because there were few mechanics who could work on them, but the engine design has made a comeback and a lot of GM cars with larger engines disable pairs of cylinders on the highway. I don't know if they do it with the V-6 engines, but they do with the V-8s. They go down to 6 then 4 cylinders on the highway.

ICE still take an aerodynamic hit at highway speeds, the same Physics works on them too, but because they are so inefficient to start with, you don't tend to notice is as much. Think of it as an average grade in a class in school. If you're average near the end of term is 90%, a 30% on the final is going to kill your average. On the other hand if your average is 35%, the 30% isn't going to change your average much.

ICE get such horrible efficiency overall that one more inefficiency doesn't dramatically reduce the average much. Because EVs are so efficient, every little thing kills the average efficiency.

A gallon of gasoline has 33.7 KWH of energy in it. Diesel is in the same ballpark. If you get 30 mpg, that's 1123 Wh/Mi. The Model X, which is one of the least efficient EVs averages better than 3 times that. The only reason EVs are running rings around ICE for range is the best batteries we have for cars today are only about 1/33 the energy density per gallon of space as gasoline.

Fossil fuels are the dominant transportation fuel today because of their energy density, but they lose a staggering amount of that energy making heat when burned.
 
Cummins has been aiming for 55% thermal efficiency. If you take wintertime travel into account, the thermal efficiency increases further as waste heat heats the cab, no idea how much but I suspect it's significant.

I suspect a Tesla truck will need to make significant improvements in drag to compete at all.

Give a Truckie thermal underwear! Save on Cabin heating
 
Yeah, I had the same thought, but I dont know how any of this would work. I know the original idea was to have 2 gears in the model S but it was scrubbed long before it became a reality. Elon already stated that the semi would use a "bunch" of model 3 motors. What a bunch is is an interesting question. How did you come up with 10? I got 6, two for each axle in a traditional tractor. Now the back wheels are duly so you could have 2 + 8, but how would that work with a drive shaft? You would have to have a 2 layer driveshaft with the outer layer controlling one wheel and the inner controlling the other wheel. Is that even possible? I think 6 is a safer bet, also be they are going to be roughly 300hp per motor, so that's 1800HP, which would make it the most powerful tractor around and would also have about 2800ft lbs or torque which would dominate Again, I am working from what JB and Elon have said, which is a bunch of model 3 motors and JB clearly said that the semi is basically a scaled up model S, which would equate to 3x S 100D in terms of battery and weight, which would be the same weight as the average class 8 semi. If you look at the BYD T9, you have a real life example of a 188KWh - 94 mile range Class 8 Semi.

If the issue is high speed performance only, meaning EVs are already better at 0-30 and with 2800lbs of torque, you have more then enough to get the vehicle up to 30 with no gears. Maybe the back wheels are traditional motors and rive like an S/X to get the vehicle moving with a much more responsive and agile acceleration (also stated by Elon) and the front wheels could be geared much higher and used only to maintain 60-65MPH on the open roads. In theory, the back wheels could be geared differently as well, to allow a bigger range, but you would only need a couple of motors to maintain the speed limit. Again, I know I am like a broken record, this is all based on what Elon and JB have already stated publicly. If we are to have a theory, it should not contradict what we already know and a scaled up Model S does not point to 1200KWh pack, which would weigh so much that it would cut the load the truck could transport in half.

I'm trying to wrap my head around engine/motor performance numbers vs at the wheel numbers.

Regarding 1,800 HP / 2,800 lb-ft torque (which are more than a diesel engine):

Normal semi tractors have a 17-27 to one low gear plus about a 3:1 rear axle, so around a 50x torque multiplier from engine to wheels. So, in low gear, if Tesla runs a 12:1 reduction for single gear operation (totally made up) then the diesel only needs to have one quarter the torque for the same pulling/ acceleration (at least till it red lines).
 
I'm trying to wrap my head around engine/motor performance numbers vs at the wheel numbers.

Regarding 1,800 HP / 2,800 lb-ft torque (which are more than a diesel engine):

Normal semi tractors have a 17-27 to one low gear plus about a 3:1 rear axle, so around a 50x torque multiplier from engine to wheels. So, in low gear, if Tesla runs a 12:1 reduction for single gear operation (totally made up) then the diesel only needs to have one quarter the torque for the same pulling/ acceleration (at least till it red lines).

Quoting Elon.. Driving the Tesla semi will be fun and it is very quick. So maybe 1800hp and 2800 lb torque is to low of an estimate. If it is as many as 10 motors and they are say 400hp each, and could be more, then you are looking at 4000hp and maybe 7000 ft lb of torque. That would be enough to do wheelies in a semi truck and that does sound like fun. It might just be easier to wait until the end of Sept. then to try to figure out what their solution looks like. But we shouldn't ignore what Elon and JB have said to date, which is not much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mongo
Y... I just don't see how a 400kWh battery can get the job done for long haul. You mentioned regen, but regen only works in the mountains. It's not like you're gaining and losing a ton of elevation going across Kansas or Oklahoma. Even basic matlab code can show you'd need a ton more energy than 400kWh just to maintain trucker highway speed (55-65).

...
You might want to update your geography. From Kansas City, KS at 265 meters to Oakley at 934 meters, I-70 steadily rises as the high plains begin to appear. Westbound energy use is quite high, Eastbound regent kicks in for nearly half the trip as the descent covers half the state or so. Actually the rise from Hays, say, to Denver is enormously pronounced.

If we're really considering all-electric OTR Class 8, we probably have nearly as much challenge in the rise Westbound in the plains as we will in the mountains. Speeds on the smoothly rising lowlands to much high high plains can be very high speed, thus requiring higher energy for aerodynamic drag as well as the elevation rise. Mountains are demanding enough, but the speeds will be generally lower. People who travel between the middle of Kansas and Denver regularly encounter the high energy demands going 'uphill' and the similarly great benefit going 'downhill'.

I include the trailer in a tractor-trailer combination:

...
I also think at some point the tractor is reduced to being integrated with the trailer or essentially almost dolly-sized.

...
Another idea is every wheel could turn...
These ideas are, I suspect, close to the expected solutions for Tesla. For certain there will be "lots" of stored energy. It is quick logical to store much of the energy with/near the various dollies used, which will also allow for Australian Road trains and other multi-trailer options by powering each attachment semi-independently with motor control and regent managed from the tractor. Such an approach not only will store/use energy proportionately, but will also act to vastly improve vehicle stability and allow for very advanced ABS and other vehicle stability approaches. Of high importance will be the lowering of trailer and tractor center of gravity by locating batteries very low.

These are obviously speculations, but it is crucial to understand the enormous vehicle stability weaknesses of traditional ICE systems, and the commensurate braking and control limitations. Distributed power can mitigate several such problems, thus improving safety. All that can be true even without any progress in autonomy, something that will also have virtuous effect .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulmo
Hello,

there is a detail possible scenario about Semi over at seekingalpha.com.
I know many of you dislike the site and I do so too very often, but this is a good, mostly technical analysis.

It basically says: $150k Semi + 1 or 2 MWh swappable battery = 15 cents/mile cheaper than Diesel.

As mentioned about, the cool part is the technical stuff, like the swappable battery, which requires the motors to be basically inside the wheels. It's for sure worth a look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ccutrer
Hello,

there is a detail possible scenario about Semi over at seekingalpha.com.
I know many of you dislike the site and I do so too very often, but this is a good, mostly technical analysis.

It basically says: $150k Semi + 1 or 2 MWh swappable battery = 15 cents/mile cheaper than Diesel.

As mentioned about, the cool part is the technical stuff, like the swappable battery, which requires the motors to be basically inside the wheels. It's for sure worth a look.

Seeking Alpha varies quite a bit depending on the writer. There are some people there who are Tesla trolls, but Randy Carlson is not one of them.

The motors don't need to be in the wheels. There is quite a bit of real estate between the front wheels and the back wheels on a semi tractor. The battery pack could be significantly thicker than the car battery pack. Semis have a large open box frame that is usually at least a foot high. Mounting the battery pack inside the box frame would protect it on the sides without any effort and it could be protected from above with a shield on top.
 
Has overhead electricity supply come up in this thread?

eHighway - Electromobility - Siemens

Edit Addendum - on more sparsely traveled routes, say in a desert, construction of 30 miles of overhead lines for "in-flight' recharging should be cheap and relatively easy.
I wonder why Canada's transcontinental train line isn't overhead electrified?
Could also include nation wide inter-connect for their electric grid.

Why haven't both been done yet? Anyone know?

PS- about 250 sq feet on trailer top - how much charging from flexible solar panel would that offer?
 
Last edited:
I wonder why Canada's transcontinental train line isn't overhead electrified?
Could also include nation wide inter-connect for their electric grid.

Why haven't both been done yet? Anyone know?

PS- about 250 sq feet on trailer top - how much charging from flexible solar panel would that offer?
Who's going to pay to build the power lines, the supporting infrastructure, and all the locomotives that would need to be replaced?
 
Who's going to pay to build the power lines, the supporting infrastructure, and all the locomotives that would need to be replaced?
Trains are diesel electric. Remove the fuel tanks/engines/generator and just leave electric motors. (well may need some electrical controls?)
Fuel savings - considerable.
National Interconnect for their power grid? They may already have plans, or perhaps they already built?

Perhaps someone actually knows about trains and power grid in Canada??
 
Trains are diesel electric. Remove the fuel tanks/engines/generator and just leave electric motors. (well may need some electrical controls?)
Fuel savings - considerable.
National Interconnect for their power grid? They may already have plans, or perhaps they already built?

Perhaps someone actually knows about trains and power grid in Canada??

The Canadian transcontinental rail line goes through some pretty desolate country. Installing the power for the trains would be expensive and the maintenance would be a major headache. The US has the same problem. I rode Amtrak from Milwaukee, WI to Seattle once. Going through North Dakota and Montana there are miles and miles of nothing.

Here is a list of disadvantages:
Railway electrification system - Wikipedia

Right now the efforts are being put into the technologies that are both possible with current technology and the best bang for the buck. Moving cargo by rail is very, very cheap now:
Graphs for Decision Making: Cost Per Ton Mile for Four Shipping Modes

It's even cheaper than ship which is why a lot of cargo from Asia to Europe gets offloaded and put on trains on the west coast of the US, shipped to the east coast by rail, then put back on a ship.

This looks at various pros and cons of transporting by ship, truck, and rail. It's a bit more comprehensive than the chart in the page above:
Comparison of Different Shipping Methods - Barge, Truck, Rail

Trucking is getting a lot of attention and rail isn't getting as much attention for electrification because rail would require a big infrastructure project and governments aren't big on that right now, the cost of maintenance has to be considered, and electrification would require having to replace all hardware pretty much at once or in a short time frame. Trucks cost more than 10X per ton-mile than trains and electrifying trucks just requires changing out the trucks. All the existing infrastructure other than charging remains the same.

As battery tech gets better, we might see some hybrid electric trains with batteries in the engine and overhead conductors that the engine can hook up to for charging on the fly. However, this would probably be rolled out regionally and the overhead power put in where the electrical infrastructure is already there.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP
... and all the locomotives that would need to be replaced?
To electrify all of this lines would take years. And locomotives has - as cars and trucks etc. - a limited life expectancy (but probably a bit longer). So during this process a lot of locomotives would anyway have to be replaced. So concentrate the old diesel-electric locomotives on the lines / sections that is still not electrified and use the new locomotives on the converted lines/sections. But yes, this will not totally remove the need to invest in new locomotives, but it could cut this part of it to more reasonable amounts.

But a more realistic approach today for electrifying would probably be overhead lines in areas with dense population/good infrastructures/lot of traffic, battery-electric-locomotives¹ on short to middle range without / extending past the overhead lines, and diesel electric on the really long ranges without overhead lines/electric infrastructure, and preferably pantograph to utilize the overhead lines where that is available.


¹ Assumed to charge the batteries while running from the overhead lines where that is available.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Brando
As battery tech gets better, we might see some hybrid electric trains with batteries in the engine and overhead conductors that the engine can hook up to for charging on the fly. However, this would probably be rolled out regionally and the overhead power put in where the electrical infrastructure is already there.

What about a National Grid for electricity distribution? The two combined (train power and grid connection) was what I was thinking. Shared cost would make it much more reasonable, no?

PS- Apparently diesel electrics never saw the need for batteries as a buffer. As a backup? To help with regen braking? Seems there may be room for some optimization?

PPS- Perhaps once the train is up to speed, the power needed to keep the train moving might be met by batteries? Especially if flat? Like most big projects, should have proper detailed study. Does that actually ever happen? France to England tunnel, I'd hope yes. Seattle tunnel, obviously not. Boston dig I guess not.
 
Last edited:
What about a National Grid for electricity distribution? The two combined (train power and grid connection) was what I was thinking. Shared cost would make it much more reasonable, no?

It's far more efficient to use power as close as possible to the generation source. The longest distance transmission lines are mostly used to meet peak demand. Power is always lost in transmission via I^2R. They run the lines at very high voltage to keep the current down and thus reduce losses, but even with very low resistance wire and the lowest current possible, the losses add up over long distances.

On the West Coast the Pacific Intertie exists to link Southern California with the hydro dams on the Columbia. It's mostly only used as a peaking system in the summer when California has high demand for electricity in late afternoons for running air conditioners.

The plan as conceived would also allow California power plants to provide extra power to the Northwest for heating during cold spells. However not long after the Intertie was completed, many new homes in the Northwest were completed with natural gas furnaces instead of electric heat and a lot of old systems have been converted to gas over the years which reduces demand for electricity when it gets cold up here.

One of the tricks Enron used to jack up electricity rates by putting power on long distance lines and deliberately running it around long, winding routes across the country that would burn up the power due to losses. People went to prison for gaming the system that way, but they thought they were brilliant at the time.

PS- Apparently diesel electrics never saw the need for batteries as a buffer. As a backup? To help with regen braking? Seems there may be room for some optimization?

PPS- Perhaps once the train is up to speed, the power needed to keep the train moving might be met by batteries? Especially if flat? Like most big projects, should have proper detailed study. Does that actually ever happen? France to England tunnel, I'd hope yes. Seattle tunnel, obviously not. Boston dig I guess not.

GE was working on a hybrid locomotive, but the project has been shelved. A discussion about it:
Was GE hybrid locomotive ever commercialized? - Trains Magazine - Trains News Wire, Railroad News, Railroad Industry News, Web Cams, and Forms

Research has gone on in other places, but nothing has been put into production as far as I can tell from a quick scan:
Hybrid train - Wikipedia

A long tunnel would be a good place for external power. There needs to be so much other infrastructure to support the tunnel already, and generally a fair bit of power is available locally.

Ultimately moving stuff by rail is currently the cheapest way to move freight, so there is little to be gained by becoming much more efficient than they are now. According to one of the sources I posted up-thread, it costs $0.03/ton to move stuff by rail and $0.37/ton for truck. Say you could come up with a technology that would cut the cost of both in half? Applying it to trucking first would get you the best gains. Rail would still be significantly cheaper even with current technology, but trucking would be a heck of a lot closer.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Brando
Some comments after reading over this thread:

1) The reason that Tesla would be able to "get enough regen out of AC (induction**) motors" is that they're not using induction motors, apparently. They've said that Semi will use a bunch of copies of the M3 motor, and the M3 motor is apparently PM.

** Please don't just call a motor "AC" or "DC". All motors are AC in the windings, and any motor that you're going to put in a car is going to be fed with DC from the pack, and all modern motors will use power electronics to sculpt the AC waveform to the windings. The terminology is outdated, back from a time where "DC" motors were those which took a DC supply and used a commutator to reverse the windings, and "AC" motors were those that took an AC (grid) supply - leaving motors named after what you supplied them with.

2) Rolling drag force is roughly constant, at low to moderate speeds, when tires are preheated. More on each of these caveats:
* Power to overcome rolling drag is force times speed, and thus roughly linear with speed at low to moderate speeds.
* Rolling drag force starts to climb at higher speeds. It's nothing like the rate at which aero climbs, but it's not constant.
* Tires have significantly higher drag until they warm up, due to hysteresis losses (flexing in the stiffer rubber). Water on the road has a cooling effect on tires and thus increases rolling drag.

3) Talking about peak efficiencies of ICE engines is an exercise in futility, because ICE engines don't operate at their peak. Gasoline engines today are commonly 35%+ efficient at their peak, but only 20-25% or so on average because they operate out of peak for such a large portion of their drive, and efficiency falls off quickly off-peak. One of the prime ways in which hybrids improve mileage is by keeping the engine operating at closer to peak torque/RPM conditions at all times. Talking about a proposed diesel engine with 55% efficiency is great, but one has to remember that that's peak efficiency, not average real-world efficiency.

4) Cabin heating needs are virtually irrelevant compared to the heat output of a diesel engine. It basically doesn't even factor into the picture. To the point that trucks often have secondary mini-generators to produce heat and power at night so that they don't have to run those giant diesel-guzzling engines. Also there are truck stops that offer a "tether" to the vehicle that provides electricity and and heat/cooling (TSE).

https://octagonconstructioninccom.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/castaic-truck-stop.jpg

EVs offer such a graceful solution to this problem it's not even funny. :)

5) The discussion of the grid not being able to handle Semi is wishful thinking. EV production scaleups will never be able to match the rate at which grid expansion (distribution and generation) occur. Nobody is going to magick the complete conversion of the world's transportation fleet to electric overnight.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Brando
I didn't go through the entire thread. Just would like to present some data published in March '13 that I think is relevant to the discussion of range and battery size.

Source:
NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Transportation Energy Futures Series
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55636.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Freight Modal Share.JPG
    Freight Modal Share.JPG
    208.6 KB · Views: 88
I didn't go through the entire thread. Just would like to present some data published in March '13 that I think is relevant to the discussion of range and battery size.

Source:
NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Transportation Energy Futures Series
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/55636.pdf

I'm confused. "Tons" and "Truck"/ "Rail" don't even come close to matching up on that graph...
 
I'm confused. "Tons" and "Truck"/ "Rail" don't even come close to matching up on that graph...

I don't quite follow. You are seeing two different graphs: [tonnage - range] and [truck/rail percentage share - range] combined into one.
My question would be what is included and excluded by defining freight as "all commodities".
And worth mentioning that the original data is from 2007.
Still, the way truck tonnage is skewed towards the 0-200 mile range is striking.