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

Tesla Semi

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Fun! Hauling packs!

These are test vehicles. The engineers will need to have time to inspect them and diagnose issues. Technicians will need to rework things. So they may need 12 or more semis already. All this makes me wonder if Tesla can ramp up semi production fast enough!

At least these beasts will be well tested before they produce for customers.

One other stray thought. When platooning, a 500-mile range truck could lead 300-range trucks. I wonder how much range this adds to the 300s. If this adds substantial range, say 360 mile range or more in following mode, it could make the 300s a more attractive platooning vehicle.

Or can 2 300s platoon 400+ miles?
 
Truck Platooning Testing | Transportation Research | NREL

In 2014, the team conducted track evaluations of three SmartWay tractors—two platooned tractors and one control tractor at varying steady-state speeds, following distances, and gross vehicle weights. While platooning improved fuel economy at all speeds, travel at 55 mph resulted in the best overall miles per gallon. The lead truck demonstrated fuel savings up to 5.3% while the trailing truck saved up to 9.7%.

I wonder about a three truck configuration. Perhaps savings of 5%, 15% and 10% are possible. So if you begin with ranges of 500, 300, and 300, these could get extended to 526, 353, and 333.

Weight distribution could also impact this. For maximum range, put heaviest load in first truck and lightest in third truck.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: pilotSteve
I think EV Semis would benefit more. How much is to be determined. Maybe as much as 20-30% more. I know that when I draft off a semi in my X, at 1 sec follow with TACC/AP. My Wh/mi is about 30% better then if I was not drafting. That is at about 60mph though as the semis dont go very fast.
That's my perception, too, when I draft in my S. A semi is a much bigger vehicle, so maybe the savings are not quite as much as with a following sedan.

At any rate, I think Tesla will thoroughly test this out. There are also subtleties around the specific following distance of each vehicle, and this may even be speed, grade and load specific. So there must be opportunities for computer programming and links between trucks to optimize speed and spacing in real time. Maybe dynamic optimization squeezes out another 5% or so of efficiency.
 
Nice!
So for 2,500 a week , you need 6 trailers a day 7 days per week.

At 5k/wk that's over 12 trailers a day. (really 12.75)
Say 10 hour round trip, 2 loads per semi per day
6 semis full time hauling packs.
500 miles round trip * 12 trips a day = 6k miles per day * 360 days a year = 2.16 million miles per year (360k miles per semi per year)
Say a semi gets 6 MPG (worse uphill, better downhill), that's 360,000 gallons a year. @ $2.90 a gallon = $1.044 million just in fuel.
Shows why they are going with their own fleet.
With 10 hour work day, that is 12 drivers per day, say 18 total (5 days on, 2 off) 60k burdened rate =$1.08 million in wages/insurance. If they can platoon, then that can be cut in half.

Now add in shipping drive units.

Then double everything for 10k/week...

Wow...

Wow indeed...

Now multiply that by the number of other customers who have very similar needs....
 
Yes, but overall you aren't saving any energy in the supply chain. That's my point.
Given that oveall energy used is cumulative for each link in the chain, then it seems you would.

If the raw materials are coming in by truck, and that cost is one dollar per ton to get to Sparks, and it traditionally has cost another dollar per ton to get the finished packs to Fremont, then the total transportation costs in the supply chain are $2/ton. If you reduce the cost to $0.25/ton from Sparks to Fremont, isn't your overall chain transportation cost now $1.25/ton?

(On edit: I realize the question was about saving energy... same principal applies as overall well-to-wheel energy efficiency electrified transportation is greater than that of internal combustion)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ohmman
Seeing a Tesla Semi haul a load of cars up to the Gigafactory would be more impressive.
And than back again?
Yes, there could be more impressive tests. Even more impressive than Falcon Heavy taking a roadster towards Mars.
Fact is there are currently exactly zero electric semis doing this totally unimpressive easy route. Because its too easy ...
 
Yes, but overall you aren't saving any energy in the supply chain. That's my point.

Not really. This one leg of the supply chain now consumes less energy with much reduced carbon foot print. One leg at a time. One problem at a time.

This all or nothing approach will keep us tied to where we are today. This is the same tactic used to dismiss EVs in general, because not of all the power generation is zero emissions and sustainable energy sources. First you solve the consumption end, a million tail pipes, while also working on moving away from coal and other fossil fuel based power generation.
 
So it's about a 4,400 ft elevation gain from Freemont to Sparks, a 240 mile route.

According to EV trip planner, my S85 would use about 40% more energy than normal, assuming a 1.1x speed factor and no wind. So that additional energy should be just about all attributable to the uphill route.

The long range semi is spec'd at 500 miles fully loaded. So assuming grade affects it by roughly the same factor, that means it would burn s 336 miles of range. Even if it were affected twice as much as my car, that means it would burn 432 miles. Slowing down to the speed limit on the grades should help even more.

I suspect it would make it.
 
I'm thinking that Tesla is well aware that transporting loads between Freemont and Sparks would have major PR implications. So I rather suspect that they have designed the 300 to be sufficient to take a full load up the hill to Sparks. Failure to do that would imply endless negative PR. Every potential truck buyer is going to want to know if the 300 can really make that trek. The answer had better be, yes.