-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I think the kWh/mile vs time is overly aggressive and ladder frame is better than structural pack.
I’m not sure if InsideEVs has the correct power specification details (I thought the voltage peak was going to be 1,500V) but we have a photo of the new Tesla Semi DC megacharger plug. Okay, they don’t say it is being used by Tesla but Tesla was a key member of the design committee (they don’t say this either) and I believe it was Tesla’s intent to adopt this common design.
insideevs.com
CharIN Officially Launches The Megawatt Charging System (MCS)
CharIN has officially launched at the EVS35 in Oslo, Norway, the Megawatt Charging System (MCS) DC fast charging connector for heavy-duty vehicles.
insideevs.com
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Yeah, I also had some issues with his claims. Supertrucks do 12 mpg in actual fleet testing. That's ~2 kWh/km, lower than his "30 years in the future" number. I also don't see a path below 1 kWh/km for eTruck with anything that approaches a standard trailer. A big chunk of Supertruck gains come from improving diesel thermal efficiency, but EV power trains are already too efficient for major gains.
His "eTruck with 750 km range" weight chart is nutty. 30+ tonnes in 2010 vs. 11 tonnes in 2025??? Battery energy density has barely budged. And since there were no 750 km eTrucks in 2010 (or today, really), this is a theoretical chart showing what could be built if costs didn't matter. A theoretical 2010 eTruck would weigh a little more than a 2025 one, not 3x as much.
Structural battery doesn't make much sense for eTruck. The main load is ~30k lbs pressing down on the 5th wheel plate that's directly above the rear wheels. The secondary load is 12k lbs on the front axle. With no driveshaft running front-to-back there's almost no load path between the front axle and the rear tandem. With almost no load to carry a structural pack serves no real purpose.
Finally, his conclusion that eTruck is cheaper if we heavily tax diesel and not coal is kinda dumb. The goal is to move to wind/solar/nuke. Tax all fossil -- it might take longer for eTruck to pay off, but we get off carbon faster.
I’m not sure if InsideEVs has the correct power specification details (I thought the voltage peak was going to be 1,500V) but we have a photo of the new Tesla Semi DC megacharger plug. Okay, they don’t say it is being used by Tesla but Tesla was a key member of the design committee (they don’t say this either) and I believe it was Tesla’s intent to adopt this common design.
CharIN Officially Launches The Megawatt Charging System (MCS)
CharIN has officially launched at the EVS35 in Oslo, Norway, the Megawatt Charging System (MCS) DC fast charging connector for heavy-duty vehicles.
That looks pretty much like the proprietary plug, but scaled up bigger.
I didn't read what he posted but it seems like by eTruck he is referring to things like the Tesla Semi. And Tesla claims they are already under 1.6kWh/km for a fully loaded 80k pound load. (They state under 2kWh/mile, we just don't know how much under 2 kWh.) So yeah, under 1kWh/km seems unreasonable for a fully loaded truck.
I’m not sure if InsideEVs has the correct power specification details (I thought the voltage peak was going to be 1,500V) but we have a photo of the new Tesla Semi DC megacharger plug. Okay, they don’t say it is being used by Tesla but Tesla was a key member of the design committee (they don’t say this either) and I believe it was Tesla’s intent to adopt this common design.
CharIN Officially Launches The Megawatt Charging System (MCS)
CharIN has officially launched at the EVS35 in Oslo, Norway, the Megawatt Charging System (MCS) DC fast charging connector for heavy-duty vehicles.
I think those specs are correct. This from the Charin website:
- Single conductive plug
- Max 1.250 volt & 3.000 ampere (DC)
- PLC + ISO/IEC 15118
- Touch Safe (UL2251)
- On-handle software-interpreted override switch
- Adheres to OSHA & ADA (& local equivalent) standards
- FCC Class A EMI (& local equivalent)
- Located on left side of the vehicle, roughly hip height
- Capable of being automated
- UL (NRTL) certified
- Cyber-Secure
- V2X (bi-directional)
Note, however, that page is old and talks about the initial requirements given to the design committee. It does not necessarily reflect the final design.
For instance it says:
The idea of using the original CCS plug and then adding extra extension modules (AKA conductive pins) to handle higher current in order to maintain compatibility was abandoned during the design process.
UPDATE: I did some sleuthing with archive.org and found that the original requirement was for a peak voltage of 1500 but this was subsequently dropped to 1250V in the summer of 2021. So, I’m more convinced now that 1250V is correct.
Last edited:
Here is some good background on the design process for the new megacharger plug. See the 4:30 mark where Tesla’s member of the design committee gives a brief presentation:
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
First look at the Frito Lay Megacharger pin layout, I think: An up-close look at Tesla's liquid-cooled Megachargers at Frito Lay
Doggydogworld
Active Member
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
The Semi design is now 3 motors rather than 4 motors according to the Tesla site.
An interesting change.
An interesting change.
One for cruise, 120kW (160 hp), and all three for acceleration / regen? 1,300kW (1,750 hp)?
Or two for cruise to get thrust vectoring, and one for boost? Or all three all the time to reduce current/ power per motor? Maybe a blend of modes depending on conditions.
Definite departure from what seemed like 4 independent pack/ motor combos (easy prototype setup). Sort of expected with the new proposed mega charge connector. The Nevada charger has what looks like four cabinets per pedestal, but there is no reason they couldn't parallel their outputs.
Peak acceleration power could be lower . Depends on acceleration curve during the 20 sec 0-60 ramp. 82,000 lbs @ 60 MPH is 3.71657 kWh of kinetic energy.
A 5% climb fully loaded at 60 needs an extra 490 kW (8.15 kWh/mile) on top of the 120kW to maintain speed.
It looks like the semi prototype had ridiculous acceleration power, much more than it needed, so this looks like a good trade off.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Most likely. Still, that saves on another full drive unit and associated support components. Should be smaller, lighter weight, lower cost, probably less drag.
Similar threads
