One obvious thing that wasn't discussed - Solar Roofs for the trailer. A Solar PV roof on the trailer makes a lot of sense for "some" charging while driving. Sure, it may only be maybe 5-7kw but that's got to be something to tie into a battery-driven cab. A solar roof on a trailer would add a few hundred pounds - tie it into the electronics and when the sun it out, you add to the overall efficiency. 50ft by 8ft of horizontal solar isn't too bad. Though, there may be dirt collection issues up top. You could even say a hybrid diesel truck with a full solar roof could recharge batteries in addition to regen braking.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I am also going for high-speed supercharging. However, I do think there's a possibility that it will be upgraded model S and X debut. Possibly showing a HUD.
He may not consider an upgraded model S and X to be important enough to have its own event and so is combining it with the semi event.
He may not consider an upgraded model S and X to be important enough to have its own event and so is combining it with the semi event.
gjunky
Trifecta: Solar and both cars are EVs
I voted for the ultra-high capacity charging becasue it will be required for any kind of long haul running with the consumption level of these kind of trucks.
However, I would not be surprised if the extra annoucement is a production agreement with another manufacturer / large client.
However, I would not be surprised if the extra annoucement is a production agreement with another manufacturer / large client.
At first I thought an ultra fast super charger, but now think it is more likely battery swap stations. There still are some serious limiting factors in battery chemistry to achieve the necessary speeds. Yes in time these limitations will no longer exist, but it just seems easier to innovate battery swapping stations given the near term state of battery tech. But, who knows, with Tesla anything is possible ...
I suspect the semi will have multiple battery packs and multiple charge ports. The semi will support dynamically configuring the truck with packs such that you take the minimum number of packs required for the distance/load thereby removing unnecessary weight. Given this ability, which is essentially pack swap with multiple packs, we're going to see pack swap stations, but rather operated by Tesla, they will be privately owned and operated by the transport companies that own Tesla semi fleets. A truck heading West stops briefly, swaps, and is on it's way. An hour later an East bound truck stops, swapstaking on the west bound original packs that are now recharged) and is on its way. This works whereas passenger car swapping did not because the same owner (the transport company) owns all the packs and doesn't need to return to recover their pack.
I also believe we will see a significant increase in peak power available at the superchargers, perhaps ~400kW per cabinet. If two "first gen" teslas connect, both will be able to share and charge at peak rate. If a gen2 and gen1 car connect, both will charge at the peak rate for that generation. If two gen2 teslas share, we'll see a similar ramp down/ramp up that we see today. It's also likely that the higher power pedestals will support auto-charge ports (robotic arms).
I also believe we will see a significant increase in peak power available at the superchargers, perhaps ~400kW per cabinet. If two "first gen" teslas connect, both will be able to share and charge at peak rate. If a gen2 and gen1 car connect, both will charge at the peak rate for that generation. If two gen2 teslas share, we'll see a similar ramp down/ramp up that we see today. It's also likely that the higher power pedestals will support auto-charge ports (robotic arms).
Last edited:
BluestarE3
Active Member
I don't know if it will be part of the September "surprise" or not, but I tend to agree that battery swap stations, owned and operated by the trucking firms, will be part of the package offered with the Tesla Semi.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
I voted Pickup, because I thought I remembered his comment about the possible surprise at the Semi unveiling came as a direct answer to some question about the rumored Pickup. I might quite likely be completely wrong though 
It looks like a pretty clear real on the poll: we are expecting ultra high power Supercharging.
These other possibilities would be wonderful surprises, but they are not what we a collectively expecting.
It will be good to hold on to this as the time approaches. The basic risk we take is that expectations can get too fanciful. And then when just the more basic stuff is delivered, we are disappointed. I think this is why the stick price usual falls right after a product unveiling.
High speed charging is essential in the semi space. So let us be fully content if that is the surprise.
But honestly, I would be looking to buy on the post-unveiling depression dip. Should we call that PUD?
These other possibilities would be wonderful surprises, but they are not what we a collectively expecting.
It will be good to hold on to this as the time approaches. The basic risk we take is that expectations can get too fanciful. And then when just the more basic stuff is delivered, we are disappointed. I think this is why the stick price usual falls right after a product unveiling.
High speed charging is essential in the semi space. So let us be fully content if that is the surprise.
But honestly, I would be looking to buy on the post-unveiling depression dip. Should we call that PUD?
Why go super luxurious? The end-game is to get rid of the driver entirely through Autonomous driving. I guess luxury for a while then the pink slips come a few years later. Technology is all about efficiency. Efficiency is all about saving companies and owners money. Technology is not always a "jobs program" but in the end, robotics and autonomous is a jobs displacer. Truckers and professional drivers are viewed as possibly 4.1 Million American jobs waiting to be cut if autonomous takes full-hold. By being a big fan of autonomous tech, many are really cheering on large-scale job cutting.
We all know the deep-down reason for autonomous transport and truck drivers now want a lifestyle that simply will not compress their spines through long hours sitting. Truckers are not luxury-life living folks. Something akin to a nice little cab with sleeping quarters that don't require the engine to run all night would be nice and quiet. Battery plugged in overnight with 10-20KW charging/usage and then open-road stops with higher-speed charging or battery swap. that might work but which wins first; Autonomous driving without a driver at all (no big cabs at all, more like a bullet-train fascia) - or an electric lifestyle for the driver living in the cab overnights?
Tesla should make hybrid-enabling components for trucking companies first. There is already a group of firms doing this. Partner with someone - anyone. Why isn't Tesla supplying more powertrains for anyone else in the industry like they did for the Toyota Rav-4 EV a while back or the early Smart EV? I do know that stockholders want Tesla to "win" by putting "everyone else out of business". I don't think that is the right attitude. Very greedy, maybe. But partnerships create a faster path to lower prices through scale. Wouldn't it be nice to see the GF fully utilized making cells for other EVs on the market? Since Panasonic is the maker in the plant, I presume they can create output paths going elsewhere as an OEM.
Last edited:
Chuq
Active Member
So it will be like when he revealed the D?
Tesla could really use a 2170 cell version with high C rating. Faster charging as prime reason. If an Ioniq EV already pushed 70kW charging, similar batteries in a long range car would hit 200-250kW.
With packs larger than 100kWh not expected per Elon, despite the larger and more efficient form factor of the 2170 cells, something might be keeping the max at 100kWh rather than 120kWh+. And it could be a choice for power cells over density cells. The energy products may get the highest density (and really slow out/input rating), automotive may get faster charging tech better able to deal with high cycle count.
A 200kW+ charging car needs faster chargers. They may just convert one or two stalls per location at first. If they go crazy, it could be made from recycled cells.
Model 3 might get these faster cells so the ~60kWh car can already hit 120kW in a normal supercharger. New S/X car would get (higher priced) access to ultrachargers.
All this in part because a 100kWh pack from old school high density chemistry in teh 2170 form factor mightt actually charge slower, reducing "value" for drivers, making sale prices come under pressure. We KNOW the new cells are the lowest cost in the world. Why pay $100K for a basic D car with $10K in batteries? But if they charge really really fast, though... the ones complaining about charge times instantly become customers. 100kWh is rarely seen as too little anyway, only when long charging time gets involved.
Now CCS is coming with 350kW chargers, and Tesla involved with that. Would be silly to stick with cars that top out at 120kW when the competition is working on making the most of 350kW chargers being rolled out, payed for by VW.
With packs larger than 100kWh not expected per Elon, despite the larger and more efficient form factor of the 2170 cells, something might be keeping the max at 100kWh rather than 120kWh+. And it could be a choice for power cells over density cells. The energy products may get the highest density (and really slow out/input rating), automotive may get faster charging tech better able to deal with high cycle count.
A 200kW+ charging car needs faster chargers. They may just convert one or two stalls per location at first. If they go crazy, it could be made from recycled cells.
Model 3 might get these faster cells so the ~60kWh car can already hit 120kW in a normal supercharger. New S/X car would get (higher priced) access to ultrachargers.
All this in part because a 100kWh pack from old school high density chemistry in teh 2170 form factor mightt actually charge slower, reducing "value" for drivers, making sale prices come under pressure. We KNOW the new cells are the lowest cost in the world. Why pay $100K for a basic D car with $10K in batteries? But if they charge really really fast, though... the ones complaining about charge times instantly become customers. 100kWh is rarely seen as too little anyway, only when long charging time gets involved.
Now CCS is coming with 350kW chargers, and Tesla involved with that. Would be silly to stick with cars that top out at 120kW when the competition is working on making the most of 350kW chargers being rolled out, payed for by VW.
The concern with trucks is logistics and incoming power line sizing. If one truck pulls up and the site has 1MW of incoming power - then you can get fancy with high-C rating charging. If the site has 1MW and six trucks come in and need to get going quickly, then what? Battery Swap would be better. If trucking would rely on electricity in the utopian future, then having a truck stop with an agent who runs a truck-battery based forklift to swap out a truck's batteries in 5 minutes and they get another 600 miles, those batteries can be charged slower than if they were attached and must be charged "right now". Then again, 600 miles is a typical driver's day and so is fast charging really necessary? And then again, without a driver, you can battery swap and get the thing going again for another 600 mile run. Driving speeds will slow since average speeds per day will go way up with autonomous trucks.
I don't think it's all been thought through but in a large transition to electric transport, you really should electrify the smaller, high mileage fleet driving first (taxis, uber, long-commuters) and not those who putter around with 6000 mile a year driving cycles. Long haul trucks and some airplanes are very power-hungry and also have an ability to be hybridized. As such, focus is starting to get blurry as to the value of why would we want long-haul trucks electrified when we should be doing other things to do. You can add 1-2 mpg to today's long haul trucks through aerodynamics and load management, speed decreasing and other factors. Another 1-2mpg through hybridization with regen braking.
Look at our buying now. Instead of running to the stores as often, UPS/USPS brings us things. Electrifying the delivery trucks that have taken us off the roads would be even better. But internet buying has worked like telecommuting in getting some off the roads and cutting demand for oil/gas. However, oil/gas demand in 2016 surpassed pre-recession peak demands already - so we haven't seen a downslope just yet - demand is still at the heights. People are buying more trucks and SUVs now. India and China now want a middle-class. Population continues to grow. The 1-billion born in the last 16 years will be driving soon in many places where they can afford it but most will be driving scooters or other tiny rigs and not large sedans or SUVs. Electric scooters are quite popular in Asia now and can help cut the emissions problems from gas-powered scooters (Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, China, etc.)
If Tesla/Musk want to "save the world" it may want to consider making high-volume, long range electric scooters and even lawn equipment. Emissions from both are a sizable issue. Compete with Mean Green Machines (or buy them). Partner/buy China-based electric scooter companies and make millions of them and setup a charging network. America has the money to buy X/S/3 models but the population is growing fast elsewhere and needs attention. China's electric car industry is blossoming well and their sales count is surpassing all the others - seems to me they are the ones saving the world (but not in our neighborhood).
I don't think it's all been thought through but in a large transition to electric transport, you really should electrify the smaller, high mileage fleet driving first (taxis, uber, long-commuters) and not those who putter around with 6000 mile a year driving cycles. Long haul trucks and some airplanes are very power-hungry and also have an ability to be hybridized. As such, focus is starting to get blurry as to the value of why would we want long-haul trucks electrified when we should be doing other things to do. You can add 1-2 mpg to today's long haul trucks through aerodynamics and load management, speed decreasing and other factors. Another 1-2mpg through hybridization with regen braking.
Look at our buying now. Instead of running to the stores as often, UPS/USPS brings us things. Electrifying the delivery trucks that have taken us off the roads would be even better. But internet buying has worked like telecommuting in getting some off the roads and cutting demand for oil/gas. However, oil/gas demand in 2016 surpassed pre-recession peak demands already - so we haven't seen a downslope just yet - demand is still at the heights. People are buying more trucks and SUVs now. India and China now want a middle-class. Population continues to grow. The 1-billion born in the last 16 years will be driving soon in many places where they can afford it but most will be driving scooters or other tiny rigs and not large sedans or SUVs. Electric scooters are quite popular in Asia now and can help cut the emissions problems from gas-powered scooters (Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, China, etc.)
If Tesla/Musk want to "save the world" it may want to consider making high-volume, long range electric scooters and even lawn equipment. Emissions from both are a sizable issue. Compete with Mean Green Machines (or buy them). Partner/buy China-based electric scooter companies and make millions of them and setup a charging network. America has the money to buy X/S/3 models but the population is growing fast elsewhere and needs attention. China's electric car industry is blossoming well and their sales count is surpassing all the others - seems to me they are the ones saving the world (but not in our neighborhood).
Last edited:
The problem with li-ion chemistry is for high C rate you generally trade off capacity. A battery that charges 3X faster, but has 1/5 the capacity is not as useful as what they are using now.
There is some promise that solid state batteries might not have this trade-off. And I doubt there will be very many cars available capable of using 350KW CCS, if any before solid state batteries are in production. There might be a very expensive Porsche model or something that can charge fast, but li-ion chemistry just isn't capable of high capacity and high C rate.
I believe when VW was talking about their Gigafactory, they were talking about hitting full production around 2025 with solid state cells.
The more cells a pack has, the higher the power it can take because that power is spread out among the cells. The charge rate of the large pack on the Model S/X has always been faster because it has more cells. Theoretically the 100 pack should be able to take more power and charge faster than the 85/90 because it has more cells and Tesla probably will announce that at some point soon.
A truck pack will be able to take much faster charging and higher power because it will have many more cells than the cars can, possibly a few times more.
gavine
Petrol Head turned EV Enthusiast
gavine
Petrol Head turned EV Enthusiast
I hope the September surprise is that they will finally be putting solar and PowerPacks at ALL Supercharger stations.
We really want to electrify trucking because it's a substantial proportion of petroleum use, and a significant contributor to pollution. You can't solve the fundamental problems related to the energy supply unless you can solve for trucking.
If they can build a semi for long-distance trucking, they'd almost certainly be able to do local delivery vehicles.
gjunky
Trifecta: Solar and both cars are EVs
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Similar threads
