Electric cars

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

A breakdown of some Tesla Semi claims.

Does Tesla Semi Break the Laws of Physics?

1. Tesla's estimated consumption figures are not only being taken at face value, but exceeded. "Less than 2kWh/mile" is transforming into 1.625kWh/mile before considering the difference between usable and nominal capacity.

2. No mention of charging provision. There is massively insufficient provision of off-the-road overnight truckstops in the UK anyway, without even considering the charging infrastructure needed to recharge multiple 800kWh batteries within driver's hours legislation.

3. The higher overall weight of the tractor is hand-waved away. 750kg is not much, sure, but where loads are already on the upper limits (rather than "cubed out", restricted by volume), it's relevant. It may also cause problems with maximum axle loadings. Also, these are after the weight improvements through materials gains - which are not EV-specific.

4. Why aren't the non-EV-specific aerodynamic and materials improvements already being used, if they're so valuable? Strangely, this is not something the industry has just ignored - quite the opposite.

5. This is naturally US-centric, and ignores the different regulatory environment in Europe, specifically around total truck length - the reason why we have cabovers rather than the bonneted trucks ubiquitous in the US. Cabovers give much less scope for the (non-EV-specific) aerodynamic gains. HGV speeds are considerably lower in Europe than the US, 56mph-restricted rather than 80mph common stateside, meaning potential aerodynamic gains are considerably lower.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

1. Tesla's estimated consumption figures are not only being taken at face value, but exceeded. "Less than 2kWh/mile" is transforming into 1.625kWh/mile before considering the difference between usable and nominal capacity.

2. No mention of charging provision. There is massively insufficient provision of off-the-road overnight truckstops in the UK anyway, without even considering the charging infrastructure needed to recharge multiple 800kWh batteries within driver's hours legislation.

3. The higher overall weight of the tractor is hand-waved away. 750kg is not much, sure, but where loads are already on the upper limits (rather than "cubed out", restricted by volume), it's relevant. It may also cause problems with maximum axle loadings. Also, these are after the weight improvements through materials gains - which are not EV-specific.

4. Why aren't the non-EV-specific aerodynamic and materials improvements already being used, if they're so valuable? Strangely, this is not something the industry has just ignored - quite the opposite.

5. This is naturally US-centric, and ignores the different regulatory environment in Europe, specifically around total truck length - the reason why we have cabovers rather than the bonneted trucks ubiquitous in the US. Cabovers give much less scope for the (non-EV-specific) aerodynamic gains. HGV speeds are considerably lower in Europe than the US, 56mph-restricted rather than 80mph common stateside, meaning potential aerodynamic gains are considerably lower.

Yawn!

BTW, as mentioned previously to you when you raised this before, as far as I can see the Tesla semi is not a bonneted truck, it's a cab-over, just one with an aerodynamic sloped face, possibly because it doesn't need the vast amount of air cooling that diesel trucks need. Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yawn!

BTW, as mentioned previously to you when you raised this before, as far as I can see the Tesla semi is not a bonneted truck, it's a cab-over, just one with an aerodynamic sloped face, possibly because it doesn't need the vast amount of air cooling that diesel trucks need. Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Actually the Tesla 'face' may also be for safety purposes. I'm just guessing but that's the reason as I understand that the VW ID Buzz has not copied the 'driver over the front axle' as used in the original VW camper.

The original camper achieved this as the engine was in the back, so an EV could have copied it, but that would mean no safety impact protection space for front seat occupants.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yawn!

Good to see you're still hand-waving rather than actually addressing points.

BTW, as mentioned previously to you when you raised this before, as far as I can see the Tesla semi is not a bonneted truck, it's a cab-over

It certainly isn't quite as ridiculously over-long as a typical US bonneted truck, but it's definitely a good chunk longer than a European standard cabover.

Tesla sleeper cab:

European standard sleeper cab:

US standard sleeper cab:


Again, huge gains to be made on the US design separate to the EV drivetrain...
Even the hydrogen Nikola One doesn't seem to be actually addressing those fundamental packaging flaws of the "traditional" US design. Perhaps it's simply a very conservative market?

just one with an aerodynamic sloped face

And that's what increases the length. The driver's compartment is further back, relative to a European cabover.

Perhaps beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

What's "beauty" got to do with the price of fish?

almillar

2. No mention of charging provision.

AdrianC - you'll barely acknowledge this truck's existence, and now you're talking about them suddenly hitting the road with nowhere to park or charge. There's an easy solution, and Tesla has form - BUILD CHARGERS. Next problem...

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

AdrianC - you'll barely acknowledge this truck's existence, and now you're talking about them suddenly hitting the road with nowhere to park or charge. There's an easy solution, and Tesla has form - BUILD CHARGERS. Next problem...

Apparently Tesla is already working with some of the reservation holders to discuss the rollout of chargers on their premises, and also the routes that will need mega chargers first.


On the subject of Tesla and chargers, and also to address the issue of properties without the ability to charge, Tesla are now offering 'free' chargers to businesses, and to multi-occupancy properties in the US (these are 'normal' chargers, not superchargers of course). Not a bad idea, and good marketing ploy too.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

What's "beauty" got to do with the price of fish?

Simply that you are going to see what you want to see, and the same will apply to what you read too.

Tesla already have European orders for the semi, so I think your negativity will go unrewarded.

silverwhistle

AdrianC wrote: »

1. /SNIP./
2. /SNIP/
3./SNIP/
4./ SNIP/
5./ SNIP/

Thank you for your list of why TESLA doesn't have a solution for European HGVs, but I'm interested in your views in general regarding commercial traffic migrating to electric. Do you think it is a good thing? Which particular sector do you think should be approached first? Do you see a development path opening up to expand into different sectors?

Like NBLondon electric vehicles aren't quite ready for me yet for a few reasons, the main one being the range of the available second-hand ones, but I have looked into them, am interested in having one and am keeping a close eye on developments. When I come to replace my current car it is highly likely I'll get one.

You, on the other hand, have never shown the slightest bit of positivity.. The reason a number of people on here find you difficult to deal with is your simple technique of coming up with new objections, without ever acknowledging the good. almillar had it to a 'T'.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

You, on the other hand, have never shown the slightest bit of positivity.. The reason a number of people on here find you difficult to deal with is your simple technique of coming up with new objections, without ever acknowledging the good. almillar had it to a 'T'.

I suspect we will all have seen a Tesla making deliveries to our local supermarket well before Adrian admits they even exist.

AdrianC

silverwhistle wrote: »

Do you think it is a good thing?

Absolutely! (As I've said repeatedly before, but that seems to be ignored)

Which particular sector do you think should be approached first?

I love the way you talk like this is the future. It's really not. It's been commercially addressed for twenty years now.

The one that makes most sense is light weight, small cube, local work.
Citroen had electric Berlingos in showrooms before the millennium. Renault have had the Kangoo ZE on the market for seven years. If you need a mid-size van, then Nissan have had the e-NV200 on the market for nearly four years. For more specialist urban roles, there's Goupil and their ilk. That's where the air quality wins are and - unlike cars - vans are actually needed in urban environments. Sorting public transport can/will/should remove the perceived need for urban car use, but not for urban commercial vehicles. Where cars really provide an urban benefit, look at Bollore/Autolib' style four-wheeled-borisbikes.

Next step? Up in size - hit the 3.5t/high-cube Transit market. Renault have been shouting about the electric Master for a year now, but it's late getting to showrooms.

Let's see buses, too. Current buses are lardy - a Routemaster was five tons (40%) lighter than a Borisbus, which is itself five tons lighter than something like an AlexanderDennis Enviro400. Sort that out, and get some reliable hybridisation, at the very least. Plenty of scope for substantial battery packaging, nice and low. Hell, why bother with batteries? Why not just go trolleybus, at least in city centres...?

The exact same big three fundamental problems still apply - packaging, charge infrastructure, weight. Range is easy - just slap more generic cells in - but that multiplies the effects of those three problems. And that's what makes trunk route HGVs totally the wrong end to start from, even ignoring the massive differences between the US and European markets. But they make nice headlines for St Elon, continuing to sucker the fanbois.