The numbers on the semi destroyed what anyone thought possible.
- 0-60 in 5 sec
- 0-60 in 20 sec under max gross payload of 80k lbs
- 65mph up 5% grade under max lied, compared to 45mph for ICE semi
- 500 mile range
- 400 miles of additional range after 30 min charge
- Guaranteed 7¢/kWh fuel cost(solar) compared to volatile oil
- Nuclear explosion proof glass(apparently cracked windshield takes semi off road)
- 1 million mile guarantee it won't breakdown
- Will never need a brake change
- "Impossible" to jacknife
- Beats semis on economics day 1
- In convoy mode, beats rail on economics
300 miles of range: $150,000
500 miles of range: $180,000
Founders series: $200,000
https://youtu.be/CBTQnmUolas
The Roadster was a complete surprise, and the numbers given destroy any production car you can think of, even a Koenisegg.
- 0-60 in 1.9 sec (this is faster than most Formula 1 cars)
- 0-100 in 4.2
- 1/4 mile in 8.9 sec
- 250+ mph top speed
- 621 mile range (That's Kansas City to Denver without fueling)
- 10,000 nm torque
and that's the base model. Starting at $200k and Founders series at $250k. Destroys million dollar cars.
Also teased a rendering image of a consumer pickup truck with a normal truck in the bed.
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
I would like it if Musk would stop sucking at the government teat and see if his business would survive then.
When this is true of the entirety of corporate America we’ll be a lot better off. But don’t kid yourself thinking Tesla is the only car manufacturer with gov’t help. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Musk actively suggests that people don't invest in Tesla if they are hoping for great returns. Money has never been his driving force.
A peculiar stance for someone that accepted $220 million from investors at his IPO. Today’s announcement that the lead Tesla engineer is stepping away for an indeterminate amount of time is just odd.
Space ventures seem to be the arena for which Musk is best suited. At least for now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Wait, hold on, I thought Tesla used 18650's (or similar) that were made by other companies?
18650 only indicates the form factor. 18mmm by 65mmm cylindrical. They've switched to 2170 for the model 3, and possibly the energy storage, Semi and Roadster as well.
The true difference in battery tech is chemistry for both performance and cost.
I honestly don't think anyone will be able to compete. As noted in the call, Tesla has greatly reduced the need for cobalt in their batteries, and see a path to get it to almost nothing. This is HUGE for cost as prices have been trending upward.
If other automakers intend to go 100% electric, which they all do outside out Fiat and Toyota(sorry gearheads), they'll likely be putting prismatic cells in their cars to get the volume they'll need and to save on weight and shove batteries wherever they find space.
Problem is, cars are a terrible place to use prismatic cells. This is typically what traditional OEM's use though. They favor larger cell sizes and less connections. The problem is, they degrade faster, and if a single cell goes out, it can make a HUGE difference to performance/range.
Basically, when you hear the worn out adage of, "you'll have to replace the battery after 10 years, if it makes it that long"!, they are referring to prismatic cells. The vibrations of the road make the bagged chemistry shake itself apart faster. Other problems are losing a single cell is significant, as I said earlier, and they can be easily damaged/punctured in a wreck. Which of course can be dangerous.
This is why I'm not too worried about all other OEM's going electric. It might effect the stock early, but once the public understands the ins and outs, or OEM's have their reputations ruined by going with a poor solution, Tesla should remain out in front. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Maintainence will be the driver on the trucks. Yeah, fuel is expensive but so is downtime and parts. And quite frankly the amount of torque applied through the system is so much higher to haul 85,000 as opposed to 2000 there is a lot of testing they need to do.
It's electric. Given ample electricity, torque is not an issue, at all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass: Yes, and true to a certain extent.My point was that from an investor standpoint they don’t always inspire confidence.
May 12, 2018: 1:04 PM ET
The top dog on Tesla's engineering team is taking a leave of absence at a crucial moment for the company and its first mass-market car, the Model 3.
The electric car maker said in a statement that Doug Field, its senior vice president of engineering, "is just taking some time off to recharge and spend time with his family."
"He has not left Tesla," the statement added. A spokesperson could not confirm how long the leave of absence would last or the reason for Field's temporary departure.
The news was reported earlier by the Wall Street Journal.
Field has been with Tesla since 2013, and he's served as Tesla's engineering chief since September 2016.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet that, sometime in mid-2017, he asked Field to take over both manufacturing and engineering for the Model 3.
But, earlier this year, Musk decided it was "better to divide & conquer."
"My job as CEO is to focus on what's most critical, which is currently Model 3 production," he said. "So I'm back to sleeping at factory. Car biz is hell."
He added that he views Field as "one of the world's most talented engineering execs."
Field's leave of absence comes as Tesla is attempting to assuage investors' fears about the company's ability to ramp up production of the Model 3.
After months of manufacturing issues that have left Tesla repeatedly falling short of its production goals, the company's latest earnings release showed Tesla may finally be getting back on track.
But then a bizarre conference call earlier this month — in which Musk refused to answer questions from two Wall Street analyst and called their quesitons "boring" — appeared to rattle investors.
Shares of Tesla sunk about 5% after the call during off-hours trading.
The company's stock has rebounded slightly over the past five days, but its price remains well below its all-time high of more than $380 per share.
Short term traders? No. Long term? Money in the bank.
Trading based promises and performance is asinine. It's not about how they get there, it's where they end up.
Seeing outlandish deadlines a bad thing? I don't think so, I've always been a big fan when managing people. Set expectations high, they might succeed, but will probably fail. They'll definitely get more accomplished the next guy though. Elons crazy time frames have advanced things far beyond what anyone thought possible, and in record time. What was it, 5 years ago that landing rockets was "impossible"and foolish?
You invest in people who talk, I'll invest in those who do, we'll see where we end up. Elon might be late, but he'll always be first. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass:
A peculiar stance for someone that accepted $220 million from investors at his IPO. Today’s announcement that the lead Tesla engineer is stepping away for an indeterminate amount of time is just odd.
Space ventures seem to be the arena for which Musk is best suited. At least for now.
He risked millions to start two "sure to fail" companies in an agent to change the world. The IPO certainly wasn't for personal gain, it was for the money needed to change the face of transport.
Their lead engineer is taking a break. Wouldn't be the first executive through had take a leave only to return from said leave.
I'm almost certain he's never worked harder than he has this past year and a half.
If he wants to build something big and be a part of history, he'll be back. If he just wants to get paid and live his life, he'll end up elsewhere. [Reply]
Originally Posted by aturnis:
It's electric. Given ample electricity, torque is not an issue, at all.
Dude. Have you ever dealt with operating anything ever?
Torque isn’t the problem. Duh. Electricity kicks the fuck out of internal combustion all day every day. Getting torque to the asphalt is the problem.
Everything on trucks needs to be heavy duty. Engineering a 2000lb car to run 200,000 miles is not even in the same universe as an 85000 lb truck for 1,000,000. Everything from the kingpin to the lugnuts need intensive testing.
The engineering has to be fucking right or it just won’t work in a fleet.
It’s way different than engineering a passenger car [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Dude. Have you ever dealt with operating anything ever?
Torque isn’t the problem. Duh. Electricity kicks the fuck out of internal combustion all day every day. Getting torque to the asphalt is the problem.
Everything on trucks needs to be heavy duty. Engineering a 2000lb car to run 200,000 miles is not even in the same universe as an 85000 lb truck for 1,000,000. Everything from the kingpin to the lugnuts need intensive testing.
The engineering has to be fucking right or it just won’t work in a fleet.
It’s way different than engineering a passenger car
Originally Posted by BWillie:
The day they announced the semi many large companies jumped on the waiting list.
Of course a lot of companies jumped on the waiting list. If you didn't sign up for one of the first 100 trucks, you will have to wait at least an extra year for delivery. Maybe two. [Reply]
Originally Posted by aturnis:
18650 only indicates the form factor. 18mmm by 65mmm cylindrical. They've switched to 2170 for the model 3, and possibly the energy storage, Semi and Roadster as well.
The true difference in battery tech is chemistry for both performance and cost.
I honestly don't think anyone will be able to compete. As noted in the call, Tesla has greatly reduced the need for cobalt in their batteries, and see a path to get it to almost nothing. This is HUGE for cost as prices have been trending upward.
If other automakers intend to go 100% electric, which they all do outside out Fiat and Toyota(sorry gearheads), they'll likely be putting prismatic cells in their cars to get the volume they'll need and to save on weight and shove batteries wherever they find space.
Problem is, cars are a terrible place to use prismatic cells. This is typically what traditional OEM's use though. They favor larger cell sizes and less connections. The problem is, they degrade faster, and if a single cell goes out, it can make a HUGE difference to performance/range.
Basically, when you hear the worn out adage of, "you'll have to replace the battery after 10 years, if it makes it that long"!, they are referring to prismatic cells. The vibrations of the road make the bagged chemistry shake itself apart faster. Other problems are losing a single cell is significant, as I said earlier, and they can be easily damaged/punctured in a wreck. Which of course can be dangerous.
This is why I'm not too worried about all other OEM's going electric. It might effect the stock early, but once the public understands the ins and outs, or OEM's have their reputations ruined by going with a poor solution, Tesla should remain out in front.
Yup, I'm familiar with the terminology. I'm counting on battery companies to keep my vaping gear operational. It's 21700 by the way rather than 2170. I currently use the LG HG2 (18650). The Samsung 30T (21700) has been tested and rated by an electrical engineer at 3000 mAh with a continuous discharge rating of 35 Amps. Not bad at all if you want a good, safe battery. By the time I swap away from 18650's I should be sitting pretty. [Reply]
