These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.

Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.

Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.

>
>Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
>
>https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/

25 MPH? Really?

mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.

here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed

so plenty of time for charging

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> >
> >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> >
> >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> 25 MPH? Really?

Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.

Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.

I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.

Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

>mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
>> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
>
>here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
>and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
>
>so plenty of time for charging

given a charging station in the right place at the right time, with
available slots. With multi megawatts of power lines.

Sleepers often have two people on board, sometimes a married couple.

Time is money for truckers.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:09:49 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
> and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
>
> so plenty of time for charging

Larkin's mistake (as usual) is assuming the worst rather than considering the real world. The US puts heavier demands on the battery than the EU, with only a 30 minute rest in the first 8 hours. Still, that is claimed enough to add 300 miles of range for a total of 800 miles before the driver has to stop for 10 hours of rest. At 70 mph, that's over 11 hours, which is the other limitation on the driver.

People often misunderstand the fact that a BEV semi doesn't need to have the same range as a diesel semi. It only needs to have enough range to support the driver.

The part of BEV semi trucks that catches the eye of most, is the $1,000,000 fuel savings over the life of the vehicle. That would buy you what three or four diesel rigs?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>
> >mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> >> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> >
> >here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
> >and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
> >
> >so plenty of time for charging
> given a charging station in the right place at the right time, with
> available slots. With multi megawatts of power lines.

If they discharge the battery below about 10%, the lithium batteries start developing permanent internal shorts, a very expensive failure. That's why when it happens Tesla sends out a tow truck to haul the semi to a multi-MW charger. It's cheaper than the alternative.

>
> Sleepers often have two people on board, sometimes a married couple.
>
> Time is money for truckers.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > >
> > >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> > >
> > >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> > 25 MPH? Really?
> Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
>
> Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.

LOL! You need to learn what "drag coefficent" means. Clearly you don't. Semi trucks are below 1.0. Here's a paper on optimizing the figure.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813004621/pdf?md5=d7cbbca21d2377b17d01f087d69ad49e&pid=1-s2.0-S1877705813004621-main.pdf

> I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.
>
> Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.

So? Do you think they are faking the numbers by driving at 50 mph?

Dude! They are delivering vehicles to PepsiCo next month. How much longer would they be able to continue a farce like you seem to be dreading?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:24:30 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
>> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
>> >
>> >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
>> >
>> >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
>> 25 MPH? Really?
>
>Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.

Truckers probably don't do all that math. They just lose money until
they get it right.

It's absurd when politicians and greenies take charge of things that
have evolved to work. I doubt than many of them have ever owned or
driven a truck.

>
>Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.
>
>I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.
>
>Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.

The motor press keeps raving about Tesla semi acceleration, as if it
was a sports car.

The only, and small, advantage that an electric truck might have is
higher speed on an upgrade. Auburn to the Sierra crest is about 50
miles and 6000 feet. Loaded trucks grunt up that in the right lane at
40 MPH or so. Increasing speed to 65 wouldn't save a lot of time.

Most of the USA is pretty flat.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:40:26 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> >
> > >mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> > >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > >> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > >
> > >here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
> > >and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
> > >
> > >so plenty of time for charging
> > given a charging station in the right place at the right time, with
> > available slots. With multi megawatts of power lines.
> If they discharge the battery below about 10%, the lithium batteries start developing permanent internal shorts, a very expensive failure. That's why when it happens Tesla sends out a tow truck to haul the semi to a multi-MW charger. It's cheaper than the alternative.

Such BS. If running below 10% caused shorts, my battery would be dead by now.

Why do you like stirring the pot so much? Larkin has an excuse, he has a mental defect of not being able to recognize reality when he sees it.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> >
> >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> >
> >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> 25 MPH? Really?

It could be Tesla was tailing the test semi with another one hauling a 5 MW diesel generator, so they could both take recharge breaks along the way.

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:40:21 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
>> <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
>>
>> >mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
>> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
>> >> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
>> >
>> >here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
>> >and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
>> >
>> >so plenty of time for charging
>> given a charging station in the right place at the right time, with
>> available slots. With multi megawatts of power lines.
>
>If they discharge the battery below about 10%, the lithium batteries start developing permanent internal shorts, a very expensive failure. That's why when it happens Tesla sends out a tow truck to haul the semi to a multi-MW charger. It's cheaper than the alternative.
>

Towing is cheaper than diesel?

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:04 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > > Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > > >
> > > >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> > > >
> > > >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> > > 25 MPH? Really?
> > Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
> >
> > Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.
> LOL! You need to learn what "drag coefficent" means. Clearly you don't. Semi trucks are below 1.0. Here's a paper on optimizing the figure.
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813004621/pdf?md5=d7cbbca21d2377b17d01f087d69ad49e&pid=1-s2.0-S1877705813004621-main.pdf

Look at Figure 4, you godammed moron.

> > I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.
> >
> > Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.
> So? Do you think they are faking the numbers by driving at 50 mph?

50 MPH is probably doable. That would be almost half the energy expenditure at 65 MPH.

>
> Dude! They are delivering vehicles to PepsiCo next month. How much longer would they be able to continue a farce like you seem to be dreading?

Operations like Pepsico make sense, they're short haul.

>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:46:52 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:40:26 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> > > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> > > >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > > >> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > > >
> > > >here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
> > > >and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
> > > >
> > > >so plenty of time for charging
> > > given a charging station in the right place at the right time, with
> > > available slots. With multi megawatts of power lines.
> > If they discharge the battery below about 10%, the lithium batteries start developing permanent internal shorts, a very expensive failure. That's why when it happens Tesla sends out a tow truck to haul the semi to a multi-MW charger. It's cheaper than the alternative.
> Such BS. If running below 10% caused shorts, my battery would be dead by now.

Your SoC gauge is like you. It reads low.

>
> Why do you like stirring the pot so much? Larkin has an excuse, he has a mental defect of not being able to recognize reality when he sees it.
>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:47:46 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:40:21 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> >> <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> >> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> >> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> >> >> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> >> >
> >> >here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
> >> >and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
> >> >
> >> >so plenty of time for charging
> >> given a charging station in the right place at the right time, with
> >> available slots. With multi megawatts of power lines.
> >
> >If they discharge the battery below about 10%, the lithium batteries start developing permanent internal shorts, a very expensive failure. That's why when it happens Tesla sends out a tow truck to haul the semi to a multi-MW charger. It's cheaper than the alternative.
> >
> Towing is cheaper than diesel?

Towing is cheaper than changing out the battery pack

It's not really fair to compare costs between electric and conventional fossil fuel based. The one is brand new with a small market, the other is ingrained in American life with a huge market and infrastructure.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:24:30 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> >> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> >> >
> >> >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> >> >
> >> >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> >> 25 MPH? Really?
> >
> >Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
> Truckers probably don't do all that math. They just lose money until
> they get it right.
>
> It's absurd when politicians and greenies take charge of things that
> have evolved to work. I doubt than many of them have ever owned or
> driven a truck.

If they pay $200K for one of these, the least they can do is include a trip computer that 1) maps the shortest road route, 2) advises maximum allowable speed to complete the route, 3) monitors SoC for verification and adjustment of driver advisory, 4) target SoC 25% upon arrival.

Digital maps integrate a LOT of data. I was confounded for a few minutes on a 3 mile walking route planned with google maps. Google was telling me the straight line distance between start and end was 0.6 mile longer than walking the legs of the corresponding right triangle. What the hey? Turns out the map was right. The straight line distance was on an old road with a lot elevation change, the triangle leg route was on improved road with very little elevation change. That made all the difference.

> >
> >Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.
> >
> >I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.
> >
> >Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.
> The motor press keeps raving about Tesla semi acceleration, as if it
> was a sports car.
>
> The only, and small, advantage that an electric truck might have is
> higher speed on an upgrade. Auburn to the Sierra crest is about 50
> miles and 6000 feet. Loaded trucks grunt up that in the right lane at
> 40 MPH or so. Increasing speed to 65 wouldn't save a lot of time.

Right, delta Vs don't amount to much except over long distance.

>
> Most of the USA is pretty flat.

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:58:33 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:46:52 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:40:26 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:31:28 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:09:44 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
> > > > <lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 18.55.58 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
> > > > >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > > >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > > > >> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > > > >
> > > > >here the rules require a truck driver rest a minimum of 45 minutes every 4.5hours of driving
> > > > >and max 9 hours driving per day, except for a maximum of two days per week 10 hours allowed
> > > > >
> > > > >so plenty of time for charging
> > > > given a charging station in the right place at the right time, with
> > > > available slots. With multi megawatts of power lines.
> > > If they discharge the battery below about 10%, the lithium batteries start developing permanent internal shorts, a very expensive failure. That's why when it happens Tesla sends out a tow truck to haul the semi to a multi-MW charger. It's cheaper than the alternative.
> > Such BS. If running below 10% caused shorts, my battery would be dead by now.
> Your SoC gauge is like you. It reads low.

You're like the hunter in the joke. You don't come here for the hunting, do you?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 19.56.47 UTC+1 skrev Fred Bloggs:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:04 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > > > Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > > > >
> > > > >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> > > > >
> > > > >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> > > > 25 MPH? Really?
> > > Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
> > >
> > > Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.
> > LOL! You need to learn what "drag coefficent" means. Clearly you don't. Semi trucks are below 1.0. Here's a paper on optimizing the figure.
> >
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813004621/pdf?md5=d7cbbca21d2377b17d01f087d69ad49e&pid=1-s2.0-S1877705813004621-main..pdf
> Look at Figure 4, you godammed moron.
> > > I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.
> > >
> > > Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.
> > So? Do you think they are faking the numbers by driving at 50 mph?
> 50 MPH is probably doable. That would be almost half the energy expenditure at 65 MPH.

EU trucks are electronically limited to 90km/h (56mph) is many places the speed limit for trucks are 80km/h

On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 3:44:05 PM UTC-5, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 19.56.47 UTC+1 skrev Fred Bloggs:
> > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:04 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > > > > Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> > > > > 25 MPH? Really?
> > > > Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
> > > >
> > > > Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.
> > > LOL! You need to learn what "drag coefficent" means. Clearly you don't. Semi trucks are below 1.0. Here's a paper on optimizing the figure.
> > >
> > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813004621/pdf?md5=d7cbbca21d2377b17d01f087d69ad49e&pid=1-s2.0-S1877705813004621-main.pdf
> > Look at Figure 4, you godammed moron.
> > > > I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.
> > > >
> > > > Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.
> > > So? Do you think they are faking the numbers by driving at 50 mph?
> > 50 MPH is probably doable. That would be almost half the energy expenditure at 65 MPH.
> EU trucks are electronically limited to 90km/h (56mph) is many places the speed limit for trucks are 80km/h

U.S has a lot of wide open spaces in places like Texas and California, especially in desert/ wasteland areas. It would make no sense to limit speed in places like that. Then in places where they should limit speed, they let them go 75 MPH.

mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 22.05.48 UTC+1 skrev Fred Bloggs:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 3:44:05 PM UTC-5, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
> > mandag den 28. november 2022 kl. 19.56.47 UTC+1 skrev Fred Bloggs:
> > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:04 PM UTC-5, Ricky wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> > > > > > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> > > > > > Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> > > > > > 25 MPH? Really?
> > > > > Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction.. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate.. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't let the sleek design fool you. Their spiffy little sedan has a drag coefficient of 0.22, and that's a lot. This truck thing can't even be close to that.
> > > > LOL! You need to learn what "drag coefficent" means. Clearly you don't. Semi trucks are below 1.0. Here's a paper on optimizing the figure.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705813004621/pdf?md5=d7cbbca21d2377b17d01f087d69ad49e&pid=1-s2.0-S1877705813004621-main.pdf
> > > Look at Figure 4, you godammed moron.
> > > > > I could be entirely wrong about every bit of this. Dunno. I understand horrifically over-capitalization much better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Conclusion is there are pretty big battery savings in reducing speed. Somewhere in the PR blurb they say 2 kWh per mile. What kind of joke spec is that? That's strongly dependent on highway speed.
> > > > So? Do you think they are faking the numbers by driving at 50 mph?
> > > 50 MPH is probably doable. That would be almost half the energy expenditure at 65 MPH.
> > EU trucks are electronically limited to 90km/h (56mph) is many places the speed limit for trucks are 80km/h
> U.S has a lot of wide open spaces in places like Texas and California, especially in desert/ wasteland areas. It would make no sense to limit speed in places like that. Then in places where they should limit speed, they let them go 75 MPH.

unless you have to pay the diesel ... https://www.primemovermag.com.au/scania-fuel-duel/

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:47:10 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
>> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
>> >
>> >Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
>> >
>> >https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
>> 25 MPH? Really?
>
>It could be Tesla was tailing the test semi with another one hauling a 5 MW diesel generator, so they could both take recharge breaks along the way.

Really?

On 11/28/2022 2:16 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:24:30 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
>>>> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
>>>> 25 MPH? Really?
>>>
>>> Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3 (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2= 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate. And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
>> Truckers probably don't do all that math. They just lose money until
>> they get it right.
>>
>> It's absurd when politicians and greenies take charge of things that
>> have evolved to work. I doubt than many of them have ever owned or
>> driven a truck.
>
> If they pay $200K for one of these, the least they can do is include a trip computer that 1) maps the shortest road route, 2) advises maximum allowable speed to complete the route, 3) monitors SoC for verification and adjustment of driver advisory, 4) target SoC 25% upon arrival.
>
> Digital maps integrate a LOT of data. I was confounded for a few minutes on a 3 mile walking route planned with google maps. Google was telling me the straight line distance between start and end was 0.6 mile longer than walking the legs of the corresponding right triangle. What the hey? Turns out the map was right. The straight line distance was on an old road with a lot elevation change, the triangle leg route was on improved road with very little elevation change. That made all the difference.

Google Maps already lets you select minimum time or EV-optimized minimum
energy routes

On 11/28/2022 6:02 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 11/28/2022 2:16 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:24:30 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
>>>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
>>>>> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH
>>>>>> all the way...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
>>>>> 25 MPH? Really?
>>>>
>>>> Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to
>>>> travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the
>>>> speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3
>>>> (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That
>>>> makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then
>>>> that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at
>>>> half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2=
>>>> 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it
>>>> neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it
>>>> doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate.
>>>> And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
>>> Truckers probably don't do all that math. They just lose money until
>>> they get it right.
>>>
>>> It's absurd when politicians and greenies take charge of things that
>>> have evolved to work. I doubt than many of them have ever owned or
>>> driven a truck.
>>
>> If they pay $200K for one of these, the least they can do is include a
>> trip computer that 1) maps the shortest road route, 2) advises maximum
>> allowable speed to complete the route, 3) monitors SoC for
>> verification and adjustment of driver advisory, 4) target SoC 25% upon
>> arrival.
>>
>> Digital maps integrate a LOT of data. I was confounded for a few
>> minutes on a 3 mile walking route planned with google maps. Google was
>> telling me the straight line distance between start and end was 0.6
>> mile longer than walking the legs of the corresponding right triangle.
>> What the hey? Turns out the map was right. The straight line distance
>> was on an old road with a lot elevation change, the triangle leg route
>> was on improved road with very little elevation change. That made all
>> the difference.
>
>
> Google Maps already lets you select minimum time or EV-optimized minimum
> energy routes

Ope, nevermind, that feature hasn't actually been rolled out in the US
yet, despite being reported on back in Sept:

<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/google-maps-can-now-pick-the-most-efficient-route-for-evs/>

On Tuesday, 29 November 2022 at 00:18:13 UTC+1, bitrex wrote:
> On 11/28/2022 6:02 PM, bitrex wrote:
> > On 11/28/2022 2:16 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 10:24:30 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> >>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 12:55:58 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 07:32:08 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
> >>>>> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
> >>>>> Which, given a 1 MW charger, will take an hour to charge.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH
> >>>>>> all the way...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
> >>>>> 25 MPH? Really?
> >>>>
> >>>> Look at it this way. The truck has a fixed distance D it has to
> >>>> travel. It can travel that distance at speed V1 or V2. Whatever the
> >>>> speed, power required to overcome air resistance is V^3
> >>>> (proportionally factor omitted) and time of travel is D/V. That
> >>>> makes energy expenditure E= V^3 x D/V= V^2 x D. So you can see then
> >>>> that E2/E1= (V2/V1)^2 or E(25MPH)/E(65MPH)=(25/65)^2= 15%. And at
> >>>> half highway speed it's (1/2)^2=25%, at 3/4 hwy speed it's (3/4)^2=
> >>>> 56%, etc...That quick comparison is an oversimplification because it
> >>>> neglects overhead like internal and external friction. But it
> >>>> doesn't have to be moving real fast for air resistance to dominate.
> >>>> And some of those internal friction components are V^2 dependent too.
> >>> Truckers probably don't do all that math. They just lose money until
> >>> they get it right.
> >>>
> >>> It's absurd when politicians and greenies take charge of things that
> >>> have evolved to work. I doubt than many of them have ever owned or
> >>> driven a truck.
> >>
> >> If they pay $200K for one of these, the least they can do is include a
> >> trip computer that 1) maps the shortest road route, 2) advises maximum
> >> allowable speed to complete the route, 3) monitors SoC for
> >> verification and adjustment of driver advisory, 4) target SoC 25% upon
> >> arrival.
> >>
> >> Digital maps integrate a LOT of data. I was confounded for a few
> >> minutes on a 3 mile walking route planned with google maps. Google was
> >> telling me the straight line distance between start and end was 0.6
> >> mile longer than walking the legs of the corresponding right triangle.
> >> What the hey? Turns out the map was right. The straight line distance
> >> was on an old road with a lot elevation change, the triangle leg route
> >> was on improved road with very little elevation change. That made all
> >> the difference.
> >
> >
> > Google Maps already lets you select minimum time or EV-optimized minimum
> > energy routes
> Ope, nevermind, that feature hasn't actually been rolled out in the US
> yet, despite being reported on back in Sept:
>
> <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/google-maps-can-now-pick-the-most-efficient-route-for-evs/>
stop your day dreaming
never by Tesla

On 29/11/2022 2:32 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> These monsters have a 1,000 kWh battery pack.
>
> Of course they're not going to tell you it was doing only 25 MPH all the way...
>
> https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-81k-pounds-500-miles-range-elon-musk/
Back of the envelope calculation suggests 8000 to 12000 pounds of that
is battery.

Sylvia.