Connect with us

News

Tesla Semi truck’s battery pack and overall weight explored

Published

on

The big question on everyone’s mind–at least on the minds of those who understand the freight transportation industry–is how much the Tesla Semi might weigh. If Tesla’s all-electric semi truck is to be competitive at all, it must be capable of carrying the same loads as current-use semi-trucks in the Class 8 field do.

A big point of contention from nay-sayers and those in the trucking industry who understand logistics was the lack of announcement of the Tesla Semi’s actual weight. Plenty of press was given to the much-touted “80,000-pound capacity” number bandied around by CEO Elon Musk during the truck’s unveiling late last year. That number, however, refers only to the gross vehicle weight (GVW) of the Tesla Semi and is, in fact, exactly the same number used by every Class 8 truck on the road. They’re called Class 8s, in fact, because the 8 refers to that 80,000-pound total vehicle capacity.

What wasn’t given by Tesla was the gross vehicle tare weight (GVTW) of the Semi. This is a far more important number. Where the GVW gives the total capacity of the truck in terms of how much its freight plus the truck itself can weigh, the GVTW gives just the weight of the truck, sans trailer and freight. This number tells logistics experts how much actual freight and trailer the truck can haul legally.

For example, a typical “day cab” configuration 18-wheeler with a diesel engine weighs roughly 32,000 pounds with a relatively lightweight box trailer attached and full fuel tanks. That leaves about 48,000 pounds of freight capacity for the truck. That’s important because, although the truck won’t be loaded to capacity every time, it will be expected to be capable of carrying up to about that weight. Most big rigs on the road are capable of hauling 44,000 or more pounds worth of freight, depending on configuration and trailer type.

Having experience with driving commercial trucks in the past, once hauling a refrigerated trailer that had a freight capacity of 44,500 pounds, I learned that some industries count on freight capacity as part of their logistics costs and will literally fill a truck to its maximum in order to minimize those costs.

In logistics, weight and total freight capacity are highly important metrics in the overall scheme.

Advertisement
-

What We Know

Thinking about that, then, let’s look at what we know of the Tesla Semi and its potential weight. We know that the truck uses four independent electric motors that are derived from the Model 3, that it has an energy consumption of less than 2 kWh per mile, and that it can be charged to up to 400 miles in about half an hour. We also know that Elon promised 300 to 500 miles of range in total. On that latter point, it’s pretty clear that a “lower range, cheaper option” will be offered as has been done with most of Tesla’s vehicles to-date. So we can assume a 300-mile version and a 500-mile version will be forthcoming for the Semi.

We also know that the Tesla Semi had eight ports in its charging plug array. We saw this at the unveil in some close-up photos.

It’s clear to us that even if the Tesla Semi isn’t to become a big player in the trucking industry, the idea behind it will change things forever.

 

What We Don’t Know

What we don’t know is whether Musk and Co have something up their sleeves for the batteries. Much of the speculation regarding the Tesla Semi has been in regards to Tesla Semi’s massive battery pack.

In actuality, having a huge battery breakthrough on a vehicle like the Tesla Semi would not necessarily be a good thing for business. If there is a huge breakthrough, then all bets are off and most of our speculation in this article is moot. That would, however, mean that the sales potential of the Semi would be far lower than it would be otherwise because one thing that logistics companies and fleet managers aren’t interested in are flashy new, breakthrough, and (most importantly) untested, unproven technologies.

Advertisement
-

To a fleet manager, those phrases mean “breaks often, expensive to fix” and the potential positives will be ignored because of that. No one who wants to keep a job as a fleet manager or logistics purchaser will gamble on something unproven. Like new battery technology for a truck whose primary cost will be in its batteries. Likewise, unless there is a clear benefit in some terms other than pure business (like marketing or potential tax breaks), no board of directors will risk shareholder wrath on new tech either.

Close-up look at Tesla Semi’s drivetrain from underneath

We can say, as a side note, that most of the orders that have been placed for the Tesla Semi thus far are from corporations and companies who are doing business in areas where the marketing bonanza and potential tax incentives for laying down those relatively low-cost deposits are immense. Most of the companies involved have already invested heavily (and very publicly) in alternative fuel options outside of Tesla over the past few years. We also note the timing of both the Tesla Semi’s announcement (and order-taking) and the before-2018 rush by potential customers to put in deposits.

We reiterate that our not knowing if Tesla has some kind of big battery breakthrough announcement is a big “if” in our analysis here.

 

What People Smarter Than Us Have Said

Some people who know more than we do about things like math and engineering science have crunched the numbers on the Tesla Semi’s battery potentials. Over at Engineering.com, John Ewbank broke the results down into layman format. Here’s the gist.

Advertisement
-

If the Tesla Semi uses 2 kWh to travel a mile, then a 500-mile range means 1,000 kWh of power. That is not the actual size of the battery, though, as the charging requirement would preclude a huge pack.

In order to get 400 miles in thirty minutes of charging, Ewbank notes, the charger would have to be 1.6MW to achieve the 800kWh of promised charge in only 30 minutes. Charging at that rate is not possible because the result would be arching in the pack, which would surely be akin to the next Boring Company Flamethrower meme when Semi trucks begin to explode in flames during charging as a regular event. So the charging has to be split up.

Tesla Semi Megacharger port could support 1 MW of power.

The answer is simple, of course, and may explain the strange layout of the eight-port charging hub shown on the Semi at its unveil: there are four battery packs.

Instead of one big pack, four smaller packs (one for each motor, even) are used and are thus charging separately from one another, but simultaneously. Based on Tesla Semi’s Megacharger port configuration, this would likely mean that four of them are positive sides and the other four are grounds. Allowing for a single, huge wire to be plugged into each. The controls for the charging system interface may be plugged in separately (perhaps the oval-shaped black thing to the side?).

What This Adds Up To

We add up that bit of information plus what we know about the truck and get an estimated weight. Using the current weight of a Tesla Model S battery pack at 540kg per 90 kWh, we can do some simple math to estimate the Semi’s batteries would weigh about 6,000 kg. We aren’t sure about the new battery weights for the upcoming battery updates, but we can assume a 10-15 percent reduction from several factors (storage density, improvements in chemistry, packaging lightening) without being too aggressive or overly optimistic. Going with the fifteen percent reduction, that 6,000 kg drops to 5,100 kg. That’s about 11,244 pounds.

A conventional tractor, as we’ve said, has a tare weight of around 32,000 pounds when fully fueled and with a lightweight box trailer in place. Remove the trailer and the truck itself is about 22,500 pounds. It’s difficult to then go to just the weight of the powertrain components and fuel, but they’re considerably less than 11,000 pounds in all.

Tesla Semi spotted doing a tire-shredding acceleration run down in the wild

Looking at the shipping weight for a crated engine and transmission for a Class 8 truck, we can see that they weigh about 8,000 pounds on average. Add in fuel and other components and another 1,500 pounds (at most) are put on the truck. We then assume that the rest of the truck (framing, braking systems, air compressor, etc) are about the same for the Tesla Semi in order for it to meet Class 8 standards. So we call those a wash.

That means that the Semi, under our estimates, is roughly two tons heavier than would be a standard day cab big truck in the Class 8 category. This means the Semi would be that much less capable in terms of freight hauling that’s offset by its unprecedented all-electric performance. That amount, however, is probably not enough to stop the primary buyers of a day cab truck like this from balking at a purchase. The weight difference alone would be repaid in potential fuel savings, tax incentives, green marketing, and maintenance costs.

Advertisement
-

The trouble will come with cost differences. If the ROI is not there, most logistics buyers won’t write any purchase orders. But at least we can say that as far as we can tell, the weight differences of the Tesla Semi alone aren’t going to be a huge bar against entry into the trucking industry.

Aaron Turpen is a freelance writer based in Wyoming, USA. He writes about a large number of subjects, many of which are in the transportation and automotive arenas. Aaron is a recognized automotive journalist, with a background in commercial trucking and automotive repair. He is a member of the Rocky Mountain Automotive Press (RMAP) and Aaron’s work has appeared on many websites, in print, and on local and national radio broadcasts including NPR’s All Things Considered and on Carfax.com.

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet

Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.

Published

on

By

Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.

The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.

Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.

Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.

There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.

The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.

Advertisement
-

The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk

Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.

Published

on

By

Credit: Mykhailo Fedorov/Twitter

Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.

Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.


SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.

Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.

The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.

SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.

Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day

FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.

Published

on

By

Rendering of Elon Musk overlooking a Starship fleet (Credit: Grok)

The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.

A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.

The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.

Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.

Advertisement
-

As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.

Continue Reading