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

Elon Musk

The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on

Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of SpaceX Starship landing on the moon via Grok

Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.

On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”

Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”

The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.

Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.

Advertisement
-

How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.

Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.

Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas

Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk stands in profile against a clear blue sky, with a bright overhead sun shining above a vast landscape of Tesla solar panels stretching to the horizon, and a smaller Texas flag flying on a pole to his right.

Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.

The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.

The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.

Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing

Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.

Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.

The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla is building its own maps to fix Navigation issues

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.

On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.

Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:

“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”

He continued:

“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”

Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.

“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”

Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much

Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.

Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.

Quotes via Motley Fool

Continue Reading