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

New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point

New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.

Published

on

By

Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.

Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.

Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.

Advertisement
-

Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line

The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.

Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Advertisement
-

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

on

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading