Tesla Semi Priced From $150,000 (300 Mile) & $180,000 (500 Mile)

2 months ago by Mark Kane 126

Tesla Semi

Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaking at the semi truck reveal.

That’s quite a bit lower than expectations.

Tesla announced tentative pricing for its electric semi.

The 300-mile (480 km) range version starts at $150,000, while the 500-mile (800 km) range version starts at $180,000. The prices are “expected“, which means some changes are still possible.

Tesla Semi prices – November 22, 2017

The difference of $30,000 for a 200-mile upgrade translates into ~$150 per mile of additional range.

Taking into consideration Tesla’s energy consumption number <2 kWh/mile, the 200 miles of added range requires less than 400 kWh of additional capacity. The kWh price of the additional battery would then cost more than $75/kWh (we assume the cost is somewhere between $75 and $100 per kWh).

To reserve the Tesla Semi, a $20,000 deposit is required (four times more than the $5,000 asked initially at the reveal).

The limited edition Founders Series starts at $200,000 and the full price needs to be paid during the reservation process.

  • Acceleration 0-60 mph with 80K lbs load – 20 sec
  • Speed up a 5% Grade – 65 mph
  • Mile Range – 300 or 500 miles
  • Powertrain – 4 Independent Motors on Rear Axles
  • Energy Consumption – Less than 2 kWh / mile
  • Fuel Savings – $200,000+
  • Expected Base Price (300 mile range) – $150,000
  • Expected Base Price (500 mile range) – $180,000
  • Base Reservation – $20,000
  • Expected Founders Series Price – $200,000
  • Founders Series Reservation – $200,000
    * Prices displayed in USD. International pricing will vary.

Tags: ,

126 responses to "Tesla Semi Priced From $150,000 (300 Mile) & $180,000 (500 Mile)"

  1. Someone out there says:

    There is no way Tesla will make any money at all with those prices. Then add that Tesla wants to sell subsidized electricity, this doesn’t make any sense at all.

    1. drpawansharma says:

      Only way it would make sense is if the battery prices for Tesla is even lower than we could imagine. Or Tesla is confident that prices would fall to such a level that they can put out such prices.

      1. Someone out there says:

        Yeah they could be betting on significantly lower prices in 3 years but that’s a HUGE ‘if’.

      2. p-run says:

        They have to have some new battery tech. Otherwise it is impossible to fit 200kwh into Roadster..

        1. Benz says:

          That thought crossed my mind too.

          There must be something very positive going on.

          1. Seth says:

            Well, one of the stories I read the other day is that Jeff Dahn made a breakthrough with cell lifetime at higher voltages. In that case they are referring at up to 4.5 Volts fully charged.

            For comparison, the normal working range is about 3.5 to 4.0 Volts, and increasing the working range from 3.5 to 4.5 volts is huge increase. You also increase the pack voltage if you stick to 96 cells and you get more power through the existing connector at the same current.

        2. menorman says:

          From the reports I’ve read of people who rode in the new Roadster, it sounds like the pack used in it is two 100kWh packs stacked on top of each other.

    2. Yuval says:

      At seven cents a KwH Tesla will more than breal even. Apple just installed solar at 3.1 cents per KwH and similar prices are tendered in AbuDhabi.

      1. Someone out there says:

        Not comparable, there are a host of other costs on top of that. The arabian desert is one of the most optimal places on earth to build solar, land is essentially free, there’s barely any bad weather and it’s close to the equator. Additionally it’s financed with petro dollars so there is no loan interest to care about.

        For Tesla to provide electricity 24/7 they need a huge battery bank which is several times the cost of the solar, on top of much more expensive solar to begin with.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          No, an EV charger does not need a “huge” battery bank; it needs only a modest sized one for buffering and to reduce or eliminate demand charges.

          Any engineer trying to use a “huge” battery bank to charge multiple EVs is a fool. The bank will quickly be depleted if successive vehicles are charged one after another, and then those waiting in line will have to wait much, much longer for a charge.

          It’s simply not practical to use solar power to directly charge Megachargers. In the first place, the locations where you’d want a Megacharger is in built-up areas, where cheap land to build a solar farm isn’t available. Also, and more importantly, much or most charging will be done at night, when there isn’t any solar power available.

          What makes more sense, as others have pointed out, is to use a net metering strategy where Tesla will use solar farms in remote areas, where land is cheap, to provide power to the grid in the daytime, and then use grid power at night to power the Megachargers, hopefully picking up a night-time differential.

          Obviously that won’t work everywhere; there’s no night-time differential here in eastern Kansas! But Tesla will only be concerned about the overall average for all Megacharger use; they can afford to offer Megacharger use at 7¢ per kWh where that’s lower than the local rate, if it’s offset by offering the same price where the local night-time rate is lower than 7¢/kWh.

          1. georgeS says:

            PMPU said:
            “No, an EV charger does not need a “huge” battery bank; it needs only a modest sized one for buffering and to reduce or eliminate demand charges.”

            Yes

            Tesla’s 40 stall super charging stations use a 1 Mwh power pack. that’s only 10 P100D packs as reference. (5 power pack cabinets)

            1. Mikael says:

              Typical buffering. That would last 20 minutes at full load.

        2. Gasbag says:

          > [Abu Dhabi] Not comparable, there are a host of other costs on top of that.

          Oh really? So in Arizona 6 months ago Nextra signed a PPA to provide solar at a price below $0.03. That was almost six months ago and the US record low has been going down about twice per year for several years. The price of PVs has been declining for 50 years. It seems the idea of the price declining is a given.

          Your cheapest subsidized FF comes in at about 4.8 cents per kWh. There isn’t much other than hydro and wind that can compete. My house has been solar powered for almost 15 years now and the PVA has fully paid for itself. Our reality is that Solar is too cheap to ignore.

          1. Mark.ca says:

            I was about to mention the 4.5c per kw utility contract signed by that utility earlier this year for solar AND storage but this guy is just trolling as usual and it’s not worth it.

      2. mxs says:

        How are two projects, where you control everything, relevant to tens or hundreds of locations where Tesla must buy electricity from the utility????

        Pls explain, clearly.

        Thanks

        1. georgeS says:

          @mxs
          The US national average for industrial electricity is 7 cents/kwh

          https://www.rockymountainpower.net/about/rar/ipc.html

      3. pjwood1 says:

        The wholesale electric markets have only begun to tick up from around 3 cents/KWh. PPA’s can be done for <5. How Tesla would bypass close to standard distribution charges, I don't know but they're savvy with regulations. Mostly, within the realm of electric pricing, I think of all the cheap regions that lie between our coasts. Cheap land, almost like Saudi Arabia, and opportunities for competitive supply. Some future supply could come from Tesla, itself.

        For example, if the NV deregulation ballot goes through, there's going to be both choice (on the same wires) and an additional policy vacuum for PV-battery. The state not only has good sun, but needs to import all the dirty fossil fuels that run its electricity. Fuels that aren't creating jobs. There's a lot up in the air that could help Tesla facilitate 7 cents.

    3. Someone out there says:

      To put it into perspective:

      The difference between model X 75D and model X 100D is $16500 or $680/kWh

      The model 3 long range is $9000 for an extra 25 kWh battery or $360/kWh

      Tesla PowerPack cost about $400/kWh.

      Remember: that is the final price to the customer, including profit. Not the cell price.

      Let’s say that they manage to push that down to $300/kWh in 3 years. That’s a huge push but perhaps not impossible.

      The shorter range truck will need at least 600 kWh, i.e. the battery alone will cost $180k

      The longer range truck will need 1000 kWh, i.e. the battery alone is $300k.

      Add maybe $100k for the rest of the truck and you will have an approximate price: $280k-$400k.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I don’t find your conclusion to be reasonable.

        In fact, one of your premises is flat wrong; the price difference between a Model X 75D and a Model X 100D pays for a lot more than just a bigger battery pack!

        The reasonable conclusion isn’t that Tesla’s pack-level cost for batteries is $300-400; the reasonable conclusion is that Tesla is making a large profit margin on the Long Range Model 3 pack. And at a $9000 upcharge for only ~25 kWh, most people who have been following the “story” of Tesla already came to that conclusion.

        It should be obvious to anyone looking at Tesla’s prices for options on the Model 3 that there is a lot of profit margin built in. As I’ve noted before, the pricing for options on the Model 3 certainly does show that Tesla is aiming to compete with the BMW 3-Series and the Audi A4, as Tesla spokesmen have in the past strongly implied. Tesla’s prices reflect that.

        The Tesla Semi Truck is not aimed at the general public; it’s aimed at fleet operators, who don’t make emotional buying decisions the way passenger vehicle buyers do. They make buying decisions based only on what best serves their bottom line. We can be reasonably sure that the prices Tesla will be charging for the battery packs in the Tesla Semi Truck much more accurately reflect Tesla’s own costs. We can also be reasonably sure that Tesla’s pack-level costs for batteries are far lower than $300-400/kWh. Heck, they’ve been lower than that for some years now, even before Gigafactory One was built.

        I seriously doubt Tesla is going to be losing money selling battery packs at $100/kWh in 2019 or 2020. In fact, my guess is that they are going to make a bit of profit at that price.

        1. Someone out there says:

          So are you saying that Tesla intends to sell the truck at or below cost? You are comparing the cost of manufacturing the battery with the cost to the consumer.

          1. Another Euro point of view (dreamers protection brigade) says:

            “So are you saying that Tesla intends to sell the truck at or below cost”

            Of course, that’s the new business model.

            1. wavelet says:

              Obviously, they’ll make pu the difference on volume (-;

  2. Jeremy says:

    How are the prices for comparable ICE-semis?

    1. ziv says:

      A sleeper Peterbilt 389 will run you $110k and up.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Typical price for a relatively high-end new semi tractor is $150,000. It’s probably no coincidence that this is the tentative price Tesla has given for their medium-range Tesla Semi Truck.

      Ziv has already given the price for a more modest diesel semi tractor.

  3. Bob Nickson says:

    At those prices, Tesla Semi motor homes are a compelling possibility.

    1. Cavaron says:

      And a 1 MWh battery would cover about 6 months of my actual electricity needs at home (2 person condo).

      1. Bob Nickson says:

        So why own a house now? Partition a trailer to have a garage at the back for a TM3, living space in the middle, solar panels on top, and a guarantee against break-down for a million miles.

        All in for $350k.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        You use only 5.5 kWh per day?

        That’s remarkably low. “For reference, a one room apartment will usually draw about 500 kWh per month…” (source below). That comes to ~16.5 kWh per day.

        Are you using solar power for most of your energy needs?

        source: https://www.allconnect.com/blog/read-electricity-bill/

        1. Gasbag says:

          My house is over 3,000 Sq Ft and has had an average of 6 residents over the years. Before I got an EV to use my excess electricity I averaged between 5-6 kWh per day of usage. I had the luxury of designing my own house and I designed in efficiency but a big part of the equation is efficient use of electricity. LED lighting and efficient appliances pay for themselves. They’re worth the investment.

        2. Cavaron says:

          Yes, but we don’t use a dryer and we have district heating. Cooking is with power, so no gas there at least. Living on 85qm (915 suqare foot?).

          1. Cavaron says:

            Yes to only 5.5 kWh, no to solar, because we are not the owners of the roof sadly 😉

    2. koz says:

      I’ld prefer a travel trailer with a 75kwh pack below the floor to tow behind an X.

  4. Leaf2012 says:

    With those prices they will own the market here in Norway, we have lower electricity prices and more than twice the fuel prices than US. And in addition higher road taxes on ICE vehicles.

  5. Benz says:

    BAMF

    What does that mean?

    1. Yuval says:

      Bloody Admirable Mo..erFu..er

      1. Cavaron says:

        And the “F” in SpaceX BFR does not stand for Big “Falcon” Rocket btw.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Sure it does. Just like the “F” in SNAFU really means “Fouled”, as in Situation Normal All Fouled Up.

          What else could it possible mean? 😉

          1. Jason says:

            Ha, ha, FUBAR must be Fouled Up Beyond All Repair, like it!

    2. Bob Nickson says:

      Better’n Average Mover’a Freight.

    3. ffbj says:

      Bland Ask Model Flocker?

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “BAMF” was the sound effect Nightcrawler made when he teleported, in X-Men comics. Elon seems to be a fan; he’s named some of the Fremont assembly line robot arms after X-Men characters.

      Of course, that doesn’t rule out the word having other meanings. 🙂

      1. Mister G says:

        Nice, speaking of marvel what happened to the New mutants and alfa flight?

  6. James says:

    Expected Base Price $180,000 + leasing costs for the battery

    1. F150 Brian says:

      ^^^ that’s a possibility.

      But I still hope that battery cell costs fall to < $75/KWh.

    2. Someone out there says:

      If it’s excluding the price of the battery then it makes perfect sense but I don’t see that mentioned anywhere.

      1. Mint says:

        It not that the battery is not included in the price.

        I think Tesla will charge per use with the megachargers needed to charge the trucks through their proprietary connector. They’ll make a deal with utilities for overnight power, and charge much less than $2 per gallon-equivalent of electricity.

        1. Someone out there says:

          So not only is Tesla going to sell electricity at far below average cost (12c), that price will additionally pay for the battery? Where is the profit?

          1. pjwood1 says:

            It doesn’t help to think of electricity prices in terms of averages. It sounds like there’s A LOT riding on getting battery prices to ~$75/KWh. If they do get there, both mobile and stationary batteries will begin sucking the life out of peak daytime pricing (20-40cents). You could call it the beginning of the great arbitrage in utility markets.

            With stationary, you become a buyer of opportunity. Tesla’s SC network would constantly cycle, as a super-V2G grid off-taker (night ~5-13cents) and supplier (day). That’s a cost reducer, right there. A truck/car coming by would just mean less watts sold back to the grid. And you don’t need all those acres for panels. And the truckers sleep, at night…

            I think policy will accommodate. States make these decisions. 15 are in CARB. About as many are de-regulated.

  7. Yuval says:

    They never did that. At 100 $ per kwh one megawatt will run 100k$ the rest is the truck. No need to lease the batt

  8. Hans Hammermill says:

    I really hope this is not like the “$60k expected price” of the Model S or the “expected $20k to $30k price range” of the model 3.

    Fleet managers are much more sensitive to aspiration pricing then consumers. Shipping is a numbers game.

    1. Arpe says:

      Where are you getting those number?

      Google searches from before 2016, 2015 or 2014 all reveal articles with an expected 35.000$ price tag of the Tesla Model 3…

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Yeah. I think if you go waaaaaay back early in Tesla’s history you might find a reference to Bluestar (which became “Model E” which became “Model 3”) having a target price of $30k, but I’d be quite surprised if he can come up with any reference to a $20k price tag. That’s not even remotely in the ballpark of what Tesla has ever aimed for.

    2. Chris O says:

      The >$60K Model S ($50K after incentives) actually existed. It was Model S/40, but as it turned out this smallest battery size was not popular so it was discontinued.

  9. Chris O says:

    Wow, looks like Tesla sees its battery cost drop below $100/KWh pretty soon. Pretty amazing. Should make its cars more profitable too as the cost of the most pricey component by far drops steeply.

  10. Another Euro point of view (dreamers protection brigade)) says:

    Wow !

    1. Chris O (troll discouragement brigade) says:

      Get a life…

      1. Another Euro point of view (dreamers protection brigade) says:

        I was just wondering if it is like the $35’000 Model 3 or like the Model S that is two times cheaper than the Roadster (or is it ?), or like the $5 per square foot solar shingle. You know…

        1. Chris O (troll discouragement brigade) says:

          Yeah, and I was just wondering if the world really has need for another Euro (or any other kind…) troll point of view.

          1. super390 says:

            Well, trolls got a racist madman into the White House with their bullying and cynicism, so if that’s Euro’s thing…

  11. Steve says:

    $200k+ fuel savings over the life of the semi. Probably a lot of additional saving in engine maintenance (and oil changes etc). So Tesla Semi will have a lower total cost of ownership *and* it will be a better vehicle.

    Unless I’m missing something, this is the beginning of the end for ICE semis. I predict that in just a few years, sales of new ICE semis will be zero.

    1. William says:

      “A few years”, depends quite a bit on the future downward trend in battery manufacturing commodity supply costs, in conjunction to the different (region specific) oil/gas delivery, final destination rising cost factors.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      We can hope so, but I suspect penetration of the market will be more gradual. New technologies usually don’t penetrate all parts of a market equally soon or equally fast.

    3. Jason says:

      I think they will be supply constrained. Look at Model 3, 400k+ reservations, they will be 2yrs before getting closer to filling those orders. Add everyone who jumps on once they hear how good it is, or get to drive it. Power walls, cars, now trucks, and where is the Giga factory up to? 1/3 built? They’ll need to be starting new Giga factories soon, or they will run out of batteries. They might want to buy a Lithium mining operation as well, once every manufacturer gets on board you can easily see those costs increasing.
      Once a few semis are rolling around, if they perform anywhere as good as indicated, then you will see plenty of companies going for it. I wonder how the central driving position works around the globe, would any countries have rules the driving position has to be on one side or the other?

    4. super390 says:

      It’s the beginning of the end because several big truck builders are pursuing electrification at the same time. It’s not like car companies that can fool you with endless concept vehicles or compliance models or weird-looking models that can’t threaten to steal sales from their status quo models. These companies don’t have the resources to waste on that crap. It will all come down to straight-up operating costs, and they know it.

  12. SteveSeattle says:

    What does the $20k for founder series get you?

    1. John says:

      Bragging Rights.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Yeah, I don’t see hard-headed trucking fleet operators splurging for a “Founder’s series” Tesla Semi Truck. I’m surprised that Tesla would even offer such a thing. Maybe Tesla will use those for its own shipping, but who else would pay an extra $20,000 just for a badge on the truck that says “Founder’s Edition”, and probably a few extra luxury touches inside the cab?

        1. Jason says:

          Actually, independent operators might go for this. Take a look around, I bet you can see some trucks that are really well cared for, maybe even tricked out a bit. Those are your Founders Series owners, but probably not at the founders stage, so no doubt Tesla will have upgrades available.

    2. Mikael says:

      A full size Elon Musk doll that says “to space and beyond” when you tickle his belly.

      1. Someone out there says:

        I bet that would sell like crazy 🙂

        1. William says:

          The SpaceX “Mars Musk” version of “Tickle Me Elmo-Elon”!

          What Spacex store do I line up at Tomorrow, to place the kids deposit down, and to be first in line, on the Preorder List? Santa doesn’t want disappoint again this year, with another lousy ICE OEM Toys”R”Us stocking stuffer, this holiday season!

    3. Shane says:

      First in line to cut the diesel card in half.

  13. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “The kWh price of the additional battery would then cost more than $75/kWh (we assume the cost is somewhere between $75 and $100 per kWh).”

    Veddy interesting!

    If these assumptions are correct, Tesla is implying that their pack-level battery costs will be less than $100 by 2019-2020. I’ve seen a lot of claims for that, but this is the first hard evidence I’ve seen of it. And that doesn’t mean that’s Tesla’s current pack-level cost; it just means they think they’ll get costs down to that level in 2-3 years.

    Go Tesla!

    1. Chris O says:

      Elon Musk announced a long tome ago that he expected battery prices to drop below $100/KWh before the end of the decade. Looks like he expects to be able to deliver on that underpinning the economics of his upcoming EV truck business.

    2. Someone out there says:

      It still doesn’t add up. That is $75/kWh for the customer when they are charging $360/kWh today (model 3 long range – model 3 base). Are you suggesting that they will cut their battery costs by 80% in 3 years? That would be nothing short of revolutionary and would single-handedly send the stock price in a frenzy!

      1. Ziv says:

        $360 per additional kWh doesn’t mean it costs them $360 per kWh, it means they think they can get $360 per kWh easily enough to make a comfortable profit at that number, allowing them to expand production and design new BEV’s.
        The link between the price to the consumer and the actual cost to produce is not direct and it is very hard to recognize from outside the top echelon of Tesla Motors. I would bet that the ratio between price to consumer and cost to produce vary greatly between different vehicles in the Tesla lineup.

        1. Someone out there says:

          Look, it’s very simple.

          The battery is the critical but limited component. They want to maximize their profits given the availability of batteries.

          Let’s assume Tesla has 4 MWh of batteries lying around. What should they do with it?

          1) They could manufacture 4 Semi long range trucks with 1 MWh battery each. They can then sell these trucks for 4 x $180k = $720k

          – or –

          2) They could manufacture 50 model 3 long range cars with 80 kWh battery each. They sell these cars for 50 x $44000 = $2.2 million.

          Elon Musk claims that Tesla makes 25% gross profit on the long range model 3, that is $2.2m * 0.25 = $550k. To make the same profit on the trucks (or the trucks will cannibalize the model 3 profits) they must only cost ($720-$550)/4 = $42k5 to manufacture. Do you seriously think that is the case? That would mean a 76% gross margin on the trucks! Not to mention radically cheaper than any ICE truck.

          None of these numbers make any semblance of sense. It just doesn’t work.

          Clearly Tesla is not going to subsidize the trucks, they want to make the same money on trucks as they do on their other vehicles. If they can make $360/kWh on model 3 batteries they want to make AT LEAST as much on the truck’s battery or they would be stupid.

          1. Jason says:

            Actually, the goal of Tesla is to transform the world of transport. Semi’s are one of the really big polluters, so maybe their goal takes precedence over their profits. Plenty of companies have one product that has low margins and another product that has high margins, yet both products get made because you need the predict range as well as just high margins.

          2. Jason says:

            Oh, and by that logic you would stop making Model S/X because if you do that same maths you will see that Model 3 has the same impact in that space.

            1. Someone out there says:

              Yes but the model S/X demand has tapered out. Tesla’s home page is now full of new inventory cars they want you to buy and they have announced slowing down production. They can make more cars but they would just be sitting unsold in a parking lot. Not so with the model 3.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “…they are charging $360/kWh today (model 3 long range – model 3 base). Are you suggesting that they will cut their battery costs by 80% in 3 years?”

        You’re confusing price with cost. I think it’s pretty clear that Tesla is charging far more than cost for the ~25 kWh, when they price the Extended Range Model 3 at $9000 above the base battery pack. That’s more like “charging all the market will bear”.

        There were pretty good indications a couple of years ago that Tesla’s pack level costs were less than $180/ kWh, and that was before they started using Gigafactory batteries. Asserting a cost of $300-400 per kWh is ignoring a lot of evidence.

        1. Someone out there says:

          “I think it’s pretty clear that Tesla is charging far more than cost for the ~25 kWh, when they price the Extended Range Model 3 at $9000 above the base battery pack. That’s more like “charging all the market will bear”.

          That’s not pretty clear at all since it correlates with the prices on other products, for example the the Power products. Once again, the difference to the customer is $360/kWh, not the difference in manufacturing cost.

          “You’re confusing price with cost.”

          No, you are doing that:

          “There were pretty good indications a couple of years ago that Tesla’s pack level costs were less than $180/ kWh, and that was before they started using Gigafactory batteries. Asserting a cost of $300-400 per kWh is ignoring a lot of evidence.”

          You are the one talking about what it costs Tesla. I’m talking about customer price. The price difference in the article ($75/kWh) is the difference to the customer, not the manufacturing cost.

        2. Jason says:

          If Leaf 24kWh battery replacement is ~5k, then yes it is getting as much as the market can bear. I don’t think the cooling system would add $4k.

      3. Shane says:

        That $9,000 premium is for early adopters who can take advantage of tax credits. The Model 3 Long Range upgrade will cost half as much when the $7500 gov’t tax break goes away. The premium package and upgraded paint will cost less, too.

      4. super390 says:

        Do you really, really, honest-to-God believe that it costs Tesla $360/kwh to make a battery now? GM ******* told us that it was paying $145 a kwh to get batteries from LG.

        Note that this GM chart declines to $100 in 2022.

        Either your cynicism is due to a time warp that allows you to communicate with us from 2007, or you just hate everything about Tesla.

        1. Someone out there says:

          No I’m not talking about the cost to manufacture the battery. Do *you* believe that Tesla will sell the battery at cost or will they put a profit margin on it? Because if it costs Tesla $100/kWh to make it *you* won’t be able to buy it for $100/kWh.

          And considering the gigafactory fiasco I’m sure that Tesla’s batteries are more expensive than what GM pays. Elon Musk claimed that the gigafactory would push down the price of the batteries due to scale. Sure but that requires the scale to be there. The gigafactory is still only 30% built, there is no scale to speak of yet.

  14. Ocean Railroader says:

    I really was expecting these Tesla Semis to be in the $500,000 to million dollar range.

    The Tesla Semis once they get all the bugs worked out will most likely dominant the market and save tens of millions of gallons of fuel.

    It would be like getting a truck driver for free with the fuel savings if fuel goes back up to $2.00 or $4.00 a gallon.

  15. georgeS says:

    @PMPU
    @someone
    @Mark Kane

    Yeh Tesla’s 75$/kwh pricing is why the price of the truck is so low.

  16. Mister G says:

    GO TESLA GO DESTROY DIRTY GAS GUZZLERS and Diesels that spew toxic fumes LOL CONNECT THE DOTS ON CLEAN AIR WAKE UP FOLKS

  17. georgeS says:

    I re-did my “Making sense out of Tesla’s semi truck economics numbers”.

    If I use Tesla’s new lower price, take out the extra cost of the trailer and give the diesel credit for 840,000 miles of life (instead of 600,000 miles) the numbers work

  18. Tom says:

    Perhaps states like New York shouldn’t be so hasty in shutting down their nuke plants. Doesn’t make any sense to me at all to shut down existing nuclear plants when there are coal plants that could get shut down. Leave them online even if they are a bit more costly. If EVs are really about to take off into the mainstream, we’ll need that power.

    1. Ambulator says:

      Agreed, but what do politicians know?

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      U.S. Federal and State government policies on nuclear power are not driven by rational thinking, science, or hard-headed thinking on benefits vs. dangers. Policies are driven by mass media that uses the danger of “RADIATION!!” as a boogeyman, whipping up scientifically indefensible public hysteria, plus “green” advocates who mindlessly chant “No more nukes”, ignoring the fact that nuclear power is the cleanest and safest form of energy we have which is dependable 24/7/365, and can be installed almost anywhere.

      If you want to see what can be done when a government has a sensible and well-executed plan for nuclear power, just look at what France has done. Until recently, about 80% of their grid electricity came from nuclear power. Unfortunately even in that country, the “No more nukes!” hysteria has been affecting policy over the last couple of decades. 🙁

      I have some hopes for the newest generation of truly failsafe, small modular nuclear reactors; NuScale is trying to build a pilot installation. But the uphill battle from entrenched public hysteria over “RADIATION!!” is making that an uphill battle. 🙁

      1. Jason says:

        Maybe tell that to the people of Fukashima (I think that is the place the nuclear stations got word out in the Tsunami). Nukes are great until they aren’t 🙂

        1. Someone out there says:

          Not a single person died as a result of the nuclear disaster. The flood wave killed 30 000 people though.

      2. SCOTT says:

        I suggest moving to Hanford, WA if you think nuclear is safe.

        1. Bill Howland says:

          Hahahaha!!!!!

          Or Buchannan, N.Y.

          Of course, the people in Buchannan who moved away too late can’t take back their former health.

    3. john doe says:

      It depends on the age of the plant. Does it need upgrades? It may be smart us run, until maintenace and upgrade is needed. Then take the cost to decomission the facilities.
      Nuclear power is expensive. Not only the rods, but storing nuclear waste for centuries, and the financial cost of spending billions on the reactor/powerplant.

      Hydro, solar, wind, natural gas are all usually cheaper then nuclear.
      Coal is normally the cheapest, at least until reasent – when solar are cheaper is the right location.
      Hydro has a long lifespan with high initial cost, and very low running costs. But that is only for some areas.

      Check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

  19. Five Electrics says:

    It looks like Tesla is really, really trying to avoid raising another round of cash soon. Who buys a founders truck?

    Nikola has received over 9K reservations so the strategy might work out. I hope this product gets to market with these specs. That would be amazing.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Typical klown komment from this serial Tesla basher. 🤡 Note how he’s obsessed with Tesla’s investor relations; that’s typical of a TSLA short-seller.

  20. Another Euro point of view says:

    $150K ?

    Can I order one loaded with 10 tons of solar shingles at less than $5 per square foot ? (as announced by Musk quite some time ago yet).

    🙂 🙂 😉

  21. WARREN says:

    At this price, many private citizens would want drive a civilian version of this truck.I keep seeing semi tractor based passenger vehicles on the road. In that case with its acceleration, this would be very desirable.

    1. Mikael says:

      And the range! 800 km fully loaded, I wonder how far without trailer 😛

    2. wavelet says:

      “I keep seeing semi tractor based passenger vehicles on the road”
      Not doubting you, but where is this? I’ve never seen that, and in most jurisdictions, a semi requires a beefy commercial license (here, that license is expensive and complex to obtain, and keeping it is expensive and requires regular extra training); also, such trucks are heavily taxed since they are assumed to do lots of mileage, therefore a lot of road wear.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “I’ve never seen that…”

        I haven’t either.

        “…and in most jurisdictions, a semi requires a beefy commercial license…”

        Yeah, his assertion seems rather far from the facts. A Venn Diagram would show no overlap between his assertion and reality. 😉

      2. Jason says:

        In Australia you can put a semi hitch onto a ute and then tow a semi trailer. I’m not sure of the exact details, but if the hitch is behind the axle then it is considered a trailer, but if it is in front of the axle it is considered a semi. Gotta love Australia!

  22. FreePat75014 says:

    Like many other Tesla fans, I try to connect the dots here, and it’s not easy, as many specs are not yet disclosed.
    Seams there are several Technology brake through behind this double announcement last week, on the battery side.
    – The Roadster 2 was announced on same day with a new 200kWh battery pack, no info on charging rates so far. But no way to have the performances announced for it with a pack weighting more than say 500kg or may be 700kg maxi. This in itself requires at least a 2X battery brake through on kWh/kg and kWh/Liter too, versus current Model S/X 100kWh packs that weight 500kg to 700kg depending whom you ask.
    – But on the other hand this Roadster 2 with that battery will cost between 200k$ and 250k$ for the founders version, so the $ per kWh could still be as expensive as today… No way to assume a brake through on $/kWh for the Roadster 2 pack just looking at the Roadster 2 details.
    – Then on the Semi Truck, the expected up to 1000kWh = 1MWh pack, providing 500M with less than 2kWh/mile, and that could recharge to 80% in 30mn, means up to 800kWh in 1/2h, means at up to 1.6MW charging power enablement, seams to be split into 4 battery modules, each getting 1 x pair of the 4 x pairs of connectors in the new Semi Megacharger port disclosed by clever YouTuber… that could then handle up to 400kW per pair of connectors and still 1.6MW total.
    – So either Tesla will also have a larger 250kWh pack for the truck, arriving 1 year before the Roadster, or may be they will use # same 200kWh packs as for the Roadster2, and then the up to 2kWh per miles may be a little less in actual facts, and be translated into 800kWh of total Battery on the Truck, instead of expected 1000kWh. Who knows ? That could then translate into charging 80% of 800kWh = 640kWh in 30mn now meaning 1280kW MegaChargers only, split 4 x 320kW accorss their 4 x pairs of pins. Which may then bridge with with only 800V x 400Amps, to ensure compatibility with Porsche sponsored CCS standard in a very clever way… still smashing Porsche on the 4X Modularity advertising 1280kW power for its Megachargers vs 320 to 350kW
    – Then to fit into the newly disclosed 150k$ to 200K$ of the Truck they will definatly need a real HUGE >2x brake through not just in kWh/kg and kWh/Liter but also in $/kWh, whichever is the final size of the Truck battery, 800kWh or 10000kWh. At world record $100 per kWh the 800kWh pack would cost $80K and the 1000kWh cost $100K ! No way for the battery to cost more than that … Hence the Brake Through proven.
    Now the implications of this battery brake through are CONSIDERABLE for the rest of the EV market trying to catch up with tesla in the next 3 years ! Bet it will force Porsche to rework entirely their MissionE specs. I bet their pre-announced minimum 92kWh pack was hiding a >100kWh packfor 2020, may be 130kWh. But now they will need to have a path to at least 200kWh, requiring same brake throughts, including $/kWh. Not trivial at all.
    Plus I still bet Tesla MegaChargers will smatch Porsche best dream 800v/350kW CCS target. Could be up to a modular 4 x 400kW = 1.6mW for Tesla MegaChargers, or mini 4 x320kW = 1280kW total. Only Tesla Semi truck using the full 4 x pairs of connectors in one raw, and the other Tesla cars using only 1 or 2 pairs only, but still smashing Porsche 350kW. Also my bet is Tesla will go beyond 800v, may be up to 1200v, in order to keep air cooling of their cables instead of Glycol/Liquid cooling that would make them much heavyer an may require robots to manipulate them for the Truck drivers when 4 pairs are combined into one plug…. But they will chase some level of compatibility with Porsche CCS standards (HPC350) too. I really would love to see all specs to size all implications here…
    And to size the other implications on next gen Model S&X v2 that could likely use same pack and get enabled for MegaChargers in a few years, to some level too.
    I finally bought my Model X 100D via a 5 years LOA….clever man I am ! My 2 x Months and 3500km experience of its currently best-in-class 100kWh battery pack is that it’s same as HALF of my former BMW 530DA 65Liters Diesel tank. Where it’s critical on long motorway trips at 130km/h with all family and lugguage on board, it only lasts for a 300 to 350km range. So 200kWh would be PERFECT for its replacement in a few years to get back to parity with ICE on long trips, plus in Paris allow me to only charge once every 1 week and 1/2 as before with my BMW…. I love Tesla. I’m sure they will smatch them all !

    1. georgeS says:

      @freepat

      I’ll bet Panasonic has some new battery chemistry/ anode cathode design in endurance (cycling) tests right now as we speak.

      I agree that 2, 100kwhP100D packs under the Roadster just doesn’t work.

      Perhaps these new cells were in the Roadster demo used at the unveiling.

      Fascinating. It’s a great time to be alive and witness all this coming down.

      1. georgeS says:

        and PS. For those that say Tesla’s new 2170’s will fit I say no. Best I can tell Tesla’s new 2170 cells are the same volumetric energy density as the P100D 18650’s.

        Here’s the math.
        https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/teslas-model-3-2170-cells-same-energy-desity-as-18650s.98770/

        I do believe both the new Roadster and Tesla semi will have next generation cells.

        1. Mister G says:

          We are witnessing the EV transition

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Best I can tell Tesla’s new 2170 cells are the same volumetric energy density as the P100D 18650’s.”

          That’s incorrect. Elon and JD Straubel both said that the 2170 cells from the Gigafactory have higher energy density than the 18650 cells that Tesla is using in the Model S and X. I dunno how much volume that saves, but certainly some.

          If Tesla says the next-gen Roadster will have a 200 kWh battery pack, then it will. We can doubt a lot of Tesla’s claims, but doubting that one is ridiculous.

          If I were you, I’d be considering just where Tesla could stuff batteries into the Roadster Mark II. Don’t assume they will all be in the skateboard. Tesla may put some behind the back seat, as they did in the Roadster 1.0, they may put some up front under the hood, and they may even have some protrude into the trunk space. The Roadster 1.0 had a trunk barely large enough for a golf club bag, and the Roadster Mark II might not have much more luggage space than that.

          1. georgeS says:

            “That’s incorrect”
            -PMPU

            We’ve already had this discussion. When I looked into your Musk and JB quotes they were made prior to the introduction of the 90 kwh cells which definitely DO have higher energy density.

            So yes the 2170’s have a higher energy density than the old 85 kwh cells. However IMO they don’t have a higher energy density than the 90’s 18650 cells.

            Go review the math in my reference from TMC and see if you agree.

  23. wavelet says:

    Very odd… Way cheaper than expected.

    While “expected price” isn’t a commitment, it certainly expresses intent, and if the eventual price will be significantly more expensive, customers will remember (we’re talking fleet-management bean counters, not fanboy consumers with short memories).

    WTF is a “Founder’s truck”?

  24. Mister G says:

    Where’s Bro1999 aka Bob Lutz with negative comments? Probably stuffing his face LOL

    1. William says:

      What about Bob? He has left the building, probably taking Baby Steps along the way!

    2. bro1999 says:

      Spent the day with family and friends, something you TSLA cultists probably don’t have…unless you count your fellow TSLA cultists as family/friends. Lol

      I don’t post for 24 hours, and the TSLA trolls already miss me!

      1. Recoil says:

        Your basement and plush dolls don’t count.

      2. super390 says:

        What makes you a troll is going to a site for no other purpose but offending the people who regularly communicate with each other there, who have done no harm to you whatsoever. I would be a troll if I regularly went onto a GM site to insult the people there, but I don’t. And I don’t believe anyone here whom you’re trying to insult and upset would do that either.

        In other words, a troll is an attacker, an aggressor, an invader, an offender, in someone else’s home. A civilized person would expect to be shot if they broke into a house to act that way.

  25. Scott says:

    Big oil has blinded us as what can be accomplished by just one man. Remember all the naysayers 10 years ago. Big oil receives Trillions of dollars in subsidies worldwide killing us and alternative energy subsidies are far less. Now their is space x, Tesla motors and energy, boring company, hyperloop, Mars, etc. what has the US been doing before Musk. Killing 9 million people per year with air pollution. Plus healthcare costs going thru the roof. Thx Musk for not being blinded and being a leader not a follower

    1. Someone out there says:

      Tesla is way more than just Elon Musk. Personally I wonder if Tesla wouldn’t be better off without him. It’s true that he did save the company in its early years so he certainly deserves some credit but I think he is getting less focused and it’s time for someone else to take over by now.

  26. Tyl Young says:

    What’s important here is knowing the price of the pickup me truck that can carry a pickup me truck. Yea buddy!
    Let’s get that bad boy on the interstate!!!!!!!!!!!!

    As far as parking it at home, all I have to do is back it into my always open garage door so the bed fits in. I’ll leave the tall cab protruding out in my driveway!!!!!!!

    Now we’re talking, don’t cha know, U bet cha!

  27. john doe says:

    I find the Semi and also the Roadster specs and prices a bit too fantastic.

    The truck in itself is not too expensive to make – it is usually the engine and all the extras, axels and so on. In this with the 4 electric motors and the huge battery.. it will be fantastic if they can offer it at this price, with that range, life and still don’t loose money.

    There will be lines of people waiting for this. As mentiones by others. . . I can see a situation as this made to an RV of some kind too.

    Think of the possibilities it batteries reach these prices so soon. It will really set things in motion, that was previously not profitable.

    The top speed of the Roadster.. that will be hard to reach. Extra gearbox?
    I’ve driven a motorcycle above 300km/t, and that is just insane. The extra energy needed to reach more and more speed grovs. The difference from 300 to 400 is HUGE.
    The precision must be absolute, or this will be expensive and difficult to reach. I’m glad I’m not the engineer in charge of this. I guess they must run massive amounts of simulations before this will go to production. I would be sleepless over this.

    Both these things is hard for me to belive.
    I think specs will be toned down, or price will rice.
    But I hope they will succeed, so they can make enough money to make a proper minibus to me.

  28. Shane says:

    I am laughing at the thought of other truck manufacturing executives sitting around the dinner table having to pretend they are thankful on this Thanksgiving Day. Oh what a Merry Christmas they will have when Elon announces Santa’s new sleigh is also Tesla-powered!

Leave a Reply