DHL says that it was able to confirm that the Tesla Semi is capable of 500 miles on a single charge with a full load.
But more importantly, DHL confirmed that it achieved an efficiency of 1.72 kWh/mile on average during its two-week trial:
During the trial, the trial vehicle averaged 1.72 kWh/mile operating at speeds exceeding 50 mph (80 km/h) on average for over half its time on the road. The result exceeded our expectations and even Tesla’s own rating. That’s exactly what Tesla has been predicting, and in fact, Tesla says that it now does a little better with 1.6 kWh per mile.
kWh per mile means that this is the amount of energy it needs to travel a mile. Considering that 1.7 kWh of electricity can cost as low as $0.15, it opens up the opportunity to greatly reduced the cost of operation of semi trucks.
Be as skeptical of me as you like. Feel free to believe the company that has lied for a decade now about capabilities and timelines. It doesn’t hurt me at all. But keep in mind that Tesla has forced crash victims that they have settled with to sign NDAs and non-disparagement agreements. It’s 100% likely that PepsiCo has also signed both.
I’m not sure how you could think they weren’t having reliability issue with all the Tesla Semi pulled over and being towed for a couple years now, but again that doesn’t really effect me. If you look, you’ll see evidence. And, of course, you can watch Tesla’s own marketing video of the overnight drive. Zoom in on the speedometer and see how fast the driver is going, see the driver being passed by other semis, then wonder why that might be.
https://bradmunchen.substack.com/p/scoop-the-tesla-semi-from-an-insiders
You can also look at the data from Run on Less, look through the days and vehicles. Notice the slope of the curve for drives where the Tesla Semi drives 60 MPH even for brief periods. https://results-2023.runonless.com/truck/?day=17&depot=pepsico&truck=pepsi_tesla3&units=imperial
Thank you for sharing your data. I am now very skeptical of you and your ability to apply critical thinking to news sources and data.
Just so I understand you, you’re saying if Pepsi is positive or neutral on Semi, then your stance is that we cannot take their word for it, and that has to be evidence that Pepsi doesn’t like the Semi. However, if they are negative (as your one employee cited in your one blog post source) then we should absolutely take that as irrefutable fact. Do I have that right? You don’t see any problem with your logic there?
Your primary source of information is a single blog post. I’m not completely rejecting your blog post that as a source but you really need to cast a critical eye on it. Most of the complaints are around “what was promised vs what was delivered”, but Pepsi seems okay with what was delivered. Example: Your blog post says “Semi can’t do 500 mile trip!” Pepsi says “We can get 400 mile trips, and other brand of EV semis get 200 mile trips”. A large portion of the remaining criticisms are on predictions of future problems which isn’t a proven criticism of today’s performance. Lastly, your blog loses nearly all of its credibilty with its obvious bias in other areas. Here’s a crucial quote:
“Why is PepsiCo going to all this trouble to use such ineffective vehicles to transport their products? Because they need all the ESG points they can get by using electric vehicles (they also use Volvos, Fords & others) to transport the poison they peddle”
Lines like this are not the hallmark of professional journalism. If they’re going to inject their bias into their blog post on their opinions of diet and nutrition, might they also have an anti EV axe to grind they would exaggerate anti-EV claims?
I don’t think you’re able to read your own posted data. This image is from the site you linked:
I think you’re looking at the darker blue battery charge line as with your “slope” comment. The speed on this graph is the lighter blue line that is nearly always at the top of the graph at about 60MPH. My guess is this route had a 60MPH speed limit and the driver was adhering the traffic laws. I don’t know how you can look at that and call “60MPH brief” when more than 80% of the entire data in that day is around 60MPH.
With how you seek data, how you reject data, and how you interpret the data you see, I can understand why you came to your conclusion. Thank you for honestly sharing your view.
You stated in your posts above “This sounds like Pepsi’s first press statements before they found out what shit boxes these trucks are the hard way.”
I am comfortable with rejecting your conclusion.
Well written. I’m curious if they respond.
I did indeed respond.
You don’t understand me. I’m saying that Pepsi officially has an NDA. I’ll also say Pepsi is testing multiple brands of Class 8 Semi as well as lower class vehicles. I think we need to be wary of marketing efforts, because a lot of people don’t seem to be able to separate marketing material in press releases from reality. Surely nobody here believes advertising is reality, right? Right?
Great. Now apply that same criteria to Pepsi’s PR team. And there we go.
This is a different topic than the headline, though. I’m not disputing whether a company would be happy with the Tesla class 8 truck for the right application. I mean, if they compare it to another brand they probably wouldn’t be happy, but that’s a different topic too. I’m specifically disputing the claim that the Semi meets the sales brochure’s claims.
I mean, take that part of the sentence out and I think you’d agree with it. Pepsi has mandates to meet, and credits to claim. That isn’t really in dispute in any way, and I’m not even sure that’s necessarily a bad thing. But it does explain them putting up with reduced capacity, reduced range, and the breakdowns.
Not only did I read it right but I’ve processed all the data for all the participants to calculate the consumption at a higher speed. The data is available in CSV format, jump in R or Pandas and do some processing and you’ll see what I mean.
Kay. 👍