this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
62 points (85.2% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3222 readers
136 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, casteism, speciesism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Speeds "exceeding 50 MPH"? Like, 51 MPH? The claimed efficiency is nonsense given the promotional videos from Tesla where they tried to obscure the driving time, distance, and speed. It also flies in the face of the EV Semi testing conducted last year
DHL's statement is that their longest run was 390 mines, with no information about state of charge at the beginning or end. They are extrapolating the 500 mile distance.
This sounds like Pepsi's first press statements before they found out what shit boxes these trucks are the hard way.
Do you have info on this? I hadn't heard any negative reaction from Pepsi.
Edit: I did my own searching at I'm even more skeptical of your claim Pepsi doesn't like Tesla Semi. Their biggest complaint is that they can't buy as many as they want.. In that article they even say they're buying additional electric Semi trucks from competitors, but competitor trucks have half the range. In this article from 3 days ago Pepsi is talking a how much they like the Tesla Semi. And in this article Pepsi talks about how the Pepsi truck drivers like the Tesla Semi.. So nothing here matches what you're saying. I'm interested to see what you saw to form your conclusion.
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. 👍
You don't see any reason Tesla would fudge their numbers and drive the Semi slowly? I can think of several reasons.
Well you can look at the Run on Less campaign, and then start googling for other tests.
Yes, but it's NOT how Tesla claims their 500 mile range. Also, every time a Tesla Semi has attempted the longest range driving, the packs have died. Not just run out of charge, but been physically damaged from draining them so low. You don't have to explain how an EV is operated in real life, I've daily driven one for many years now.
Well, a Pepsi employee. Obviously Pepsi can't say that in the media because Tesla will take away their vehicles which means Pepsi won't qualify for enough tax credits.
When you look at the Drive on Less data, it isn't.
Um, what are you talking about? Literally the entire campaign is about collecting fleet data over an 18 day period.
Ok, so then if I can find a 500 mile down hill stretch and I take the battery out completely, I have a 500 mile range. That's what you just said, and I think you know that's nonsense.
See the links I already posted.
Ok. That doesn't really impact me. You can believe the company that his lied constantly about capabilities if you want, that's fine. Not being skeptical at all of their claims makes complete sense given their track record at this point.
Like I said, it doesn't really impact me. So, you can feel how you want to feel. I don't believe anything Tesla says because I've owned one, and I know how they attempt to manipulate their news cycle. I also downloaded the raw data and ran the numbers myself. The Semi does not achieve 500 mile range with a full gross weight traveling at normal highway speeds. You can calculate the rate of SOC decline between data points where the average speed was > 50 MPH and it comes nowhere close.
Now, if on the other hand the title said DHL was happy with their Semi test bed then that wouldn't really be up for dispute. But the instant the title said it achieves 500 miles then I'm sorry but there's no data to support that claim that has ever been published. And I promise you, if such data did exist Tesla would be the first to brag about it incessantly.
I figured we were having a discussion. Calling it disinformation is hilarious though.
The dude's obviously a troll or a frustration vampire. Just block him.
Cool. Yeah, that's how people behave. You should meet more of them, I think. Also, quite a bit of that piece is Fred's opinion, so maybe consider that.
No info on total tonnage hauled either. Most electric semis will not be able to haul as much stuff at once.
I agree with this statement, but not all trucks are weightbound. Many hit their volume limits long before weight limits. Additional with TCO its possible the cost per mile of operating an electric semi might still be worth hauling less tonnage per truck requiring additional shipments.
And not all trucks are long distance haulers, so they could possibly do a full circle of their daily runs in the single range limit, regardless of the load. It's definitely an investment that assumes a payoff in the long future of lower fuel costs and less maintenance. And only actual use by companies for years will tell the real story.
I saw another source that said they were hauling 75,000lbs total weight and that's as much as they ever usually haul. So they don't max out their trucks on a daily basis carrying parcels, so for them whatever the total allowable difference is between an EV/ICE isn't an issue.
Edit: I guess that if DHL grew as a business though they might eventually start moving more packages around and that would require more weight, but that's not a today thing.
If so that's great. I was hearing 10-15% less goods moved for battery semis, which is still probably worth it, but a hard pill to swallow in an industry that is severely understaffed.
We still don't really know what the difference is for the Tesla Semi but most speculation I've seen as we learn more is 1 to 2 tons after the extra 2000lbs EVs are allowed to carry, which is less than 10%