I don't understand why people keep expecting them to look like modern trucks. I think in terms of visuals, the movie Logan did a really good job of imagining what a driverless truck could/would/should look like: basically a sled with a container on top.
The movie used them as part of a dystopian future, with an accident caused by one of the trucks' negligence, so let's try not to do that. And I hope we'd be better at clustering them into container "trains" for efficiency instead of seeing them all separated. But in terms of design I see no reason why you'd have a faux cab on the front.
This also answers the battery issue. Why swap batteries when you could just swap sleds. Each sled could carry a container ~100 miles from one charge station to the next. When it gets to a station just park behind the next sled and slide the load from one to the other. New sled can keep going, old sled can recharge while it waits for the next load.
Probably when they found out how much gas turbines cost.
Turbine engines don't seem to get any cheaper below bizjet size, where they cost a quarter million or so. That's why light aircraft are still running on pistons. Ford built a turbine-powered semitrailer truck prototype in 1964.[1] Worked fine, but cost too much.
Does this guy not have enough he already has his company working on. I'm really looking forward to see how they solved the weight to energy density issue for this.
It seems highly unlikely Elon Musk would've gone for such a solution. I think he would've preferred not to go into semi-trucks at all if it meant he had to make a natural gas hybrid, and he would've just waited until batteries were good enough for semis.
I doubt he'd even combine it with hydrogen, as Nikola says it will, considering how much Musk has been criticizing hydrogen as impractical.
He uses 300 miles as a discussion point, which precludes over-the-road use.
There are still a large number of semis that are used for short haul runs, where a 300 mile range would be sufficient.
EDIT: I'm targeting OTR trucks in my comments because that's what self-driving tech most closely targets, and at some point drivers will be replaced. When drivers are replaced, there is no value at all in refueling periods. Currently, drivers use the refueling stop to rest and refuel themselves, but with Self Driving Trucks, you want to be in and out as fast as possible - or perhaps have in-motion refueling similar to aircraft refueling.
Hydrogen atoms are very small and hard to contain. The atoms tend to diffuse into the structure of whatever is containing them and can cause blistering or embrittlement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
Not sure the CEO of the competition is a great source, especially on these boards. With all the smack Musk has talked about ICEs over the years, I don't expect compliments from GM.
I agree with you. But there's a pretty heavy burden of proof on any denigration of Tesla around here. That and I think some of the old guard of auto manufacturing would love to stick it to Musk.
Is yet another piece of Tesla FUD in an endless stream really contributing to the discussion? If the article has merit, it can be its own submission, but this looks like the same old gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts that I've seen hundreds of times. Headline: "Tesla competitor thinks Tesla no good!" Seriously, there's nothing there that hasn't been said for years.
The next gen roadster is going to be a convertible.
> Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the company will unveil its semi-truck in September.
> The company will also unveil a pick-up truck in 18 to 24 months, Musk said.
I can't imagine they are creating a new frame for a semi truck or pick up truck. I've got to imagine they are going to partner with someone like they did with lotus for their first roadster.
Elon Musk is not worried about the limits of your imagination.
Honestly, the advantages of building a frame around the electric drivetrain are so huge, I can't imagine them reusing one built for internal combustion engines at this point.
I would be very surprised if this was a pick-up truck ala a Chevy Silverado and not a pick-up truck ala the Honda Ridgeline. As in, it will be a cab with a bed, but will be built with a unibody chassis instead of body-on-frame. Independent suspension all around instead of a solid rear axle.
I really can't imagine Telsa trying to compete against the F-150.
--edit changed "won't be a cab with a bed" to "will be a cab with a bed"
>investors will probably wish Elon could just stick to one thing and finish it
Have you read these threads? There are people here who claim to have invested all their savings into TSLA, and yet seem fairly clueless about the industry in which Tesla competes. The more things that get announced, the more they want in.
Tesla haven't yet proven that they can reliably build a cheap, profitable vehicle at scale, but still people talk about the next one and the next one...
Meanwhile, the Bolt is out, reviews are positive, and HN doesn't talk much about it. Not Elon, I guess.
I am in the perfect demographic for the Bolt: I am a previous Chevy owner (with a car that ran well for over fourteen years!), I want an electric car, and I'm not afraid of being an early adopter.
I can't buy one.
Chevy doesn't appear to be manufacturing them beyond a handful of review units for magazines like Motor Trend and a small number of end-user sales in states where they need the ZEV Credits. People are unenthusiastic about the Bolt because they're matching Chevy's apparent level of enthusiasm.
The rhetoric around the Bolt ("Chevy did it! They were first at scale with a $35k car!") is arguably even more disconnected from reality than anything people are saying about Tesla. The Model 3 isn't a compliance car that is masquerading as a serious effort. Tesla is planning on selling it nationwide. They didn't restrict pre-orders to California and Oregon. Setting aside the actual cars, these are big differences.
At Chevy's current roll-out pace, my Model 3 pre-order will arrive long before any local Chevy dealerships are willing to sell me a Bolt (while passive-aggressively pushing me towards an internal combustion vehicle the entire time).
The Bolt is lacking a couple of things that are very important to Tesla enthusiasts:
1. The charging situation, and the ability to drive long distances without much trouble. Thanks to the Supercharger network, Tesla's cars can plan a route to get you from nearly any point A to any point B without too much longer of a drive than most people would do in a gas-powered car. The Bolt can use third-party chargers, but AFAIK it takes longer to charge and there's no concerted effort to ensure coverage with those. (Here's an article on this from a reviewer who likes the Bolt: https://electrek.co/2016/09/14/the-very-good-chevy-bolt-revi...)
I think this is a bigger point than most people who aren't actually planning to buy an EV think. The Bolt's lack of an answer to range anxiety makes it more of a commuter car, which puts it more in the same arena as the Nissan Leaf rather than any of Tesla's cars.
2. Autopilot. This is a very exciting feature Tesla is pushing very hard that the Bolt doesn't have at all.
And on top of those, there's also the fact that AFAIK you can't buy the Bolt in most places, which kind of puts a damper on how popular it can be.
But Elon Musk is literally Iron Man/the God King. What does it matter if I don't understand anything about the industry, Elon will lead me to the promised (of mars, or hacking the matrix).
What didn't he finish, which isn't clearly work in progress?
And product development goes in clear phases. There is no product development on S,X or 3, the 3 is in production preparation now. So it makes completely sense, that the product dev teams are now working on vehicles past the Model 3.
The Model X slipped repeatedly. Autopilot on the new "full self-driving" hardware is way behind schedule. The Model 3 remains to be seen, but even it their rosiest scenario, it seems unlikely they'll be able to get through the existing backlog by the end of next year.
I like Tesla and got one of the first reservations for the Model 3, but it seems pretty fair to say that they often take on a lot more than they're actually equipped to deliver.
Yes, the Model X slipped - but it was finished. The other items you name are clearly in progress. It is possible they might slip, but especially the Model 3 launch seems to be quite on track.
He has another side project to dig tunnels under the SpaceX campus ("The Boring Company"). It should be noted that tunnels under cities already exist and are called subways.
What does his interaction with these initiatives and projects actually look like, on a scale of designing and implementing them all by hand to announcing stuff and then going home and relaxing on the beach?
The movie used them as part of a dystopian future, with an accident caused by one of the trucks' negligence, so let's try not to do that. And I hope we'd be better at clustering them into container "trains" for efficiency instead of seeing them all separated. But in terms of design I see no reason why you'd have a faux cab on the front.
This also answers the battery issue. Why swap batteries when you could just swap sleds. Each sled could carry a container ~100 miles from one charge station to the next. When it gets to a station just park behind the next sled and slide the load from one to the other. New sled can keep going, old sled can recharge while it waits for the next load.