Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Data from Run On Less event

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Where are you seeing this? The Pepsi profile page only lists the 500 mile version being included in this test: Run On Less: PepsiCo (And no other company is using Tesla Semis in this event.)
Hmm, do you have a pointer to that?
Ah, whoops, it's from a misreading from the article I saw on it:
"Takeaway is that the 350-mile truck is for real,"

From that phrase, "the 350-mile truck", I thought they meant the shorter range model, but I see now they are talking about it in colloquial terms, like a truck that you can really use for real world cases of 350 miles.

 
The Run on Less event is just to learn about how the electric trucks are being used. Its not intended to really show one vehicle is better than the other, etc.

A lot of the travel routes are shorter mileage because thats what a lot of trucks actually run! This is also why many electric trucks are not trying to match “over the road” needs as the majority of ICE vehicles can be replaced focusing regional haul and drayage applications.

One really interesting thing for me is seeing that in real life applications the 500mi Tesla semi is not close to capable of that. Looking at the initial SOC and ending SOC before charging gives you an idea of how much reserve capacity there was to estimate how far the truck could have gone. It also appears that the heavier loaded 500mi trucks are getting around 300mi avg.

Will be interesting to see as the data comes in if the trends hold. Also as mentioned it would have been nice to see GCVW (as it should be broadcast on the J1939 network) so we can see the range versus load tradeoff without just estimating.

My main disappointment is how the media has latched on to Teslas claims as truth and set that as the bar for everyone to meet…when Tesla can’t even meet it. Its just counter productive IMO. Also really shows why everyone was skeptical of Teslas claim and demo. Seems it can only be pulled off with a specific truck in a very controlled driving style thats not realistic.

The EPA really needs to establish a standardized range test to allow comparison across brands instead of just letting the manufacturers determine what drive cycles and conditions they want to use. There is standards for heavy duty hybrids, but not BEV :(

The Run on Less is still a very interesting study and I’m glad NACFE organized it! They always provide a lot of very helpful information as to how to improve efficiency based on how trucks are used. Props to them.
 
One really interesting thing for me is seeing that in real life applications the 500mi Tesla semi is not close to capable of that. Looking at the initial SOC and ending SOC before charging gives you an idea of how much reserve capacity there was to estimate how far the truck could have gone.
The 500 mile Semi is capable of 500 miles fully loaded, Tesla has shown that. But that is rated at 55-60 MPH. Pepsi is running them at 65+ MPH so of course they are going to get less range.

It also appears that the heavier loaded 500mi trucks are getting around 300mi avg.
I'm not sure how you came up with that number... Actually, it looks like they would get 420+ miles on a full charge, even running at 65+ MPH.

For example, look at Truck 3 yesterday:
1694966535580.png

It traveled 300 miles, starting SoC was ~96%, end SoC was ~36%. So, they only used 60% for that 300 miles, which oddly enough works out to exactly 500 miles for 100%. Of course, we don't know what the load was, but they also kept it closer to 60MPH for that trip.

Truck 2:
1694966955801.png

It traveled 335miles, starting SoC was ~96%, end SoC was ~31%. So, they only used 65% for that 335 miles, which works out to 515 miles for 100%. Again, we don't know what the load was, but they also kept it closer to 62MPH for that trip.
 
And it's not like other Tesla vehicles get the EPA range in daily driving. Too easy to be a lead foot with these zippy vehicles. I am not sure what @Nack was referring to about there being no EPA standard for battery electric vehicles, but perhaps it's a commercial truck thing.
 
The Run On Less staff had a live stream where they shared some details:
  1. That for some cases range anxiety led to requesting/buying trucks with larger batteries than was necessary for the use of the vehicle. Customers are looking at buying trucks/vans with smaller batteries going forward to save on cost and make them more efficient.
  2. They are being told that the BEV trucks that the customers are using have turned out to be more reliable than the newer diesel trucks that had some recent emissions changes on them.
  3. Customers have said that charging them is working better for them than refueling diesel trucks. Just plug in and let it charge overnight, no having to make a trip out to, and back from, a truck stop/fueling station. (Sometimes having to wait up to 40 minutes to fuel up a diesel truck.)
  4. The biggest challenge is getting sufficient power to the site. (Utilities are taking 1 to 3 years to provide the connection.)
  5. Range is turning out to be better than they expected, partially because of regenerative braking and partially because of how much fuel was used with diesel semis were idling. Or diesel "wasted" during regen idling to keep the emissions system functional.
  6. The Tesla trucks aren't normally, ever?, run empty. (They pickup soda one place, drop it off and pickup water for the next stop, pickup Gatorade at the next stop, drop it off pickup energy drinks, etc. So it is always a drop off something, pickup something else.)
 
Last edited:
Customers have said that charging them is working better for them than refueling diesel trucks. Just plug in and let it charge overnight, no having to make a trip out to, and back from, a truck stop/fueling station. (Sometimes having to wait up to 40 minutes to fuel up a diesel truck.)
This was something I've seen discussed here before, and it's good to see some more actual data coming in on it. A naysayer on this forum was saying that almost all companies just install a diesel fueling depot on their site if they have more than a few trucks so they don't have this wasted time. Maybe that's not as common as was claimed:

"3) Regarding on-site diesel fuel, I actually owned a trucking company at 2 points in my life and it's actually super easy to get onsite fuel in most places (I've done it) and is very common for fleets over just a few units. I'm certain it's easier than getting approval for some mega-charging station. It's just not as cost effective to have driver's filling up on the road as they waste time, lose receipts, etc. Also can have a non-CDL driver fuel them up and not burn driver hours. At the most adding on-site fueling would not be any harder than building and permitting a gas station, and those happen all of the time. Mega-Charging stations cost millions to permit, install and manage. When I had an approved diesel tank it was free (the fuel provider lent it to me in exchange for buying his fuel) and I just had to send a picture to the County showing it had a barrier around it (literally just 2" x 8" boards in a rectangle with the tank sitting on lumber plastic) and it wasn't near a creek or anything. I'm certain it's harder in CA, and I'm also certain that nearly every local fleet with more than 10 trucks has one in CA. It's not hard. To be clear this person didn't build any cost at all in to the building or maintenance of the mega-charging stations, knowing full well that they are extraordinarily expensive. I actually have a friend that had a custom fueling station with cards for the drivers and what not built at his yard and the entire thing cost him about $20K and he told me that he calls around to buy fuel, tells them he pays cash upon delivery, and they take off nearly $1/ gallon."

 
And it's not like other Tesla vehicles get the EPA range in daily driving. Too easy to be a lead foot with these zippy vehicles. I am not sure what @Nack was referring to about there being no EPA standard for battery electric vehicles, but perhaps it's a commercial truck thing.
Correct, I'm only referring to commercial vehicles here. The regulations are more defined for passcar, but I don't know them well enough to talk with certainty on how the range is calculated as I have not had to deal with it.

Trucks are complicated since they are not cookie cutter like passenger cars/trucks. They are used in a wide variety of applications and built in a wide variety of specifications which makes it hard to have a one size fits all test. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) regulations use a simulation tool called GEM to estimate fuel economy, so I'm surprised the same methodology is not applied to EVs. I think currently the focus is just getting EV trucks into the hands of people....and this part will be worried about once its more mainstream.

The 500 mile Semi is capable of 500 miles fully loaded, Tesla has shown that. But that is rated at 55-60 MPH. Pepsi is running them at 65+ MPH so of course they are going to get less range.
They did show this, but most people believe this is a vehicle that has been tweaked to allow this to happen and not the production intent calibration. In this case the truck went to a very low SOC and the kWh calculation backed out lines up to not having a buffer in the battery (usable SOC vs. actual SOC). There are a lot of details that don't line up and Elon is known for talking in half truths which is why its hard to believe the claims. You can choose to believe them though if you wish, I have been wrong before!

Since a lot of trucks run at 65mph or faster (its part of the federal highway test procedure for fuel consumption) it seems weird to use this as a disqualifier. If EPA fuel economy was calculated for passcars at 55mph on the freeway because it allowed for better claims people would call BS immediately.

For the distance info you provided, it does look like I shorted them. It is probably greater than 300 like you said. I looked at a number of the drives. Most seemed to be coming in way under the 500mi range and some looked really good. I felt it was safe to assume the really heavy trucks weren't looking like all-stars and the light trucks were having issues....but since the data is not shown you can't say for sure. Would be really nice if they had that data, but I know trucking companies are really sensitive to sharing this kind of thing as it can give away their logistical strategy. I'm surprised they are allowed to share the data they have been able to already, so we will take what we can get and be happy :)

We will have to wait to get all the data from the Tesla trucks and see what an average range works out to be. Even if its "only" 300-400mi, that's still a pretty good usable distance!

The Run On Less staff had a live stream where they shared some details:
  1. That for some cases range anxiety led to requesting/buying trucks with larger batteries than was necessary for the use of the vehicle. Customers are looking at buying trucks/vans with smaller batteries going forward to save on cost and make them more efficient.
  2. They are being told that the BEV trucks that the customers are using have turned out to be more reliable than the newer diesel trucks that had some recent emissions changes on them.
  3. Customers have said that charging them is working better for them than refueling diesel trucks. Just plug in and let it charge overnight, no having to make a trip out to, and back from, a truck stop/fueling station. (Sometimes having to wait up to 40 minutes to fuel up a diesel truck.)
  4. The biggest challenge is getting sufficient power to the site. (Utilities are taking 1 to 3 years to provide the connection.)
  5. Range is turning out to be better than they expected, partially because of regenerative braking and partially because of how much fuel was used with diesel semis were idling. Or diesel "wasted" during regen idling to keep the emissions system functional.
  6. The Tesla trucks aren't normally, ever?, run empty. (They pickup soda one place, drop it off and pickup water for the next stop, pickup Gatorade at the next stop, drop it off pickup energy drinks, etc. So it is always a drop off something, pickup something else.)

#3 I find that hard to believe as I have not seen many (any?) depots that have a 1:1 charger to truck ratio. Even then, most trucks are used for multiple shifts so this really only applies to some medium duty type regional applications. Since most sites only have 350kW CCS1 maximum it does take a long time to charge so maybe this is the case. Will be interesting to see how it changes with MCS in the picture.

It is common for fleets of any real size to have fueling onsite like the one dude mentioned. It wouldn't make any sense to fill up at the local filling station as the fuel is more expensive and its a waste of driver hours to go get fuel while on duty. This is more reserved for when there is no company depot available while on the road or for very small fleets.

#4 is very true. Trying to get power to a site to supply the chargers is very difficult in most cases and impossible in others. Either the backlog is big enough that you are going to have to wait 1.5+ years to get the appropriate power run to the site, or in a worst-case scenario even if they ran the lines the sub stations could not support it without significant upgrades. Transformers seem to be hard to get, and in a lot of areas they just are not really prioritizing upgrading the distribution. Hopefully the federal funding will help with that even though most of the money goes to passcar infrastructure.

Lots of people give up on buying an EV truck and get another round of ICE for this reason, which is too bad!

#5 This is probably partially true. Majority of newer vehicles have an APU for providing heat/Aircon/power so they don't spend a lot of fuel idling. Many states don't even allow you to idle for more than a few minutes no matter what the age of the vehicle is. Still, the electric trucks have an advantage here but its not as big as you may think.

#6 FWIW, almost no trucks are run empty. It happens, but if you are deadheading a lot you will be out of business shortly! Its not like Tesla/Pepsi has any magic here thats how they would run their ICE trucks too.
 
If EPA fuel economy was calculated for passcars at 55mph on the freeway because it allowed for better claims people would call BS immediately.
The EPA highway test is run at an average speed of 48 MPH... (There are very short spikes up to 60 MPH.) Even their "highspeed" test averages 48 MPH, with spikes to 80 MPH.

1695076208246.png


Since a lot of trucks run at 65mph or faster (its part of the federal highway test procedure for fuel consumption) it seems weird to use this as a disqualifier.
The speed limit for trucks in California is 55 MPH... So that is probably what Tesla based their range rating on. (Though I think they should make that clear.) It is hard with trucks since the trailers vary in rolling resistance/aero drag so much that you can't just publish a range that applies to everyone.)
 
The EPA highway test is run at an average speed of 48 MPH... (There are very short spikes up to 60 MPH.) Even their "highspeed" test averages 48 MPH, with spikes to 80 MPH.

View attachment 975065

I'm pretty sure thats passcar SFTP-US06 (high speed cycle), heavy duty test for GHG on a chassis dyno uses a constant speed and a road gradient. Its run at 55mph and 65mph speeds.

You are very correct on trailers causing an issue determining Cd. Whether the trailer has skirts or a tail or any kind of combination can have a significant impact. A tractor that gets good aero with a skirted van trailer may get even worse aero with a non skirted trailer than a truck without the high efficiency aero kit. Its hard to find a good balance as in the US we don't keep the truck and trailer paired most of the time and there is no guarantee in what you will get. Then you can throw things like trailer gap into the mix and you have a whole new set of problems :)


I still advocate there is a standard drive cycle to compare vehicle to vehicle on for "highway" and "vocational" use in relation to range. It's not perfect, but it's better than letting the manufacturers cherry pick how they want to advertise!
 
Pespsi Tesla trucks had pretty high miles Wednesday - 841, 726 & 826 miles for the 3 trucks.

10 companies participating, most using just 2 vehicles. None have gone nearly as far as the Tesla semis on any given day except Sunday

Currently the programs says 249k electric miles since day 1,.. Tesla/Pespi's 3 trucks have done 14,158( So far as of this morning)

Pepsi Tesla 3 trucks did 13404miles day 1-10
all others did 14803 miles combined for days 1-10

think they have a 10x multiple on total miles
 
Are they testing different types of Trailers with different types of loads?
This isn't testing. This is just companies sharing data on their actual usage of some of their vehicles for shipping stuff. (In the livestream Run On Less said that companies tend not to want to share data like this for competitive reasons. They mentioned that one company had 100+ EVs in their fleet but they were only willing to share live usage data on two of them, and even then they won't share information on the weight of the loads.)
 
@MP3Mike so are they using EV data from all of the fleets including other vehicles not shown in this event for totals? The number doesn’t make sense
I'm not sure. It does seem that, as you mentioned, the overall mileage reported doesn't match the details made available for all of the individual vehicles. So maybe they get some high level summary data for the entire BEV fleet, but only have the detailed data for select vehicles.

Like for Pepsi they are sharing data for three Tesla Semis, but the slide shows this:
1695316530940.png



While it says "Estimated Energy Today" it seems like that is the total for the event so far, but I'm not sure that 5.1 MWh would include everything, that seems closer to what just the three Tesla Semis would be using. (Really it even seems like too little for them for the whole event, while being too much for just today. And it doesn't seem like you can see that slide for a different day. So maybe it is just today for all 27 BEVs.)
 
Last edited:
This calculation has been done before, but I think it deserves an encore:
At 800 miles a day, a financed Tesla Semi groses Pepsi $800 a month versus a fully paid off diesel tractor.

(Rough values)
800 miles @ 2kWh/miles @ $0.20 kWh = $320 of electricity
800 miles @ 10 MPG @ $6.00 gallon = $480 of fuel
=$160 savings per day * 28 days = $4,480 savings per month

A $250k loan @ 6%, over 7 years is = $3,650 per month
 
Mongo, if you haven’t seen it yet the Run on Less bootcamp #7 has some good information on electricity rates for industrial sites and depots.

From a project I’m familiar with in CA we were shocked how high the electricity rates were! CA has very high rates compared to average in the nation, but its also where a lot of the BEV trucks will operate so it’s relevant.

I think it will improve over time, but I can say the industrial rates for power in CA are just very high and complicated to calculate the end cost. Part of the issue with our site is we don’t have a dedicated line for the chargers so we can’t get EV charging specific rates so I hope that drops the prices a lot when that is done. The issue is we had to go this route because getting that dedicated line has around a 2yr lead time (what you read about this delay in other sources is very very true).

Bottom line though is the energy is very expensive, especially at an industrial site and a site that uses lot of juice for these giant batteries. I don’t see this reported a lot, but I think most people are still focused on passcar and don’t have experience with large EV trucks.

Just something to be aware of and something that caught me off guard. I knew it would be more expensive for industrial use, but dang, not that much! I’m not sharing actual rates because I’m not sure its something I’m at liberty to share.