Talk:Tesla Semi

Nice PR job

At some point wiki became an echo chamber for fans of EVs and other alternative energy to vomit forth uncritical articles about any old pie in the sky tech. The claim that the cost per mile will be cheaper than diesel is a case in point, does that include several hundred thousand dollars of upfront capital, for example? Greglocock (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I generally support electric cars, but the obvious hard sell and uncritical tone of Wikipedia’s EV articles is counter productive. Readers can tell if they reading a decent Wikipedia article or a puff piece. The promotional tone and constant attempts to insert favorable comparisons makes readers less likely to believe electric cars are any good. We should all be more rigorous, not less, when editing on topics we are fans of. Scrupulous fairness is how we earn trust. —07:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed text to point out claims are by Tesla and not independently verified. Cheaper than diesel is for lease and most semi trucks are leased, so upfront capital is not an issue. Tesla warranties the truck for a million miles so that helps bring down the lease cost. Autopilot being standard helps bring down the insurance cost. Low maintenance for EVs is another factor, like never having to replace the brakes. If your saving $200K per year in fuel costs, then lease can be $199K more expensive per year and you will still save money. So the cheaper than diesel claim is only valid if driven lots of miles to capitalize on cheaper fuel costs. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the uncritical nature of the PR based article so far...

...Does it need a criticism section? NPOV and all that. Greglocock (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we need criticism, but not a criticism section. Per WP:CSECTION, criticism usually belongs in context. The claims about battery life should be followed immediately by questions about the plausibility of the battery. The general claims about the revolutionary nature of this product should be followed by the analysis that the Semi and Roadster circus show are big distraction from the Model 3's problems and the company's looming cash flow crisis. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, Musk claims a million miles life, this graph suggests that it'll need at least one new battery set in that time, if you replace them when the range drops by 20% (gosh that would make you happy). https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1110149_tesla-model-s-battery-life-what-the-data-show-so-far Greglocock (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The general claims about the revolutionary nature of this product should be followed by the analysis that the Semi and Roadster circus show are big distraction from the Model 3's problems and the company's looming cash flow crisis Nah. That doesn't belong in this article, that would belong in either Tesla Inc or the Model 3 article. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The wording is design for click bait and is not overly notable. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I have been trying to include more specifics and started a section for critical comments by analysts. (I had previously written those but now they are in a specific section re: Independent analyses.) Feel free to add to that section; this is one method to ensure balance. I'm sure there are other articles in major publications that discuss the pros, and especially the cons, of the Semi. Peter K Burian (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is critical evidence published by a major news organization. This is the type of content that needs to be added to balance the coverage. I just did so.

   Research completed by Bloomberg L.P. however, indicates that the estimates as to range per charge and the charging times are optimistic, based on comments from Sam Jaffe, battery analyst for Cairn Energy Research. Bloomberg concluded that "Tesla would have to far exceed what is currently thought possible". In other words, the claims assume new developments in battery technology by the time the Semi is actually produced. Tesla's estimates about the cost to charge the battery are also unduly low according to Salim Morsy, electric vehicle analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. " There's no way you can reconcile 7 cents a kilowatt hour with anything on the grid that puts a megawatt hour of energy into a battery. That simply does not exist."[32]

Peter K Burian (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Charger analysis by seeking alpha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Interesting analysis by Seeking Alpha. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4127493-tesla-truck-implications

Quote:

the truck can handle 8 such connections. 8 x 216 = 1,728kW, or slightly above the needed 1,536kW to provide the 400 mile range in 30 minutes, with no breakthroughs. It’s simply a multiplication of what already exists. 12 charging modules (using the latest 72 amp module) x 8 Superchargers.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Is seeking alpha RS? It has a reputation for hosting articles written by shorts and random investors who really don't know what they are talking about. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Correct, not a reliable source, but the notion of parallel charging does ring true. Will be interesting to get details in the future. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CRYSTAL and UNDUE

Musk is famous for making Big Announcements, the reality of which do not pan out in the timeframe nor under the specs described. I am about to make a run through the article to change statements about "The truck will do/have Y" to attribute them, and to add dates per RELTIME. This stuff cannot be stated anything like "the sun will rise tomorrow". Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have an example for the "... the specs described. ..." ? One example I can think of is the Model 3 which was described 3 years ago and is what he described. http://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-confirms-model-3-name-for-3-series-fighting-sedan/ 17:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost every article cited in this Wikipedia article mentions Musk/Tesla's consistent overpromising and under-delivering. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So what is the deal? The content you are restoring is stunningly promotional. Please explain why this detail and sectioning and bloat are DUE. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Restoring section headings is not hype and adds organization to the article. Maintains speed is less promotional than saying has speed of 65 mph on 5% grade, because that implies it will be able to accelerate to that speed. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You broke a ref and a wikilink in your rush to elaborate the hype. And please explain why you removed well sourced, critical content, violating the NPOV policy. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Please explain the ref link you broke. The content removed was click bait and not from reliable sources, but speculation and not encyclopedic. Some of the content has reliable sources if its inaccuracies. I was in the process of adding more reliable critical content but the the browser lost my edits. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

>Almost every article cited in this Wikipedia article mentions Musk/Tesla's consistent overpromising and under-delivering.

I looked at the first three refs and saw no such thing. Sounds like you are over hyping the negatives. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the fact this truck is 5 years delayed... I think this entire article was a great promotional piece of Tesla. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Look at the ref section. See the red reference to USA today? You broke that.

About the refs and Musk, the first three refs are low quality blogs that I kept for the detail. The msinstream sources are clear on Musk's record of overpromising and underdelivering. But we are not here to talk generally about Musk, but about the article. That is what this talk page is for. In my edits I had already reduced the detail in the negative stuff, in these diffs. Please restore the content below. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I see that it was broken during your series of edits. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. See this version, which is how you left it after your string of edits jumping in after me. The article just before you did that -- the version just before your first, was here. This is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the content below, keeping in mind your objection to "long term" mentioned below. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a demerit on that one. Tesla does claim it to be a long haul truck , even though truck people don't. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

omitted content

Some industry experts view long-range heavy-duty freight as impractical for battery trucks due to cost and weight. An analyst with Jefferies Group expressed scepticism over some of Tesla's claims because the company had not determined battery longevity; specifics about that aspect, and the replacement cost of the battery, are essential in order to calculate the long-term cost of ownership.

and

Research completed by Bloomberg L.P. reporters showed that given the battery technology available in November 2017, Tesla's estimates for charging times, range per charge, and costs were not realistic.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what happened in the edit war, but the scientific analysis is inherintly more reliable and verifiable than the financial analysts. Please restore it from here. TGCP (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a bunch of stuff in that section as it stood that was WP:SYN - the carnegie mellon thing for example. It is also treating the specs released this month as though they are actual, and given the track record of Musk and Tesla, that is not likely to be the case. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, the study is for an EV Class 8 truck within the known limits, so it is perfectly suited for this article. And no, it didn't "treat" the later released specs as actual - notice the dates; it couldn't have. Some of the other deleted financial opinions referred to this study. It is the only independent research that has declared both assumptions, methods and interests, whereas the financial opinions (particularly this Bloomberg piece) is a fluffy box of unknowns (and the words "Research completed" is not supported by source). So, please put back what was deleted. TGCP (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being more clear. An editor bringing that study to this article, is doing WP:SYN - we can bring this to WP:ORN if you want to get additional opinions. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No, why do you consider it WP:SYN ? TGCP (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Because of the way it is written. I have thought about this further and it can be written in such a way that it is not SYN. I am also suggesting that we make this less technical.... see below and please let me know what you think:

In response to Musk's description of Tesla's work on a "a heavy duty, long-range semitruck" at a talk in April 2017, researchers from the Carnegie Mellon College of Engineering estimated the loads and ranges for an electric truck, given battery technologies known at that time, and published their work in June 2017. They determined that an electric semi might be feasible for short- or medium-range hauling, but not for long-range hauling, as the weight of the batteries required would take up too much of the weight allowed by law.

References

something like that? It would be great if we could reproduce their figure 1 here in this article but it is not open-licensed. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The background was insufficiently described, perhaps we can agree on that. I think your suggestion is too vague; the numbers are what makes the difference between opinions and facts - physics are what they are, and no amount of hype or wailing can change that. Technical considerations are to be expected of an article on a technical item such as a truck, airplane or computer. A point in the study was that even with projected increase in battery intensity, longrange would be unfeasible. Which specific points did you consider SYN ? TGCP (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The SYN is resolved in this version. the numbers are obviously in the paper which is happily open access. We could add detail like: "The maximum weight of a truck is 36,000 kg; the authors concluded that even with optimal design, using Li-ion battery packs with available technology would leave only 4,000 kg of payload for long-range use, 11,000 kg for medium-range (in both cases, more than half the limit taken up by the truck itself), and for short-ranges, 19,000 kg" Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that's even longer and more complicated than original, and leaves out the important aspects of efficiency seen in similar optimized trucks. But I can see why the technical aspects seem odd when the background is so lacking - that needs some work. I'll stay fairly sceptical of your view of wp:SYN until you clarify what you meant - the policy must be connected to an actual reason. Further use of that requires a specific explanation, or it will have to be regarded as obstructive behaviour, and reverted without need for explanation. Notice that I started with an explanation for not SYN. TGCP (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The original content did not make it clear that the source itself directly discussed the Tesla Semi. I fixed that in the version above by adding "In response to Musk's description of Tesla's work on a "a heavy duty, long-range semitruck" at a talk in April 2017...". The content based on this source cannot be related by any editor to the specs disclosed in November, after this source published; that would also be SYN.Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the single word "similar" caused that confusion. The text is clear that the numbers are for the calculation, not the actual truck, so there is no posibility of misunderstanding that. Those are simply published numbers without undue conclusion, as per Compiling: "Organizing published facts and opinions that are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research" TGCP (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify the 18:52-edit: the article is lacking technical aspects. TGCP (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I added @Jytdog: text to the article so there is some technical info in the article. It may need more specific details but at least something is there. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I am ok with that. it is not clear to me yet exactly what TGCP is after but perhaps you can work it out. We also need to be wary of WP:TECHNICAL and i think that is part of the issue with what they are after now... Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Third party analysis

Quote:

Some industry experts view long-range heavy-duty freight as impractical for battery trucks due to cost and weight.

Does this belong in the article? The Tesla Semi is not a long-range truck typically described with 1000 mile range. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the refs and content, and that is well supported by the source. Please be aware that even here in this interaction you continuing a pattern of blatant POV editing (diff of the edit above. There are many many diffs like this that you have generated). Again, please restore the negative content in the section above already. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry can you quote the source that says the Tesla Semi is a long range truck? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole deal with the "megacharger" is to make the prototyped version feasible to use for long-range. There was even a quote from Musk about it charging while the driver stops at a rest stop. If your quibble is with "long range" that is easy to fix without removing the critique that truck will not be actually feasible. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This pettifogging of 500 miles vs 1000 miles is nonsense. It is abundantly clear that the industry analysts were talking about this truck, the Tesla Semi, and there is consensus across many experts that the numbers given don't pencil out, unless several critical blanks are filled in with vaporware nobody has identified. If you fill in the blanks with known technology, it is impractical. We've reviewed these sources more than once. I can't believe what a high standard of proof is being demanded for the slightest criticism of this topic, while we are asked to be utterly credulous about anything Elon Musk says. The same standard of evidence should be applied to both. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

This is resolved Dennis - acknowledged in the section above. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Orders

As the number of orders keep increasing it seems that it may be time to format that section as a table instead of just adding more and more sentences listing orders. At some point it may be worth moving that table off to a "list of" article but for now I think an introduction paragraph and a table detailing the various orders would be sufficient. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should have the section at all. It isn't encyclopedic. A brief mention of when the first orders started, maybe. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree so I removed the order section and moved some of the order info to the History section. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that with other "orders" lists such as List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries and List of Airbus A320 orders? I would agree that you wouldn't normally make a list of orders for a car like the Tesla Model 3, but for vehicles, like aircraft, that are ordered in bulk for fleet operators this seems very relevant. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are places where people fill WP with fancruft and news. We generally don't track the blow-by-blow of stuff here per WP:NOTNEWS. Please try to imagine what might be relevant ten years now. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The key term in those two linked lists is "deliveries". In 2019 or later, when Tesla starts to deliver bulk orders of the Semi I would agree with having a 'list of orders and deliveries' article. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The key term in such lists are orders in this context. For several years and through hundreds of edits, orders were noted before first delivery: see 787 (2011) and 320neo (2016) (Airbus 320 was delivered since 1988, well before Wikipedia). Some may have been pre-orders, some were regular firm orders. Whether that is portable to Semi is a different matter. I would imagine that noting the major orders would be notable years from now as qualifiers for production. TGCP (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the pre-orders section should be removed entirely as its purely promotional. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree the list of orders is relevant and encyclopedic. It shows that the industry is backing this endeavour, adds notability to the article, and adds credibility to the manufacturer claims. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no question that the topic is notable; we do not need excessive WP:NOTNEWS detail to show notability. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no question that the topic is very notable; we need content that shows notability. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

On the question of notability we have this

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla_Semi&type=revision&diff=811153249&oldid=811152783
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tesla_Semi

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The results of the AfD were keep. Notability is established. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. What I'm suggesting is that increasing the articles notability is helpful . Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No one disagrees on the notability that there are hundreds of truck orders, just there are differences in opinion on how to show it. I originally removed the orders section, but I think it is fine now that only large, 50+, orders are shown. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Frmorrison, article subjects are notable or not which is about whether we have an article or not. This article passed AfD; the subject is notable already. With regard to specific content within an article, the question is whether it is DUE or UNDUE - "noteworthy" or "not noteworthy". If we come to agree on some order size as a floor, we can do that. If it is going to be 50+ then the Anheuser-Busch order should go. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think orders over 25 are notable, since that is sending over half a million dollars 2+ years in advance. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I would be OK with 50 which would be $1M. This is kind of arbitrary but we should have a higher bar for DUE to keep this encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

40 should be the floor, which is 800k. The beer company's 40 orders has many articles (20+) on it so that seems to meet DUE. This is not the case for companies ordering 5 or 10 trucks. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

we should be clear what we are talking about here. If you look at the reservation agreement, either party can cancel at any time and the money will be refunded. The deposit is a rounding error for the beer company - a fully refundable one. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This is really very simple. When an order is mentioned in substantial third-party coverage not obviously based on a press release, we should include it. When it's a press release reprinted by a lazy journalist, we ignore it. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy thanks for commenting but policies other than V are relevant - like WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS. There are refs like electrotek that publish and comment anytime there is a sale at all - not just churnalism but expert commentary by The Electric Car Guy. For a while the article was like this:

Shortly after the press conference Walmart announced that it had pre-ordered five for use in the US and ten for use in Canada and trucking firm J.B. Hunt said it had ordered several units, as did the grocery chain Meijer Inc. A few days later, Canada's largest grocery chain, Loblaws, pre-ordered 25 trucks and Ryder System Inc. was planning an initial Semi pre-order but did not specify the number of units. The major moving company JK Moving Services pre-ordered four Semis and planned to order five sleeper cabs when the ordering for those opens. DHL Supply Chain has reportedly ordered 10 units.

According to Electrek, more than 200 Tesla Semis have been ordered as of November 28, 2017.

We have decisively moved away from that and are trying to figure out what shouldcome in... We are trying to work out what makes sense to say, during this period before there is actual production and sales, which given Musk's history of blowing deadlines could last many years. Right now we are debating between cutoffs of 40 or 50 as the minimum size a pre-order must be in order to be mentioned here.... we need some rational approach. I would just as soon not say anything other than "pre-orders started the day of the press conference", since none of these are actual orders, but that is not going to fly.

References

--Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I like Guys bar for including orders in the article. As long as it is not based on a press release, then it is noteworthy. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Production date

People keep wanting to add production date to the infobox. Infoboxes are for facts. it is not a fact that production will begin in 2019; it is true that Tesla has said they intend to start in 2019, but given their history of blowing dates, this is not a fact, but rather WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Something in the future is obviously a plan. The fact is , the planned date for production is 2019 according to Telsa. Quote from the intro sentence of MOS:INFOBOX:

...that summarizes key features of the page's subject.

I suspect most people will agree that the planned introduction of the Semi for 2019 is a key point of the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there has been very much verifiable information about production dates of the Tesla Semi over most of the past two years since the product concept was first shown publicly. The article seems to say the production date shifted to late 2020, as of June 2019. Attn: Jytdog Daniel.Cardenas.

However, IF production in 2019 was something the Tesla company originally said, than that date, at whatever time it was stated as shown in a source, would be fine to mention in the article today, in something of the form: "As of date xyx, Tesla anticipated that production would begin in 2019." I don't have a source for that, but a source is hinted at in the discussion above. If it is true, and Tesla did publicly project that, then I would point out it'd be fine to be in the article prose. Just has to have a source. N2e (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Overly promotional

No need for pre-order information. It could be out of date as companies can cancel their pre-orders.

The entire thing reads like an advertisement and should probably be made a stub under Tesla instead. Gene.redinger (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I take your assertion, but would disagree. Let's see if we can develop a consensus on the issue here on the Talk page.

Pre order information exists in a large number of Wikipedia articles on electric vehicles, probably 'cause of the startup problem of new technologies requiring extensive capital equipment purchases and facilities build out before production of a modern automobile aimed at the highly regulated developed country markets. (where, for example, tens of the vehicles need to be built just to go through the various regulatorily-required crash tests and driving efficiency testing.) See the Ford F-150 Lightning and Rivian vehicles, for example.

What else do you find to be advert-like specifically? The article seems to me to merely describe the History of a notable new heavy-duty truck vehicle development program. As an administrator once told me when the debate was on notability of a company developing a new private human spaceflight system: "Heck, in Wikipedia you can have an article on a balsa wood model airplane as long as it meets the general notability criteria." N2e (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

My complaints would be the large amounts of WP:CRUFT. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"SEMI" logo

Can someone upload the logo? [1] from [2] and [3] from [4] shows a logo -- 65.92.246.191 (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

autopilot?

The article talks about the Tesla Autopilot, as it was announced in 2017 but during the December 1 event nothing was said about it. Has Tesla Semi Autopilot or another self driving system?

More details here: https://electrek.co/2022/12/03/tesla-semi-no-word-equipped-autopilot-full-self-driving/

Javiermes (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Update

I updated the article and removed a lot of predictions and other minutiae. Another editor reverted me, wanting to keep that stuff. Appreciate other editors weighing in. I could see moving some of it to the History section, but do we really need to keep track of all of Elon's missed predictions? Lfstevens (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that your efforts are Good Faith. Most of the removed points are still notable. As this Talk page above show, experts and media have published considerable disbelief in the numbers. Whether or not the numbers are confirmed (remains unverified by independents), the media interest is notable. The delays are notable, but could be condensed. Also, the differences between prototype and production version should be highlighted. TGCP (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, was a super good faith effort. Just think it removed some of the history of the entire program without ensuring that a summary was left in other areas of the article, and in general, left the article a bit less comprehensive and encyclopedic. Your summary description of the current Tesla Semi, as in production (now in 2022) based on more recent sources was good. N2e (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added the entire "Design" section authored by Lfstevens to describe the current design. Also removed a a lot of redundant info about Megachargers, which is more fully described in another article. I've started a thorough copyedit of the History section to tighten it up, while still leaving some explication of the program history. After all, this is an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper of current events. More clean up yet to be done, which I intend to work through if someone else doesn't get to it first. N2e (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Number delivered

I notice the article says one Semi was delivered to PepsiCo at the launch event, with a reference to an Engadget report. Are we sure it was just one? The launch event featured one moving silver truck, as well as one stationary one painted in Pepsi livery and another stationary one in Frito-Ley livery. Dunk the Lunk (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't believe we have a good source that it was only one. Was gonna tag it to request a source for only "one", and found that the source said "deliveries", so plural. N2e (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Claimed "specifications"

The basic specifications of this vehicle are unknown, since the lead section refers only to unsubstantiated claims from a biased source.

This article is not about a truck at all, it's about a proposal for a future truck. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: The truck does appear to be in service now (currently operated by PepsiCo.). Also what source are you referring to? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The source I referred to was the statement about "Tesla's claims" in the lead section. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers: Ok. How is that source biased? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers:, we have a prototype vehicle with the only specs provided by the manufacturer. We have 3 choice how to present this in the article:

1. We put the claimed specs in but act as though they are accurate and true and that Tesla would never lie even though making the claimed figures better would help future sales and their stock market value.
2. We don't mention the specs at all. You can bet your bottom dollar that some helpful soul will add the "missing" figures in the near future. This puts us back to option #1.
3. We put the claimed figures in with the word "claimed". Readers know that "claimed" means "treat as suspicious but we have no better numbers to show now".

Which option would you prefer ?  Stepho  talk  01:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction is "Why is there even an article when there's no third-party data available". Other than that, I have to agree with you that there is no best stable solution, and that if the article is going to stay, then it might as well be like it is now. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes we just have to accept the least worst option in the short term. If we deleted the article then another kind, helpful soul will add a new version - probably in worse shape. Hopefully at some point the Semi will enter mass production rather than just a handful. At that point it will probably get third party reviews and then we will update the article with them. If it doesn't reach mass production then its all a storm in a tea cup, so no problem. It may take a while but in the long term it usually gets better.  Stepho  talk  01:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

To change Semi production year from 2022 to announced for 2026

Is the semi really in production, when you can't buy one before 2026 and the semi key specifications (weight and price) are yet to be disclosed? https://www.torquenews.com/1084/tesla-semi-truck-customers-are-still-waiting-sysco-says-we-put-deposit-50-trucks-2017-they In 2022 Pepsi had their hands on prototypes to iron out the quirks, it doesn't qualify as production by any metric. If the change is made then we won't have a 2026 "volume" production year in the lead and a 2022 production year in the infobox. This contradiction needs to be solved. This has been going on for far too long. 2A02:A03F:622D:9800:1D57:7B48:D58:D2EB (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)