Tesla formally inaugurated its dedicated Semi factory in Sparks, Nevada on September 24, a 1.7 million square foot plant built adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada, and while the company framed the day as the start of high volume production, the first truck actually came off that line back in April, which makes this less a factory opening than a coming-out party for a program that has been promising this moment since 2017.
Deliveries went to DHL, PepsiCo and US Foods to name a few. The plant is designed for 50,000 trucks a year. Tesla has not said what it is currently producing, and that distinction matters.
I drove one. Fully loaded, tractor and trailer, and I came away impressed by three things in particular: the power, the acceleration, and the ride quality. The acceleration is the part that will get written about because it is the part that surprises people. The ride quality is the part that would matter to me if I were putting a driver in it every day.
There is also a detail from behind the wheel worth naming. You barely touch the service brake. Regenerative braking handles so much of the deceleration that the driving rhythm changes, and anyone who has run mountain grades understands immediately what that implies for brake wear and for the cost line that goes with it.
Nine Years, Told Honestly
Dan Priestley, who leads the Semi program, walked me through a timeline that started earlier than most people realize.
The idea surfaced in 2014, and the origin was a contradiction inside Tesla’s own operation. The company was building a battery and powertrain plant in Nevada and shipping parts down to Fremont, California on diesel trucks. Electric car components moving on diesel power did not sit right with the mission.
Design work went from modeling to hardware in early 2016. Two alpha trucks appeared publicly in 2017, and Priestley said those vehicles drove more miles than any alpha program Tesla has run. The design language from those trucks survived, particularly the center seating position and the dual screen cockpit.
The pilot fleet came in 2022. Just under 200 trucks, and roughly 17.5 million miles accumulated across them. Priestley described the architectural change between the alphas and that fleet as a massive leap, and then described the current production truck as the product of taking fleet data and direct customer feedback and feeding it back into the design.
What I appreciated was his framing of why. He said plainly that Tesla is not a heavy truck company yet, expressed respect for the people who run trucks every day, and said the truck has to work for the majority of fleets and drivers rather than for one customer.
The clearest evidence that the feedback loop is real is a window. The original truck had a small pop-out window. Customers pushed back hard, and Tesla put in a roll-down window. The reason turned out to be mundane and completely obvious in hindsight: badge readers, toll booths and call boxes all sit at roughly that height. Priestley and the team owned it as a design call they got wrong.
The Best Part Is No Part
The factory tour is where the engineering argument actually lives, and the phrase the team repeated is that the best part is no part.
The battery moved from purchased 2170 cells to in-house 4680s built in the complex next door. That change let Tesla cut battery mass and total kilowatt hours while holding range, because efficiency improvements elsewhere absorbed the difference.
The efficiency number is the one I would put in front of a skeptical fleet manager. The original internal target was roughly 2,000 watt-hours per mile, and the team said outside voices called it impossible. They are now running around 1.6 to 1.7, which is about 25 percent better than the target they were told they could not hit.
The drivetrain was reworked. The previous rotor used a carbon fiber sleeve borrowed from the Plaid powertrain, which performed well but was not the right technology for mass production. The new steel cage rotor is cheaper, produces more torque, and is more reliable. A bar-round stator shared with Cybertruck took roughly 80 kilograms out of the drive axle and let Tesla reuse an existing production line.
Then the subtractions, which is where a maintenance manager should pay attention.
The truck originally ran three separate oils, one for the motor, one for the gearbox, one for the hub. The hub is now fully integrated with no oil at all, which also lowers rolling resistance. The motor and gearbox share a single common oil rated to last more than a quarter million miles.
Hydraulic power steering is gone, replaced by a fully redundant electric steer-by-wire system developed for Cybertruck. Priestley made the operational case directly: a hydraulic steering leak is rarely catastrophic, but it puts the truck out of service until a technician gets to it. Removing the loop removes the failure mode and removes it from the pre-trip inspection. The side benefit is a turning radius Tesla claims is close to a Model Y, which showed up in dock maneuvering.
The thermal system is the same indirect design used on Cybercab, with the same compressor and coolant pumps used across tens of millions of Tesla vehicles. There are no refrigerant lines running forward, so there are no AC lines to damage or service.
Range, Charging and the Shift Math
Two variants are coming out of Sparks, a 325 mile standard range and a 500 mile long range. Tesla says the 500 miles is real world at 82,000 pounds fully loaded rather than a diminishing load figure. Standard range curb weight is under 20,000 pounds with a 45,000 pound payload capability.
Priestley was candid about why the range is not higher. Tesla could build a truck that crosses the country on one charge, and it would carry very little, because more battery means more mass and more cost. His argument is that range only means something paired with charging.
The shift arithmetic he described goes like this. Start at 450, run 400 miles, arrive at 10 percent, take 60 percent back in 30 minutes during the break the driver was going to take anyway, and run another 300. That is roughly 700 miles in a shift without stopping solely to charge.
On infrastructure, Tesla is using the Megawatt Charging System and says it is designed for full interoperability in both directions, meaning the Semi can charge on other providers’ equipment and other manufacturers’ MCS trucks can use Tesla’s network. By the end of the year Tesla expects more than 30 stations and over 200 megawatt-capable posts, with deployments at Pilot Flying J. The charging hardware is available for purchase.
There is no sleeper, and Priestley was straightforward that a sleeper depends on an over the road charging network that does not exist yet. The chassis is set up to accept one. The sequence is regional first, then connecting regions, then over the road.
He also declined to discuss price. Outside estimates have circulated around $290,000, which would sit below published estimates for a Freightliner eCascadia or a Volvo VNR Electric, but Tesla has not confirmed a number publicly.
Uptime Is the Argument That Will Land
The pilot fleet is running at 98 percent uptime, and Priestley did not pretend the road there was clean. He described teething problems on drivetrain components and issues with routing, airlines and hoses.
The service model borrows from the car business. A dedicated Semi service network, mobile technicians dispatched to the truck, over the air diagnostics and updates, and shared parts distribution with the automotive fleet. That last point is the underrated one. There are far more Tesla cars on the road than Class 8 trucks, and the same distribution centers and the same high voltage technician training pipeline serve both. Field failures found on the car side propagate to the truck side.
The team said they were appalled at the vehicle off road numbers they saw across the industry, and built to beat them. The line I wrote down was that planned maintenance is fine and unscheduled maintenance is a tragedy.
The Market This Enters
Now the honest context, because the factory is an enormous bet on a market that has not yet arrived.
Battery-electric vehicles account for less than one percent of new Class 6 through 8 truck sales in North America. ACT Research does not expect widespread long haul Class 8 adoption until somewhere between 2035 and 2040. Volvo Trucks executives have publicly said they expect electric truck sales to stay modest through 2026 and into 2027. Federal incentives and emissions rules that supported early deployments are receding, which pushes the decision back onto total cost of ownership.
Against that, ACT forecasts roughly 224,800 Class 8 retail sales in the United States in 2026. A plant sized for 50,000 units is sized for more than a fifth of the entire market.
The competitive picture is further along than the headlines suggest. Volvo has over 750 VNR Electrics running, more than 30 million zero-tailpipe miles, and 84 certified EV dealerships across 33 states and four Canadian provinces. Freightliner has eCascadias with more than 55 fleets and over six million miles. Tesla’s 17.5 million miles came from fewer than 200 trucks, which is a far higher per-truck utilization, but Volvo’s dealer network is a real asset Tesla is building from scratch.
Why It Matters
The strongest case for this truck is not the acceleration that everyone will write about, it is the systematic removal of failure points, the hydraulic steering loop, two of three oils, the refrigerant lines, because those are the items that put a truck out of service on a Tuesday and cost a fleet money it never planned for. Whether that engineering discipline can overcome a charging network that barely exists outside a few corridors is the question the next three years will answer, and it will be answered by fleets running real freight rather than by anyone standing in a factory.
The post Tesla Marked the Start of High Volume Semi Production, and the Engineering Story Sits Underneath the Cab appeared first on FreightWaves.
Temperature-control systems provider Copeland expanded its presence in the cold chain with the acquisition of Dickson. The deal adds monitoring and compliance technologies serving the healthcare and life sciences industries to its portfolio.
“The acquisition of Dickson further strengthens our ability to serve customers across every stage of the healthcare and life sciences cold chain, from pharmaceutical manufacturing through distribution and patient care,” said Copeland CEO Ross Shuster.
Financial terms of the transaction were not provided.
Dickson’s cloud-based platform provides temperature monitoring and visibility throughout the healthcare supply chain, from manufacturing to final delivery. The system notifies food and pharmaceutical shippers of potential losses before they happen.
“Our customers operate in highly regulated environments where precision, compliance and visibility are essential,” said Rick Weiler, president and CEO at Dickson. “By joining Copeland, we are bringing together complementary technologies and expertise that support the monitoring and protection of temperature-sensitive products across increasingly complex supply chains.”
Copeland has over 200 million heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration installations across approximately 40 countries.
Why it matters? Copeland’s acquisition of Dickson will allow it to integrate advanced cloud-based temperature monitoring into the supply chains of its healthcare customers. This combination protects sensitive products and mitigates product loss by notifying shippers of potential temperature excursions before they occur.
More FreightWaves articles by Todd Maiden:
- Old Dominion pulls forward 4.9% GRI as LTL carriers accelerate rate hikes
- Truckload carriers: Capacity exodus growing, not slowing
- J.B. Hunt flags Q3 cost pressures, shares sink 12%
The post Copeland expands cold chain capabilities with Dickson acquisition appeared first on FreightWaves.
Resilient U.S.-bound demand, Far East port congestion and blanked sailings are keeping trans-Pacific spot rates near their early July highs, even as Asia-Europe pricing continues to slide from peak-season levels.
The divergence follows an unusually early east-west peak season that began in May and lifted container spot rates sharply through early July, according to analyst and SONAR data contributor Freightos (NASDAQ: CRGO). On the trans-Pacific, shippers appear to be sustaining demand ahead of China’s Golden Week holiday, while the absence of a late-July tariff increase may have removed an incentive for an abrupt pullback in U.S.-bound imports.
Asia-West Coast spot rates increased 4% last week to more than $8,100 per forty foot equivalent unit (FEU), while East Coast prices were essentially unchanged at about $9,600 per FEU. The elevated levels reflect a combination of strong cargo demand, weather-related port congestion in the Far East and carrier capacity management through blanked sailings.
Some canceled sailings are likely the result of vessel delays and network disruptions caused by congestion, the analyst said. But carriers are also reducing capacity in anticipation of softer volumes during the Golden Week period and a broader easing in demand once the peak season ends later in October.
Cancellation data still points to relatively firm demand compared with prior years, suggesting carriers have less need to withdraw capacity than they typically would as the traditional peak-season window closes.
Pandemic comparison overstated
Current trans-Pacific pricing has prompted comparisons with the pandemic-era market, but the latest levels remain well below the extremes reached during the Covid-19 import surge.
Freightos Baltic Index data show that Asia-West Coast prices exceeded $20,000 per FEU in September 2021, when extraordinary U.S. import demand collided with severe port congestion. During that period, carriers often did not move spot cargo booked at base rates unless shippers paid premium surcharges, pushing benchmark levels to historic highs.
Freightos said that the current market is more comparable to the 2024 peak season, when Red Sea diversions constrained effective vessel capacity. Today’s trans-Pacific rates are placing considerable pressure on shippers, but they are still far from the unprecedented levels of 2021.
Europe trades cool
Asia-Europe spot prices continued to decline as peak-season volumes moderated.
Rates from Asia to North Europe fell 15% last week to about $3,700 per FEU. That is down from a July high near $6,000 per FEU, though it remains roughly $1,000 per FEU above levels seen before peak season began in late May.
Asia-Mediterranean rates fell 7% to approximately $3,900 per FEU, after exceeding $7,000 per FEU in July. Unlike North Europe prices, Mediterranean rates have now fallen back to roughly their May level.
| Trade lane | Latest rate | Weekly change | Recent peak comparison |
| Far East–U.S. West Coast | More than $8,100/FEU | Up 4% | Near peak-season highs |
| Far East–U.S. East Coast | About $9,600/FEU | Roughly flat | Near peak-season highs |
| Asia–North Europe | About $3,700/FEU | Down 15% | Down from nearly $6,000/FEU in July |
| Asia–Mediterranean | About $3,900/FEU | Down 7% | Down from more than $7,000/FEU in July |
Capacity and congestion split markets
The sharper retreat in Mediterranean prices likely reflects a greater increase in effective capacity on that lane as more vessels resume Red Sea transits, Freightos said. North Europe trades, by contrast, continue to face constraints from congestion at regional hubs and inland disruptions, including low water on the Rhine River.
A possible indefinite strike at German ports could add to the pressure. The Verdi labor union is voting on a job action that could begin as early as October, potentially worsening terminal congestion and constraining carrier capacity on Asia-North Europe services.
Read more articles by Stuart Chirls here.
Read more:
New data shows Suez route transits rose 27% in August
Hurricane Polo disrupts Mexican Pacific ports with high winds, heavy rain
New report: Just a third of container shipping on-time
New $100M inland rail terminal will handle 60,000 TEUs a year
Asia-US container rates soar past $11,000, near pandemic records
The post But no pandemic high: Asia-US container rate at $9,600 appeared first on FreightWaves.
Cargo theft losses now reach at least $1 million annually for 40% of leaders surveyed by SmartSense. Another 28% report yearly costs exceeding $2 million from stolen freight. The study polled 150 U.S.-based loss prevention and organized retail crime professionals. Results also show growing concern about criminals using coordinated tactics against supply chains.
SmartSense by Digi released its Cargo Theft Report on Thursday. Coleman Parkes conducted the research during August 2026. Participants represented companies ranging from under $10 million to more than $10 billion in annual revenue. Their responsibilities included security, logistics, risk management, distribution and organized retail crime prevention.
The survey found 79% feel more concerned about cargo theft today than ever before. Another 81% believe these crimes have become increasingly organized during recent years. 63% report incidents increased compared with last year. 80% indicate theft events caused lost sales within their organizations.
Fraudulent pickups lead list of concerns
Criminal tactics extend beyond physically stealing a parked trailer, according to the findings. Fraudulent pickups and carrier impersonation ranked highest, drawing concern from 78% of participants. GPS jamming or spoofing followed at 71%, while trailer theft reached 66%. Double brokering registered at 64% among those questioned.
Scott Glenn, vice president of asset protection at The Home Depot, highlighted another vulnerability surrounding freight movement. He pointed toward information criminals can obtain through transportation or logistics systems. Access could reveal shipment contents, destinations and expected arrival times. That intelligence could give thieves details needed to select specific loads.
“Cargo theft is increasingly a cybersecurity issue as much as it is a physical security issue,” Glenn stated. “If criminals gain access to transportation or logistics systems, they can potentially identify what is being shipped.” He added that compromised information could reveal where cargo travels and when it should arrive. Glenn urged companies to protect shipment data as seriously as the freight itself.
Companies increase prevention spending
The growing threat has also influenced security budgets, according to SmartSense. 70% report their organizations will spend more on cargo theft prevention this year. Respondents identified real-time location visibility among capabilities that could make the biggest difference. They also highlighted data analysis for detecting recurring theft patterns and high-risk routes.
Guy Yehiav, president of SmartSense by Digi, pointed toward faster detection as another component. “The companies making the most progress are moving from visibility to actionability,” Yehiav stated. He cited route deviations and unauthorized stops among warning signs that monitoring can identify. Faster alerts can give security teams additional time to react before a shipment disappears.
The research also identified a gap between cargo theft incidents and law enforcement involvement. Only 37% report regularly notifying authorities and working directly with investigators. SmartSense notes that unreported crimes could leave existing figures below the actual scale. The survey itself does not quantify how many incidents remain outside official reporting systems.
Why it matters
Cargo theft increasingly involves identity, technology and transportation systems alongside physical security. Understanding which tactics concern loss prevention leaders helps freight professionals identify where existing controls may face pressure.
CFCO
In my opinion, technology works best when employees also understand how criminals exploit weak processes. The Certified Fraud Compliance Officer course teaches structured verification and risk-based decision-making across freight transactions. Training teams to verify companies, people and shipment details can help expose inconsistencies before cargo moves. No single tool or course eliminates theft, but repeatable verification can reduce opportunities created by preventable process gaps.
Click here for more articles on cargo theft and freight fraud by Phil Brink.
Federal indictments target nearly $600K in interstate cargo theft tied to Memphis – FreightWaves
Masked thieves cut trailer hinges, steal Black Angus beef in Philadelphia – FreightWaves
Florida troopers recover 2 stolen semis hauling tires and batteries; driver flees – FreightWaves
The post 40% of loss prevention professionals report annual cargo theft losses topping $1M appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hurricane Polo is disrupting maritime operations along Mexico’s Pacific coast, prompting authorities to close or restrict navigation at several ports, while the key container gateway of Manzanillo remains open to large commercial vessels.
Mexico’s Navy closed the Port of Manzanillo in Colima to vessels under 500 gross tonnage beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday as Polo rapidly intensified offshore. The restriction does not apply to larger commercial vessels, allowing container ship traffic to continue at the port.
The Manzanillo Port Captaincy said the measure was imposed because deteriorating weather associated with Polo was expected to bring stronger winds, heavy rainfall and higher waves to the area.
Vessels already docked in the port were advised to reinforce mooring lines and monitor maritime safety and weather bulletins.
The restrictions come as Polo, which reached Category 5 strength Tuesday, weakened slightly to a Category 4 hurricane early Wednesday while drifting northward off southwestern Mexico.
At 6 a.m. CST Wednesday, Polo was about 320 miles southeast of Manzanillo and 165 miles south of Zihuatanejo, Guerrero, according to the National Hurricane Center. The hurricane had maximum sustained winds of 150 mph and was moving north at just 2 mph.
The storm’s slow movement is prolonging the threat to Mexico’s Pacific coastline. The NHC said Polo’s outer rainbands had begun reaching southwestern Mexico early Wednesday.
A tropical storm warning was in effect from Técpan de Galeana, Guerrero, to Punta San Telmo, Michoacán, while a tropical storm watch extended farther northwest.
Port restrictions spread along Pacific coast
Maritime restrictions extend well beyond Manzanillo.
Mexico’s National Civil Protection Coordination said Tuesday that the Navy had closed the ports of Acapulco and Zihuatanejo in Guerrero to large vessels. Smaller vessels were restricted at Manzanillo, Acapulco, Puerto Marqués, Zihuatanejo and Lázaro Cárdenas in Michoacán, La Jornada reported.
Reports Wednesday from Info7 indicated Acapulco and Zihuatanejo remained closed to all types of vessels, while restrictions at Manzanillo, Puerto Marqués and Lázaro Cárdenas applied to smaller vessels.
Lázaro Cárdenas authorities said the Mexican Navy had activated preventive measures along the Pacific coast as Polo strengthened, warning of heavy rain, strong winds and dangerous waves.
Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas are Mexico’s two major Pacific container gateways and handle significant volumes of Asian imports destined for manufacturing and consumer markets throughout Mexico.
Polo underwent rapid intensification
Polo underwent extraordinary strengthening after developing off Mexico’s Pacific coast.
The storm intensified to Category 5 on Tuesday, with maximum sustained winds reaching 165 mph during the morning. By 6 p.m., Polo’s sustained winds had increased to 175 mph as the storm moved extremely slowly offshore, according to the National Hurricane Center.
ers reported Tuesday that Polo had reached the highest level on the Saffir-Simpson scale as it hovered off Mexico, with forecasters warning that its slow movement could prolong heavy rainfall and increase the risk of flooding and mudslides in southwestern Mexico.
By early Wednesday, Polo had begun weakening. The National Hurricane Center downgraded the storm to Category 4 as it slowly moved north, but the hurricane remained extremely powerful with 150 mph winds at 6 a.m.
Why it matters: Manzanillo and Lázaro Cárdenas are critical links between Asian ocean trade and Mexico’s inland supply chains, making prolonged or expanded port restrictions a potential threat to freight flows.
The post Hurricane Polo disrupts Mexican Pacific ports with high winds, heavy rain appeared first on FreightWaves.
