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?

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?

you really need to cast a critical eye on it.

Great. Now apply that same criteria to Pepsi’s PR team. And there we go.

Pepsi seems okay with what was delivered.

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.

to transport the poison they peddle”

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.

I think you’re looking at the darker blue battery charge

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.

I am comfortable with rejecting your conclusion.

Kay. 👍