Paul Santos did, in my opinion, some good analysis in https://seekingalpha.com/article/4127493-tesla-truck-implications But he works for a Tesla shorter (and or shorts himself) which at this point calls into question both ethics and intelligence. 1. He makes case tha Tesla will be at $83.5 kwh in later 2017. I think its close enought to $75 kwh that its a rounding error or plus a year at worst. 2. He makes the case that the Tesla trucks can't have sleepers because the space behind the cab is taken up by a battery pack. Here he unknowingly makes the case that they will have sleepers. Whereas firm said all batteries are in frame, showed a picture of design layout and cited lower center of gravity. Think they would get caught rolling that back? However I think he may have hit on the reality of the prototypes even if people are testing those now with some of that space taken. I think it also means that longer range (based on his calcualtions up to 20%) may be feasible just by adding bateries to that space. But note the height of the pack, even with the pack it implies space above it for a sleeper- so sleepers or the cabs shorten. Add solar to the trailer for 10- 15% and that 20% pack and maybe get 675 mile more range. So unless they plan to shorten the length of the tractor it implies the availability of sleepers or at least the option closer to release. 3. He tried to suggest that thermal management hardware wasn't present yet. Well maybe he has some inside info but Nikola may have been the case of a plant (after all hydrogen supreme stupidity) that ran off from a program that has been going well befor Nikola- artle said Nikola came from someone that was at Tesla- Nikola freaking out now because makea their stuff look unviable. Also tried to suggest gear boxes- but trans and differiental and equivalents are largely missing and single speed again. Probably got the weight wrong too because of his pack error so may have less aluminum and carbon fiber expense than he is claiming. Also may be under estimating margin on S and X. 4. Biggest error is the stuff on contract lock in on battery innovation with Panasonic. Tesla has commented that the giga factory is set up to retool quickly if there is a break through. So if its in the physical set up and design its in the contract. He tries to suggest it would be like some oil hedge or something like that which sounds like sheer stupidity. Might be able to insure the difference to some extent but these things would follow improvement curves not just changes in the price of inputs. And nothing would lock Tesla into using only the Gigafactory or what is in that plant. Further it would not serve Panasonic to undermine the competitiveness of a deal or a key partner with a inflexible contract. There will be protections and adjustment to protect each partner but tech firms that live by technology don't write contracts that prevent them from pursuing technology. Elsewhere on Seeking Alpha a shill shorter unidentified wrote Tesla claims about Semi weren't credible leading to almost no orders. Contrast this with even a year ago Musk said they were working with the major providers and if memory serves a couple years of production (or something similar) was already accounted for. May have had to scale their production up in the interim just like with Model 3. Think about the Ryder exec and how he looks now- but shows they were. Also funny "Old Dominion" trucking outfit with a name that seems to want to advertise the glory days of Americal slavery announced it had looked at the Tesla product and didn't like what it saw- not surprising coming from the slavery-petrol axis.