8
Tesla released the Cybertruck
(dmv.social)
Cool. Next!
All of that range and it still can't do truck things.
Not necessarily. It's towing capacity (11000lbs) exceeds the Ford Lightning (10000lb). It's able to push out 11.5kW of 240V power vs the Lightning's 9.2kW. The Lightning's payload capacity (2235lbs) is lower than the Cybertruck's (2500lbs). And the Lightning doesn't have a comparable AWD build with similar range anywhere close to $70k because the Platinum is around $90k (and you also go down to 8500lbs towing capacity...)
The R1T is a bit worse with 1764lbs payload, though they match the towing capacity of 11000lbs. Unfortunately it's like $10k more expensive.
Not what I meant - the truck is bed relatively small (especially compared to some ICE trucks. Also, good luck accessing things near the cab in the bed without having to actually get into it), and it apparently can't go up mild inclines as we saw in that video vs the lightning. Towing isn't the only thing a truck should do (although that is one thing).
Besides not being a real truck capable of offroading though, they went from 500+ miles @ $70,000 at announcement to less than 350 miles @ $100,000. That's insane, and not what Tesla promised customers that preordered.
Sure, when comparing it to ICE pickups it's definitely going to come up short, but I'm not comparing it to ICE pickups.
Since you bring up bed size, I got curious and it's still not bad compared to other EV pickups.
Cybertruck: 72"x48" (assuming their claim of a "6' by 4'" bed is actual numbers and not rounding them off) Lightning: 67.1" x 50.6" R1T: 54'' x 50"
As far as the video, it's hilarious that it performed so poorly. I'm waiting on a neutral reviewer to drive it versus basing my opinion on a viral video though. If it ends up being as bad as that video, then they would have successfully made the most useless truck for tasks involving anything more intensive than grabbing groceries.
It's basically the same bed for any double cab configuration on ice trucks. The lightning and cybertruck are only available in these double cabs though.
Looks like it's still on pre-order for me
I don't really see myself buying a pickup, much less an EV pickup, but it will be interesting to see other EV pickup makers do in response to the range extender. Supposedly, the range extender increases the AWD range to 470mi and RWD to 440mi.
I know a few people who are skeptical of EV pickup trucks because towing absolutely kills the range on EVs right now. I'd imagine an extra battery pack would make the towing range a lot more bearable.
Let's say the range gets cut by half when towing. If the range extending battery actually lives up to it's claim, that'd be 235mi range total 0-100%, or 141 miles from 20-80%. Stopping every 141 miles would be a LOT better than stopping every 80-90 for a charge.
I am looking forward to Ford and Rivian possibly building something similar with their trucks to help get rid of the towing argument.
Drew Baglino a Tesla exec said its a toolbox sized battery that goes against the back of the truck bed.
If this can be rented that would be amazing.
People don't need that extra range for the majority of their day to day use. Being able to rent it for 2 weeks when you take the camping trailer or boat on an extended trip would be amazing.
Hopefully it also charges at the 250kw max rate.
I don't think the towing argument is going away without a significant leap in battery technology.
I don't think it's going away either, but the option of a lot more range would make regional trips a bit more practical.
The extender is $16k and only gets you 130 extra miles. $123 per mile. This seems absolutely not worth the cost, and if you're towing it's probably only adding 60 more miles. It seems much more like a gimmick that nobody's going to buy than a useful tool.
So about the price of a civic type r here in Malaysia. Fml.
If an EV falls in the woods and no one is there to buy it, does it make a sound?
How the f does the AWD version with multiple motors get an extra 100 miles of range? Typically, it's the other way around.
They add more batteries?
But that means they already have quite a bit more space for more batteries that isn't being utilized for anything on the lower range models, which seems like a huge waste. If they can power more motors and get 100 miles of additional range in the same vehicle, they're really leaving a lot on the table.
They need to make a cheaper version for people, hence the rwd as well.
You don't just magically fill the whole battery pack for free
They have dummy cells in other Teslas as well, or have in the past anyway
All three have the same pack size.
I saw that mentioned on a few reviews, but it can't be right. I think there's been some misinterpretation
There's no way adding a 2nd motor and awd adds that much range. It could add some with some fancy tricks, but 90 miles is unbelievable.
Teslas own page says it's the same. There's zero chance the AWD gets better efficiency than rwd, so they're either locking capacity which is scummy or they're bsing customers about range numbers still.
Or you know, it's a mistake?
Also teala did something on one of the early cars where it got a boost with awd because they were able to do something fancy with it. (Edit: I think that was when the front and rear motors were the same, but now ones induction and ones permemant magnet, or something is different with them anyway)
And the semi gets better range because they can detach one motor or something which let's them get the power to pull from a stop, but then not waste it at high speeds. Just using one motor to do both things would be more inefficient.
Edit: it'd be a terrible design if true, but maybe a single motor can't properly move the truck because it's so heavy and it is a massive drain. Again I think the difference is way too high, so it's not that, but just another reason why it might be more efficient with 2 than 1 vs being entirely out of the question had it been a smaller amount.
The fact you brought up the semi sort of shows you aren't being serious about this.
You're the one being stubborn and not acknowledging that it's possible, even if not on this vehicle.
Again, I think something changed and they took some different trade offs (edit: different front/rear motor type bringing cost down I think) making this not the case anymore, but it was a thing.
Edit: And the part below about real world driving is irrelevant, those were EPA tested numbers, and the EPA test is very specific. Go outside the bounds of the test and things obviously change.
Edit: Also your best argument is to attack my argument in a non related way to dismiss my claim which is almost definitely a logical fallacy and shows YOU aren't the one taking this seriously.
I have some terrible news for you. The manufacturers run the tests to produce the EPA numbers, not the EPA. and they're allowed a "scaling factor" at the end.
With my AWD Model 3 you could gain efficiency by sleeping the front motor while driving on the rear motor. The motor that would be put to sleep was an induction motor so that there were no losses from the field generated by spinning the rotor inside the stator. In my Rivian you can gain efficiency by mechanically decoupling the motor from the rear driveline. In the case of the RWD Model 3, it did NOT lose this much efficiency from having only one, more powerful, rear motor. In the case of the ClusterTruck, the RWD version loses 100 miles, or about 1 third the range compared to AWD. That's the difference between SR and LR of all the other products they make.
So, either they're locking battery capacity from owners like they've done several times in the past, or their own specs page is complete BS. Since Tesla is the one making both claims here, it's a bad look in both cases.
Great, so it is possible for the AWD CyberTruck to be more efficient than the single motor.
I agree, I don't think the 90 miles can be made up by this difference as it was only ~2% on the AWD Model S. There would have to be some serious problem with the weight killing efficiency to make that be the case and I doubt that.
I'm not really sure how all the inner details of the EPA testing work, other than the EPA does at least some times test the cars. Sometimes to verify (they called Tesla out once and made them fix some numbers) and sometimes as the main test. (maybe minor changes are self, but new cars are via EPA?)
Recently there was a dispute where the EPA tested the car with what Tesla claims was a door open and the model S didn't reach the 400+ miles it should have, so Tesla had them re-run the test, and then it was rated at 402 miles.
Then a few weeks later, it was re-tested by the EPA and got the higher range.
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/06/16/tesla-model-s-long-range-plus-402-miles/
Maybe it was the door, maybe it wasn't, I don't know, but the EPA was clearly involved with these tests. Maybe not all tests, but this one they were.
So I'm not saying it isn't possible to be a locked battery, they've done it before, but they really try to avoid it and have moved away from the practice.
Occam's Razor would say the simplest explanation is it's not 123kwh for the RWD, so that's probably the correct answer. Next up after that would be your locked battery option.
Edit: And if were lucky, someone will ask about that on the next earnings call
but new cars are via EPA?
No, all cars are tested primarily by the manufacturer. If the EPA suspects fraud (VW, Tesla, Mercedes, etc.) they may perform tests of their own to verify, but they are the extreme rare exception.
Also, the "door open" test wasn't inefficient because the test was run with the door open. The tests are done on a dynamometer and aren't done actually driving on an actual road. Tesla complained because they said it kept the car awake longer than it should between when it was charged and when it was tested. The difference between 400 and 402 miles is idiotic to even attempt to dispute because the vehicle will never accomplish that in the real world anyway.
Also its not extreme rare situations
Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a series of tests specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 15%–20% of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.
Since writing that page roughly an eternity ago, they have not confirmed 15-20%, and have complained about the lack of staff to do such a thing. You're only just learning about this all now, so it's an easy mistake to make.
It was 390 and 402, it wasn't idiotic, it was also to be the first 400m production EV.
I also never said why the door was the problem, just that it was. (Edit but the point was the EPA did test it)
The wheels are geared towards different optimal speeds. So one set is more efficient at slow speeds and the other more efficient at high speeds. So it relies on one or the other depending on driving conditions meaning it's more efficient at different speeds. Single wheel drive EVs have to have a more one size fits all gearing that is less efficient overall.
This is the case with their other cars too. With the 3/Y they use a higher capacity battery pack in AWD models vs. RWD. Maybe that's what is going on here?
For the 3/y they even use different batteries. The LFP batteries in the standard range are less energy-dense but more forgiving of many charges
Weird I guess they don't mind sacrificing range even though they apparently have the space available for more batteries. I've primarily been eyeballing Hyundai EVs and they seemingly just use a single size pack and range suffers with more motors/drive wheels.
I have an Ioniq 5 limited awd and the range is great. I don’t know what people are doing that they need 300+ miles of range every day, but it charges in minutes, overnight with a 120, and I haven’t once felt any range anxiety.
A long commute is why I need the range. I could deplete the AWD range in just a couple of days, and I don't really need AWD to begin with.
but how long is your commute? If I was to commute into my office it'd be around 42-50 miles round trip depending on which way I go. I'd plug in when I get home, and I'd literally never need to stop at a charging station. If I needed to travel more, I could simply charge while working at the office (plenty of L2 chargers in downtown denver parking garages). I think you'd have to have a round trip commute of over a hundred miles for it to be a problem, even then, you'd visit the charging station, sit there for 10 minutes, maybe less, and be ready to go for the next week.
It is over a hundred miles round trip and the times of day and my shift length aren't really conducive to popping into a public charging station in either direction. Home charging is an option, but regardless I don't want <300 miles of range nor a less efficient AWD drive train if I'm paying full price for a brand new vehicle.
The 260-mile range of the Limited AWD will mean if I don't start my week at 100% or miss a charge after any one day of commuting, I run the risk of not being able to make it back home the next day especially after a few years of usage on the battery and accounting for running the AC or heater in cold weather. I'm not going to spend $60k to put myself into that position. 300 miles of range is really the bare minimum I'd be comfortable with.
At least I can get my $100 deposit back. $20k more for the RWD model puts it out of my price range and I just bought a Model 3 anyway.
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
8 points (63.3% liked)
Electric Vehicles
3212 readers
72 users here now
A community for the sharing of links, news, and discussion related to Electric Vehicles.
Rules
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No self-promotion
- No irrelevant content. All posts must be relevant and related to plug-in electric vehicles — BEVs or PHEVs.
- No trolling
- Policy, not politics. Submissions and comments about effective policymaking are allowed and encouraged in the community, however conversations and submissions about parties, politicians, and those devolving into general tribalism will be removed.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS