Any 500mi range updates?

[Ogre]

That hasn't been my experience in my Model 3. If you are on a road with normally spaced Superchargers, and you properly manage the battery state of charge, it always takes less time the faster you drive (even at 100 mph). The additional Supercharging time is minimal compared to the time you save arriving to each charger faster.

The reverse would be true only if the driver decided it was a good idea to keep the state of charge managed between 50% and 90%.

Agree here. I thought going slower would shave off some stops, but I’ve tried both ways and it’s really hard to shave off enough supercharger stops by going slower to make it worthwhile.

For example going 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH, you gain 10 minutes advantage every hour. Even if you are stopping at Superchargers every 200 miles instead of every 250, you still get to the destination faster. You just get more bio breaks and time to stretch.

I do notice that Tesla‘s computer often encourages Supercharger stops sooner than I want or is required. If you just follow their guidelines, you end up topping off at 20%. I usually like to get down to 8-15% before stopping so often look for alternative stops ahead.

Sponsored

 

[Frank Mendez]

?It wouldn’t make any sense to stop selling gasoline that day after ICE vehicles are forbidden for sale. I’d wait at least ten years after the forbidden sales day. That would make it more like 2045.

But what will it cost? As consumption is reduced, pricing of gasoline should increase. At what point do gas stations begin not selling gasoline? Gasoline comes with leaking issues and other regulatory problems that may cause it to be too expensive to sell.

 

[Knucklehead]

But what will it cost? As consumption is reduced, pricing of gasoline should increase. At what point do gas stations begin not selling gasoline? Gasoline comes with leaking issues and other regulatory problems that may cause it to be too expensive to sell.

I think basic economic laws disagree with you. If you have more supply than demand, cost will go down, not up. If there are artificial costs placed on the production of petrol fuel, costs will go up, but as long as we have a somewhat free market, dropping demand will result in lower gasoline cost. I believe a free market is better than a heavily regulated market, so hopefully freedom will prevail. If not, you could be right.

 

[HaulingAss]

I think basic economic laws disagree with you. If you have more supply than demand, cost will go down, not up. If there are artificial costs placed on the production of petrol fuel, costs will go up, but as long as we have a somewhat free market, dropping demand will result in lower gasoline cost. I believe a free market is better than a heavily regulated market, so hopefully freedom will prevail. If not, you could be right.

It's counter intuitive, I agree, but gasoline is normally a competitive product. The one mechanism to the contrary is the limited refining capacity because oil companies have been loath to build new refineries. That is what has caused more expensive gas in recent decades because there was too much demand during select periods. But normally refineries compete against one another to keep their refining operations at full capacity since it costs a lot more to refine when your facility is only at 75% capacity.

As more and more refiners reduce production below efficient utilization rates of their refineries, prices will rise. Then some refineries will be forced to shut down before they reach their useful lifespan (which also must be expensed as an increased cost of refining using their remaining refineries). That will cause prices to rise.

None of this will happen smoothly. For example, I think we have two-three years where refineries will make gasoline incredibly cheap in order to increase the sales of gasoline cars before they stop selling them. Then, once low gas prices can't encourage more new ICE sales, oil companies will go into full profit mode and spike the price of gasoline. It's pretty difficult to predict how the timing of all this will all play out but expect to see some real chaos in gas prices that will reflect the disruption of the industry.

The one thing we can be certain of is that as gasoline sales drop to low levels, it will be a speciality product, refined and distributed in low volumes, and it will come with a significant premium to reflect the lack of volume efficiencies.

 

[HaulingAss]

But what will it cost? As consumption is reduced, pricing of gasoline should increase. At what point do gas stations begin not selling gasoline? Gasoline comes with leaking issues and other regulatory problems that may cause it to be too expensive to sell.

The US has been losing gas stations for decades and that trend will never reverse. As the volume of sales at each independently owned gas station declines, owners will mark-up the product higher to make it worthwhile to justify the smaller sales. As other gas stations in the area close, they can mark-up the gasoline higher because motorists will have fewer choices and are loathe to drive too far out of their way to fill-up.

 

[Ogre]

I think basic economic laws disagree with you. If you have more supply than demand, cost will go down, not up. If there are artificial costs placed on the production of petrol fuel, costs will go up, but as long as we have a somewhat free market, dropping demand will result in lower gasoline cost. I believe a free market is better than a heavily regulated market, so hopefully freedom will prevail. If not, you could be right.

The oil economy isn’t exactly a “Free Market”. A few players control all of the resources and they manipulate the market to maximize profits.

At the gas station level, there are fairly low margins on fuel sales and big fixed costs which need to be paid for. As volume drops off, they can’t lower prices much before they are no longer profitable and fail.

Refineries have absolutely massive fixed costs and are going to pass those costs along regardless of volume. Nobody is investing in new oil infrastructure right now so existing players have a monopoly until the market runs dry. These guys are going to capture every penny they can out of a dwindling amount of oil flows.

Shipping costs are more or less fixed. Shippers will retire capacity rather than take a loss on shipping.

The cost of pumping oil varies greatly by region and this plays against the consumer. Saudi oil is cheap to pump and they will provide it until the end. But in many places like in the US and Canada, oil isn’t profitable when oil prices drop below $45/ barrel (that’s an estimate based on older data so might be higher or lower than that specific number). So if oil prices drop significantly a bunch of players stop selling. Once the US and Canada drop out, the oil consortiums manipulate supply to maximize revenue.

There are no free markets in the oil industry. Just a bunch of monopolists and consortiums.

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

Ideally, large battery and supercharge capability best of both worlds if you will own it somewhere rural and distant from any charger other than your home.

?A Hawaii version of a electric vehicle is needed because we don’t travel very far. Otherwise, we would fall into the ocean.

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

But what will it cost? As consumption is reduced, pricing of gasoline should increase. At what point do gas stations begin not selling gasoline? Gasoline comes with leaking issues and other regulatory problems that may cause it to be too expensive to sell.

?Gasoline will still be in demand outside of America. They will still be selling ICE vehicles beyond 2035.

 

[TyPope]

If you are right and I am wrong, I will come back here and admit it. I just have a hard time believing that something as large as the CT can be more efficient at highway speeds than my MME. I agree, my car is not as efficient as many other BEVs, especially Tesla models. But the CT is huge, and I doubt it will be more aerodynamic than the MME.

We are both guessing, and I hope your guess is correct. Because a 500 mile highway range truck would be more than a breakthrough. It would be amazing.

BTW - EPA range is not what I am referring to. I am referring to highway range at the speed I drive, which is around 80 mph. I am sure "up to" 500 mile estimate is not highway range, but EPA range. Big difference.

Mazda Miata has a cd of 0.38... it's a small car. a Boeing 747 has a drag coefficient of 0.0155 and it's a little bigger than the Miata. While the CT doesn't, at first glance, seem to be very aerodynamic, I think it's going to surprise a bunch of people.

Model S = 0.208 cd
Model 3 = 0.23 cd
Model Y = 0.23 cd
Model X = 0.24 cd
Tesla Cybertruck = 0.39 (preliminary)
Tesla ATV = 0.67
Tesla Roadster = 0.35
Tesla Semi = 0.36

Okay, after researching all that (and making up the ATV cd...), I see the CT will not be all that efficient as far as aero goes. However, it may have lower rolling resistance as it may be able to place some motors into a free-spinning mode at speed to prevent parasitic losses and rely on throttle position (or intended slowdown) to enact regen on those previously free-spinning motors.

I was kind of hoping Tesla would hit 620 mile range with a vehicle soon so they could brag about the first 1,000 km range EV. (maybe it's too late for that)

Elon once said that cars now had enough range and it didn't make since to make them have more. Some guy named Jobs once said that it made no sense to have phones with larger screens but here we are....

 

[Ogre]

Tesla Cybertruck = 0.39 (preliminary)

I think it will be better than this. Musk suggested they might hit 0.30.

… However, it may have lower rolling resistance as it may be able to place some motors into a free-spinning mode at speed to prevent parasitic losses and rely on throttle position (or intended slowdown) to enact regen on those previously free-spinning motors.

I’m still kind of thinking the tri motor is the LR model and it will have a super efficient front motor and 2 clutched rear motors similar to the semi.

Elon once said that cars now had enough range and it didn't make since to make them have more. Some guy named Jobs once said that it made no sense to have phones with larger screens but here we are....

Some of this I think was just bluster on Musk’s part. As you suggest, similar to Jobs‘ comments.

But truck range is different from car range. Large loads, lumber racks, campers, trailers, are all much more common on trucks. That 500 mile range becomes 200-300 miles when you add that extra crap. So his suggestion that 300 miles is “enough” range is still somewhat in play.

If you look at it at just the right angle anyhow.

 

[slomo]

The key metric is CoD x Frontal area

 

[firsttruck]

Mazda Miata has a cd of 0.38... it's a small car. a Boeing 747 has a drag coefficient of 0.0155 and it's a little bigger than the Miata. While the CT doesn't, at first glance, seem to be very aerodynamic, I think it's going to surprise a bunch of people.

Model S = 0.208 cd
Model 3 = 0.23 cd
Model Y = 0.23 cd
Model X = 0.24 cd
Tesla Cybertruck = 0.39 (preliminary)
Tesla ATV = 0.67
Tesla Roadster = 0.35
Tesla Semi = 0.36
....

A 2019 Ram 1500 with an open bed (no cover) has coefficient 0.36.

Elon has several times said it would be closer to 0.30 and the first time he said that was in 2019.

Elon said goal was for production Cybertruck to be better than prototype.

After 3 more years of refining the Cybertruck design to improve the range to enable using smallest battery I doubt the Cybertruck Cd is now going to be 0.39.

-----------------------------------

Tesla CEO Elon Musk: Cybertruck could hit Cd of .30 ‘with extreme effort’
By Jameson Dow | Nov 30 2019
https://electrek.co/2019/11/30/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-cybertruck-could-hit-cd-3-with-extreme-effort/

-----------------------------------

 

[TyPope]

PHYSICS IS PHYSICS. It takes a set amount of energy to move a mass.
You can just read the bold Blue at the bottom if you don't want to know the physics behind the assessment.

Here are the calculations based on physics:

Physics dictates some things:
Pulling a 14,000# trailer with a frontal area of 60^2 feet 100 miles with 1 mile of positive elevation change at 75 mph and assuming the CT and passengers weighs 6,500# and a drag coefficient of 0.30 will take 170.5 KwH. That same trip at 65 mph takes 145.8 KwH.

You won't be towing a heavy trailer very far between charges, unfortunately.

Good news? If you aren't towing uphill (ie not going up in elevation 1 mile),
Going 75 mph:
You'd consume 170.5 KwH minus the 40.8 KwH gravity penalty which means it would take 129.7 KwH at 75 mph to pull that trailer 100 miles with no elevation change and you can tow 154 miles on a full battery.

Going 65 mph:
You'd consume 145.8 KwH minus the 40.8 KwH gravity penalty which means it would take 105 KwH at 60 mph to pull that trailer 100 miles with no elevation change and you can tow 190 miles on a full battery.

There. I mathed it for everyone.

Obviously, without a 14,000# trailer, it's aero, rolling resistance, and gravity penalty, you get 500 miles of range. So, there's a sliding "Miles per full battery" that will run between 500 miles (not towing) and 190 miles towing at 65mph.

Since you shouldn't pull MORE than the 14,000# and will NEVER pull less than zero pounds, physics shows that your range will be always fall between 190 and 500 miles at 65 mph.
The 190 mile range is for a 14,000# trailer being pulled at 65 mph flat. (assuming 200kwh battery)
The 500 mile range would be pulling nothing at 65 mph flat. (assuming 200kwh battery)

***************************************************************************************************

some calculations for the technical inclined:
Aero = 1/2 (0.002377) (80.667)^2 (0.4) (40) = 123.74 Ft Pounds, or (123.74)(0.001989) = 24.61 KwH
That's (0.5) x (coefficient of air times velocity in feet squared) x (drag coefficient) x (surface area of entire system) ---- surface area is if you looked at the CT and trailer head on and figured the size hole it would punch through a wall as it drove through...

Rolling resistance =Total weight x 0.015 = 13,500(0.015)(0.001989) = 40.27 KwH
That is (weight) x (coefficient of rolling resistance of a tire on pavement)

Gravity: 0 (only comes into effect when traveling UP HILL on average)

Add those three forces together and you get 64.88 KwH to take a 7,000 pound trailer 100 miles.

You'd be able to drive 324 miles with that 7,000 pound trailer and 500 pounds of occupants if you maintain 55 mph and we assume a 200 KwH battery.

 

[TyPope]

The key metric is CoD x Frontal area

...and rolling resistance is manipulatable with different motors/tires/braking/regen

 

[Crissa]

Please stay off the roads where I drive. The 10 under folks cause so much discomfort in urban areas like DC! Selfish.

As long as they yield, it's fine. That's what the right lane and turnouts are for.

That hasn't been my experience in my Model 3. If you are on a road with normally spaced Superchargers, and you properly manage the battery state of charge, it always takes less time the faster you drive (even at 100 mph). The additional Supercharging time is minimal compared to the time you save arriving to each charger faster.

True. But there is a speed at which faster isn't faster, which you'd encounter probably only on a track?

-Crissa

Sponsored