350 mile range Quad Motor rumored to be 1st trim launched

[audi2tesla]

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-cybertruck-range-610-miles-patent/

Doing some loose math, the top range might be around 700 miles. The patent photo shows 84% at 610 miles. Some of the interior screenshots during the test drives at the reveal show 21% at 152 miles.

Since the Cybertruck share architecture with the Semi which tows 81k for 500 miles with a 900kwH battery, it's possible to see a 150kwH CT towing 14K for 500 miles/700 miles unladen. 100kwH towing 350 miles/500 miles unladen.

Elon did say Alien Technology. 350 miles of range when Rivian and GM are pushing over 400 is not very Alien in my books.

my $.02 at least.

I really hope this is true

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

Price is irrelevant. A 350 "Tesla" miles pickup is uncompetitive. The Silverado, and the real F150 EV (not the fake ICE conversion vehicle rushed to market and on sale now) will stomp it.

I don't know how much the Silverado will actually retail for, but the cheapest version of the long range F-150 Lightning costs over $80K.

There is no question in my mind that the Cybertruck will not only be competitive but will have unrelenting demand. F-150 Lightnings are sitting on the lot. Watch and see, then you can tell me who called it correctly.

 

[VR Driving]

Honestly, early adopters are gonna get screwed on the specs. Tesla never release the best spec car initially. It's always decent but generally discontinued by the time production ramps up. Model S didn't get the good stuff like dual motors until after a few years into production. The Model Y 2.0 with structural battery was the true Model Y and that just recently became available. It is unlikely that we will see the Cybertruck that Tesla promised until sometime in late 2024.

But I'm totally fine with getting a lesser spec that is based on existing models to get the truck out the door. Just keep your expectations down. I'm expecting these initial trucks to have disappointing specs and Model X pricing and will adjust pricing again as the truck products get massively ramped and become available to actual customers sometime in late 2023 or early 2024.

Remember that Tesla needs to sell these trucks and they can only sell these trucks cheaply when they can make tons of them, and when they make tons of them, they can't price it expensive.

 

[HaulingAss]

Range is pretty cheap. At a pack price of $125/kwh (Tesla is cheaper than that) the cost per mile is waaay at the outside assuming a 2.8 mile per kwh efficiency, $60 per mile including a 30% GM. So even with extremely conservative assumptions, an extra 150 miles is under $10,000 in battery pack costs (including margin).

When we discuss the difference between a 300+ mile Cybertruck and a 500+ mile Cybertruck, we are talking about a range difference of 200 additional miles, right?

And, using your own numbers for battery costs, margins and efficiency, that adds $15,600 more to the price of a Cybertruck! However, using your own numbers for costs and margins, it's worse than that. Because all those additional batteries come with a weight penalty, and thus, an efficiency penalty (you need to use a lower efficiency assumption, to move a heavier vehicle the same distance).

In other words, going from 300+ miles to 500+ miles cost a lot more than the amount you calculated.

 

[Gurule92]

Honestly, early adopters are gonna get screwed on the specs. Tesla never release the best spec car initially. It's always decent but generally discontinued by the time production ramps up. Model S didn't get the good stuff like dual motors until after a few years into production. The Model Y 2.0 with structural battery was the true Model Y and that just recently became available. It is unlikely that we will see the Cybertruck that Tesla promised until sometime in late 2024.

But I'm totally fine with getting a lesser spec that is based on existing models to get the truck out the door. Just keep your expectations down. I'm expecting these initial trucks to have disappointing specs and Model X pricing and will adjust pricing again as the truck products get massively ramped and become available to actual customers sometime in late 2023 or early 2024.

Remember that Tesla needs to sell these trucks and they can only sell these trucks cheaply when they can make tons of them, and when they make tons of them, they can't price it expensive.

How is the structural battery pack in the Y at all screwing anyone? Lol it doesn't change anything noticable.

All technology gets batterover time. it's not like the model S dual motors came out quickly. P85+ Was a sick little car.

Model 3 RWD was the one of the most efficient versions of that car.

The cybertruck Tesla promised? Like they didn't promise 3 versions?

i think it's safe to say there are more people looking forward to the cheaper ones than the more expensive ones.

It's not like Tesla to sell something for a crazy price and then lower it as production builds.

They might sell a more expensive spec and then put out new cheaper spec sas production ramps but never the same one.

 

[WenssCT88]

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-cybertruck-range-610-miles-patent/

Doing some loose math, the top range might be around 700 miles. The patent photo shows 84% at 610 miles. Some of the interior screenshots during the test drives at the reveal show 21% at 152 miles.

Since the Cybertruck share architecture with the Semi which tows 81k for 500 miles with a 900kwH battery, it's possible to see a 150kwH CT towing 14K for 500 miles/700 miles unladen. 100kwH towing 350 miles/500 miles unladen.

Elon did say Alien Technology. 350 miles of range when Rivian and GM are pushing over 400 is not very Alien in my books.

my $.02 at least.

I don’t think you are right, but damn would I be happy if you were!!

 

[jerhenderson]

That's unlikely to be the case. The EPA range is derived from a mixed driving cycle with only something like 30% being 60 mph cruising.

Because the Cybertruck has considerably lower aerodynamic drag, due to both a lower Cd as well as a smaller frontal area, it should perform relatively better on the freeway at 65 mph, relative to the EPA range of the F-150 Lightning, particularly if freeway speeds are above 65 mph.

CT vs Lightening is like an arrowhead versus a brick.

 

[LDRHAWKE]

Tesla is going to make the highest profit CT model to start…….if they don’t they are being stupid with the waiting list they have……..and they are not stupid!

 

[JBee]

There's two parts to the "rumour".

One is that it will have quad motors, the other the 350mile range. Let's discuss each separately for a moment.

I've long held the belief, since a QM version was announced, that there will only be a QM version and that at some later time, if at all, there will be a dual motor version, but only with rear wheel drive.

The main reason for this is assembly line and manufacturing simplicity and cost reduction. According to Monroe a Tesla electric motor costs around $430 each, a controller probably about half that, meaning that if you can drop the cost of having a differential with a single motor, and go to a dual motor direct drive of each wheel instead, there isn't that much cost "differential", if you also reduce the size and output of the motor at the same time.

Now if you consider the Plaid motor, and also the Semi motor, the size of the motor has been significantly reduced, over that of the original MS/MX/MY/M3 variants, and this is because the Plaid motors can spin faster, and produce more horsepower (kW) for their size in comparison. The reason it can spin faster is because of the Carbon Fibre rotor wrap that holds the innards all together against the centripetal forces that would normally expand the rotor assembly, making it touch the stator and destroy itself. It's very important to keep the gap between the stator and rotor as close as possible for both efficiency and power, otherwise the air gap wastes "leaked" magnetic flux that is also a cause of heat buildup.

The Plaid was primarily developed from the lessons learned at the Nurburg ring in Germany, and the main component that gave it better performance was not it's higher power motors, but rather it's improved cooling system. This might sound strange, but consider that the Plaid track pack, with improved ceramic brakes also makes the Plaid go faster around the Nurburg ring, and they can only be used for stopping, not accelerating. This is because typical race driving only has two states, full acceleration and full braking, so the faster and shorter distance you can brake before a corner, the faster you get to accelerate out of the corner and cover the distance of the race in the least amount of time.

The reason why cooling plays such a big role is that the maximum power you can sustain in any electric motor is a function of how long it takes the motor to heat up and fail because of that heat. Heat in a motor is caused by it's "inefficiency", as most losses are in the form of heat, there is little sound/light/etc energy being created by the motor. So the CF wrapped motor helps to not only reduce the inefficiency by allowing a closer air gap, but also allows it to spin faster, giving it a higher power density. So technically it is possible to take a motor, that has a much smaller "rated continuous power" and use it to produce "short peak power". In fact Tesla has perfected this as none of the motors they use have a "continuous power level" anywhere near what they advertise as their "peak power" horsepower. That is also why they only specify their "peak power" outputs on their website.

There is one more factor to consider here, regarding performance, and that is that it is physically impossible to apply the Plaid peak amount of power (1020HP) over 4 wheels to the ground at low speeds under 60MPH, without more external downforce, because of the coefficient of friction of the tyre with the ground. Even with their sticky Sport Pilot tyres. This means that the motor at launch from standstill is producing significantly less horsepower at launch than when it pases the quater mile line at speed, because the motors are limited by the traction of the tyres to the ground. That means of the 2-3 seconds the Plaid needs to get to 60mph, it's not even maxing out it's peak motor power, and even if it goes to the quarter mile, it has still only used it's peak output for a couple of seconds. The design is such that in that time the motor becomes heat soaked and needs to be cooled before doing another launch. Luckily on a drag strip the way back to the starting line is done much slower than the quarter mile, and the car can cool time in preparation for the next run.

For a 13 mile racetrack, or any race with multiple laps, the result is that the "peak power" output does not equate to "continuous power" and sustainable short lap times. Remember the heat generated in these few seconds is the "real motor performance limit", so if you want to go faster on a track, and not just to a quick quarter mile, you need to increase the cooling performance of the vehicle, so that the higher power levels can be maintained for longer.

Now normal onroad driving in traffic is completely different, and will likely never reach those performance limits ever, given traffic and road conditions. For normal driving ABRP says CT will consume around 280Wh/km or need 28kW (37hp) to power itself down the road at 70Mph. That is nearly a 30th of the rated peak power of a plaid, and is the "real" point for which the motors need to be optimised for efficiency.

With the above in mind, I doubt the CT will see much track time, so given the scope between "peak" and "continuous" ratings, it's highly possible that and even smaller motor, with even better cooling, will make it to a quad motor CT. Doing so will reduce weight, improve driving, traction and safety (torque vectoring) and reduce component count (one motor and transaxle design) to the point I think we might see the same drivetrain modules (but with different gearing) on all upcoming Tesla models. A rear wheel drive CT will then simply become a rear transaxle Dual motor, if it comes at all, seeing that the drivetrain components on a EV are no longer the most cost intensive parts of a vehicle. Unlike a ICE vehicle. So a 20-30% smaller motor but on each of the 4 wheels, will give the same performance, but could actually lower the cost in comparison to a tri-motor, not increase it. So a DM RWD and QM 4WD model range is actually feasible overall.

Now to battery and range although 350miles is "decent" I don't think it is enough, even for America where you have the most Superchargers. There is a direct relation between Supercharger availability and grid capacity to connect them, and so longer range EV's are required to overcome the "gaps" in network infrastructure where superchargers are sparse. The other advantage with longer range packs, as previously mentioned, is that they also charge faster, and give you the ability to hit the chargers at lower states of charge, which in turn means you charge faster and get to your destination faster as well, provided you don't have to detour to get to a SC. (San Antonio is nuts btw, in that there are ONLY chargers in the north, pretty annoying if travelling there)

If we look at Australia, or south Asia and America, or Africa, the grid infrastructure there is very weak, in particular because there is a lot less power grid capacity and electricity use in comparison to the USA. So if the network has limited capacity to supply power for Superchargers, then there will ultimately be less of them, making a longer range Cybertruck "essential" not "optional". When these markets will get the trucks is a good question, but there is no doubt that the market is there, even in poorer nations, that don't mind peer to peer car sharing and taxis. The second hand market should also be considered for a lifetime analysis of the product, and inevitably this is where vehicles go after their first life.

That aside, according to my rough calculations using the MY 4680 structural battery setup as a guide (with impact protection offsets and distance between axles etc), and the ABRP range assumptions, I believe that a battery pack made from 4680 cells in a single stack height structural pack will be good for 420miles. This is only about $5000 extra than a 350mile pack, but would be enough to stay the dominant EV range pickup. So I don't know what everyone else is smoking, but I'm pretty sure I'm dead on.

Honestly though, I'd be happy with a 400mile (350 usable) range QM CT, and I think it would cover +90% of use cases and distances between SC. My thinking is that it is not that often that we need to interact with someplace in excess of 100miles or so from where we live, and if so it is not that common an occurrence that justifies a even "bigger tank". If we only had the SC density, the whole range per tank discussion wouldn't be as relevant, until that point in time when we raise the question of SC charging costs, and when TOU off peak rates apply.

From my recent experience (driving 6000miles in MYP/M3P/MY in 4 weeks) in the USA, the cost of charging at superchargers is not negligible. A Prius is cheaper to run in texas for example, but not in Cali. In particular if you do most of the charging during the day, when you also do most of your driving. in Texas for example the off-peak rate only applies to between midnight and 4am in some locations, but who wants to or will charge at those times? Not many, and I expect the difference between those peak/off-peak rates to increase, as EV use pushes more peak power use during the day at superchargers the more EV's there are. At that point, if you have a long commute or drive for work, the argument for longer range packs becomes relevant, in that off peak rates can considerably reduce your cost per mile, so charging at home/work overnight can more than offset the cost for having a larger pack, over the vehicle depreciation period.

The point of the post is simply to demonstrate that there are many, many variables to consider when making assumptions on performance of various attributes or features of a vehicle, and that only by specifying in some detail a use case, it's borderline silly to assert that one range is "required" whilst another is "not". In the end what I am hoping for is that sustainable energy production becomes so ubiquitously distributed that EV's and battery powered devices, become the dominant form of energy distribution on the planet, and the need for distribution grids (not necessarily transmission grids) reduce to a minimum, instead of needing to be X times the size because EV uptake.

 

[HaulingAss]

Let's do the math! I'll put a 500-mile Silverado up against a 350-mile Cybertruck.

• Journey of 1000 miles
• Range reduced by half due to towing
• Silverado stops to charge 4x
• Cybertruck stops to charge 7x
• Charge sessions take ~20 minutes

In my 1000-mile journey, I've spent an extra 1 hour in the Cybertruck. Assuming that I make this trip once a week, and my time is valued at $50/hour, then in 1 year my lost time is worth $2600.

So if Cybertruck is $60k vs the Silverado $80k, I can keep this up for about 8 years and essentially break even.

Is more range better? Sure. Does less range mean it's not a "full size pickup"? Hardly.

I agree with the gist of this post, but not the specifics.

Why do you think a Cybertruck will take longer to charge, per mile, than a Silverado? A larger battery could maybe make slightly better use of the highest amperage chargers, but most batteries ramp down from those higher currents very quickly, and peak charging speed is not what it is often touted, especially many non-Tesla. I can imagine GMC might make a "500 mile" truck that could maybe add miles slightly faster than a 300+ mile Cybertruck, but not nearly twice as fast, as your calculations indicate.

The reality is likely to be that, in the most common real-world situations, the Cybertruck will add range slightly faster on chargers that are actually available, due to a higher efficiency requiring less kWh/100 miles.

Elon opened up Tesla's world-class charging network to all takers, and that was a sign that he felt confident Tesla would not need a Supercharger moat in order for their vehicles to be competitive. Regardless of misinformed mainstream media reports, Tesla holds a significant technological edge over all their competitors, most of whom have to sell their inferior wares at a loss because people are not willing to pay what they cost to produce.

And when do you think regular folks will be even be able to buy a Silverado? GM was supposed to have 20 EV models by 2023 as recently as late 2018: It looks like they won't even reach 1/4 that many.

100 electric vehicles by 2022 | Car News | Auto123

The media loves to dump on Tesla if anything is late, and they position Tesla as the automaker who is always late, but GM and Ford appear to get a media pass on just how terribly late they have been with their EV offerings, both in number of models and the timing of their releases. Not to mention pricing and volume of production.

The Silverado will not slow down the volume of Cybertruck sales.

 

[Qball]

why not make 350 miles LFP with dual motors? I'll be down for that.

 

[FutureBoy]

The media loves to dump on Tesla if anything is late, and the position Tesla as the automaker who is always late, but GM and Ford appear to get a media pass on just how terribly late they have been with their EV offerings, both in number of models and the timing of their releases. Not to mention pricing and volume of production.

+1

Just because legacy auto “ships” the first couple vehicles of their new models, if they are not producing enough to make them competitive on volume, or the functionality is such that near 100% recalls are needed, or they stop producing completely for a while to figure out how to address issues like fires, then for all practical purposes they are very late themselves.

As a consumer, I much prefer the Tesla experience.

 

[HaulingAss]

I've long held the belief, since a QM version was announced, that there will only be a QM version and that at some later time, if at all, there will be a dual motor version, but only with rear wheel drive.

The main reason for this is assembly line and manufacturing simplicity and cost reduction. According to Monroe a Tesla electric motor costs around $430 each, a controller probably about half that, meaning that if you can drop the cost of having a differential with a single motor, and go to a dual motor direct drive of each wheel instead, there isn't that much cost "differential", if you also reduce the size and output of the motor at the same time.

I think this is a definite possibility. I've written a number of times about how a dual-motor RWD Cybertruck would be a far better truck than most truck people would initially assume, especially for towing and hauling, both use cases that load the rear wheels.

With two independent motors on the rear axle, and the nearly balanced weight distribution provided by an EV's battery pack, the climbing performance would be in another realm from other RWD trucks, especially gas ones with a heavy motor in front, but also other electric trucks with a single motor and open differential.

Even on snow and ice, a RWD Cybertruck with two motors would have impressive traction and stability, due to the sensitivity of power application and independent motor control.

Sponsored