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

[cvalue13]

What are the chances this takes hold over time?

No one will care once batteries get just big enough, and charging infrastructure just distributed enough

Not to mention, you sort of just described why range is a sh*t metric

Sponsored

 

[SentinelOne]

Lowering is not always good for efficiency; aerodynamics is tricky business. Based upon your earlier comments about surprisingly poor efficiency at high speed, I'm guessing there is a lot that is suboptimal with your car compared to a stock AWD or RWD Long Range (besides the lack of the 18" Aero wheels). When a car is lowered, you can mess up the aerodynamics if the correct attitude of the body to the ground is not maintained. Additionally, the aerodynamically optimal attitude (front to back) can change as the car is lowered. Also, the lower to the ground a cars underfairing is to the road, the more sensitive the car's efficiency becomes to small changes in attitude. A low car can change efficiency dramatically with very small changes to the front or rear ride height to reduce turbulence and pressure differentials under and around the bottom of the car and in the wheel wells.

It's also possible that the alignment of your car feels good and tight, drives straight and corners well, but is suboptimal for efficiency. It can make a big difference. While Model 3 holds alignment very well over time, not all were perfectly aligned to begin with and a hard enough impact or heavy torque against a curb could also tweek it from perfect alignment. One sign that your alignment is not optimal for efficiency is faster than expected tire wear (regardless of whether the wear is even across the tread or not). This condition will result in unexpectedly poor efficiency at all speeds, more noticeable at speeds that should return optimal efficiency, right around 35-40 mph. The tires need to roll freely and not fight each other if you want to roll far on little energy. It makes a big difference.

The non-Performance Model 3's with 18" Aero wheels are the king of high speed efficiency when in stock form. That's why I got a Performance without the Performance brakes and bigger wheels. Since they were designed with efficiency in mind, right down to the front and rear ride height and 18" Aero wheels, any change you make will likely lower efficiency unless done with a lot of testing/tweaking for efficiency.

None of this is to suggest that consumption does not increase quickly with speed, but harmonious aero can limit the impact this has on range. These small changes in aero don't have nearly as much impact at 60 mph, even though it can be noticeable, but those impacts grow rapidly towards 85-90 mph. At those speeds, even the way you pack your luggage can make noticeable changes in efficiency. I always try to spread out any cargo weight between the frunk and the trunk. Just keep it balanced. If you have heavy things in the trunk, make sure to put something heavy in the frunk too, to spread the weight out.

Good info, never knew if it was a positive or negative on efficiency! Ultimately I dont really care, didnt buy it for the efficiency / range - I bought it for the fun and because it get's better than the 14mpg my truck does when I commute to denver! It's lowered (and stiffened) so it handles much better than stock when I take it in the mountains and let it lose!

 

[CyberGus]

Anyway, following the EPA lead (like that’s a good thing?) the acronym should be YRWV for EVs instead of YMMV. What are the chances this takes hold over time?

The initialism “YMMV” is already in common use for non-automotive contexts, so it’s never going away. QED
IMHO

 

[HaulingAss]

Good info, never knew if it was a positive or negative on efficiency! Ultimately I dont really care, didnt buy it for the efficiency / range - I bought it for the fun and because it get's better than the 14mpg my truck does when I commute to denver! It's lowered (and stiffened) so it handles much better than stock when I take it in the mountains and let it lose!

Well, I don't like it when people who say they don't care about efficiency or range make a bunch of non-optimal modifications that reduce efficiency/range and then come on the forums to complain that it doesn't get the expected range at higher speeds.

The take-away was that there is a lot an owner can do to select the wheels/tires that are known to be more efficient and other things the owner can do to maintain the OEM range, and sometimes even improve it a bit if it was delivered with an alignment that is a bit tight or the front wheels have taken an impact that knocked alignment out of ideal spec. The net effect of multiple small sub-optimal decisions can add up more than most people know.

You won't find me complaining about range at high speeds because I make decisions tailored around things I care about.

Also, many people are fooled by the advantages of lowering and stiffening. Yes, on a smooth course a lowered and stiffened suspension can handle much better and be faster. But we don't all drive on pavement as smooth as a baby's bottom. Sometimes you need more suspension travel to go faster and handle better, it all depends upon the surface you are trying to go fast on. The number of lowered and stiffened cars that have crashed on corners, due to hitting a dip or pavement irregularity that overwhelmed the suspensions' ability to absorb it, is large. People have died because they thought their lowered/stiffened car handled better than it did.

 

[AlDente]

When the title of a Thread contains the word "rumored" and you have 22 pages of opinions about the rumor(s), how could it not be compelling and information rich?/s

Thanks to a few, it does have entertainment value.

 

[SSonnentag]

I am retired and although I have time to supercharge first before going back home, it takes more time to supercharge instead of just going straight home when my business is done. I have a charger at home. What bothers me is ideally, since my m3 is rated 330 miles fully charged, there's no business for me adding charge when I'm only driving 200 miles round trip. And, I tried not to sudden accelerate but I cannot avoid driving 80 mph because other cars are flying 85 to 90 miles an hour. I want to at least keep up with allowable speed limit.
I'm sure other guys are tired of reading about my complaint but I am too. Hoping one of the readers could give me the perfect advice I can apply in my future CT.

Surely you know that EPA mileage ratings do not apply at 80+ mph, right? There is not a vehicle anywhere, ICE or EV that can achieve its EPA rating at those velocities.

 

[CyberGus]

Here’s the speed limit on the highway that passes the Austin gigafactory lol

 

[SSonnentag]

Some people find graphics and images easier to understand...
I probably placed the EPA box a bit too far left and your speed box a bit too far to the right, but you get the idea.

 

[cvalue13]

The take-away was that there is a lot an owner can do to select the wheels/tires that are known to be more efficient and other things the owner can do to maintain the OEM range

Speaking of as a jumping off point:

willing to bet my favorite pillow that CyberTruck’s EPA range is calculated on the less aggressive street tires

For those early buyers that opt instead for the more aggressive M&S tires, we’ll all be looking for the resulting range degradation comparisons - especially at hwy speeds

In a Rivian, the switch from street to AT and tested at 75mph, it caused a 30% range reduction

 

[SSonnentag]

In a Rivian, the switch from street to AT and tested at 75mph, it caused a 30% range reduction

Is that street vs. AT both at 75 mph
or
EPA rated range with street tires vs. AT at 75 mph?

 

[CyberGus]

willing to bet my favorite pillow that CyberTruck’s EPA range is calculated on the less aggressive street tires

 

[cvalue13]

Is that street vs. AT both at 75 mph
or
EPA rated range with street tires vs. AT at 75 mph?

that’s a independent test at 75mph

EPA of Rivian reported on streets, FAIK

incidentally?

a 30% drop from 500mi is…

… 350mi

 

[SentinelOne]

Well, I don't like it when people who say they don't care about efficiency or range make a bunch of non-optimal modifications that reduce efficiency/range and then come on the forums to complain that it doesn't get the expected range at higher speeds.

The take-away was that there is a lot an owner can do to select the wheels/tires that are known to be more efficient and other things the owner can do to maintain the OEM range, and sometimes even improve it a bit if it was delivered with an alignment that is a bit tight or the front wheels have taken an impact that knocked alignment out of ideal spec. The net effect of multiple small sub-optimal decisions can add up more than most people know.

You won't find me complaining about range at high speeds because I make decisions tailored around things I care about.

Also, many people are fooled by the advantages of lowering and stiffening. Yes, on a smooth course a lowered and stiffened suspension can handle much better and be faster. But we don't all drive on pavement as smooth as a baby's bottom. Sometimes you need more suspension travel to go faster and handle better, it all depends upon the surface you are trying to go fast on. The number of lowered and stiffened cars that have crashed on corners, due to hitting a dip or pavement irregularity that overwhelmed the suspensions' ability to absorb it, is large. People have died because they thought their lowered/stiffened car handled better than it did.

1) wasn't complaining about range, just stating high speed isn't the EV's forte when it comes to range (vs. city/traffic/55mph)...owned my car for 3 years and only used super charger 1x last week - so clearly has enough range for my use case (even with high average speed)- hence I dont care about max range / efficiency. CT will be a bit different because it'll replace my Diesel Truck that I do use for longer ranges!
2) I dont want 18" rims or aero hubcaps - not my thing
3) what's the number of people that crashed on those same corners on 18" all seasons and floaty suspension? And the car is lowered 1", not slammed. - guarantee it's better handling / safer than an oem suspension on 18" all seasons - least for my use case. The reason I got the KW setup is because the oem was floaty at speed / undulations and was letting me down vs. expectations - much better now.
4)Good roads in NoCo - my 90mi mountain loop is a very nice section of road - it's great for both the Moto's and the Tesla
5) Also not going to have efficiency tires/rims on my CT - gonna buy the biggest battery / range model I can and then not think about it!
6) Car is aligned (as part of KW install), and also at last tire change - im a bit OCD on setup so I know alignment is to spec - but noted that could make a diff

Sorry to have offended you - different strokes for different folks

 

[SSonnentag]

that’s a independent test at 75mph

EPA of Rivian reported on streets, FAIK

incidentally?

a 30% drop from 500mi is…

… 350mi

OK, I see their test parameters now.

30 degree ambient temperature variation between tests.
Different vehicle for each test.

I suspect the real difference due to tires alone is closer to 15%.

 

[cvalue13]

30 degree ambient temperature variation between tests.

the temp advantage ran in opposite direction

“If anything, we would have thought the 85-degree temperature during this most recent test would hurt the range versus the 57-degree day for the earlier run.”

57 is kind of ideal temp conditions

Separately, note that the Rivian ATs are not nearly as aggressive as the CT’s MS’s

that said, neither may the CTs streets be nearly as street as the Rivian’s

just saying, there’s good reason to be watching carefully on the range results of CT tire selection

Sponsored