More 500-mile range rumors!

[Jhodgesatmb]

You don't drive just for your commute though. I don't commute at all, but on the weekend I drive extensively.

I am sure that there are as many scenarios as there are drivers. Those average numbers often come from insurance companies and people often lie about their mileage to get better rates. But even those who rarely drive long distances would buy a car that can - just for the ease of mind if nothing else. If a car had that capacity the people hauling stuff or towing (or driving in the winter) would be covered. I think those are the people Tesla targeted with the 500-mile range, and I bet they were surprised at its popularity.

Sponsored

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I am sure that there are as many scenarios as there are drivers. Those average numbers often come from insurance companies and people often lie about their mileage to get better rates. But even those who rarely drive long distances would buy a car that can - just for the ease of mind if nothing else. If a car had that capacity the people hauling stuff or towing (or driving in the winter) would be covered. I think those are the people Tesla targeted with the 500-mile range, and I bet they were surprised at its popularity.

Actually, I don't think there will be surprise at all at this stage, since we chose our model on the pre-order, and the tri-motor made up a very large percent And I think that's really the point. There is a cost and some drawbacks to going with a bigger battery, but if the consumers will pay that cost (and then some) then why not offer it? Trucks are an odd duck in auto land in that people will buy a cheap, middle and luxury version of the same basic vehicle and be very happy about it. They are basic functional vehicles and enthusiast cars at the same time. For those that tow a lot, go remote off roading, winter adventuring, etc, a 50% bigger battery is easily worth an extra $10k+. Throw in an extra motor and you having smiling buyers paying $20k more, and that's what they proposed on reveal night.

 

[newwave1331]

A highway commute of 4.6 hours DAILY??? Very few people have commutes that long. Just thinking about friends and neighbors, most are between 30 mins and 1 hour each way. That’s 1-2 hours daily. Which by your numbers (thank you for those) should be less than 5.5hours of charging. My sister-in-law drives all day for a living as a medical testing rep, and she drives 3 hours a day on some days, mostly in the city. She says she doesn’t make money in the car, so she tries to string as many appointments together as possible. That’s still doable while you sleep without any trouble.

For those big trips, there are always awesome superchargers to get you to 70% on the way home, and top it off while you sleep. BAM, 100% to start your trip.

Call it a fully depleted use. I’m just throwing 10% and

A highway commute of 4.6 hours DAILY??? Very few people have commutes that long. Just thinking about friends and neighbors, most are between 30 mins and 1 hour each way. That’s 1-2 hours daily. Which by your numbers (thank you for those) should be less than 5.5hours of charging. My sister-in-law drives all day for a living as a medical testing rep, and she drives 3 hours a day on some days, mostly in the city. She says she doesn’t make money in the car, so she tries to string as many appointments together as possible. That’s still doable while you sleep without any trouble.

For those big trips, there are always awesome superchargers to get you to 70% on the way home, and top it off while you sleep. BAM, 100% to start your trip.

134kWh was more to get one pack size that would please the majority with a home charging logic to justify it. Tesla has a extreme advantage now on batteries and they could benefit from utilizing it in a competitive market.

Freezing temps, strong head winds, high speed, all terrain tires, towing...... lots of things can decrease range from the EPA rating. I use the word "commute" to reference a daily or back to back usage like a road trip with home/hotel Lv2 charging.

 

[cvalue13]

There is a cost and some drawbacks to going with a bigger battery, but if the consumers will pay that cost (and then some) then why not offer it?

two ways to answer that, at least

one: because if managing to get that battery in there balloons the necessary MSRP to a level that is untenable in the market, it’s a product that is DOA at the drawing board

two: the CT design only has a given amount of space in which to fit a structural pack. You don’t change the design to build essentially a second vehicle, from a structural perspective, I order to offer longer range. So you have your available space, and then you have the max amount of battery technology in KWh at a given time that can fit in that max space. That’s your ceiling. At least until the battery tech improves.

So you get to a certain point where you have your design, you have your max pack, and there you are. Build it at all, or don’t build it at all.

If that max pack size today is less than 500mi, then you don’t get a 500mi variant at launch.



There’s one alternative to this, but it seems unlikely at first blush given the unveil day aspirations. That the CT is designed for a bigger pack, but Tesla wants to not produce a 500mi version that could fit, structurally, at right now (but possible that ‘not ever’ is a feature here). In which case Tesla is throttling pack/range for such other purpose.

Best version of this scenario is that they want to deliver as many vehicles as possible as fast as possible, but are battery constrained. You’d rather sell [4 units w 120kWh packs] than, say, [2 units with 140kWh pack, plus 1 unit with a 200kWh pack].

Worst version is they want to stage model roll out over a year* to incentivize early CT owners to trade up to a then/releases higher range version.

In all events, there are plenty of business/engineering reasons why Tesla could possibly not (at least initially) offer a large pack variant, regardless if they could charge a per-unit premium for it.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

two ways to answer that, at least

one: because if managing to get that battery in there balloons the necessary MSRP to a level that is untenable in the market, it’s a product that is DOA at the drawing board

two: the CT design only has a given amount of space in which to fit a structural pack. You don’t change the design to build essentially a second vehicle, from a structural perspective, I order to offer longer range. So you have your available space, and then you have the max amount of battery technology in KWh at a given time that can fit in that max space. That’s your ceiling. At least until the battery tech improves.

So you get to a certain point where you have your design, you have your max pack, and there you are. Build it at all, or don’t build it at all.

If that max pack size today is less than 500mi, then you don’t get a 500mi variant at launch.



There’s one alternative to this, but it seems unlikely at first blush given the unveil day aspirations. That the CT is designed for a bigger pack, but Tesla wants to not produce a 500mi version that could fit, structurally, at right now (but possible that ‘not ever’ is a feature here). In which case Tesla is throttling pack/range for such other purpose.

Best version of this scenario is that they want to deliver as many vehicles as possible as fast as possible, but are battery constrained. You’d rather sell [4 units w 120kWh packs] than, say, [2 units with 140kWh pack, plus 1 unit with a 200kWh pack].

Worst version is they want to stage model roll out over a year* to incentivize early CT owners to trade up to a then/releases higher range version.

In all events, there are plenty of business/engineering reasons why Tesla could possibly not (at least initially) offer a large pack variant, regardless if they could charge a per-unit premium for it.

They can fit a big enough battery, so that's not an issue. Chev and Ram are packing 200kWh in their trucks. Rivian has 150kWh, achieving 400+miles. Assuming the Cybertruck is lighter and the battery packing more efficient, they can easily fit more energy and get more range out of that energy.

This spring Franz laughed and said they would beat their competition in range. So the 500 mile is coming. The only reason it won't come at launch is like you say, they can make trucks faster than batteries, or because they want to stagger launch to build hype. The latter seems un-Tesla-like, they usually don't hold stuff back for drama and just stick it in their cars when ready.

We know they are testing two models right now, a "base" and "performance". I suspect they'll launch both together or at least announce both together so that they can claim a price advantage over ford and a range/performance advantage over everyone at the same time. The build mix will probably depend a lot on battery supply.

 

[Ry7104]

I know there are million different reason people want a 500mi truck but I’ll throw my example in on why it’s important. My current ICE truck gets 450 a tank or so and the 3-4 times I pull my travel trailer a year I can make 225+ miles before stopping to fuel up. That a solid 3.5+hours of drive time and gets me to the CA coast from the valley with only 1 stop. I need the CT to do the same thing or better and the only way I see that happening is the 500mile truck. Plus like someone said stopping and unloading the trailer and hooking it back up every 2-3 hrs to charge isn’t going to work.


So with all that, 100% why I bought a truck to commute in was for the towing only a few times a year. Otherwise it’s a total waste ?. So I really want/need the 500mi CT.

 

[cvalue13]

We know they are testing two models right now, a "base" and "performance". I suspect they'll launch both together or at least announce both together so that they can claim a price advantage over ford and a range/performance advantage over everyone at the same time. The build mix will probably depend a lot on battery supply.

“performance” does not mean range

“performance” is like the Model S Plaid (which coincidentally shares the same drivetrain arrangement)

the CT‘s released up front will not include Tesla’s longest-range vehicle to date

but regardless, the build mix will still likely depend on battery supply

 

[cvalue13]

They can fit a big enough battery, so that's not an issue. Chev and Ram are packing 200kWh in their trucks. Rivian has 150kWh, achieving 400+miles. Assuming the Cybertruck is lighter and the battery packing more efficient, they can easily fit more energy and get more range out of that energy.

I mean, maybe yes or maybe no. But you don’t know.

*coukd* Tesla, like Chev/Ram, design a CT that structurally permits of a larger pack? Sure

but the question here is whether *this* CT design, given it’s dimensions, cabin headroom, ground clearance, etc., has a space designed into it that could fit a pack with existing batteries that can achieve [X]kWh in order to achieve [Y] miles

and you don’t know that

 

[cvalue13]

or because they want to stagger launch to build hype. The latter seems un-Tesla-like, they usually don't hold stuff back for drama and just stick it in their cars when ready.

made we talking about the same Tesla?

the Tesla that software limits range, leaving perfectly good pack resources idle, in order to merely segment model trim price points?

the Tesla that has only once argued with the EPA to *downward* adjust the range of a model’s trim offering, so that this cheaper trim level wouldn’t out-range the more expensive trim version?



ehr, we come out different on this one

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I mean, maybe yes or maybe no. But you don’t know.

*coukd* Tesla, like Chev/Ram, design a CT that structurally permits of a larger pack? Sure

but the question here is whether *this* CT design, given it’s dimensions, cabin headroom, ground clearance, etc., has a space designed into it that could fit a pack with existing batteries that can achieve [X]kWh in order to achieve [Y] miles

and you don’t know that

Franz said they would best the competition in range.

 

[jerhenderson]

I am certain of it. I wasn’t talking about them but about people that take a long distance trip every year, especially in the winter, or occasionally tow something. Also, it was Tesla’s stated intention to disrupt the truck market - not the soccer mom mArket. I know that there is an overlap but the specs still need to hit the truck sweet spot. Anyway, with 40% of early reservation holders wanting a 500-mile spec (me included), I am certain that there are many different arguments for that requirement and not just one.

ummm.... the truck market IS the soccer mom market. most people aren't farmers or contractors. Trucks are to get to Costco, or the rink, to feel safer doing so

 

[cvalue13]

Franz said they would best the competition in range.

When/where exactly?

because I believe you’re referencing the inEVitable podcast back in march

Wherein he didn’t say ‘best the competition.’ He said “on the range side we’re gonna be in a good position… the other thing is … the supercharging network”

which is corporate speak for *not* best the competition on dashboard range max, ‘but hey look at our charging infra’

in any event, if since March Franz has said ‘best the competition’ he didn’t mean by max range stat. he prob still meant by range of truck as relates to available charge infra

 

[Crissa]

Except chargers aren’t everywhere. As I said above, a SR M3 has proven great for 95% of the driving my family does. That 5% though…

Electricity is basically everywhere.

While I expect we'll see the 500+ truck, I also think Tesla can sell as many 350 mile trucks they can make.

Remember, demand is so off the hook they're not sure where to put the hook.

-Crissa

 

[RVAC]

Elon will likely make the "we have the best charging infra" argument but that doesn't really hold up; a) much of that will be available to competitors in one year's time, b) vast majority of superchargers are not set up for trailers so having to stop more frequently isn’t the deal.

It’s more the case that they know they have more than enough demand for the ~350mi range variant to see production out for the foreseeable future. By that time they expect 4680 energy density for a single stack pack or 4680 production volume for a double stack, depending on what the vehicle was designed for, to be where it needs to be in order to make the ~500mi Cybertruck a reality. If the latter it shouldn’t be too long of a wait before we see one, if the former it’s going to be a longer wait.

Not offering a ~500mi variant immediately also has the added benefit of not cratering demand for S/X.

 

[cvalue13]

Elon will likely make the "we have the best charging infra" argument but that doesn't really hold up; a) much of that will be available to competitors in one year's time, b) vast majority of superchargers are not set up for trailers so having to stop more frequently isn’t the deal.

It’s more the case that they know they have more than enough demand for the ~350mi range variant to see production out for the foreseeable future. By that time they expect 4680 energy density for a single stack pack or 4680 production volume for a double stack, depending on what the vehicle was designed for, to be where it needs to be in order to make the ~500mi Cybertruck a reality. If the latter it shouldn’t be too long of a wait before we see one, if the former it’s going to be a longer wait.

Not offering a ~500mi variant immediately also has the added benefit of not cratering demand for S/X.

I’d only add that there’s ALSO the possibility that Tesla has been serious about its post-2019 philosophical shift towards “the answer is not large packs that lay idol 95% of the time”

Sponsored