More 500-mile range rumors!

[CyberC]

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”

While I agree that this has been Tesla's point and that maybe it's even a good point, I don't think it'll be very popular with consumers in general - including me. I like to drive 80 mph from where I live to a city that's 240 miles away. As an owner of two vehicles that nominally go 300+ miles on a charge, I always have to either (1) stop to charge or (2) drive slower than 80 mph. I'd rather not have to do either of those things.

I'm not saying that Tesla should make a 500 mile Cybertruck because of my one use case, but I am saying that if the decision is between a 350 mile CT and a 500 mile Silverado EV, and they both have access to the same superchargers along the route, I'm probably going to go with the Silverado despite my preference for Tesla. I think a not insignificant amount of people would make the same choice, if for different reasons.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

I don't think it'll be very popular with consumers in general - including me. I like to drive 80 mph from where I live to a city that's 240 miles away. As an owner of two vehicles that nominally go 300+ miles on a charge, I always have to either (1) stop to charge or (2) drive slower than 80 mph. I'd rather not have to do either of those things.

…I'm not saying that Tesla should make a 500 mile Cybertruck because of my one use case…

Kind of sounds like you are. Because otherwise, what’s left to say except “the CT is not for me, specifically because I’d ‘rather not’ stop to charge for 10 minutes.”

To which Tesla could turn to their data models and say, “well as a business, I guess we’re just not the car for you - not that we wouldn’t love to have you, but that we aren’t going to build an entire line of vehicles using disproportionate battery resources merely to satisfy the edge case whims of people who *say* they can’t stomach charging for 10 minutes during an occasional long-distance trip.”

Meanwhile, privately, Tesla can also be in the background thinking “of the relatively few in the population who think that way, many won’t put their money where their mouth is once they consider the all-in value of the CT we’re offering - and/or over time will come to accept the new reality of the BEV future.”

At which point folks in your position. May respond…

I am saying that if the decision is between a 350 mile CT and a 500 mile Silverado EV, and they both have access to the same superchargers along the route, I'm probably going to go with the Silverado

And Tesla’s reaction?

Good for Chevy and good for you. If you're so inconvenienced by by an occasional 10min Ute charge that you’d rather have the daily inconvenience of a vehicle (we believe) is inferior in every other way, then we *doubly* are not the vehicle for you (until you come around, that is).”



Which brings me to the last and core point all of this “500” mile discussion is completely lacking:

Every person saying “I want a 500mi truck,” they are implicitly also conditioning it with “at a reasonable price I’m happy with.”

Many people here saying “I won’t buy a 300mi truck” are implicitly conditioning it with “unless the price is so crazy good I’ll live with the inconvenience of charging now and then.”

Which all goes to show that, until you know the MSRP of a 300mi truck, or what *would have been* the MSRP of a 500mi truck, you really have no idea what you want.

The comments reduce down to sayingnot much at all about your preferences, nor about Tesla’s thinking, absent price info.

To wit: the ~500mi retail Silverado you’re referencing (A) just got pushed back indefinitely, (B) when it does come likely won’t be widely available anytime soon (if ever), and (C) will have a MSRP of >$107,000

If you (and a presumably small group of others) are up for all that, because you’re THAT annoyed by occasional charging - you’re simply not in Tesla’s SOM


And some folks here (not you), are additionally in the following psychological predicament: based on nearly nothing, they’ve spent the past 4 years sh*tting on other vehicles specs based on little more than a wish and hopium, so when the CT comes out with a similar spec they’re mad at Tesla

but maybe they were just wrong and irrational all along, and it’s easier to be mad at Tesla than take responsibility for that

to wit, pay close attention to what Musk said about the Lightning a few months back: “The Ford Lightning is a good vehicle, just somewhat expensive,”

 

[TyPope]

you’re underlying assumption, though, is that Tesla/Musk believe big batteries and long range is a spec they care to out-compete

if Rivian released a truck with a built in can-opener, would Tesla be embarrassed to not release a truck with a BIGGER can-opener?

note that Musk/Tesla have long signaled they don’t believe massive packs and idle range are a viable or necessary feature

and while they’ve expressed that for a long time, they’ve only been employing it of late

of late Tesla ranges have been coming down, not extending

to say nothing of the practical reality that, if battery energy density isn’t where they aspired it to be, Tesla would be left - on your account - to choose to just not release the CT at all. something’s got to give

My little Maverick has a built-in bottle opener if that counts...

 

[cvalue13]

My little Maverick has a built-in bottle opener if that counts...

don’t worry, CT has one too ?

 

[TyPope]

don’t worry, CT has one too ?

My Maverick is the hybrid version. It can drive under electric-only power under certain circumstances. It's so sad... Ford should have put in a more powerful electric motor and at least a LITTLE more battery... They would have had a much more compelling vehicle. Sigh... I DO get between 40 and 64 MPG depending on speed, foot, and temperature... This is just on the first 300 miles of ownership, mind you. It's my place-holder until my Cybertruck is here.

 

[cvalue13]

My Maverick is the hybrid version. It can drive under electric-only power under certain circumstances. It's so sad... Ford should have put in a more powerful electric motor and at least a LITTLE more battery... They would have had a much more compelling vehicle. Sigh... I DO get between 40 and 64 MPG depending on speed, foot, and temperature... This is just on the first 300 miles of ownership, mind you. It's my place-holder until my Cybertruck is here.

BUSTED!!

40-64MPH under any circ is awesome on its own

plus, Tesla is going to make you pay extra for the bottle opener so ??‍

 

[TyPope]

BUSTED!!

40-64MPH under any circ is awesome on its own

"Anemic performance" is the phrase you are looking for. We don't see that word thrown around much, this being a Tesla forum...

Nah, it's a fun little truck and I don't need to move much anymore. Furniture, wood for projects, my Kayak and trailer, simple things.

 

[CyberC]

Long and very thoughtful post

I'll first recognize that your post was long and very thoughtful, and I appreciate that. But I will not respond to all of it - mostly because I have no major contention with anything you said. A few points though:

It'd be more accurate to say that my position is that I hope Tesla makes a 500 mile Cybertruck to match my preferences. Tesla doesn't owe me anything as a consumer, so im not interested in telling them what they should and shouldn't do. But if they don't do what I hope they will, I'm ok going with someone else - even if it means spending more money.

Also, unless a more recent press release has come out since yesterday, Silverado production at one plant was delayed - there's another dedicated truck plant where they still plan to produce the truck.

And on that note, I'll have to hold up a mirror here. We used to think that the Cybertruck would be the first EV truck to market. And as of right now, we are all also awaiting a truck which has been endlessly delayed, with no answer on production ramp and no MSRP.

 

[scottf200]

For people that want this as a long term vehicle keep in mind after a ~year and then ~5 years of battery degradation:

500 * 90% = 450 miles
500 * 80% = 400 miles

300 * 90% = 270 miles
300 * 80% = 240 miles

 

[CyberGus]

Nobody needs 500 miles of range, they need the extra capacity during adverse conditions and/or when hauling and towing.

 

[CHC]

Maybe Tesla will just release the 69k, 500 mile range tri motor at the delivery event and shut you all up ?

 

[SSonnentag]

Nobody needs 500 miles of range, they need the extra capacity during adverse conditions and/or when hauling and towing.

Pretty much. Plus, for long road trips (1,000+ miles), 30% of the battery isn't very usable due to taking too long to charge to 100%. Charging to 80% is all anyone really has patience for when trying to drive long distances.

500 miles of rated range
minus 10% bottom buffer for safety
minus 20% top unused doe to a waste of time waiting for it to charge
minus 15% for keeping up with traffic
minus 10% battery degradation after a few years
equals 225 miles of comfortable road tripping range between charges.

That's 157 miles if starting with a 350 mile pack

In foul winter weather, cut those ranges in half potentially.

 

[BayouCityBob]

Pretty much. Plus, for long road trips (1,000+ miles), 30% of the battery isn't very usable due to taking too long to charge to 100%. Charging to 80% is all anyone really has patience for when trying to drive long distances.

500 miles of rated range
minus 10% bottom buffer for safety
minus 20% top unused doe to a waste of time waiting for it to charge
minus 15% for keeping up with traffic
minus 10% battery degradation after a few years
equals 225 miles of comfortable road tripping range between charges.

That's 157 miles if starting with a 350 mile pack

In foul winter weather, cut those ranges in half potentially.

LOL that is not how percentages work. Even if we stick with your assumptions:
500 minus 10% degradation = 450. This is your total capacity
Minus 10% bottom buffer = 405
Minus 20% top buffer 90 miles = 315 this is your total usable between charges
EPA to real world traffic = 85% x 315 = 268.

That is 188 if starting with a 350 mile pack using your assumptions

 

[BayouCityBob]

LOL that is not how percentages work. Even if we stick with your assumptions:
500 minus 10% degradation = 450. This is your total capacity
Minus 10% bottom buffer = 405
Minus 20% top buffer 90 miles = 315 this is your total usable between charges
EPA to real world traffic = 85% x 315 = 268.

That is 188 if starting with a 350 mile pack using your assumptions

Also, you do not lose 50% in bad weather, the Norway winter challenge the Model s lost 16% this year. Expect same from CT. Charging to 90% on a road trip is no big deal if you need it (you won't) which will give you an extra 38 miles (your assumptions) which would boost you to 306 miles between charges. You should not see 10% degradation until you hit 100,000 miles or so.

 

[SSonnentag]

Also, you do not lose 50% in bad weather, the Norway winter challenge the Model s lost 16% this year. Expect same from CT. Charging to 90% on a road trip is no big deal if you need it (you won't) which will give you an extra 38 miles (your assumptions) which would boost you to 306 miles between charges. You should not see 10% degradation until you hit 100,000 miles or so.

True re my percentage calculation errors. Thanks for the fix.

I drive over 30K miles per year, so it's only about 3 years until I see 9% battery degradation. At 183,000 miles my current S is down 11.35%, going by the car's range displayed on the screen. My battery degradation has only dropped about 2% after 100,000 miles so far.

Sponsored