Cybertruck VIN decoder! -- GVWR Vehicle Weight Revealed + **only** Dual and Tri Motor for 2024

[Throwcomputer]

We all knew that. It's been said repeatedly and they were shown on reveal day. However, the VIN decoder ALSO says the Performance has a 1000lb higher rating. The tri motor power train only adds about 70lbs vs dual motor. That would strongly support greater battery size.

Cval is stating something as fact, not that "somebody told me". Most of those "told mes" have been false.

The VIN decoder absolutely does not say this. It says there are two GVWR options. It also says there are Dual and Tri motor options. It does not link one model to a specific GVWR. That is assumptions made by everyone on this thread.

Sponsored

 

[RR2241TX]

My RN is way down the line but here’s my reality: must weigh at least 6K, must tow at least 14K, range at max gross combination weight 250 miles, tax rebate does not matter because I’ll be ineligible anyway.
Really hoping I can get rear steering but I’ve lived with long bed crew cabs all my adult life and CT is several feet shorter than those so will feel like a sports car either way. Definitely opting for payload and towing over rear steering. Most pickup drivers would really be better served with a Taco-sized truck with mass to pull a heavy boat, IMHO.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

You say this continuously without source or even implied source. Like you're an authority. Kind of annoying tbh.

Downright depressing…

 

[HaulingAss]

I have mentioned this before but I wish they would allow a 30-90day after CT purchase to exercise the reserve locked FSD price. This could allow a sub $80k truck but with the availability of FSD without a penalty. Now this does present one small problem though of not being able to roll the FSD costs into the original loan but I still think its a fair option to allow for.

I'm going to say it one more time for those with thick skulls:

The price of FSD, or any other software feature, does not count towards the maximum price limits of the $7500 federal tax credits! Sales tax doesn't count either.

That means you can roll the price of FSD into your loan amount, and back it out when reporting the price to the IRS.

Note: I'm not a tax attorney (but this isn't rocket science either).

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

That's in how you drive, tho, not the hardware.

-Crissa

It’s both.

 

[cvalue13]

The VIN decoder absolutely does not say this. It says there are two GVWR options. It also says there are Dual and Tri motor options. It does not link one model to a specific GVWR. That is assumptions made by everyone on this thread.

man’s I *believe* that they must account for the weight of *factory installed* options

in which case, if they plan to offer certain factory installed options that can add up to breach the lower GVWR…

 

[GnarlyDudeLive]

I'm going to say it one more time for those with thick skulls:

The price of FSD, or any other software feature, does not count towards the maximum price limits of the $7500 federal tax credits! Sales tax doesn't count either.

That means you can roll the price of FSD into your loan amount, and back it out when reporting the price to the IRS.

Note: I'm not a tax attorney (but this isn't rocket science either).

This is awesome news for some folks!

 

[Gurule92]

what?

Looks like you saw this thread and then posted it as BREAKING on your Twitter 30 minutes later.

Not declaring. More inquiring

 

[HaulingAss]

Agreed, all added bonuses to a required use case. A larger pack means fewer charging cycles. Which also means more home charging and less supercharger use, likely paying for itself long before the truck's end of life.

note: I am not against large batteries because they do have some useful benefits. In fact, I previously believed a larger battery would automatically last longer (before I learned more). So, let's keep the advantages/disadvantages real and science based.

A much larger battery pack than needed for an owner's normal daily use would in the vast majority of use cases, not last significantly longer and would cost more per mile travelled, typically much more, over the life of the vehicle than one that was sized to only be generously more than typical use. For example, a 300-mile battery would suit most drivers much better (and would not last meaningfully longer than a larger heavier pack) for the following reasons:

1) Even someone averaging many more average daily miles (100 miles/day, 36,500 miles/year) than the typical 13,000/year driver (36 miles/day) should not be needing to use the upper and lower bounds of the batteries state of charge on a regular basis.

2) The larger battery has more thermal mass, requiring more time for the battery temperature to be cooled or heated into the "sweet temperature zone" for battery longevity. This means many more hours of operation at less-than-ideal temperatures relative to battery longevity. This is a big one because battery degradation is very temperature dependent. This is why cars like the Nissan Leaf, without liquid thermal management systems, are famous for having short lives.

3) The large battery weighs more, requiring more energy to accelerate and decelerate, thus cycling the battery unecessarily compared to a lighter solution.

4) The data shows even frequent Supercharging is not the detriment to longevity that has been widely reported. It had some basis in fact with Tesla's earliest products, before the thermal management system was improved.

5) Battery degradation has a component of time degradation. Use or lose it. Even a battery gently used for 5 miles per day is probably not going to last 40 years, regardless of it's size.

Conclusion: A much larger than needed battery could last marginally longer in certain use cases, there are other use cases where the larger battery would actually have a shorter life (see #2 and #3 above). Any additional life would likely be quite insignificant. Even a relatively heavy use-case scenario, the time the battery spends charging and discharging at less than ideal temperatures (as the thermal mangement system is actively warming or cooling it) negates the lifespan benefits of less battery cycling. Tesla has all the data and understands the sweet spot of battery size. They err to the side of "too big" for user convenience reasons. They want an EV to be more convenient, not less, compared to an ICE vehicle. That means only people with very unusual use cases will be better served by a larger battery. A battery sized to optimize convenience and cost will almost always be too big for optimal battery life.

Also, there are other expenses associated with a larger battery:

1) Upfront cost. The time value of additional cost of the larger battery is significant. Specifically, that extra money invested, even if only in a savings account, would grow over time, negating any small advantage a larger battery could concievably have in terms of expected life in a heavier than normal use case scenario.

2) Tire wear. A heavier vehicle requires tires with a higer load rating that are typically less efficient and cost more. This is going to cost more over the life of the vehicle simply because carrying around all that extra weight with you comes with additional costs, including charging costs.

Has anyone used insulating panels? A camper towing / EV driving Canuck (like myself) vouched for this product in a youtube video that I came across, not sure how effective this stuff is. I could see double bubble insulation reducing range loss.

https://evinsulate.com/products/tesla-model-3-battery-pack-insulation?variant=41171435192485

Such insulation is a double-edged sword. It may be of minor benefit in extreme climates but to take full advantage of it all of the algorithms used by Tesla's battery management system would need to be re-formulated.

That's just to say that the insulation would cause the BMS to operate in a less than optimal manner because it expects certain thermal performance based on things like inside/outside air temperatures, coolant temperatures, cell temperatures, and time. The insulation would throw a wrench in all of that. The reason for this is the algorithms used by the BMS operation with regard to temperature extremes were developed using massive amounts of data from customers cars in a wide variety of environments. If your car performs differently thermally, than expected, in certain conditions, the results will be less than optimum.

I will note that the product linked above is "out-of-stock" and the Youtube video for the product is now "private". I suspect the product is actually discontinued (for the reasons given above) but the seller doesn't want to admit that in order to prevent a rash of people wanting refunds (or worse).

 

[Crimson_Fate]

If a 300 mile battery actually got 300 miles I'd agree with you , Following best practices you are only going to have it charged to 80% and will want to charge it again as it approachs 20%. So thats 180 miles of range. Now tow something and your looking at 110. With a 500 mile battery following the same best practices you actually get 300 miles and about 200 miles of towing.

The last thing I want to do is try to charge while towing it is not a great thing in an EV today needing to unhook everything . There is a reason I don't have an F150 and its the range . If I want another 300 mile EV I'd just get another MY. Its a shame the silverado is going to have limited production. It was my fallback .

note: I am not against large batteries because they do have some useful benefits. In fact, I previously believed a larger battery would automatically last longer (before I learned more). So, let's keep the advantages/disadvantages real and science based.

A much larger battery pack than needed for an owner's normal daily use would in the vast majority of use cases, not last significantly longer and would cost more per mile travelled, typically much more, over the life of the vehicle than one that was sized to only be generously more than typical use. For example, a 300-mile battery would suit most drivers much better (and would not last meaningfully longer than a larger heavier pack) for the following reasons:

1) Even someone averaging many more average daily miles (100 miles/day, 36,500 miles/year) than the typical 13,000/year driver (36 miles/day) should not be needing to use the upper and lower bounds of the batteries state of charge on a regular basis.

2) The larger battery has more thermal mass, requiring more time for the battery temperature to be cooled or heated into the "sweet temperature zone" for battery longevity. This means many more hours of operation at less-than-ideal temperatures relative to battery longevity. This is a big one because battery degradation is very temperature dependent. This is why cars like the Nissan Leaf, without liquid thermal management systems, are famous for having short lives.

3) The large battery weighs more, requiring more energy to accelerate and decelerate, thus cycling the battery unecessarily compared to a lighter solution.

4) The data shows even frequent Supercharging is not the detriment to longevity that has been widely reported. It had some basis in fact with Tesla's earliest products, before the thermal management system was improved.

5) Battery degradation has a component of time degradation. Use or lose it. Even a battery gently used for 5 miles per day is probably not going to last 40 years, regardless of it's size.

Conclusion: A much larger than needed battery could last marginally longer in certain use cases, there are other use cases where the larger battery would actually have a shorter life (see #2 and #3 above). Any additional life would likely be quite insignificant. Even a relatively heavy use-case scenario, the time the battery spends charging and discharging at less than ideal temperatures (as the thermal mangement system is actively warming or cooling it) negates the lifespan benefits of less battery cycling. Tesla has all the data and understands the sweet spot of battery size. They err to the side of "too big" for user convenience reasons. They want an EV to be more convenient, not less, compared to an ICE vehicle. That means only people with very unusual use cases will be better served by a larger battery. A battery sized to optimize convenience and cost will almost always be too big for optimal battery life.

Also, there are other expenses associated with a larger battery:

1) Upfront cost. The time value of additional cost of the larger battery is significant. Specifically, that extra money invested, even if only in a savings account, would grow over time, negating any small advantage a larger battery could concievably have in terms of expected life in a heavier than normal use case scenario.

2) Tire wear. A heavier vehicle requires tires with a higer load rating that are typically less efficient and cost more. This is going to cost more over the life of the vehicle simply because carrying around all that extra weight with you comes with additional costs, including charging costs.



Such insulation is a double-edged sword. It may be of minor benefit in extreme climates but to take full advantage of it all of the algorithms used by Tesla's battery management system would need to be re-formulated.

That's just to say that the insulation would cause the BMS to operate in a less than optimal manner because it expects certain thermal performance based on things like inside/outside air temperatures, coolant temperatures, cell temperatures, and time. The insulation would throw a wrench in all of that. The reason for this is the algorithms used by the BMS operation with regard to temperature extremes were developed using massive amounts of data from customers cars in a wide variety of environments. If your car performs differently thermally, than expected, in certain conditions, the results will be less than optimum.

I will note that the product linked above is "out-of-stock" and the Youtube video for the product is now "private". I suspect the product is actually discontinued (for the reasons given above) but the seller doesn't want to admit that in order to prevent a rash of people wanting refunds (or worse).

 

[SKUUT]

I don't lurk/read enough to know everyone's consistency, I originally just wanted to know whether they were claiming it to be speculation or informed. I only commented further that just because someone says their input is informed but is unwilling to burn their source does not necessarily make the input speculation. It only means that you have to take it with a grain of salt and weigh the accuracy based on whether you believe the person or not. Not trying to get into any disputes over who is right or wrong. Perhaps posting in the first place was my mistake.

Posting in the first place is by no means a mistake. Being remotely concerned with what anybody on this forum says or thinks would be your only mistake. ?

 

[SolarWizard]

Agreed, and same boat here. 500 range is a must and likely a deal breaker without it. 400 likely still would not be good enough if you have a truck camper or trailer on the back, in mountainous terrain with cold weather. The only thing that would make up for a non-500-mile truck would be built-in solar that is either cheap or included in the price, IMO.

Solar aint making any appreciable difference
Source: see username

 

[SolarWizard]

No source, got it.

he knows more than you think he does

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

he knows more than you think he does

Source?

 

[SKUUT]

Solar aint making any appreciable difference
Source: see username

Solar, not for adding range, per se, but keeping phantom drain and cold weather loss at bay would be my hope. Either way, in 12 to 18 months, when my number is likely to be pulled, they'll likely/hopefully have enough line capacity to make "long-range" packs and keep to the 500-mile range hammer that they threw down. IMO, Elon's ego and drive are too all-consuming to back away from their quoted specs. They seem to have pulled it off with the semi, and I think they will use similar motor tech that was introduced with the semi to make it happen. We shall see...

Sponsored