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

[Jhodgesatmb]

No.

Bigger batteries, bigger motors are merely more reliable if you don't stress them.

There's no real way to 'give' there without decreasing reliability and increasing complexity, things Tesla will not do.

-Crissa

He said that he would gladly give up the acceleration (say, of a tri-motor over a dual motor) if it would result in more range. The tri-motor weighs more so dropping to a dual would save weight and increase range. Not being a leadfoot driver would have a larger effect for sure but I do not see how you can just say it isn’t both. Another interpretation of his post is that he would prefer to put that $20K difference between the dual and tri into range than power. So would I. Still both I think.

Sponsored

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I didn’t say they are ditching it

I said they’re not releasing one on Nov 30

whether they ever do is anyone’s guess

You said through 2024. For my money that is ditching it. They might resurrect it later. They do that all the time, but not in my timeline this time.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

doing it. It's only done for show in teaser quantities to create a false impression.

Don't be fooled by GM's marketing. They are experts at appearing like a lamb, but that is all a lie.

I am not a fan of any of the legacy manufacturers but I will say one thing for GM is that out of all the EV trucks we have seen they are the only ones who seem to understand that Range is king when it comes to trucks. Tesla also seemed to understand this in 2019 but if sources here are correct then they are going to relese what appears to have the range of a Cyber El Camino.

Could still be a good model Y replacement i guess.

 

[CYBRSMTH]

Corporate greed built this country

Why do you hate America

I’m going to assume this is a joke. ?

I feel like corporate greed only really started getting out of control in the 80’s. You know when greed was considered good. It was probably around the same time American manufacturing jobs started being shipped overseas.

Believe it or not, but CEOs didn’t always make 670 times more than their lowest paid employee and corporations and the wealthy used to pay their fair share of taxes.

 

[CyberGus]

I’m going to assume this is a joke. ?

That's a fair assumption for most of my posts

Seriously though: trade with other countries is a good thing, but dependency is problematic.

 

[Regenshire]

I might have missed something but where are you getting those payload numbers from? The average Crew Cab 1500 pickup has a payload more like 1500-2000 pounds. Every ounce of weight added to the vehicle (power seats, heated seats, whacking great battery packs) as well as a suspension with high articulation lowers the payload of a truck. For example the Silverado 1500 ZR2 AEV Bison, a truck that’s “off road” built but with luxury features has a payload of about 1200 pounds. The Ram Power Wagon is a 2500 Hd frame and powertrain, but with the off road articulation in the suspension it only has a payload of 1600 pounds. When Elon stated CT has 14 inches of suspension travel, that and the nature of Tesla’s and EV’s does not jive with 2500-3500 pounds of payload at all.

It is a speculative number based on the reveal event specs. Tesla stated 3500 max payload for each version of the Cybertruck.

It was an impressive number when they announced it on the reveal night and we obviously can't confirm if their target number will make it to production or not.

I was mostly interested in seeing the curb weight with the stated max payload of the vehicles, which is why I added it.

 

[HaulingAss]

I am not a fan of any of the legacy manufacturers but I will say one thing for GM is that out of all the EV trucks we have seen they are the only ones who seem to understand that Range is king when it comes to trucks. Tesla also seemed to understand this in 2019 but if sources here are correct then they are going to relese what appears to have the range of a Cyber El Camino.

Could still be a good model Y replacement i guess.

I think you are still being fooled. Because range is only king if it can be delivered in high volumes at prices people will pay. The GM price for 450 miles of range is fake, it's designed to deceive.

Do you get it now, or is the deception still working?

I'm not trying to be harsh, but surely you must understand that products have to be viable in a real marketplace for them to be "king". GM is playing the time-tested concept truck game, but most people are onto that game, so they actually have to make a few of them and sell them at a loss to appear more convincing.

It ain't real!

 

[Crimson_Fate]

I think you are still being fooled. Because range is only king if it can be delivered in high volumes at prices people will pay. The GM price for 450 miles of range is fake, it's designed to deceive.

Do you get it now, or is the deception still working?

I'm not trying to be harsh, but surely you must understand that products have to be viable in a real marketplace for them to be "king". GM is playing the time-tested concept truck game, but most people are onto that game, so they actually have to make a few of them and sell them at a loss to appear more convincing.

It ain't real!

So tell me.... Where exactly did GM touch you ...

 

[Regenshire]

In fact, on I-90, crossing the wide open areas east of the Cascades, I can go 130 mph and skip every other Supercharger, for the fastest arrival times.

Ha, now I know why you selected HaulingAss as your handle!

I think you are still being fooled. Because range is only king if it can be delivered in high volumes at prices people will pay. The GM price for 450 miles of range is fake, it's designed to deceive.

Do you get it now, or is the deception still working?

I'm not trying to be harsh, but surely you must understand that products have to be viable in a real marketplace for them to be "king". GM is playing the time-tested concept truck game, but most people are onto that game, so they actually have to make a few of them and sell them at a loss to appear more convincing.

It ain't real!

You are right, price is king, its the most important metric for the market by far. Range is what people get anxious about, so I believe it is the key metric after price. Several individuals on the forum are calling a 350 mile range "low range", but the reality is that a 350 mile range (conjecture for the first released CyberTruck) is inline with the the Long Range version of their other product offerings.

The Model 3 LR is rated at 333 miles. Model Y LR is at 330 miles. Model X LR is at 348 miles. Model S LR is at 405 miles.

If the CyberTruck releases at 350 miles (pure conjecture), it would only be outclassed in Tesla's lineup by their flagship performance product, the Model S, and inline with their flagship larger vehicle the Model X.

This range is still competitive with most available options readily available on the market at launch. They can always add more batteries later on to get a higher range version as the market evolves (up to a max allowed by the frame and battery chemistry at least).

Its not what those who prioritize Range over Cost want to hear, but personally for me price is still the most important metric and if a 350 mile range helps keep the price of the Cybertruck below competing offerings then I will personally be ok with it. My experience driving an EV over the last six years has cured me of range anxiety.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Sometimes even Tesla doesn't know all the details, as things change as development progresses.

So how can we know certain details even Tesla doesn't? ?

For me it makes perfect sense to run with with the most popular model and range, and just have the lower range 350mile battery accross all of them, with only a DM or TM drivetrain option, given that it also produces the maximum amount of vehicles into customers hands.

Previously performance models actually needed larger packs to provide the higher peak load power draw for high performance acceleration. But now with the lower resistance 4680 cells, and the larger pack sizes, this doesn't seem to be that much of an issue anymore.

If it were than a TM would actually need a larger pack as well for peak power.

Note here that the Plaid uses 18650 cells so they can better manage the thermals for peak, and not the 2170, that have a higher pack energy density.

Battery discharge rate, thermals and vehicle performance are interdependent, but at some point the battery size for a larger vehicle will become so large that peak performance plays a smaller role in the design choices.

You suggested: “For me it makes perfect sense to run with with the most popular model and range, and just have the lower range 350mile battery across all of them”.

This is not a bad idea, but if Tesla wanted a cross between a 300+ dual and a 500+ tri then I believe a range of over 400 miles would placate many. That is not what is going to happen if @cvalue13 is correct.

Maldonado, I do not know where you get the idea that the dual is the most popular trim. My understanding was that it was evenly split between dual and tri. I would not be at all surprised if you would see more dual reservations willing to move up than tri reservations to move down.

 

[PilotPete]

?

and even if they knew ‘the plan’ today, only a fool would rely on it still being the plan later

So this is human nature at its best.
on the one hand…
”I want to know the future plan, and I want to know it now! How can I decide without knowing the future plan? Even if I don’t have to decide right now, I want to know right now so I can decide right now.”

And if the ‘future plan‘ changes for any reason…
”How dare they change the plan! They told us in 1955 that they would do this, and now the feature isn’t there! How dare they! Sure, things and capabilities change and stuff happens and those features were based on an idea and not a fully thought out and vetted development and production plan, but THEY PROMISED!”

Sometimes, you can’t win for losing… How dare them?

 

[PilotPete]

I feel like corporate greed only really started getting out of control in the 80’s. You know when greed was considered good. It was probably around the same time American manufacturing jobs started being shipped overseas.

Believe it or not, but CEOs didn’t always make 670 times more than their lowest paid employee and corporations and the wealthy used to pay their fair share of taxes.

Corporate “greed” only became an issue when movies and people started attributing this word to any action they didn’t like by a corporation. We were taught early on not to be greedy, and to share. So at a base level, we connect “greed” with “bad”. So when you label something as “greed”, you imply the action to be bad. But where is the exact definition of “greed”, and who gets to determine who is being greedy and who isn’t? The accusation is ambiguous at best. It is an easy buzzword to make an accusation of indefensible activity. Notice that all divisive politically polarizing issues get really cool ambiguous catch words like this to stir up emotion and feelings. You said it yourself, “I feel like…” That doesn’t validate or invalidate anything. It is completely based on a personal definition of a word, and a personal assignment of personally perceived motivations for an action that you may or may not have complete knowledge of the reasons for, the justification for, the related actions, the actions that gave rise to this one, the trade offs of this action and all related actions, and an entire multitude of other things. The same holds true of the currently popular phrase “fair share”. Who on earth could be opposed to someone or something paying their “fair share”? But hold up, who gets to determine what is “fair” and how those “shares” are divided up? It is a meaningless phrase designed to inflict emotion and feelings, not impart truth. There is a long story about 5 guys that go to dinner and then the next time they receive a discount. It points out that words like “fair” hold no true meaning or known value, but are easily manipulated terms meant to sway opinion and invoke emotion.

In short, don’t confuse a corporation‘s desire for “growth” and “profit” with ”greed”. The only other true option isn’t one where I would wish to live.

 

[Sirfun]

Corporate “greed” only became an issue when movies and people started attributing this word to any action they didn’t like by a corporation. We were taught early on not to be greedy, and to share. So at a base level, we connect “greed” with “bad”. So when you label something as “greed”, you imply the action to be bad. But where is the exact definition of “greed”, and who gets to determine who is being greedy and who isn’t? The accusation is ambiguous at best. It is an easy buzzword to make an accusation of indefensible activity. Notice that all divisive politically polarizing issues get really cool ambiguous catch words like this to stir up emotion and feelings. You said it yourself, “I feel like…” That doesn’t validate or invalidate anything. It is completely based on a personal definition of a word, and a personal assignment of personally perceived motivations for an action that you may or may not have complete knowledge of the reasons for, the justification for, the related actions, the actions that gave rise to this one, the trade offs of this action and all related actions, and an entire multitude of other things. The same holds true of the currently popular phrase “fair share”. Who on earth could be opposed to someone or something paying their “fair share”? But hold up, who gets to determine what is “fair” and how those “shares” are divided up? It is a meaningless phrase designed to inflict emotion and feelings, not impart truth. There is a long story about 5 guys that go to dinner and then the next time they receive a discount. It points out that words like “fair” hold no true meaning or known value, but are easily manipulated terms meant to sway opinion and invoke emotion.

In short, don’t confuse a corporation‘s desire for “growth” and “profit” with ”greed”. The only other true option isn’t one where I would wish to live.

Growth and profit doesn't equate to bad. But greed does.

I agree "greed" is a catch word. But it describes an activity that is selfish and uncaring for others. It's not only corporate greed. Individuals can have greed too.

BTW, corporate greed has been around since the birth of corporations. Just like greed its self has been around throughout history.

Here's a good defintion:
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.

 

[Crissa]

I don't want to believe you, but if they do only release those 2 versions, it'll be a shit-show. Double so if the performance version is anything above $60k.

The performance was $69k originally?

I think if you're right, they will also announce the 500 mile range one. If they don't let you configure and put a deposit down for that one, I don't see how the reservation que is going to work and your place in line probably isn't going to matter anymore.

I think they want to get away from people configuring vehicles that might never arrive.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

He said that he would gladly give up the acceleration (say, of a tri-motor over a dual motor) if it would result in more range. The tri-motor weighs more so dropping to a dual would save weight and increase range.

But that would cost Tesla basically the same, so it wouldn't help the price. It would just increase the complexity.

Tesla usually does make models focused on the triad of coat-range-performance. But in this case, reducing performance doesn't really help range or cost.

-Crissa

I don't think they'll go with a single pack, it is cheaper, but it wouldn't satisfy the performance people because they want to tow. And tow needs batteries.

Sponsored