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

[Crissa]

I did not recall that. Were they using four Model 3 motors and then switched to three Plaid motors?

Yes, the new ones are not Plaid, but Plaid-similar?

A generator (motor) can only produce so many kW converted to 'braking'. It is not like they could have a single motor with a large battery slow down an 80K lb loaded semi-truck on a 6/7/8% grade hill.

True, but that limit is usually then at the tire before the motor.

It's not until you're doing it for hours on end that you hit the motor limits. Remember, you're pushing as much current through them to make them move!

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

Okay, you're misunderstanding how C discharge rates are calculated or why they matter.

It's the relative instantaneous voltage sag that matters for performance, not the more general discharge rate.

-Crissa

How explain?

ANY current draw from a battery results in a voltage drop, which is why the inverters can control voltage to the motors to achieve the best efficiency. That and frequency control for RPM is the whole reason they exist. It's only the combination of voltage and current that is power (depending on power factor) and as such a cell voltage dip is necessary for current to flow out of the chemistry in the first place, hence all the coulomb counting done to calculate SoC in the first place. Note that induction and PM also have different control strategies.

The point here is that a 120kWh pack in a CT and a 75kWh pack in a M3P have the same kw/kg for performance, and the same C rate for charge/discharge. Which means it works, and my predictions are likely within the ballpark for the CT.

This is SoC state independent, in that if each battery had the same SoC they would perform the same in both the CT and the M3P. If you wanted to race a flat CT against a full M3P, then sure there would be a difference.

But this doesn't negate my CT performance predictions in any way if both are at the same SoC.
If it does then explain please.

 

[JBee]

also, who says they have sufficient numbers of driveline components to scale as needed

If that were the case, then I'm super curious as to why it is so.

Is it because it is a special motor and there is a supply problem with some of it's components (magnets?), or is it because it is production limited by not enough manufacturing?

I would of thought throwing a few cheapo induction motors in the back would have been good enough to overcome supply issues, seeing they don't have much in the way of rare earth metals.

But maybe their secret source new motors are good enough to dethrone the TM with a DM with little to no extra effort?

I note that the Semi motors, if all of equal size are around the 350hp mark (same as Plaid output) to accelerate 82,000lbs to 60mph in 20 seconds.

And I also know you only need around 550hp to accelerate 6000lbs of CT to 60mph (plus/minus depending on motor power curve). So a 700hp DM CT would still be ridiculously quick, and probably under 3 seconds with those types of motors? The TM was meant to be 2.9s?

The Plaid is actually well.... Plaid. Beyond ludicrous in any case.

The only advantage is with the TM then is torque vectoring on the rear...which technically can also be done with a active torque split differential like in the Focus RS.

There is one more point to make here, and that is how is the CT going to address the need for a differential lock with a DM CT offroad, if it only just uses open diffs?

From experience traction control using the brakes will just lead to excessive brake wear and overheating, so some type of locker might be included anyway. Brake traction control also saps battery power, making it even more sensitive when driving offroad in comparison to ICE. But if it is of the toque vectoring type, then we might have ourselves a little hot rod with DM already and not need a QM even.

The question is a torque vectoring diff cheaper and easier than another motor, if a DM is already traction limited for acceleration because of it's tyres? Or will they just use the cheaper traction control option and suffer the consequences under warranty claims on the brakes and ignore the off-road consumption problem?

 

[cvalue13]

If that were the case, then I'm super curious as to why it is so.

aren’t we all!

 

[Crissa]

The amount of voltage sag from an application depends upon:

1. The instantaneous current demand
2. The instantaneous change in current draw
3. The total current draw (over time)
4. The battery total current
5. The current battery voltage
6. The age of the battery
7. The temperature of the battery
8. The chemistry of the battery
9. The internal resistance of the battery

The C rate is just a guide of how well the battery survives continuous draw. Just like how wires are rated to a certain current, how they actually perform under instantaneous values varies. Also, instantaneous values can act weird and use really complex formulas to be described. But suffice to say, this is basically like the difference between C and CCA (cold cranking amps) which of course varies by how 'full' the battery is and how big it is. A bigger battery will generally maintain a higher resistance to voltage sag over its usable range.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

The amount of voltage sag from an application depends upon:

1. The instantaneous current demand
2. The instantaneous change in current draw
3. The total current draw (over time)
4. The battery total current
5. The current battery voltage
6. The age of the battery
7. The temperature of the battery
8. The chemistry of the battery
9. The internal resistance of the battery

The C rate is just a guide of how well the battery survives continuous draw. Just like how wires are rated to a certain current, how they actually perform under instantaneous values varies. Also, instantaneous values can act weird and use really complex formulas to be described. But suffice to say, this is basically like the difference between C and CCA (cold cranking amps) which of course varies by how 'full' the battery is and how big it is. A bigger battery will generally maintain a higher resistance to voltage sag over its usable range.

-Crissa

But how does that relate to predicting CT performance if those all remain the same between the two vehicles being compared, the CT and M3P?

Or are you just saying something unrelated, and you want me to confirm it instead?

Alternatively, please feel free to predict what you think the perform the DM/TM CT will be and why, and then we can compare notes?

 

[Crissa]

But how does that relate to predicting CT performance if those all remain the same between the two vehicles being compared, the CT and M3P?

Or are you just saying something unrelated, and you want me to confirm it instead?

Alternatively, please feel free to predict what you think the perform the DM/TM CT will be and why, and then we can compare notes?

It doesn't. First off, a Model 3 uses different cells, different batteries, different chemistries.

But the Model 3 Performance has the same battery as the Long Range. But the Standard has a different battery.

Performance basically demands the biggest battery they're using. Standard doesn't. And they don't have a >350 mile Model 3. That's a Model S.

So I expect if they do two models, and they don't want to disappoint, they're going to differentiate the batteries. Which I know, you're right, they're loathe to do. But they can get 1.5-2x as many Standards out to the cells needed for a single Performance if the Performance is using the long range pack.

I'm just answering the question, 'Why don't they make this (insert combination of features someone wants)?' Well, if they're cell constrained in any way... They don't make the long range without the extra performance.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

It doesn't. First off, a Model 3 uses different cells, different batteries, different chemistries.

But the Model 3 Performance has the same battery as the Long Range. But the Standard has a different battery.

Performance basically demands the biggest battery they're using. Standard doesn't. And they don't have a >350 mile Model 3. That's a Model S.

So I expect if they do two models, and they don't want to disappoint, they're going to differentiate the batteries. Which I know, you're right, they're loathe to do. But they can get 1.5-2x as many Standards out to the cells needed for a single Performance if the Performance is using the long range pack.

I'm just answering the question, 'Why don't they make this (insert combination of features someone wants)?' Well, if they're cell constrained in any way... They don't make the long range without the extra performance.

-Crissa

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

So with the CT they obviously need to have a larger pack, because it is not as aerodynamic and has greater rolling resistance etc. So they need about a 120kWh pack to get the 300mile range with a DM.

Now consider this for one moment, if they can get the MS Plaid to do 1040hp from a 100kWh pack, and they use the same cooling for CT, why shouldn't they get 30٪ less power, so 700hp from a 20% larger 120kWh pack? Or the same power to weight as a M3P and the same performance too?

Now if they could do that with 120kWh of batteries, they could then just sell DM with 120kWh packs and get the most amount of cars on the road as they can, and if its under 3sec to 60, most of the TM orders wouldn't care, especially seeing the DM will be cheaper.

Then, they just add an extra motor for a TM, and they still don't need to add any more batteries than the DM, because the ones they already have on board can also do the TM, and still have 20% more capacity than the Plaid.

Win, win.

Except for extra range from a larger pack, which is a supply constrained problem, there really is no downside or technical reason not to do so.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

If that were the case, then I'm super curious as to why it is so.

Is it because it is a special motor and there is a supply problem with some of it's components (magnets?), or is it because it is production limited by not enough manufacturing?

I would of thought throwing a few cheapo induction motors in the back would have been good enough to overcome supply issues, seeing they don't have much in the way of rare earth metals.

But maybe their secret source new motors are good enough to dethrone the TM with a DM with little to no extra effort?

I note that the Semi motors, if all of equal size are around the 350hp mark (same as Plaid output) to accelerate 82,000lbs to 60mph in 20 seconds.

And I also know you only need around 550hp to accelerate 6000lbs of CT to 60mph (plus/minus depending on motor power curve). So a 700hp DM CT would still be ridiculously quick, and probably under 3 seconds with those types of motors? The TM was meant to be 2.9s?

The Plaid is actually well.... Plaid. Beyond ludicrous in any case.

The only advantage is with the TM then is torque vectoring on the rear...which technically can also be done with a active torque split differential like in the Focus RS.

There is one more point to make here, and that is how is the CT going to address the need for a differential lock with a DM CT offroad, if it only just uses open diffs?

From experience traction control using the brakes will just lead to excessive brake wear and overheating, so some type of locker might be included anyway. Brake traction control also saps battery power, making it even more sensitive when driving offroad in comparison to ICE. But if it is of the toque vectoring type, then we might have ourselves a little hot rod with DM already and not need a QM even.

The question is a torque vectoring diff cheaper and easier than another motor, if a DM is already traction limited for acceleration because of it's tyres? Or will they just use the cheaper traction control option and suffer the consequences under warranty claims on the brakes and ignore the off-road consumption problem?

The motors aren't the same size though. With the S/X dual, the rear motor was more powerful, while the front was geared more for efficiency when cruising. The Raven setup is around 600hp, with 350hp in the rear, and 250hp in the front. That gets you 0-60 in around 3.9 seconds in an X. Thus, Tesla's projection of 4.5 seconds for the truck.

The Plaid setup basically doubles the rear motor, pushing you 1020hp total.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

It doesn't. First off, a Model 3 uses different cells, different batteries, different chemistries.

But the Model 3 Performance has the same battery as the Long Range. But the Standard has a different battery.

Performance basically demands the biggest battery they're using. Standard doesn't. And they don't have a >350 mile Model 3. That's a Model S.

So I expect if they do two models, and they don't want to disappoint, they're going to differentiate the batteries. Which I know, you're right, they're loathe to do. But they can get 1.5-2x as many Standards out to the cells needed for a single Performance if the Performance is using the long range pack.

I'm just answering the question, 'Why don't they make this (insert combination of features someone wants)?' Well, if they're cell constrained in any way... They don't make the long range without the extra performance.

-Crissa

I thought the long range and performance used the same battery, too, but I recently learned they don't. The Performance is a bit bigger.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

The amount of voltage sag from an application depends upon:

1. The instantaneous current demand
2. The instantaneous change in current draw
3. The total current draw (over time)
4. The battery total current
5. The current battery voltage
6. The age of the battery
7. The temperature of the battery
8. The chemistry of the battery
9. The internal resistance of the battery

The C rate is just a guide of how well the battery survives continuous draw. Just like how wires are rated to a certain current, how they actually perform under instantaneous values varies. Also, instantaneous values can act weird and use really complex formulas to be described. But suffice to say, this is basically like the difference between C and CCA (cold cranking amps) which of course varies by how 'full' the battery is and how big it is. A bigger battery will generally maintain a higher resistance to voltage sag over its usable range.

-Crissa

An interesting relation to this is the fellow who claimed on Twitter to have gotten a test drive in his neighbor's performance Cybertruck. He said the power was the same as his MX Plaid, but the truck had only 17% battery, which would indicate a larger pack, an advantage of 4680 cells, or something else. He specifically mentioned this as being impressive vs his Model X.

 

[TyPope]

This legend doesn't have a quad-motor option, at least as of August.

I should have said "unless there is a quad-motor version by the time my number is called."

 

[TyPope]

As Tesla is the dealer, can Tesla then exclude things like FSD and pretty much all other options to keep the MSRP down for the rebate?

I can see some people wanting to finance FSD but in my case, as long as Tesla would keep my FSD at the same price as it was when I put down my deposit ($7,000), I'd jump on the option to skip FSD at time of purchase to get the $7,500 instantly and then, the next day, I'd buy FSD for $7,000.

 

[JBee]

The motors aren't the same size though. With the S/X dual, the rear motor was more powerful, while the front was geared more for efficiency when cruising. The Raven setup is around 600hp, with 350hp in the rear, and 250hp in the front. That gets you 0-60 in around 3.9 seconds in an X. Thus, Tesla's projection of 4.5 seconds for the truck.

The Plaid setup basically doubles the rear motor, pushing you 1020hp total.

They are also not the same type of motor at all.

They normally put the cheaper less efficient higher power induction motor in the rear (that don't have magnets) and put the higher efficiency lower power PM motors in the front. That way they can turn off the rear motor electrically to avoid efficiency losses without a clutch, whilst they cruise along with the more efficient PM motors on the highway under low power. You can't turn a PM completely off because it always has a rotating magnetic feild from the permanent magnets. Essentially if you spin a PM you are regening energy, and it's slowing the vehicle down.

This is also likely why the semi has a clutch on the rear motors, because it uses the Plaid CF wrapped PM motors with magnets. Not the CF wrap doesn't cost much, but is there to reduce the airgap between the rotor and stator, which in turn reduces eddy currents and losses, whilst also allowing it to spin the rotor faster, without it increasing the rotor size from centrifigal forces and seizing in the stator at high rpm. Now higher RPM means more power from a smaller and lighter package, and is where the Plaid gets its extra oomph, and is why it has a higher ratio driveline gear.

I'm pretty certain they have perfected the CF wrapped Plaid since, and are not only getting better performance but also doing it at a lower price point so they can use it in every successive model, including the CT DM and TM.

 

[JBee]

An interesting relation to this is the fellow who claimed on Twitter to have gotten a test drive in his neighbor's performance Cybertruck. He said the power was the same as his MX Plaid, but the truck had only 17% battery, which would indicate a larger pack, an advantage of 4680 cells, or something else. He specifically mentioned this as being impressive vs his Model X.

This is likely because it has a larger 120kWh or so pack, because it also needs more energy to go +300miles.

Do you have a link to this story?

Sponsored