Videos: best look yet @ interior, folded-up backseat, tonneau cover, display screen UI, range meter

[fritter63]

There is no midgate, only zuul ...

Terrible attempt at interconnected humor that probably nobody will get ...

I got it.

#nerd

Sponsored

 

[Baldey]

[feelings engaged, facts unknown] A 250 mile truck would be an abysmal failure, no way Tesla's going to do that.

I agree. And just to be clear, i said 243 kilowatt hours is the top end, ~+200 kWh more likely. Not miles.
Milage unknown, and will depend on efficiency. Efficiency will depend on driving scenario, and not whatever lie, excuse me best-case estimate, that the EPA is given.

 

[Gurule92]

The thing is:

Even when we get Tesla’s officials EPA range, we won’t have anything more accurate ?


Not only are Tesla’s notorious for having aggressive EPA stats, but as @JBee mentioned above the Cybertruck range is going to be even more variable than any other Tesla.

Temperature changes will have an outsized impact, tire PSI changes an outsized impact, etc. This thing is big, and heavy, and physics gonna physics.

Then you add in the “hard” variables of what exterior accessories a person adds (eg tires, rack, etc.), not to mention what interior accessories a person adds (weight wise), and the overall considered recommendation is this:

Even when you see the official EPA range on Nov 30, take *it* with a grain of salt, for now - aside from viewing it as a ceiling.


Result is: the figures being roughed out in this post aren’t materially less accurate than when we get “official” EPA range. More accurate maybe, but not less precise.

Still better than WLTP lol

 

[Gurule92]

If they couldn't even deliver the 350+ for the 2 motor thats not good. I can definitly see that being a 50K price @ that range but I won't be a buyer. I have a feeling the TRI will have even less range using the same battery pack. No wonder they removed the resale penelty already.

They did say 300+ for dual. Meaning 300 was the lowest they'd consider offering.

 

[Gurule92]

Some of us have been a little worried about rear space since this vid popped.

This might ease your mind a little but look how far the front seats are moved back. I don't think you're getting a real feeling for what it would typically be like.

 

[SONNYDUT]

Base of the charging number shown. this looks like a short range single motor being testing with the same size pack as a Model Y, which is about 82kWh. Which calculate to be at about 260 mile range. This what I calculated. the range should be +/- 5% due to unknown remaining capacity before charging. My calculation assuming start charging at 5%. Again, the display number could be fixed to throw of viewer.

 

[ED_SFO]

The tiny details might matter here.

Displayed SOC on the screen for 71% on the BMS could be anywhere from 70.5%-71.4% a 0.9% margin of error. That also means that arrival SOC has same margin of 64.5%-65.4%.

If you take the absolute worst case scenario that is leaving at 71.4% and arriving at 64.5% you get 6.9% battery used to travel 16.3 miles.

16.3 mi / 6.9% = 236mi of range

Now lets take the absolute best case scenario that is leaving at 70.5% and arriving at 65.4%, in other words 5.1% battery used to travel 16 miles.

16.3 mi / 5.1% = 319mi of range

The trip computer also takes into account recent driving behavior which can further exacerbate our calculations. If the driver's efficiency is consuming 20% more battery than EPA range you can easily see the calculations growing more uncertain.

All I am trying to illustrate here is that there are some large error bars when calculating range with limited information.

Because we don't know driver usage and driving behaviors, the best guess is using the charge rate and SOC with the already added 50kw and knowing that it will take an additional 55 mins to charge. We know it tapers off at the end. I'm trying to figure out how many more kwh is needed for that last 29%. I think the numbers are all their to extrapolate.

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Base of the charging number shown. this looks like a short range single motor being testing with the same size pack as a Model Y, which is about 82kWh. Which calculate to be at about 260 mile range. This what I calculated. the range should be +/- 5% due to unknown remaining capacity before charging. My calculation assuming start charging at 5%. Again, the display number could be fixed to throw of viewer.

Tease Mode

It's why the passthrough button isn't there.

 

[cvalue13]

They did say 300+ for dual. Meaning 300 was the lowest they'd consider offering.

yeah, because I’m compelled to want to explain and defend Tesla here, I’ll be a broken record about the following:

people need to realize and on-board the idea that, relative to the 2019 vehicles being described, the ONLY variant being released on Nov 30 is the “Dual Motor”

that means:

• if range is >300mi, Tesla has delivered
• if towing is >10,000lb, Tesla has delivered
• etc.

meanwhile, there will be some “Dual Motor” stats that Tesla doesn’t deliver on - eg a 6th seat, or 6.5’ bed, or 3,500lb payload. And I can’t fault anyone who “needed” those stats for being disappointed about THAT.

But there’s no grounds for being disappointed in a “Dual Motor” variant with >300mi and >10K towing.

And as for the misssed stats, Tesla is also ADDING things to the “Dual Motor” that were never promised in 2019. So from their perspective, they may reasonably feel that for every stat they fell short on (eg 6 seats) they’ve mitigated by adding some new features/capabilities (eg 4WS/steer-by-wire).

AND, Tesla is releasing an additional model variant that was never contemplated in 2019: essentially, “Dual Motor” variant that is a “Cyber-beast” (to use Musk’s term), where for extra $$ you can opt to have a “Dual Motor” (in 2019 parlance) that is unnecessarily fast and powerful. Basically, they’re releasing only the “Dual Motor,” but the equivalent of a “Dual Motor - Plaid” type configuration that is an EXTRA compared to the model lineup that was outlined in 2019.

All the above seems crystal clear to me.

The only remaining point that causes confusion and some disappointment is this:

Tesla is not on Nov 30 releasing the 2019 “Tri Motor” variant. So folks anxious for a >500mi/>14k towing variant are still left waiting for Tesla to finally get around to making the truck they want.

Any confusion about that, no “Tri Motor” variant is being released yet, results entirely from the unfortunate artifact of people for 4 years having associated the number of motors in a truck with the 2019 framework of model lineup.

That this EXTRA/surprise “Dual Motor - Plaid/Cyber-Beast” model happens to utilize a third motor to achieve the performance, introduces a nomenclature issue of confusion.


So for anyone disappointed that on Nov 30 there won’t be released a 2019-conceived “Tri Motor” variant - I understand the disappointment.

And on Nov 30 will be keenly listening to whether Tesla previews it’s plans regarding whether or when it will get around to producing that “Tri Motor” variant.


Meanwhile, as a blanket statement regarding either this Dual Motor variant being released, or the Tri Motor variant not being released:

whether or not one should be upset (or how upset) about what Tesla is or is not releasing, in features or model variants, likely entirely hinges on a key spec none of know: the MSRP

The “Dual Motor” being released at $50K will cause a lot of people to get happy about one or two missed features/specs. Whereas one released at $80K will cause people who thought they were happy, to get unhappy.


MSRP, and plans for future models, are the big watch-topics come Nov 30.

Tesla has otherwise over-delivered on the Dual Motor’s range and towing (and offered a whole new Dual Motor variant that is stupid fast, for those who want to pay for such things).


EDIT TO ADD, FROM ANOTHER THREAD, A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FRAMING AS RELATES TO 2019 VS NOV 30:

(a) SHORT RANGE (previously dubbed "single motor")

(b) STANDARD RANGE/towing/payload/speed

• 2 motor trim - regular speed/acceleration (previously dubbed "dual motor")
  • meets >300mi range expectation
  • exceeds >10K towing expectation
  • exceeds 0-60 speed expectation (previously 4.5 sec, expect Lightning parity at 3.9 sec)
  • misses expectations on payload, 6 seats/interior room, 6.5' bed, ramp, etc.
  • adds unexpected features like 4WS, SBW,
• 3 motor trim - beast speed/acceleration (new offering, never before considered)

(c) LONG RANGE/increased towing /speed (previously dubbed "tri motor")


And on Nov. 30, neither (a) nor (c) are being released. I can't see (a) ever being released. We'll be all ears to see if Tesla says whether (c) will be ever released, and if so, when.

But hey, if you were into (c) mostly for the increased speed, you'll still be covered on Nov 30

 

[cvalue13]

this looks like a short range single motor being testing

there is no such thing in existence

 

[CHC]

It’s been said countless times before, but if Tesla cannot deliver a model with over 350 miles of range at launch, they’ll be the range loser of the entire segment— a segment where max range is a crucial factor for customers that need to do actual truck stuff with their trucks

 

[KScheidt]

yeah, because I’m compelled to want to explain and defend Tesla here, I’ll be a broken record about the following:

people need to realize and on-board the idea that, relative to the 2019 vehicles being described, the ONLY variant being released on Nov 30 is the “Dual Motor”

that means:

• if range is >300mi, Tesla has delivered
• if towing is >10,000lb, Tesla has delivered
• etc.

meanwhile, there will be some “Dual Motor” stats that Tesla doesn’t deliver on - eg a 6th seat, or 6.5’ bed, or 3,500lb payload. And I can’t fault anyone who “needed” those stats for being disappointed about THAT.

But there’s no grounds for being disappointed in a “Dual Motor” variant with >300mi and >10K towing.

And as for the misssed stats, Tesla is also ADDING things to the “Dual Motor” that were never promised in 2019. So from their perspective, they may reasonably feel that for every stat they fell short on (eg 6 seats) they’ve mitigated by adding some new features/capabilities (eg 4WS/steer-by-wire).

AND, Tesla is releasing an additional model variant that was never contemplated in 2019: essentially, “Dual Motor” variant that is a “Cyber-beast” (to use Musk’s term), where for extra $$ you can opt to have a “Dual Motor” (in 2019 parlance) that is unnecessarily fast and powerful. Basically, they’re releasing only the “Dual Motor,” but the equivalent of a “Dual Motor - Plaid” type configuration that is an EXTRA compared to the model lineup that was outlined in 2019.

All the above seems crystal clear to me.

The only remaining point that causes confusion and some disappointment is this:

Tesla is not on Nov 30 releasing the 2019 “Tri Motor” variant. So folks anxious for a >500mi/>14k towing variant are still left waiting for Tesla to finally get around to making the truck they want.

Any confusion about that, no “Tri Motor” variant is being released yet, results entirely from the unfortunate artifact of people for 4 years having associated the number of motors in a truck with the 2019 framework of model lineup.

That this EXTRA/surprise “Dual Motor - Plaid/Cyber-Beast” model happens to utilize a third motor to achieve the performance, introduces a nomenclature issue of confusion.


So for anyone disappointed that on Nov 30 there won’t be released a 2019-conceived “Tri Motor” variant - I understand the disappointment.

And on Nov 30 will be keenly listening to whether Tesla previews it’s plans regarding whether or when it will get around to producing that “Tri Motor” variant.


Meanwhile, as a blanket statement regarding either this Dual Motor variant being released, or the Tri Motor variant not being released:

whether or not one should be upset (or how upset) about what Tesla is or is not releasing, in features or model variants, likely entirely hinges on a key spec none of know: the MSRP

The “Dual Motor” being released at $50K will cause a lot of people to get happy about one or two missed features/specs. Whereas one released at $80K will cause people who thought they were happy, to get unhappy.


MSRP, and plans for future models, are the big watch-topics come Nov 30.

Tesla has otherwise over-delivered on the Dual Motor’s range and towing (and offered a whole new Dual Motor variant that is stupid fast, for those who want to pay for such things).

Any thoughts as to other (potential) variances between the performance and standard? If it’s purely acceleration (as in most other models LR v Performance) then to me it’s a no brainer for my needs but if their are feature differences (a la S v S Plaid) such as improved off-road capabilities, additional vehicle protection, etc. then it becomes a bit more muddied IMO.

 

[scottf200]

So for anyone disappointed that on Nov 30 there won’t be released a 2019-conceived “Tri Motor” variant - I understand the disappointment.

And on Nov 30 will be keenly listening to whether Tesla previews it’s plans regarding whether or when it will get around to producing that “Tri Motor” variant.

I cannot imagine Tesla taking this misstep and not wanting to show off that they have the fastest and most powerful truck ~~ Tri Motor.

There are several competitors (3 out (counting WT) & some with spec stats only) and this is a unique market so I don't see the comparison to what they did with sedan/CUV being a good comparison.

400+ miles will be a miss based on the rhetoric and hype for future-purchasers in 2019.

 

[cvalue13]

I cannot imagine Tesla taking this misstep and not wanting to show off that they have the fastest and most powerful truck ~~ Tri Motor.

There are several competitors (3 out (counting WT) & some with spec stats only) and this is a unique market so I don't see the comparison to what they did with sedan/CUV being a good comparison.

400+ miles will be a miss based on the rhetoric and hype for future-purchasers in 2019.

I don't guess I fully understand your point?

The "Dual Motor - Plaid/Cyber-Beast" will be among if not the fastest and most powerful BEV truck on the market.

The remaining, and central, relevant question is what will the MSRP be compared to it's next-nearest competitor, eg., the Rivian, the Quad Motor starts at $87K

And in terms of capabilities, the Tesla version will be as fast or faster, have as much range (quad is rated at 328mi), have FAR more cargo room, and various other features that make for a reasonable argument that it's an all-around better offering.

So, I'm left confused regarding your intended point?

 

[PilotPete]

Do we think the topographical geometry is being procedurally generated from camera inputs or it's just there to look cool?

Definitely produced by the onboard cameras but probably not accurately in these images yet?

It will be interesting to see it identify terrain in detail for a detailed 3D view whilst off road.

I’m going to say it is NOT from the cameras. In order to know if a route is uphill or downhill, the computer has to have access to the terrain database. We have those in the planes as well. We can recreate a “synthetic vision” to the flight crew to show what the surrounding terrain looks like in any weather. Unfortunately, I’m over Amarillo, TX right now and don’t have much terrain to show you. But if you look, you can see little lakes (in blue) and airports (white lines) near me. I’m betting this is the method they use to create the terrain. Imagine of the weather is bad, or it’s night, Of you’re parked near a large building, how is the camera going to help you? The databases and graphics libraries for a “synthetic” terrain display are very robust.

Sponsored