2024 Cybertruck Official Specs Leaked?! 😱 - Udated With Compare/Analysis

[PilotPete]

“Do you think a Plaid Model 3 is coming?”
”No”

BUT, ask the question; “Is a new model 3 coming with Ludacris mode/model?

If you believe the Tesla parts catalogue, YES!

Sponsored

 

[Mini2nut]

Author estimates 400-440 miles of range...


https://news.google.com/articles/CB...WlzbnQtaGFwcHkvYW1w?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

 

[newwave1331]

Author estimates 400-440 miles of range...


https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiXGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRvcnF1ZW5ld3MuY29tLzE0MzM1L3Rlc2xhLWN5YmVydHJ1Y2stcmFuZ2UtYWNjaWRlbnRhbGx5LWxlYWtlZC10ZXNsYS1pc250LWhhcHB50gFgaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudG9ycXVlbmV3cy5jb20vMTQzMzUvdGVzbGEtY3liZXJ0cnVjay1yYW5nZS1hY2NpZGVudGFsbHktbGVha2VkLXRlc2xhLWlzbnQtaGFwcHkvYW1w?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Rating the battery off charging info is not going to be accurate. Way too many unknowns.

Lets stick to the nav system with very basic math. It was actually 16.3 miles if my google map route was correct.

If its 6.49% for 16.3 miles, lets assume they can do 20% better for efficiency. So about 5.19% for 16.3 miles = 314 miles

If its 5.50% for 16.3 miles, lets assume they can do 20% better for efficiency. So about 4.40% for 16.3 miles = 370 miles

Lets average those, 342 miles. I think that's my very best case for EPA rating based off this video. Here's a table with different "improvements" from the nav estimate to try and correlate to EPA rating.

 

[Chip Geek]

<checks calendar>

"Two more weeks." - Elon

 

[PilotPete]

Rating the battery off charging info is not going to be accurate. Way too many unknowns.

Lets stick to the nav system with very basic math. It was actually 16.3 miles if my google map route was correct.

If its 6.49% for 16.3 miles, lets assume they can do 20% better for efficiency. So about 5.19% for 16.3 miles = 314 miles

If its 5.50% for 16.3 miles, lets assume they can do 20% better for efficiency. So about 4.40% for 16.3 miles = 370 miles

Lets average those, 342 miles. I think that's my very best case for EPA rating based off this video. Here's a table with different "improvements" from the nav estimate to try and correlate to EPA rating.

I see this as three possible answers.

1. We are getting to see something we weren't supposed to see. And you can do all the math and calculate the range. Whoever was driving this was stupid.

2. This isn't the full battery pack installed and/or the software isn't accessing the entire battery pack. (see recent "short range" model S/X). The leak could have been an accident, or possibly intentional.

3. All the leaks we have seen have been intentionally released. This whole thing is a Tesla Campaign, and not all of what we have seen is real. This includes the software we are looking at. Maybe it doesn't use the whole pack, or has a huge "fudge factor" of which the testers are aware, but keeps everything on the DL if someone gets a picture., or when they release a video like this to gauge public reaction.

Based on how you see all the pictures and videos and the Franz appearances, you are probably predisposed to pic one of the three options above. Choose for yourself.

 

[cvalue13]

I see this as three possible answers.

there’s at least a fourth bucket, I think - or maybe it’s a prerogative that overlays your three buckets:

Those who have, based on various independent and self-corroborating bits of evidence, a strong presumption (if not conviction) that the CT’s being released on Nov 30 will have a singular pack pack, with a range in the low to mid-300s.

If you’re among this group, then you view any additional and subsequent evidence through that filter.

Nothing about this video is inconsistent with that filter. So, nothing unusual or needing much further explanation from this video.


Now, on the other end of the spectrum, there is another subset group who appear still to this day to have instead as a guiding principle something like “nothing is deduce-able or real until it floats out of Musk’s mouth on Nov 30.”

For them, your three buckets are seen through *that* lens - with the ironic result that their principle means they shouldn’t care whatsoever about anything in your buckets, if nothing at all is real or deduce-able prior to Nov 30.

Theirs is I suppose a perfectly valid position one could take (even though I personally find it to eschew reason). Though, it does appear to often come hand-in-hand with hypocrisy and self-contradiction (they deploy the principle against info they find personally objectionable, but ignore the principle when talking of info they find personally agreeable).



End of the day, where it involves this video and it’s contents:

For the group of folks that previously and independently of this video believe the CT will have a low to mid-300 range, nothing about this video is terribly interesting or informative, except that it’s yet another corroborative data point on top of an already large pile.

Whereas, for the group of folks that believe nothing is real or knowable until Nov 30, this video requires them to perform all manner of intellectual gymnastics to explain away it’s conveyed information. “It could be anything!” they say, “a doctored video placed on TikTok by extra-terrestrials!”

Which, with no lost irony, are assertions that are only required if - deep down - they don’t believe their principle in the first place (after-all, if nothing is knowable, nothing prior to Nov 30 needs any explanation).


Of course, aside from these two groups, there’s the middle ground, fat part of the bell curve. They are perhaps the only group left to sort out if they choose between your 1., 2., or 3.

In making that choice, the undecided might glance to towards the two opposing forward and rear groups, and get a sense for where their inclinations lay.

Or what do they call it? “Occam’s Razor”?**






** most valuable term in online forum bingo

 

[PilotPete]

there’s at least a fourth bucket, I think - or maybe it’s a prerogative that overlays your three buckets:

Those who have, based on various independent and self-corroborating bits of evidence, a strong presumption (if not conviction) that the CT’s being released on Nov 30 will have a singular pack pack, with a range in the low to mid-300s.

If you’re among this group, then you view any additional and subsequent evidence through that filter.

Nothing about this video is inconsistent with that filter. So, nothing unusual or needing much further explanation from this video.


Now, on the other end of the spectrum, there is another subset group who appear still to this day to have instead as a guiding principle something like “nothing is deduce-able or real until it floats out of Musk’s mouth on Nov 30.”

For them, your three buckets are seen through *that* lens - with the ironic result that their principle means they shouldn’t care whatsoever about anything in your buckets, if nothing at all is real or deduce-able prior to Nov 30.

Theirs is I suppose a perfectly valid position one could take (even though I personally find it to eschew reason). Though, it does appear to often come hand-in-hand with hypocrisy and self-contradiction (they deploy the principle against info they find personally objectionable, but ignore the principle when talking of info they find personally agreeable).

End of the day, where it involves this video and it’s contents:

For the group of folks that previously and independently of this video believe the CT will have a low to mid-300 range, nothing about this video is terribly interesting or informative, except that it’s yet another corroborative data point on top of an already large pile.

Whereas, for the group of folks that believe nothing is real or knowable until Nov 30, this video requires them to perform all manner of intellectual gymnastics to explain away it’s conveyed information. “It could be anything!” they say, “a doctored video placed on TikTok by extra-terrestrials!”

Which, with no lost irony, are assertions that are only required if - deep down - they don’t believe their principle in the first place (after-all, if nothing is knowable, nothing prior to Nov 30 needs any explanation).


Of course, aside from these two groups, there’s the middle ground, fat part of the bell curve. They are perhaps the only group left to sort out if they choose between your 1., 2., or 3.

In making that choice, the undecided might glance to towards the two opposing forward and rear groups, and get a sense for where their inclinations lay.

Or what do they call it? “Occam’s Razor”?**

** most valuable term in online forum bingo

Well, I agree with th majority of what you said. As for me, I believe we have a naming and associated feature change for clarity.

I believe we will see (over the next 12 months)

A "CT Dual Motor", with a 300-350 mile "standard" range.
A "CT Beast" with a 280-350 mile range.
A "CT LR" with a 400-500 mile range.

I also think the range at release will get bumped up. Not necessarily through new cells (which won't help original buyers) but with improved OTA software releases as they understand the 4680s better and get more data on their performance.

I think the versions at the '19 launch are now just points of reference. Final versions will get different names (mostly) to avoid the comparisons and the assumption that they "failed" at rolling something out. There has been a change of direction (as there should be) as Tesla gets feedback and internal analysis of where they were headed, or where they should have been headed.

 

[CyberGus]

Or what do they call it? “Occam’s Razor”?**






** most valuable term in online forum bingo

The most entertaining outcome is the most likely. - Elon's Razor

 

[cvalue13]

Not necessarily through new cells (which won't help original buyers) but with improved OTA software releases as they understand the 4680s better and get more data on their performance.

Is there a history/precedent for on-road vehicles getting range updates OTA?

 

[CyberGus]

Is there a history/precedent for on-road vehicles getting range updates OTA?

https://electrek.co/2020/10/16/tesla-software-update-increasing-range-existing-vehicles/

Tesla pushes new software update increasing range of existing vehicles

Tesla is pushing a new software update that is increasing the range of its existing Model Y vehicles after updating the range of new vehicles in its lineup.

As we reported earlier today, Tesla has improved the range of almost all of the new vehicles in its lineup thanks to new efficiency improvements.

Now, Tesla is bringing these new improvements to owners of current Model Y vehicles in a new 2020.40.7 software update.

The automaker references “improved efficiency” in the release notes:

“Your car’s range has increased with new software that improves the efficiency of the motors and the climate control systems.”

The notes confirm that efficiency improvements were achieved both in the powertrain and in the HVAC system.

Tesla also added:

“Note: These changes do not impact acceleration or overall climate control performance.”

Eric de Monvallier, an owner of a Tesla Model Y Long Range, got the update and told Electrek that it increased the range of his electric car to 320-325 miles.

Earlier today, Tesla increased the range of the new Model Y Long Range from 316 miles to 325 miles.

It’s not the first time Tesla has increased the range of existing vehicles through software update.
Last year, Tesla added 15 miles of range to some Model 3 vehicles through a software update over-the-air to the fleet.

 

[cvalue13]

The notes confirm that efficiency improvements were achieved both in the powertrain and in the HVAC system.

this is what I expected and good to know

no doubt there’s a possibility they’ve not yet optimized the CT for all “externals” efficiencies, despite no doubt having has a laser focus on it for the past couple of years

these ~5mi increases in range as in this story are totally possible

I’ll be happily surprised, if at this point, they could add an order of magnitude more than that via OTA, but ??‍

 

[Regenshire]

Is there a history/precedent for on-road vehicles getting range updates OTA?

Yes there is. They did push out some efficiency improvements and range calc changes over the history of the Model 3. We also received OTA updates that increased 0-60 times. All of these changes were fairly minor, but they did occur.

That said, I think all those improvements were related to factors like motor efficiency and how data is being presented in the system, and not to the batteries.

Obviously the physics of the car wont change, they can only eek out small improvements in software.

 

[cvalue13]

Obviously the physics of the car wont change, they can only eek out small improvements in software.

the OTA giveth, and the lead-foot taketh away

 

[Regenshire]

the OTA giveth, and the lead-foot taketh away

I remember jumping into my Model 3 at 11 PM one night after the "speed" update just so I could do a 0 to 60 test to see if I could perceive the difference.

The OTA updates were really exciting for the first year or so of ownership, we got so many new features during that period. Now when I see an OTA update I seldom care as they are mostly minor tweaks instead of noticeable improvements to the car.

I wonder if the early days of the Cybertruck will be like that at all for things like off-road capabilities, ect. That is the sort of thing I can see changing via OTA for the Cybertruck as they potentially create new driving modes, ect.

 

[Tinker71]

Correct, there’s plenty of configurations you can order, but nobody buys them so dealers don’t stock them. The truck buying public have largely spoken on this, they value some maneuverability and park-ability over maximum bed length. If anything CT buyers should feel like they’re getting a little more utility for their money.

True if the cab was roomy. I don't think it is.

Sponsored