123 kWh battery pack on Cybertruck (reported)

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Basically waiting for reveal at this point.

holding out for my most important feature. . . . Ventilated seats.

NO PROBS....Easy Breezy!!!!!!!!

Sponsored

 

[intimidator]

Assume that’s total pack, not usable

Usable probably ~10kWh fewer

However you slice it, Ford Lightning has a 131 kWh battery in their 320 mile range pickup.
If the Cybertruck only has a 123 kWh battery, 300-325 miles would be a reasonable estimate, yes? No?
Maybe there is fairy dust that makes it a 400 mile range truck?

 

[cvalue13]

If the Cybertruck only has a 123 kWh battery, 300-325 miles would be a reasonable estimate, yes? No?

yes, roughly.

Maybe there is fairy dust that makes it a 400 mile range truck?

no, but there could be some Tesla fairy dust that makes the EPA rated range purport to be mid-300s ??

Tesla deals with the EPA a bit differently than other OEMs - where others tend to sandbag their own range, Tesla tends to get aggressive and have … optimistic outcomes

 

[rizvend]

Well 100lbs of towing is going to be super disappointing.

If I can't tow a supermodel, I'm done.

 

[RayzorBEV]

Did he say no digital rearview mirror!?!????

 

[davidngo44]

as reported here

11:17 timestamp related information
11:50 quote

he could just go the Petersen museum. what is the Point if can not even touch it.

 

[cvalue13]

he could just go the Petersen museum. what is the Point if can not even touch it.

no kink-shaming

 

[intimidator]

yes, roughly.




no, but there could be some Tesla fairy dust that makes the EPA rated range purport to be mid-300s ??

Tesla deals with the EPA a bit differently than other OEMs - where others tend to sandbag their own range, Tesla tends to get aggressive and have … optimistic outcomes

When my reservation # is called, I am buying a Cybertruck, but I honestly reserved the Tri-motor back in Nov 2019 based mostly on the promised 500 miles of range.

Now 4 years later, that doesn't look likely. Even if I have to wait close to another 2 years to take delivery, I don't see 500 miles of range in the cards.

In the meantime while I wait for my CT I bought a Ford Lightning with 320 miles of "range", so I am pretty familiar with the real life usable range, and what happens when I tow the boat. I would still love to have 500 miles of range. Trips, at times, have taken more planning/thought that I wish.

 

[ldjessee]

If could tow it backwards, it would be more aerodynamic, as putting the air back is more important than splitting it apart.

But I do not think there is any boat trailer for towing it backwards...

 

[intimidator]

I want 500miles because it'll take like 3-5min to charge from 15 miles to 200 miles. Currently in my Model 3, I charge 5-7min on road trips for every 150-180 miles driven. Only takes 30 min more than an ICE car going from LA-SF-LA for me. CT at 500 mile will make the trip in 5 hours each way instead of 5.5 hours.

Hear ya.

Charging speed is important, and anyone that has taken their EV on a few trips understands.

 

[cvalue13]

In the meantime while I wait for my CT I bought a Ford Lightning with 320 miles of "range", so I am pretty familiar with the real life usable range, and what happens when I tow the boat.

when you tow a boat (or whatever), the ~identical thing happens with any ICE truck

there’s net—effectively zero difference in towing range effects between an ICE and BEV truck

The *difference* boils down only to the size of the *tank* + the availability of *refueling* infrastructure

The Lightning has the fuel-equivalent *tank* of an ICE F150 with a 13 gallon max capacity. Tow the same boat, under same conditions, with only 13 gallons in the tank and you’ll get ~identically the same range reduction and total range. Which itself might be just fine if there were *refueling* stations every ~50mi.


That’s just the current state of BEVs today. It’s the fuel-equivalent of towing in the 1970s/80s. Those “real” trucks also had small fuel tanks, and we’re big guzzlers under loads, all while there was far less refueling infrastructure. People who towed long distances had to do so with careful planning, thoughtful vehicle preparation (eg airing up tires), and prudence meant keeping some extra Jerry cans in the bed of the truck just in case.

Personally, I don’t think major, volume, BEV makers are going to follow ICE history in pushing bigger and bigger “fuel” takes for the occasional convenience of stopping one or two fewer times to refuel. The economics and engineering towards larger batteries are just too cost prohibitive (compared to merely fitting a larger gas tank under the truck).

And meanwhile, remote charging infrastructure is either going to be paid for by tax dollars, or will never reach the saturation of gasoline stations. The charging needs of BEVS just aren’t the same, and possibly undercut the financial model of these stations. Unlike gasoline, BEV owners can ‘fill up’ at home or their destination.

Which brings me back to and is a central distinction between the ICE to BEV “tank size” differences. Around town and for normal trips, the inordinate convenience of being able to “refuel” at home, daily, just vastly outweighs the infrequent inconvenience of people having to occasionally take long trips/tow with more planning/care. Which is to say, while towing with a small “fuel” tank introduces some inconveniences, those inconveniences are vastly offset - already, today - by the conveniences of at home ‘refueling.’

Given all these dynamics, unless/until there are material brake through a in battery density (and weight), I think 500mi-style BEVs, sedan or truck, will be a niche and relatively luxury-priced market for the foreseeable future if not forever.

In my most critical, grumpy, mood, I go so far as to think people who talk about “real” trucks towing far are themselves the snowflakes of the entire situation. They act like “real” trucks for “real” men should allow their owners to be completely unaware of how to carefully route plan, vehicle prep, and not get their feelings hurt by having to drive slower and take mor stops.

just like my grandfather would complain about people coming to rely on GPS and not know how to use a map or remember where they’ve been before - he’s currently in the great beyond, war medals on his chest and hands the size of a banana bunch - shaking his head at all the “real” men saying “real” trucks let you mindlessly hop in a 1/2 ton truck and go 85mph for 400+ miles with zero vehicle prep or route planning.


In any event, I get the desire for BEV trucks to be just as idiot-proof as modern ice trucks. For BEV trucks to have not 13 gallon equiv tanks but instead 32 gal equiv extended tanks, plus refueling stations on every corner.

but until then (if ever - and I doubt it), there can be fuel stations in every driveway, and people who *really* need a “real” truck probably shouldn’t be shopping for 1/2 tons anyway.

 

[intimidator]

when you tow a boat (or whatever), the ~identical thing happens with any ICE truck

there’s net—effectively zero difference in towing range effects between an ICE and BEV truck

The *difference* boils down only to the size of the *tank* + the availability of *refueling* infrastructure

The Lightning has the fuel-equivalent *tank* of an ICE F150 with a 13 gallon max capacity. Tow the same boat, under same conditions, with only 13 gallons in the tank and you’ll get ~identically the same range reduction and total range. Which itself might be just fine if there were *refueling* stations every ~50mi.


That’s just the current state of BEVs today. It’s the fuel-equivalent of towing in the 1970s/80s. Those “real” trucks also had small fuel tanks, and we’re big guzzlers under loads, all while there was far less refueling infrastructure. People who towed long distances had to do so with careful planning, thoughtful vehicle preparation (eg airing up tires), and prudence meant keeping some extra Jerry cans in the bed of the truck just in case.

Personally, I don’t think major, volume, BEV makers are going to follow ICE history in pushing bigger and bigger “fuel” takes for the occasional convenience of stopping one or two fewer times to refuel. The economics and engineering towards larger batteries are just too cost prohibitive (compared to merely fitting a larger gas tank under the truck).

And meanwhile, remote charging infrastructure is either going to be paid for by tax dollars, or will never reach the saturation of gasoline stations. The charging needs of BEVS just aren’t the same, and possibly undercut the financial model of these stations. Unlike gasoline, BEV owners can ‘fill up’ at home or their destination.

Which brings me back to and is a central distinction between the ICE to BEV “tank size” differences. Around town and for normal trips, the inordinate convenience of being able to “refuel” at home, daily, just vastly outweighs the infrequent inconvenience of people having to occasionally take long trips/tow with more planning/care. Which is to say, while towing with a small “fuel” tank introduces some inconveniences, those inconveniences are vastly offset - already, today - by the conveniences of at home ‘refueling.’

Given all these dynamics, unless/until there are material brake through a in battery density (and weight), I think 500mi-style BEVs, sedan or truck, will be a niche and relatively luxury-priced market for the foreseeable future if not forever.

In my most critical, grumpy, mood, I go so far as to think people who talk about “real” trucks towing far are themselves the snowflakes of the entire situation. They act like “real” trucks for “real” men should allow their owners to be completely unaware of how to carefully route plan, vehicle prep, and not get their feelings hurt by having to drive slower and take mor stops.

just like my grandfather would complain about people coming to rely on GPS and not know how to use a map or remember where they’ve been before - he’s currently in the great beyond, war medals on his chest and hands the size of a banana bunch - shaking his head at all the “real” men saying “real” trucks let you mindlessly hop in a 1/2 ton truck and go 85mph for 400+ miles with zero vehicle prep or route planning.


In any event, I get the desire for BEV trucks to be just as idiot-proof as modern ice trucks. For BEV trucks to have not 13 gallon equiv tanks but instead 32 gal equiv extended tanks, plus refueling stations on every corner.

but until then (if ever - and I doubt it), there can be fuel stations in every driveway, and people who *really* need a “real” truck probably shouldn’t be shopping for 1/2 tons anyway.

I had a F150 with max towing package and 35 gallon tank. So despite the range being slashed due to towing, I could go quite aways before refueling. I never go that far, but with my previous F150 I could go almost 400 miles on a "tank of gas" towing (or 700 miles not towing anything).

I am fine not being able to tow that far with the Ford Lightning, or my Cybertruck when I get it. I don't tow an Airstream and go cross country. I go to the marina.

 

[cvalue13]

I had a F150 with max towing package and 35 gallon tank. So despite the range being slashed due to towing, I could go quite aways before refueling. I never go that far, but with my previous F150 I could go almost 400 miles on a "tank of gas" towing (or 700 miles not towing anything).

I am fine not being able to tow that far with the Ford Lightning, or my Cybertruck when I get it. I don't tow an Airstream and go cross country. I go to the marina.

exactly

take the world of 1/2 ton pickup drivers, and the sun-set is small of anyone who ever tows

take that small sub-set of people who ever tow with a 1/2 ton truck, and further parse it for those who tow something big and heavy for long distances, and the sub-sub-set is now very small.

what’s left are people who tow something around town, or to a marina an hour away, etc. - and the Lightning does (and CyberTruck will) do that sort of work better than any existing 1/2 ton ICE truck on the market. The weight of the truck, the power, tech, etc., are just extraordinary.


which goes to show just one (of probably many) reasons that Tesla isn’t champing at the bit to make a bunch of 509mi trucks that are proportionately more expensive. The group of people who actually *need* that, in a 1/2 ton truck, who won’t purchase a CT because of it - is a very, very, small market.

this is a company that deleted adjustable lumbar support because almost no one used it. To think they’d pack an extra 1/3 of battery in a truck, together with all the engineering changes needed to address the weight and performance of that pack, is just too far fetched for me to believe

but hey, maybe on the 30th they’ll say they’re working on it. If the do, personally, I’ll hear them to be saying “I mean, we don’t really think it’s necessary, but if there’s a big battery breakthrough where we can do it with almost no added effort, sure - and for now we’ll coddle the vocal minority with the prospect”

 

[Coolio2000]

I wonder what Tesla's actual cost would be to increase the battery from 123kw to 180kw+ to achieve 500 miles of range.

Sponsored