Range Extender Battery Pack increases range to 470+ miles and costs $16K 🔋

[CyberGus]

"We, the denizens of CTOC, demand that the Cybertruck have 500 miles of range, lest it not be considered a true work truck! And this range must be provided without extra cost! Or extra weight! Or reduced cargo capacity! No compromises, haha, of any kind, ahaha HAHAHAHA!!!"

Sponsored

 

[SSonnentag]

"We, the denizens of CTOC, demand that the Cybertruck have 500 miles of range, lest it not be considered a true work truck! And this range must be provided without extra cost! Or extra weight! Or reduced cargo capacity! No compromises, haha, of any kind, ahaha HAHAHAHA!!!"

Here, here! I approve of this message.

 

[AustroTom]

Every fifth-wheel hitch I've seen bolts to the bed floor, not easily removed.

The point I was making is that people who need towing need towing, people who need hauling need hauling, and people that need both at the same time are shopping in the wrong vehicle class.

Only the plates a bolted down. Hitch comes off.
BTW: the 5er issue with the angled bed rails still hasn't been solved, has it?

 

[CyberGus]

Only the plates a bolted down. Hitch comes off.
BTW: the 5er issue with the angled bed rails still hasn't been solved, has it?

The Cybertruck is not well-positioned to provide fifth-wheel towing. If essential, I would recommend this hitch converter:

https://www.safetytowingsystems.com/

 

[SSonnentag]

Only the plates a bolted down. Hitch comes off.
BTW: the 5er issue with the angled bed rails still hasn't been solved, has it?

Only by using a 5th wheel dolly.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

Seems like either you have a certain view of what is “quite a bit” of space, or you’re not quite understanding the geometry of the bed

the bed floor to the top of the rear window is 28”, while the tailgate end of the bed is 19.8” high. The tonneau track and tonneau etc eats up 1.5” off the topmost height.

So ~26.5” headroom max at rear window, with ~18” headroom at the tailgate

the extender comes up to the L-track, so is about 16-17” off the bed floor

that means that at the rear window, there is ~9.5” above the extender, at the rearward lip of the eave about 8.5” over the extender, and at the rearmost edge of the extender ~7”

basically, over the extender, there is a wedge-shaped void that’s is

51” wide X ~30” deep with a height running from 9.5” at its high side ~9.5” tall and low side around ~7” tall

Sthere space there? Yes.

Is there “quite a bit”?

I mean, there’s space for this tent:

meanwhile, folks shouldn’t be fooled by Musk’s off-hand comment that it only takes up 1/3 of the bed, as being about the depth it reaches into the bed

to your point, I believe he was at best referencing taking up 1/3 of the VOLUME of the bed

that extender reaches back into the bed closer to 1/2 than it does 1/3

I expect it’s right at about 35” back from the 6’ mark at bed floor, so leaving ~38” between the extender and the tailgate

Those are just volume and dimension stats.

in terms of utility, I think it reduces the bed’s utility by half to 2/3rds depending on use case

The Range Extender doesn't reach the light track, it's at least 4-6" below. So for regular travel/family hauling type stuff you could put two full-size checked bags on top of the pack and still close the cover. So yeah, I'd call that quite a bit of space.

In scenarios where you are doing "truck stuff" like picking up a sofa or dining room set, you have the bed cover open so height to the cover isn't an issue. The space loss is relatively minor, but it creates an 2-tier uneven bed floor, which would be a pain for some items. That said, most bulk moves I've done in a truck had things stuffed every which way and tied down. The more I think about it, I could see a scenario where I would get the extender, and pretty much leave it in all the time. The times it would negatively affect me might be once a year, but the positive value might be 20+ trips where I pop into the city and don't need to stop for a charge.

 

[cvalue13]

The Range Extender doesn't reach the light track, it's at least 4-6" below.

I didn’t say light track

I said L-track - the cargo securement rail system

So for regular travel/family hauling type stuff you could put two full-size checked bags on top of the pack and still close the cover. So yeah, I'd call that quite a bit of space.

disagree

in part because I think you’re still not understanding the geometry or the sizes involved here

and, I guess, because you thought “L-track” means “light track”

case in point

In scenarios where you are doing "truck stuff" like picking up a sofa or dining room set, you have the bed cover open so height to the cover isn't an issue.

height is an issue. Regardless of range extender

The eave over rear window is only 4’11” from the tailgate - 7” shorter than a Lightning 5.5’ bed

so even without an extender, a so far or dining room table will require tailgate downeven if extender isn’t in the bed

with extender in the bed, and tailgate down, your sofa had better be shorter than 59” or it’s hanging off the tailgate

Youre not understanding the scale and geometry of this bed. Open air cargo room is not an advantage of the CT, it is the Achilles’ heel

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

The weight savings of the 4680 cells do not apply to bulk storage. The expansion battery isn't replacing structure.

Anyhow. I was paying attention. No one from Tesla said they'd miss the range on their top-tier model. We did get warned they wouldn't hit their price target.

They missed it by a rate several times larger than inflation, tho.

-Crissa

The savings of 4680 cells do apply to a pack, as a large portion of the savings in weight is in the makeup of the cells themselves. Less metal can, more energy storing chemicals. It's like getting your battery pack at Costco instead of 7/11.

Tesla didn't just slightly miss on a few things. To get a long range (add an extender) tri motor the price is up something like $50k. That's not in the same ballpark, that's not even the same sport (Pulp Fiction)

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I didn’t say light track

I said L-track - the cargo securement rail system




disagree

in part because I think you’re still not understanding the geometry or the sizes involved here

and, I guess, because you thought “L-track” means “light track”

case in point

The light track and the l track are stacked on each other. Reference whichever you want, the extender is still several inches below.

 

[cvalue13]

The light track and the l track are stacked on each other. Reference whichever you want, the extender is still several inches below.

we’re talking about a disagreement of inches here - so you’re waffling

But fine, say two small carry-on suitcases will fit there - maybe they will or won’t. That’s still a better metric than saying “plenty of room”


besides, you probably also would have said two small carry-on suitcases would “obviously” fit in the Frunk

when the most compact carry on you could get:

doesn’t fit this way

and if perfectly positioned, *just* fits this way:

point being, maybe there is maybe there isn’t 7cu ft above range extender

I’ve stood in and measured the bed, absent the range extender, and my mental map says it’s unclear if thanks true

and it being unclear, makes for my initial response: what exactly do you mean by “plenty of room”

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

we’re talking about a disagreement of inches here - so you’re waffling

But fine, say two small carry-on suitcases will fit there - maybe they will or won’t. That’s still a better metric than saying “plenty of room”


besides, you probably also would have said two small carry-on suitcases would “obviously” fit in the Frunk

when the most compact carry on you could get:

doesn’t fit this way

and if perfectly positioned, *just* fits this way:

point being, maybe there is maybe there isn’t 7cu ft above range extender

I’ve stood in and measured the bed, absent the range extender, and my mental map says it’s unclear if thanks true

and it being unclear, makes for my initial response: what exactly do you mean by “plenty of room”

I'm not waffling on anything. Assuming the extender takes up 2', that's 24". The bed is 48" wide. Assuming 10" of depth at the worst point, that gets you 24"X24"X10", X2. That's two 58" linear checked luggage bags stored above the battery. The max size allowed on most planes is 62".
That's a significant amount of storage to me, and I think to most people packing for a trip. If you need more space for travel, that's your life and your unhappy feelings.

 

[Variable556]

Interesting. In my line of work you say what you mean and what you intend and you deliver exactly that or more. In my experience there are lines of work where that is not the case, and they routinely refer to themselves as intelligent. I had no right to think that Elon Musk could deliver what he said he would deliver but I won’t make that mistake again.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm not waffling on anything. Assuming the extender takes up 2', that's 24".

it's not 2'

here is a 35" tire, that (because of the slanting bulkhead) is extending ~40" back toward's the tailgate

here is the (best known) extender:

note the relative distance from seam between the front ~2/3s of the bed floor and rear ~1/3 of the bed floor.

If the extender were merely 2' feet long, there would be a 15" delta.

There is not a 15" delta, as evidenced by the two photos above comparing the ~40" coverage of the bed by the tire (accounting for bulkhead slope backwards intersecting the tire and bulkhead ~12" off the bed floor).

Meanwhile, note that the tire+cover is ~12" tall. Measured at the eave, that leaves a distance between the top of the tire up to the eave of ~15". Subtract ~2 more inches for the room taken up by the tonneau track+tonneau drop below the eave, and now the overhead distance between the tire in that photo and the tonneau is ~13".

Now look at the height of the tire in the bed vs the height of the extender in the bed. Compared to the tire, the extender is a good 4" taller.

That means the max headroom over the front of the extender, up under under the eave, is ~11". But from that max headroom point at the eave, the tonneau slopes downward closer towards the extender nearest the tailgate.

The sail slopes from front to back a total of 11", over the 59" between the eave and the tailgate, meaning at midway point between eave and tailgate it is ~5.5" lower than at the max. In between, at roughly the location of the back edge of the extender, let's call it ~4" lower than the max 11", which means ~7" of headroom between the rearward top of the extender and the tonneau.

So where the max headroom over the extender (at the eave) is ~11", the min headroom (nearest tailgate) is nearer to 7", with the extender itself covering approx 30-35" of the back bed area.




So yes, *maybe* two of the smallest carryon roller bags would fit, pressed up against the rear window, if laid out end-to-end. They tend to be 10" deep on narrowest dimension. Seems like under the eave there's maybe ~11" before hitting the tonneau, but that headroom reduces downward from there. Maybe the bag will have headroom towards the tailgate, one would need to actually try because it's that close.

And yes, that possibility is more than nothing, and maybe good for some people's use cases.

But let's go back to the context of my original response and question to you:

Looks like the top of the extender is finished like the bed floor, and there is quite a bit of space above it before you reach the bed cover. So you don’t truly lose 1/3 of the bed, you just lose 1/3 of a consistent flat bed floor.

My original point/question to you was ~what do you mean by "quite a bit of space above it before you reach the bed cover."

When talking about the bed of a pickup truck, "quite a bit of space" is an inordinately squishy comment.

But now, through this back and forth, we've arrived at some clarification: you think it can *definitely* fit two of the smallest carry-on roller bags up against the window, with a bit of other "sneak it in" room for a few other small objects just forward.

I'd say fine, but it's a close call and someone will need to try it (as with the photos provided earlier of someone trying the same two types of bags in the frunk).

Meanwhile, yes, each can decide whether that ~7-8cu ft of space above the extender and below the tonneau is "quite a bit of space"

But here's the real thrust of where you're unfamiliarity with the bed and it's dimensions was out of wack:

So you don’t truly lose 1/3 of the bed, you just lose 1/3 of a consistent flat bed floor.

You *do* lose about ~1/3 of the total VOLUME of the bed.

Because while it doesn't reach all the way up to the tonneau, it *does* extend into the bed depth materially further than 24"


Meanwhile, along the way, you've just side-stepped and avoided acknowledging the portions of the conversation where you're comments were flatly incorrect and evidence a lack of familiarity with the bed dimensions. Eg being able to put a sofa in the bed if the extender is installed (much less whether you can fit a sofa in the bed, with the tailgate up, even if the extender isn't installed.

You shoot from the hip, have no apparent interest in asking questions vs just asserting arm-chair feelings about data, and then treat others like it's *them* who haven't thought through this before.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

it's not 2'

here is a 35" tire, that (because of the slanting bulkhead) is extending ~40" back toward's the tailgate

here is the (best known) extender:

note the relative distance from seam between the front ~2/3s of the bed floor and rear ~1/3 of the bed floor.

If the extender were merely 2' feet long, there would be a 15" delta.

There is not a 15" delta, as evidenced by the two photos above comparing the ~40" coverage of the bed by the tire (accounting for bulkhead slope backwards intersecting the tire and bulkhead ~12" off the bed floor).

Meanwhile, note that the tire+cover is ~12" tall. Measured at the eave, that leaves a distance between the top of the tire up to the eave of ~15". Subtract ~2 more inches for the room taken up by the tonneau track+tonneau drop below the eave, and now the overhead distance between the tire in that photo and the tonneau is ~13".

Now look at the height of the tire in the bed vs the height of the extender in the bed. Compared to the tire, the extender is a good 4" taller.

That means the max headroom over the front of the extender, up under under the eave, is ~11". But from that max headroom point at the eave, the tonneau slopes downward closer towards the extender nearest the tailgate.

The sail slopes from front to back a total of 11", over the 59" between the eave and the tailgate, meaning at midway point between eave and tailgate it is ~5.5" lower than at the max. In between, at roughly the location of the back edge of the extender, let's call it ~4" lower than the max 11", which means ~7" of headroom between the rearward top of the extender and the tonneau.

So where the max headroom over the extender (at the eave) is ~11", the min headroom (nearest tailgate) is nearer to 7", with the extender itself covering approx 30-35" of the back bed area.




So yes, *maybe* two of the smallest carryon roller bags would fit, pressed up against the rear window, if laid out end-to-end. They tend to be 10" deep on narrowest dimension. Seems like under the eave there's maybe ~11" before hitting the tonneau, but that headroom reduces downward from there. Maybe the bag will have headroom towards the tailgate, one would need to actually try because it's that close.

And yes, that possibility is more than nothing, and maybe good for some people's use cases.

But let's go back to the context of my original response and question to you:



My original point/question to you was ~what do you mean by "quite a bit of space above it before you reach the bed cover."

When talking about the bed of a pickup truck, "quite a bit of space" is an inordinately squishy comment.

But now, through this back and forth, we've arrived at some clarification: you think it can *definitely* fit two of the smallest carry-on roller bags up against the window, with a bit of other "sneak it in" room for a few other small objects just forward.

I'd say fine, but it's a close call and someone will need to try it (as with the photos provided earlier of someone trying the same two types of bags in the frunk).

Meanwhile, yes, each can decide whether that ~7-8cu ft of space above the extender and below the tonneau is "quite a bit of space"

But here's the real thrust of where you're unfamiliarity with the bed and it's dimensions was out of wack:



You *do* lose about ~1/3 of the total VOLUME of the bed.

Because while it doesn't reach all the way up to the tonneau, it *does* extend into the bed depth materially further than 24"


Meanwhile, along the way, you've just side-stepped and avoided acknowledging the portions of the conversation where you're comments were flatly incorrect and evidence a lack of familiarity with the bed dimensions. Eg being able to put a sofa in the bed if the extender is installed (much less whether you can fit a sofa in the bed, with the tailgate up, even if the extender isn't installed.

You shoot from the hip, have no apparent interest in asking questions vs just asserting arm-chair feelings about data, and then treat others like it's *them* who haven't thought through this before.

If it's more than 24", then that further proves my point. It would easily carry two max size checked bags above the extender. I was being conservative with 24", so more than that means two bags can fit and they won't be pinched at the smallest height point.

 

[scottf200]

That Rivian Max miles/kWh doesn't make sense.

Are you thinking the input or the calculation is incorrect?

Sponsored