Heat pump, battery size, Class 2b division (light-duty pickup) classification confirmed in EPA Cybertruck documents

[newwave1331]

yes, it’s a listing of 150Ah, not 150kWh - converts to 123kWh


This submission of the performance data is apparently of dummy data, and not yet final data for EPA rating

I'm confused on the there permanent magnet motors too.

Sponsored

 

[Ry7104]

Am I wrong or all the wh/m and range estimates are with 35” AT mud and snow tires right? And the rivian was done with street tires, since the off road package is additional for the rivian. That would make the CT way better IMO.

 

[scottf200]

yes, it’s a listing of 150Ah, not 150kWh - converts to 123kWh


This submission of the performance data is apparently of dummy data, and not yet final data for EPA rating

Curious.

170ah = 138.72 kWh Correction see a couple post down.

 

[cvalue13]

Curious.

170ah = 138.72 kWh

View attachment 31198

Why you using 170Ah, Willis?

(mAh)*(V)/1000 = (Wh)

816*150/1000=122.4

??‍

 

[scottf200]

Why you using 170Ah, Willis?

(mAh)*(V)/1000 = (Wh)

816*150/1000=122.4

??‍

Sorry for the confusion. There were 2 numbers in the document.
I thought one was 'total' and the other was 'usable'.

170ah = 138.72 kWh
150ah = 122.40 kWh

I may be mixed up tho. Here is what Bard explained the both as.

 

[JBee]

I extracted the table from that post so it's easier to read here:

So with a useable 115kWh from the 123kWh you get:

@70mph 115kWh / 278wh/mi = 413miles range
@50mph 115kWh / 168kWh/mi = a whopping 640miles!

The DM is only very slightly better as expected, because the TM only has the added mass of one motr extra. Technically the the two rear induction motors switch off and it is a FWD PM driven vehicle, whilst in the DM it is PM in the rear and the front induction turns off so it's RWD. I prefer the RWD DM.

Now the reason for the big difference is very likely to be that it simply needs more power to push that less aerodynamic shape through the air. So the slower you go the less the "poor" aerodynamics hold you up, meaning you get to use more energy to get the distance.

But I would take these numbers with a grain of salt as they well below calculated and expected wh/mile numbers given the CT's frontal area and Cd.

I think the Tesla specs or 340miles in the DM might be sandbagged by about 10-20% so that the batteries are not over stressed in the initial releases. Over time, once they have some mile on it they can open up more milage capacity once the production matures and they get lots of miles of feedback data.

10% would make the DM 374miles, so definitely my pick and now looking to be nearly "good value" in comparison to the original price.

 

[cvalue13]

Sorry for the confusion. There were 2 numbers in the document.
I thought one was 'total' and the other was 'usable'.

170ah = 138.72 kWh
150ah = 122.40 kWh

I may be mixed up tho. Here is what Bard explained the both as.
View attachment 31200

View attachment 31200

Ah, the 170 specific energy is a measure of energy density

 

[cvalue13]

I extracted the table from that post so it's easier to read here:

So with a useable 115kWh from the 123kWh you get:

@70mph 115kWh / 278wh/mi = 413miles range
@50mph 115kWh / 168kWh/mi = a whopping 640miles!

The DM is only very slightly better as expected, because the TM only has the added mass of one motr extra. Technically the the two rear induction motors switch off and it is a FWD PM driven vehicle, whilst in the DM it is PM in the rear and the front induction turns off so it's RWD. I prefer the RWD DM.

Now the reason for the big difference is very likely to be that it simply needs more power to push that less aerodynamic shape through the air. So the slower you go the less the "poor" aerodynamics hold you up, meaning you get to use more energy to get the distance.

But I would take these numbers with a grain of salt as they well below calculated and expected wh/mile numbers given the CT's frontal area and Cd.

I think the Tesla specs or 340miles in the DM might be sandbagged by about 10-20% so that the batteries are not over stressed in the initial releases. Over time, once they have some mile on it they can open up more milage capacity once the production matures and they get lots of miles of feedback data.

10% would make the DM 374miles, so definitely my pick and now looking to be nearly "good value" in comparison to the original price.

these are still dummy data submissions, so I’ll wait on both the final data as well as the real world tests

374 Tesla miles would put my personal adjustment factor as ~320 miles from another OEM ?

 

[scottf200]

Hmm ... looking at the table it does not seem right.

It would make more sense to me if the 1st column was the '30 mph' (top left)
and 2nd column was the '50 mph'. Those Wh/mi numbers are "very low".
I'm comparing them (Wh/mi) to my Tesla Model X 2017 experience.

 

[newwave1331]

Can we just get the official specs already? This is a shit show.

What is the total and usable capacity? 122.5kWh and 115kWh (93.9% usable)?
What is the configuration? 220s6p or 110s12p?
What is the efficiency of Cyberbeast and AWD? 338Wh/mi and 359Wh/mi?
What is the efficiency with standard wheel and premium wheel?
600hp is about 4C, 845hp is about 5.6C?
What is the torque (in normal ratings)?


Is this correct so I can move on to the other 20 things to figure out.

 

[Dman_CT]

Am I wrong or all the wh/m and range estimates are with 35” AT mud and snow tires right? And the rivian was done with street tires, since the off road package is additional for the rivian. That would make the CT way better IMO.

The CT’s standard tires are a mild all-terrain pattern, like the optional tires on the Rivian off road package accompanied by 20” rims. The Rivian’s standard 21” tires which do provide longer range, are also M+S but with all-season tread. Despite what Jason Cammisa said in his video, the Cybertruck is not equipped with mud tires as that term is used by off-roaders. But yes, the CT DM and TM tires are probably not the lowest rolling resistance possible.

 

[Knucklehead]

I extracted the table from that post so it's easier to read here:

So with a useable 115kWh from the 123kWh you get:

@70mph 115kWh / 278wh/mi = 413miles range
@50mph 115kWh / 168kWh/mi = a whopping 640miles!

The DM is only very slightly better as expected, because the TM only has the added mass of one motr extra. Technically the the two rear induction motors switch off and it is a FWD PM driven vehicle, whilst in the DM it is PM in the rear and the front induction turns off so it's RWD. I prefer the RWD DM.

Now the reason for the big difference is very likely to be that it simply needs more power to push that less aerodynamic shape through the air. So the slower you go the less the "poor" aerodynamics hold you up, meaning you get to use more energy to get the distance.

But I would take these numbers with a grain of salt as they well below calculated and expected wh/mile numbers given the CT's frontal area and Cd.

I think the Tesla specs or 340miles in the DM might be sandbagged by about 10-20% so that the batteries are not over stressed in the initial releases. Over time, once they have some mile on it they can open up more milage capacity once the production matures and they get lots of miles of feedback data.

10% would make the DM 374miles, so definitely my pick and now looking to be nearly "good value" in comparison to the original price.

That can't be right. The R1T has 142 kWh usable battery capacity, and those figures would mean it has a range of 142/233 = 609 miles at 70 mph. That is impossible. The EPA range is only 410 miles.

Hmm ... looking at the table it does not seem right.

It would make more sense to me if the 1st column was the '30 mph' (top left)
and 2nd column was the '50 mph'. Those Wh/mi numbers are "very low".
I'm comparing them (Wh/mi) to my Tesla Model X 2017 experience.

I noticed that also and might explain the results. Although I don't think the R1T has a range of 609 miles even at 50 mph.

 

[scottf200]

What is the configuration? 220s6p or 110s12p?

FYI from @GhostAndSkaterr post:

"More info we can extrapolate from the EPA data for the Cybertruck​

Pretty much confirmed 220S6S battery, or 1320 cells"​

 

[SentinelOne]

over time might be able to up the usable > 123...seems a bit higher buffer / margin than normal?

 

[JBee]

Yep agree that graph has the headings offset. It's at 30 and 50mph.
But still good to know if you really want to get there with one charge and go slow
The aerodynamic point still stands.

--

So I can't quite replicate those exact numbers in the EPA document in my pack modelling.

That 170Wh/kg figure must be the Specific energy density at the whole pack level. So we can work out the battery mass from that being:

123kWh / 170 = 723kg (1593lbs) for the whole pack

Which sounds a little bit high, given that the 1400cells or so to make that number only weighs 497kg (1095lbs). But given it's a structural pack, those extra 226kg (498lbs) are not a bad use of mass.

I also don't know how they are getting the 816V nominal, as I can't get cell numbers to divide evenly into a split 400V pack. Is that maybe max pack voltage? The cell chemistry dictates the voltage, so this will need to be the same as other cells with that voltage.

So you can have 55S packs giving you 203.5V nominal each. You can the have 4 of those for 814V nominal pack. That gives you 1320 cells, and is exactly as predicted in the structural pack thread. That Hagerty video also mentions 1366 cells in the pack.

The cell capacity must have increased since the 4680 teardown, because with 1320 cells I get 114.7kWh in the pack not 123kWh. But that is only a 7% increase so easily doable.

(edit: corrected cell math)

Sponsored