To watch for: results of the testing done for EPA cert.

[scottf200]

Maybe this was discussed but I don't recall -- results of the testing done for EPA cert.
It doesn't appear the CyberTruck is there yet (date of thread) but other Teslas are.
Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY

Source: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ty-confirmed-149kwh.19784/page-13#post-431095

Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY

1) you can see the results of the testing done for EPA cert. It's in the EPA DIS database here: https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/publist1.jsp search for "applications" and "[Tesla Motors Inc]" as the manufacturer and you'll see all the results to date. Look for "usable battery energy" and that's the measured energy taken from the battery during the test from 100% to 0%, it's great because that is what is available to you as the driver and doesn't consider any losses from chargers or charging or accessories-- unfortunately it's not always in the application. Often but not always, the manufacturer also includes the CA details, which show the breakdown of city/highway Wh/mi. This is also useful because it is "unadjusted", i.e. the raw data from the test.

2) The window sticker values are "adjusted" meaning that the raw measured range is reduced by an adjustment factor, that is usually 0.7. There are other possible ways to adjust, but most BEVs are just using the EPA guidance of 0.7. So if the window sticker says 400 miles, it really drove 570 miles or so on the test.

3) the Wh/mi values are calculated using AC watt-hours, that is, using the energy measured at the wall (between the wall and the EVSE). Which ends up making it look like the vehicle has slightly higher energy consumption while driving because it includes charger efficiencies, battery losses, accessories running during charging, even the several hundred Wh of having the EVSE awake for the 12 hour minimum time.

4) No measurement can be 100% accurate. The test procedure has allowed tolerances that total up to around 3% or so-- best case. Some OEMs spend an awful lot of time trying to get it as accurate and repeatable and perfect as possible, but most are fine just being in the allowable tolerances. 3% is alot of Wh.

Hoping this information finds you all well and can help feed your interest in the subject and get you closer to trying to decode all the numbers and how they fit together. Here's some more details and links to deeper paths (the CFR, i.e. the federal law) https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fuel-economy-and-ev-range-testing

UPDATE:

Sponsored

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Maybe this was discussed but I don't recall -- results of the testing done for EPA cert.

Source: https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/...ty-confirmed-149kwh.19784/page-13#post-431095

Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY

I don't see the Cybertruck in any search I have run on that site.

 

[scottf200]

I don't see the Cybertruck in any search I have run on that site.

I should have been extra clear. My thread title was 'to watch for'.
I added the below to my opening post:

It doesn't appear the CyberTruck is there yet (date of thread) but other Teslas are.​

Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY​

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I should have been extra clear. My thread title was 'to watch for'.
I added the below to my opening post:

It doesn't appear the CyberTruck is there yet (date of thread) but other Teslas are.​

Suggestion add filter: Document Date after MM/DD/YYYY​

Someone in another thread basically said that the certifications confirm the trims that will be released but my search on the EPA site shows none so I wondered what their assertions were based on.

 

[scottf200]

Someone in another thread basically said that the certifications confirm the trims that will be released but my search on the EPA site shows none so I wondered what their assertions were based on.

Didn't people question them about where they got that information? The could have pointed them to this thread and EPA . GOV searchable website.

 

[Crissa]

Someone in another thread basically said that the certifications confirm the trims that will be released but my search on the EPA site shows none so I wondered what their assertions were based on.

The VIN told us the motor configurations.

-Crissa

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

The VIN told us the motor configurations.

-Crissa

True but that is not what was said. I am not challenging what anyone has said. I would just like to see the certifications. When someone said that the certs confirm the trims I assumed that the certs had been published here and I missed it. Are you saying that the VINs is what they meant, because the VINs cover any trim and not just the initial one(s).

 

[Crissa]

True but that is not what was said. I am not challenging what anyone has said. I would just like to see the certifications. When someone said that the certs confirm the trims I assumed that the certs had been published here and I missed it. Are you saying that the VINs is what they meant, because the VINs cover any trim and not just the initial one(s).

The VIN document is an official filing, though, required.

-Crissa

 

[scottf200]

Documents showed up but getting this:

 

[scottf200]

All the documents are there now.

 

[SentinelOne]

Cyberbeast Payload = 2271...so not too far off for extra motor and what ever else is different between the 2 configs (I heard Offroad modes are heavy, lol)

 

[scottf200]

Cyberbeast Payload = 2271...so not too far off for extra motor and what ever else is different between the 2 configs (I heard Offroad modes are heavy, lol)

I got these estimates for the other numbers based on the below that I read:

The curb weight of the Cyberbeast is 6,898 pounds, and the all-wheel-drive tips scale at 6,669 pounds.​

The gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 9,169 pounds for both variants.​

~ indicated calculated.

 

[cvalue13]

The gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 9,169 pounds for both variants.

Assuming premium wheels on both

Those curb weights also assume premium wheels

Sponsored