Tesla's Crafty Move? - Carbon Credits, The Extender, GVWR, and Payload

[JBee]

I honestly would like to see Tesla get called to the carpet for such alleged shenanigans. Then, they can certify CT as Class 3 and likely increase the pack size in the near future, as they should have from the get-go. I truly was expecting them to moderately blow other EV trucks out of the water with the range and price of CT.

Instead of all these things, they seem to have made their own version of a compliance vehicle, out of self-interest and added fluff that many truck drivers typically don't care about, ie, steer-by-wire, rear steering, and unnecessarily insane speed. Them getting their hand slapped and losing out on credits will not kill the company. Especially with increasing ZEV requirements and with them putting out a $25k entry-level car that is going to sell like the hottest of all hotcakes. Guessing the entry-level car will be introduced by next summer or earlier and will be the quickest model to begin production in Tesla's history. Will be interesting to see.

I don't think that is how it works.

It's not a shenanigan. It's optimizing's your vehicle for compliance.

There is no vehicle manufacture in existence that doesn't do this first.

Just because we figured it out "late" doesn't mean they knew this "late" and tried to manipulate the outcome, or changed course late. It could have happened at any time they reached a manufacturing model.

And...they would have optimized the whole vehicle and built it to fit.

If anything, I think they expected it to weigh less than it ended up being, so the 3500lbs payload was out as a result, because it's a stroke of the pen. Obviously, the whole exo thing didn't work out, the casts weigh more than their steel equivalents (like in the MY etc) and their 4680 cell capacity didn't increase as much as predicted, in that time, resulting in a heavier pack.

But the target was sub-10k all along.

Conversely with pack improvements over time they might be able to do the 3500lbs later on.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

I'm probably missing something here but I don't see it, Dual is 9200 lbs GVWR (~6700 lbs curb) and Tri is 9400 lbs GVWR (~6900 lbs curb). Tesla has room for 3300 lbs and 3100 lbs of payload respectively and still stay within the 10k lbs GVWR limit. One would advertise those higher figures, if the truck could do it, and accessories, like the range extender, would simply eat into that number.

I’m likewise probably missing something.
Dual is GVWR 9,200lbs with 2,500 payload. If Tesla uttered “it’s now 3,500 payload,” the truck would have a GVWR of 10,200lb and be a Class 3 truck.

So why don’t they say “3,300” lb payload, is your question, I think?

Two things come to mind:

first, if youre skirting the number, you don’t do it by 1lb without a turning on a “hey that’s odd” flashing light.

Second, if you do that, you leave no headroom for future options that are heavy and that you decide to sell in the future in large enough quantities that would cause a rehomologation. Say, for example, a heavy range extender, or wireless charger, or … both. To say nothing of other changes or additions you may make to the vehicle in future iterations. Basically, you don’t paint your truck into a future corner.

 

[RVAC]

So why don’t they say “3,300” lb payload, is your question, I think?

Correct. Or rather, I don't see Tesla engineering the vehicle for 3500 lbs payload and then claiming 2500 lbs for class 2b classification. They'd just engineer for 3300 lbs so they can both claim 2b and higher payload figures.

Second, if you do that, you leave no headroom for future options that are heavy and that you decide to sell in the future in large enough quantities that would cause a rehomologation. Say, for example, a heavy range extender, or wireless charger, or … both. To say nothing of other changes or additions you may make to the vehicle in future iterations. Basically, you don’t paint your truck into a future corner.

Options would impact payload figures as is the case with other trucks. Say the range extender weighs 700 lbs, payload capacity for the dual would then go from 3300 lbs to 2600 lbs. Add a wireless charger as well and it'll go to, say, 2500 lbs. They would still be within class 2b.

The homologation argument I understand, they might not want to sell too many range extenders to avoid triggering that requirement, so they price it accordingly. That makes sense.

first, if youre skirting the number, you don’t do it by 1lb without a turning on a “hey that’s odd” flashing light.

Give it a 100 lbs buffer if you prefer but I don't see the issue there. It's in Tesla's right, or that of any other manufacturer, to engineer a vehicle with a max GVWR that closely approximates that 10k figure.

 

[cvalue13]

Options would impact payload figures as is the case with other trucks. Say the range extender weighs 700 lbs, payload capacity for the dual would then go from 3300 lbs to 2600 lbs. Add a wireless charger as well and it'll go to, say, 2500 lbs. They would still be within class 2b.

The homologation argument I understand, they might not want to sell too many range extenders to avoid triggering that requirement, so they price it accordingly. That makes sense.

you’re correct about how the payload reduces

man’s I think now you’re picking up what I’m setting down, but to be clear

it’s not operational payload that’s at issue, it’s GVWR calc that’s at issue

Give it a 100 lbs buffer if you prefer but I don't see the issue there. It's in Tesla's right, or that of any other manufacturer, to engineer a vehicle with a max GVWR that closely approximates that 10k figure.

yes, but only with BEVs are OEMs navigating both OEM accessories that are 700lbs and carbon credit regs

and only with BEV trucks in particular are they up against weights that get them near being out of material carbon credit $

 

[PilotPete]

and their 4680 cell capacity didn't increase as much as predicted, in that time, resulting in a heavier pack.

I don't know how much of an impact that made to the car.

Based on the EPA data, the CT has a 122.4 kWh battery pack that weighs 1,587lb (720kg). This gives then a 170 Wh/kg density. So where does this rate? There was a post on X (the app firmly known as twitter) that gave the following list;

Pack level energy density (Higher number is more bueno)
-187Wh/kg - Model S/X 18650 cells
-170Wh/kg - CyberTruck with 4680 Cybercells
-169Wh/kg Rivian R1T Large Pack 2170 cells
-165Wh/kg Model 3/Y LR 2170 cells
-126Wh/kg Model 3 SR LFP cells

Another 10% increase and they tie the top of the heap. That would still only bring the CT to 374 miles. To get to 500 miles in the dual, you would need 179kWh in the pack. Assuming they can't add more cells, you'd need almost 250Wh/kg density to make that range.

And, based on the pack weight per mile, the range extender batteries would weigh 317 lbs for the power. The structure to house it and case and cables are extra.

 

[Rutrow]

Maybe we'll get an opportunity in the future to pay for an optional over-the-air update to increase our payload and tow rating? ?

 

[CyberGus]

fluff that many truck drivers typically don't care about, ie, steer-by-wire, rear steering, and unnecessarily insane speed

I don't know anyone disinterested in maneuverability and turning radius.

"This truck is just too damn fast off the line" said no one ever

 

[ninja6r]

So after reading this whole thread, I still don't understand why it's that terrible to be rated as a class 3.

How much do they lose if they actually made it that way? Obviously it's not a little, or they wouldn't do this. But it sounds like they wouldn't get the ZEV(or whatever they're called) credits for the truck, but wouldn't they still get them for all the other vehicles?

They also get incentives on the cells too, since they're made locally.

Don't Class 3's need to transition to electric too?

Sorry for all the questions.

 

[Rutrow]

I have no idea how manufacturers determine their payload ratings, but know it's a balancing act of touting the capability of your vehicle (especially trucks) while avoiding lawsuits from over promising in ways that are hazardous or will cause damage. Although voluntary, the SAE 2807 tow ratings guide at least quantifies what trailer weights are safe. The standard is less about how much weight a truck can get moving, and more how your rig is going to perform when things go wrong. There is an incentive to keep your payload/tow ratings below what the vehicle is capable of, but nothing to prevent manufactures from under-selling. There's no reason to set ratings at a level that will cause you problems, be they marketing, regulatory, or ZEV credit.

I would like to see someone with either a Beast or an AWD CyberTruck take it to an appropriate test facility to see if a 14,000 lb trailer causes the truck to fail any of the J2807 test components. I feel confident that any trim of the CyberTruck would be able to pass the acceleration tests and can see no reason why they'd overheat during the Davis Dam Grade test. If it can handle the braking and skidpad tests, I would feel perfectly confident towing an "overloaded" trailer with my AWD CyberTruck.

 

[Rutrow]

The article below tries to explain why the Quadra-steer Chevy's in 2000 didn't sell well and the consensus seems to be that the $5,600 option price on a truck priced in the $20,000 range was it's Achilles heel. For me, the improved stability from in-phase RWS while towing that makes the expense worth it to me.


https://www.drivingline.com/article...-four-wheel-steering-system-simply-disappear/

 

[Dman_CT]

There are so many design variables I’m not sure we can understand the parameters affecting the rated payload. The body/frame may be strong, ditto the suspension but maybe brakes are a limiting factor, when the battery is full and regen is limited. Or maybe the “plastic” bed, chosen for weight, manufacturability, ability to mold in features, is a limit. Or weight distribution. Any pickup can handle more, I’ve overloaded my own trucks for short hauls, but as a (retired) ME I sure wouldn’t expect them to have been rated for those loads over a long warranty period or against lawsuits. All that said, I’m sure Tesla plays games for compliance but all companies do that whether it’s classification, domestic content, EPA mileage/range, etc.

 

[firsttruck]

The article below tries to explain why the Quadra-steer Chevy's in 2000 didn't sell well and the consensus seems to be that the $5,600 option price on a truck priced in the $20,000 range was it's Achilles heel. For me, the improved stability from in-phase RWS while towing that makes the expense worth it to me.


https://www.drivingline.com/article...-four-wheel-steering-system-simply-disappear/

Exactly

And that $5,600 option price was in year 2003 dollars NOT 2023/2024 dollars.
$5,600 was worth a lot more in year 2003 than today (2023/2024).

Sponsored