Range for AWD Cybertruck 200-250 miles after many real world tests

[JBee]

I think they are driving a bit "fun" hitting the pedal hard to merge into traffic etc. But would assume that on a 1,000+ mile road trip that would get averaged out a bit. Especially as one of the drivers had two small kids in the truck for his trip.

Can't imagine all 3 trips were all up hill.

Hopefully it is a software issue that Tesla can fix, because it seems consistent among the delivered trucks that are actually giving out some info.

You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

Hills make no differences to long range tests.

Sponsored

 

[Gigahorse]

You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

Hills make no differences to long range tests.

Altitude makes a difference for short trip segments which is what a lot of people are crying about, but over 1,000 miles unless you end your trip in Denver the altitude will not make a significant difference in wh/mile or effective range. Agreed

 

[wanders]

Lots of real world range numbers are coming in via videos getting posted now that some non Tesla employees are getting trucks.
Early report of really bad efficiency like 810 wh/mile were chalked up to speeds over 70MPH, bad driving, etc.
New numbers coming in now are no better at lower speeds.

20 mile test drive (ended up being 21)
Average speed of 63 MPH
Mostly highway driving
689 Wh/mi
Giving the AWD Cybertruck a range of 178.5 miles

*Notes*
2 Passengers
2 Carry on size suitcasestonneau
Tonneau cover closed
Minimal HVAC
Nothing being towed/hauled
Battery was warm as this was a stop on long trip and this was supercharger 3+ on the trip

*Edit*
More #s coming in from road trippers and cross country trippers.
Most Wh/mi are in the high 600s to mid 700s

damn that is not good. I would need the extended pack just to feel on the lower end of comfortable.

 

[Gigahorse]

damn that is not good. I would need the extended pack just to feel on the lower end of comfortable.

yea..... that would get it to almost 300 miles of range, or I guess about 150 when towing

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Adhoc data means data that was created/recorded/published for a specific purpose.

The problem is, we have no way to tell what the specific purpose was.

Adhoc is just informal. Adhoc research isn’t invalid; it just isn’t following the scientific method closely: meaning that all boundary cases aren’t considered, etc. we do know the purpose - to get a value for range.

 

[MiguelAznar]

You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it.

Hills make no differences to long range tests.

Gigahorse said, “Can't imagine all 3 trips were all up hill” (emphasis mine) which would make a difference.

 

[JBee]

Altitude makes a difference for short trip segments which is what a lot of people are crying about, but over 1,000 miles unless you end your trip in Denver the altitude will not make a significant difference in wh/mile or effective range. Agreed

Even if you end your 1000mile trip in Denver that will only add up to 3% of extra energy because of altitude, if you started at sea level.

 

[Gigahorse]

Even if you end your 1000mile trip in Denver that will only add up to 3% of extra energy because of altitude, if you started at sea level.

EXACTLY that is why people looking at 800 wh/mile numbers and saying "oh but if their trip had hills on it that would explain the range being 170 miles" is a little frustrating.

Pretty sure you and I are reading from the same book, just on different pages.

 

[JBee]

I didn't directly respond to Gigahorse with my previous post.

I was rather trying to highlight to everyone saying that "but hills reduce range".

This is only true if they are short trips that end on a hill, but if you drive down them again you get the energy used for altitude gain back.

Gravity works both ways.

 

[cofree]

20 minutes for 21 miles between superchargers?
That likely means 0.5 miles in 3 minutes for each end of the trip, and 20 miles in 14 minutes for the rest. That is 85mph for the freeway portion, in winter. That isn't a typical freeway speed around here.

So let's look at the other end of the screenshot... 81kWh at 678 from 190kWh at 632... which means that before the latest trip it did 180 miles with 109kWh, or 606wh/m. So even the cherry picked TX drivers who drive fast are more typically getting around 600wh/m when not recording screenshots.

We know what the EPA ranges are for the model 3 and the cybertruck. The long range model 3 has a similar rated range to a cybertruck. Both of them will have lower efficiency when driven fast, in the cold, uphill, against a headwind, etc... and bonuses when those are reversed. The penalties or bonuses (as a percentage) will likely be very similar on the model 3 and on the cybertruck. Right now the best way to estimate YOUR real world range on a cybertruck is to look at your real world range on a similar model 3/Y/S/X.

The only factor with a significant percentage difference would be towing, as a towed vehicle should be measured as a wh/m penalty rather than a percentage. i.e. towing a particular trailer will have less percentage impact on the cybertruck compared to a model Y as the cybertruck is less efficient to begin with.

 

[chi]

Dude if he’s navigating between superchargers the battery is probably conditioning itself for charge which costs energy. This whole thing is hilarious.

 

[dandor]

I didn't directly respond to Gigahorse with my previous post.

I was rather trying to highlight to everyone saying that "but hills reduce range".

This is only true if they are short trips that end on a hill, but if you drive down them again you get the energy used for altitude gain back.

Gravity works both ways.

Gravity works both ways, but regenerative braking is not 100%. If you drive a very hilly route, it will definitely make an impact on range. Estimates are you will lose around 30% of the energy taking the potential energy back into stored energy in the battery. If you go up 1000 ft, that would be 6.6x10^6 ft lbs or 2.5 kWh of energy in the Cybertruck. That would be 0.75 kW lost if you go up 1000 ft. Not 1000 ft total, but 1000 ft from all of your uphill driving. Very hilly routes definitely reduce range.

 

[JBee]

EXACTLY that is why people looking at 800 wh/mile numbers and saying "oh but if their trip had hills on it that would explain the range being 170 miles" is a little frustrating.

Pretty sure you and I are reading from the same book, just on different pages.

Possibly.

I generally think there is more at play here than the actual CT efficiency.

I think the measurements and calculations being displayed are off as well, and/or it isn't regening properly, and they are using friction brakes all the time etc.

Even if you are spritely the consumption increase being displayed is substantial in terms of driving habits.

Heating requirements are also not that significant by themselves, but do also contribute to reduced regen etc.

So maybe all of these factors combined are the reason?

If so, then the shared experience provides nothing, except that unless you do the exact same thing, you will get the same result.

BTW are there any links to the sources?

 

[dandor]

Did anyone see this YouTube short? They are charging with the windows down at 33 degrees Fahrenheit. When they take off, the heater will be on full blast. Her feet were cold.

This is the person you are using as data for calculating range.

 

[Gigahorse]

This is the person you are using as data for calculating range.

That is one of the three, and that was an in-town charge, not on their 1,000 mile road trip.
Also they had some of the better wh/mile numbers

Sponsored