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

[JBee]

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.

No. Gravity is NOT regen braking.

You don't regen all the energy back from a hill climb, you instead use it to drive a distance, otherwise you would get nowhere, and come to a stop at the end of the regen braking.

Only a small portion is returned to the pack as regen in normal driving, and depends on your downhill speed, road conditions, corners and traffic you need to slow down for etc.

Accordingly, regen braking should be avoided at all costs, unless you have to slow for traffic, stops or turns. This reduces the cycling losses to the battery and back out. Gravity remains 100% efficient to "store" energy, as does interia.

But, how you use it has nothing to do with the "efficiency" of gravity. These are two different things.

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

Your post history is very negative. I don’t think anything is going to make you happy.

Since you first joined the site, you have nothing but negative speculation to share…

I'm sure most people know this already, but there's an army of people out there whose singular purpose is to spread negative Tesla vibes and try to prevent Tesla from becoming even more of a success than they already are. The same kind of people have been predicting Tesla's imminent demise for the last decade, every year proves them more wrong.

We don't have official EPA range numbers for the Cybertruck yet (as far as I'm aware) but it's a strong bet that Tesla has already done the tests and the published estimatates from Tesla accurately reflect the EPA drive cycles. If so, that means if you drive the Cybertruck under the EPA drive cycles and conditions, it will return EPA numbers.

That said, the Cybertruck is the heaviest Tesla to date (not counting the Tesla Semi which doesn't have EPA numbers). This means using the brakes more often than the EPA drive cycles use (regen or especially friction brakes), will make it difficult to get the EPA numbers. That's true with all EV's but it will be more true of heavier EVs like the Cybertruck. Tire pressure is also more important with EVs that have tires that weigh 60 lbs. each because there is a lot more opportunity for all that rubber to absorb energy when underinflated.

That said, I think the Cybertruck will be able to meet or exceed the EPA numbers (just as we can with our three Model 3s) when driven on smooth pavement at a steady 60 mph. At slower speeds you should be able to exceed the EPA combined rating and higher speeds will of course come in less than EPA ratings. Remember, the ratings are always specific to the wheels and tires used, so don't expect to match the 340-mile EPA rating of the Dual Motor if you have the All-Terrain tires and no Aero covers.

A vehicle with such a high GVWR has bigger bearings and seals so the efficiency will improve as they wear in and also on longer drives where the bearings can come up to temperature where they spin more freely.

There are no free lunches but someone who thinks maximizing range is important, and makes the right wheel/tire/Aero choices should not be disappointed. The people who tend to complain the loudest are those who think little incremental range losses are insignificant, totally forgetting that every inefficiency adds on top of the previous, driving around on sub-optium wheels and tires (that are underflated too), accelerating and slowing like a yo-yo, speeding at 90, driving with windows and vault cover open, without a care are the ones who complain the loudest and try to blame Tesla.

I'm not telling you how to drive, configure your vehicle, or inflate your tires, I'm simply saying that physics is physics. Drive the EPA test cycles under the EPA conditions/configurations, and you should get EPA efficiency and EPA range. Unless there is something wrong with your particular example. No, Tesla doesn't cheat, the EPA would have caught them by now.

 

[JBee]

I'm sure most people know this already, but there's an army of people out there whose singular purpose is to spread negative Tesla vibes and try to prevent Tesla from becoming even more of a success than they already are. The same kind of people have been predicting Tesla's imminent demise for the last decade, every year proves them more wrong.

We don't have official EPA range numbers for the Cybertruck yet (as far as I'm aware) but it's a strong bet that Tesla has already done the tests and the published estimatates from Tesla accurately reflect the EPA drive cycles. If so, that means if you drive the Cybertruck under the EPA drive cycles and conditions, it will return EPA numbers.

That said, the Cybertruck is the heaviest Tesla to date (not counting the Tesla Semi which doesn't have EPA numbers). This means using the brakes more often than the EPA drive cycles use (regen or especially friction brakes), will make it difficult to get the EPA numbers. That's true with all EV's but it will be more true of heavier EVs like the Cybertruck. Tire pressure is also more important with EVs that have tires that weigh 60 lbs. each because there is a lot more opportunity for all that rubber to absorb energy when underinflated.

That said, I think the Cybertruck will be able to meet or exceed the EPA numbers (just as we can with our three Model 3s) when driven on smooth pavement at a steady 60 mph. At slower speeds you should be able to exceed the EPA combined rating and higher speeds will of course come in less than EPA ratings. Remember, the ratings are always specific to the wheels and tires used, so don't expect to match the 340-mile EPA rating of the Dual Motor if you have the All-Terrain tires and no Aero covers.

A vehicle with such a high GVWR has bigger bearings and seals so the efficiency will improve as they wear in and also on longer drives where the bearings can come up to temperature where they spin more freely.

There are no free lunches but someone who thinks maximizing range is important, and makes the right wheel/tire/Aero choices should not be disappointed. The people who tend to complain the loudest are those who think little incremental range losses are insignificant, totally forgetting that every inefficiency adds on top of the previous, driving around on sub-optium wheels and tires (that are underflated too), accelerating and slowing like a yo-yo, speeding at 90, driving with windows and vault cover open, without a care are the ones who complain the loudest and try to blame Tesla.

I'm not telling you how to drive, configure your vehicle, or inflate your tires, I'm simply saying that physics is physics. Drive the EPA test cycles under the EPA conditions/configurations, and you should get EPA efficiency and EPA range. Unless there is something wrong with your particular example. No, Tesla doesn't cheat, the EPA would have caught them by now.

More nonsense.

Physics doesn't like jesters.

"IF" the bearings and seals were solely responsible for the extra energy consumption then they would of heated up so much from that energy in that time, that they would of increased in size and seized, or simply melted off.

I'm not saying that there "wouldn't" be a bedding in period, rather, that it does not constitute the range loss by itself.

There is more at play here.

And please turn fanboi back to 9 from 11 please.
Nobody is interested is continuous unrealistic rants on how Tesla is infallible.

 

[HaulingAss]

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.

She said her feet were warm on a 33 degree F evening. It looks like they have been blasting the heat on full blast with the the windows down. That's what I would do if I wanted to show excessive consumption!

 

[HaulingAss]

More nonsense.

Physics doesn't like jesters.

"IF" the bearings and seals were solely responsible for the extra energy consumption then they would of heated up so much from that energy in that time, that they would of increased in size and seized, or simply melted off.

I'm not saying that there "wouldn't" be a bedding in period, rather, that it does not constitute the range loss by itself.

There is more at play here.

And please turn fanboi back to 9 from 11 please.
Nobody is interested is continuous unrealistic rants on how Tesla is infallible.

No, rolling resistance (including bearing drag) is a very real drag on consumption. And it's just one loss of many. I never said or implied that the bearings were the primary energy loss on a new vehicle, merely that it's one thing that will get better over time. And there are a lot of bearings. Each tiny loss is additive. Bearings are designed to dissipate heat from the inner and outer races into large metal parts. That's why they are installed with minimal clearance friction fits. They can dissipate significant energy over an hour drive while becoming only slightly warm as the heat is constantly conducted away from the races.

 

[JBee]

No, rolling resistance (including bearing drag) is a very real drag on consumption. And it's just one loss of many. I never said or implied that the bearings were the primary energy loss on a new vehicle, merely that it's one thing that will get better over time. And there are a lot of bearings. Each tiny loss is additive. Bearings are designed to dissipate heat from the inner and outer races into large metal parts. That's why they are installed with minimal clearance friction fits. They can dissipate significant energy over an hour drive while becoming only slightly warm as the heat is constantly conducted away from the races.

I haven't seen you say anything else yet.

Regardless, the bearing losses are not the primary cause.

Rolling resistance from the tyres is not the same thing.

If anything, it's a combination of factors, including a higher cruise speed.

The less aerodynamic a vehicle is, the more sensitive it is to speed.

 

[Gigahorse]

I'm sure most people know this already, but there's an army of people out there whose singular purpose is to spread negative Tesla vibes and try to prevent Tesla from becoming even more of a success than they already are.

Wait.....so the three people doing 1,000+ mile road trips and posting their 650-810 wh/mile and range, two of which are Tesla employees are part of the illuminate and are trying to sabotage Tesla by posting that real world info????

If that is the case shouldn't there be at least a couple FS folks posting their 360 wh/mile trips? A MONTH after deliveries started.

Believe me I WANT the CT to get 340 miles (actually I wanted 500+) but after 4+ years and a month after delivery the ONLY info we have is showing like 170. Sooooo until there are some posts with some decent wh/mile reports we are supposed to believe that if we believe in the power of Tesla enough it will get us to a mediocre?

 

[Gigahorse]

Elevation gain? temp? battery pre-conditioned? State of charge when starting? Any useful info?

Latest posts have more info, not perfect but a bit more detailed.
More #s posted.
Pretty flat with 980' of total elevation change
117 mile trip
Temperature of 60-65 f
Battery went from 86% to 10% (76%)
Roughly a 700 wh/mi AKA real world range of 180 miles
Required 55min charge to have enough range to do the next leg of 148 miles with a 10% reserve

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I'm going to hold off on placing an order for the Foundation Series AWD. I think I'll dump a 1000 shares of TSLA when the market opens Jan 2nd in case these numbers prove to be semi-accurate.

If you have a 1,000 shares of TSLA to ‘dump’ what are you concerned about?

 

[HaulingAss]

Wait.....so the three people doing 1,000+ mile road trips and posting their 650-810 wh/mile and range, two of which are Tesla employees are part of the illuminate and are trying to sabotage Tesla by posting that real world info????

I'm not accusing any individual of sabotaging the range. But I'm not about to put any energy trying to verify data from a few early reports that were not even purporting to be scientific.

My point is, at this point it's just noise, the numbers claimed by Tesla are more meaningful to me because I know what they purport to represent. Specifically, EPA drive cycles under controlled conditions.

And, no, I don't find it odd that there is not more efficiency data because most people know it varies wildly depending upon the specific condions and, with over 300 miles of EPA range, they aren't overly concerned with it.

 

[Gurule92]

Latest posts have more info, not perfect but a bit more detailed.
More #s posted.
Pretty flat with 980' of total elevation change
117 mile trip
Temperature of 60-65 f
Battery went from 86% to 10% (76%)
Roughly a 700 wh/mi AKA real world range of 180 miles
Required 55min charge to have enough range to do the next leg of 148 miles with a 10% reserve

Do you have links this time? Are these people rocking the stock setup? What shows the 55 minute charge was for 148 miles? Were these v3 chargers?

 

[Bkb13]

Do you have links this time? Are these people rocking the stock setup? What shows the 55 minute charge was for 148 miles? Were these v3 chargers?

Someone’s already done that work on the Reddit thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cybertruck/s/Nz1VPZ8K6m

 

[Gurule92]

Someone’s already done that work on the Reddit thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cybertruck/s/Nz1VPZ8K6m

So eloy to buckeye was only 20 minutes of charge for almost the same distance. I do see that buckeye has some v2 chargers. Maybe the v3s were down? Notice Wilcox to eloy has a similar 40 minutes

Regardless. Hopefully the AS tires fare better. Does CT auto lower when at highway speeds? Because comfort mode stays at high right? Is there a low setting? Are they using it?

 

[Bill's Truck]

In all fairness, I can’t think of a single ICE I’ve had( and I’ve have a bunch of them) has ever reached the estimated miles per gallon advertized either??

I tend to drive very conservatively to maximize range. I beat the EPA mileage in almost every vehicle I've ever had. My F150 indicates a best range of about 620 miles - as many point out, no-one will ever drive that far non-stop. But add a bulky, even though not necessarily heavy, item in the bed or on my utility trailer, and drive in sub-40F weather, and that range will drop by over 40%. Since I often drive 600+ mile trips, I can do these trips with one or two stops. Apparently I'm in the minority in doing these longer trips, but in the rural area where I live, most pickups I see are towing or hauling something.
That's why the initial range needs to be reasonable, to allow for the reductions that will occur in non-ideal operation. I dismissed the Lightning as a possible replacement for that reason - reports of very low range while towing are surfacing. If the CT is more aerodynamic than the Lightning (claimed Cd indicated this), then it'll be even more sensitive to aero drag reducing range.

 

[cybercoffee]

Screenshots are from videos, little harder to spoof, and the fact they they are coming from 3 different owners, 3 different parts of the country lends some legitimacy.

Gigahorse, for that screenshot of Buckeye to Ehrenberg superchargers--did you notice anything else in the video that would suggest what % they were going to charge to at Buckeye? without knowing the average charge rate, we can't extrapolate for the screen saying charge X min, but of course, if we know what % they were supposed to charge to for the CT and we know they're arriving with Y% SOC, we can immediately crunch those numbers

Sponsored