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

[cvalue13]

Nothing but the pic.

Another one…

On the freeway…

yes, that one I saw

190mi, 25% of which is presumably around town (given other screen context), at 76kWh

Tesla hasn’t disclosed how much of the 123kWh is available capacity. I assume ~112 based on 4680 MY teardown.




But based on the other screen context, on the left, they did 147mi in 2.127hr, or 69mph at average of 416wh/hr

doesn’t surprise me to see these swings

Sponsored

 

[Prime8]

At 75mph sustained driving, Rivian R1T move from street to AT tires results in a 30% drop in range compared to the Rivian street.

30%.

End of the day, these realities as applied to the Ct were pretty well predictable once “340 miles” flashed on the screen (or sooner than that for those paying close attention beforehand)

It’s a large truck, on 35” tires, with a 123kWh pack.

Speed + AT tires kill.


which is only to say that, the data coming out - more or less - isn’t all that surprising.

before the CT, the Rivian and Lightning were both indicators of the physics involved

Do you have a link to where the 30% drop in tire choice is demonstrated? Very interested in this as I think tire choice is largely overlooked when It comes to range but this seems a huge difference especially since at 75 mph most energy would be spent on aero resistance. Thx!

 

[Cyberostachu]

The only way you’re going to know for sure is when you take delivery of your truck and find out first hand?

Boom! What if you find out you got worse range than your current concern? Consumers need to know what they are paying for $80k or $100k. It would be nice if you get more or less what you expected. Not so much less.

 

[Cyberostachu]

Declining an early Cybertruck order takes will power!!!
[/QUOT
I'll hold on to the last end to my order. Things might improve.

 

[Cyberostachu]

Based on every other Tesla I own it will be more like 220-250 depending on speed and outside temps.

That's just the reality.

I'll be getting lower range because my usual route terrain can go an average in my guesstimate at 50 or feet of fluctuations on many areas..

 

[jookyone]

But 500+ > 340 > 318 >to sub 200

Not a level assessment when one got significantly worse, but the more pragmatic of the two got a bump.

Cyberbeast: 500+ > 320 (301 All Terain Tires)
Dual AWD: 300+ > 340 (318 All Terain Tires)

Definitely the Tri-Motor is a specs failure, but damn it looks fun and while I ordered a Tri-Motor at launch, I couldn't get behind the money proposition. If I had f**k you money, I would have ordered it with the Range Extender but I don't so I went with the AWD and won't look back.

 

[JBee]

At 75mph sustained driving, Rivian R1T move from street to AT tires results in a 30% drop in range compared to the Rivian street.

30%.

End of the day, these realities as applied to the Ct were pretty well predictable once “340 miles” flashed on the screen (or sooner than that for those paying close attention beforehand)

It’s a large truck, on 35” tires, with a 123kWh pack.

Speed + AT tires kill.


which is only to say that, the data coming out - more or less - isn’t all that surprising.

before the CT, the Rivian and Lightning were both indicators of the physics involved

Honestly I haven't kneeled into the tyre range impact argument much yet, but from what I have seen doing some physics calcs the rolling resistance it is calculated linear throughout velocity, meaning it shouldn't increase with speed. But it does increase with the same time interval, in that you use more per hour, as you also travel more miles.

The reason I'm saying this is that I think 30% seems very high between tyre types, so that it can't just be rolling resistance, but that the aero is also being affected by tyre selection as well.

For example, with the same rolling resistance, at 60mph you have around 12hp for aero and 8hp for rolling resistance, at 70mph 20hp for aero and 9HP for rolling, and 80mph that's 30HP for aero and 10.6HP for rolling.

At that point, rolling resistance is only 30% of the total drag of the vehicle. So adding 30% range loss because of tyre choice would constitute a tripling of the rolling resistance? Seems high.

This leads back to the "best tyre for the job" question, in that a wider tyre, even off road is not the best choice. So if we can keep the tyre width the same, and seeing there is little room to increase tyre size given the CT front upright design (being annoying for ATs like the MY) then the next question is how much does tread pattern and rubber composition affect range.

I'm thinking that this is not as simple as it at first seems to figure out. Obviously test data for different profiles and composition would be the clear way to figure out the ideal tyres. But just from looking at a tyre profile, knowing it's size and compound etc it might be quite difficult to predict range performance without trying it on the vehicle first.

This is another factor that is a direct result of the increased sensitivity of EV's to drag. Given the variability in truck tyre performance, I'm wondering if off-road EV trucks will ever be on the same level of performance off-road and still have decent range.

 

[Cyberostachu]

Not a level assessment when one got significantly worse, but the more pragmatic of the two got a bump.

Cyberbeast: 500+ > 320 (301 All Terain Tires)
Dual AWD: 300+ > 340 (318 All Terain Tires)

Definitely the Tri-Motor is a specs failure, but damn it looks fun and while I ordered a Tri-Motor at launch, I couldn't get behind the money proposition. If I had f**k you money, I would have ordered it with the Range Extender but I don't so I went with the AWD and won't look back.

I had plans to upgrade my dual to tri before I heard this range issue. I'll stay with dual as I got 2 years of wait. See what happens.

 

[Cobra2326]

So I think this gigahorse guy is a troll, I literally joined to say this. His history (over 150 posts) is almost all negative comments, take a look for yourself. Avatar is sus, as is "1 million miles on ICE toyotas". He screenshotted this part of the video of "Our Cyber Life" charging, but then ignored the part where they showed 382Wh/mi on their screen (same video). You decide.

Our Cyber Life just posted another video today and I managed to screen cap it again. 110 mi driven, 41kWh used, 373Wh/mi, and they're driving 75mph.

They're clearly learning how to drive efficiently. In their road trip video they said they were initially driving 85mph with the heat blasting, and they had the cover open.

 

[JBee]

So I think this gigahorse guy is a troll, I literally joined to say this. His history (over 150 posts) is almost all negative comments, take a look for yourself. Avatar is sus, as is "1 million miles on ICE toyotas". He screenshotted this part of the video of "Our Cyber Life" charging, but then ignored the part where they showed 382Wh/mi on their screen (same video). You decide.

Our Cyber Life just posted another video today and I managed to screen cap it again. 110 mi driven, 41kWh used, 373Wh/mi, and they're driving 75mph.

They're clearly learning how to drive efficiently. In their road trip video they said they were initially driving 85mph with the heat blasting, and they had the cover open.

If true not nice.

Those numbers look much better, but nearly too good now?

 

[Bkb13]

So I think this gigahorse guy is a troll, I literally joined to say this. His history (over 150 posts) is almost all negative comments, take a look for yourself. Avatar is sus, as is "1 million miles on ICE toyotas". He screenshotted this part of the video of "Our Cyber Life" charging, but then ignored the part where they showed 382Wh/mi on their screen (same video). You decide.

Our Cyber Life just posted another video today and I managed to screen cap it again. 110 mi driven, 41kWh used, 373Wh/mi, and they're driving 75mph.

They're clearly learning how to drive efficiently. In their road trip video they said they were initially driving 85mph with the heat blasting, and they had the cover open.

Same thoughts on my side. Time to put gigahorse on ignore.

 

[cvalue13]

They're clearly learning how to drive efficiently. In their road trip video they said they were initially driving 85mph with the heat blasting, and they had the cover open.

I suppose it’s helpful to emphasize this clarification, but I don’t think people missed it - it was well discussed

accordingly, I don’t think anyone is discussing anything more than just how bad the bad end of the range of possible outcomes is


perhaps others were confused on this, so your clarification is helpful to the thread

but seems obvious that BEV vehicles can get a range of results depending on conditions and facts, and what’s being discussed is the relevant range of facts as relates to the CT?


End of the day, these anecdotal results (good or bad) are already mostly deductible from the single headline range number released by Tesla

guess what I’m saying is, a blended (not hwy) EPA range of 301mi on the beast wearing ATs, plus Tesla’s range history, should alone be all the info needed to know that driven at sustained hwy speeds:

• driven one specific and very careful way, in favorable conditions, you might get ~80%-90% of 301mi

• driven one specific and very NOT carful way, in unfavorable conditions, you might only get 30%-40% of 301mi


What’s left, I think, are for people not familiar with BEVs, or experienced Tesla people not yet familiar with BEV trucks, to figure out what conditions and behaviors put you nearer to either of the two outcomes above

 

[Woodrick]

What kind of info does Tesla give the driver these days? It's not like Tesla's just starting out and has only made a few hundred of one model of EV.

They've been working on the Cybertruck long enough and have had a number of different models of EVs with different battery sizes for a number of years. It seems they should have a ton of really good data on what kind of range you can actually expect out of a particular car with a particular battery size.

Basically it seems like there's just too many variables to be able to give a single good number for the maximum miles of a particular vehicle that is meaningful to everyone. Is it summer or winter, are there 400 lb worth of tools in the vehicle at all times, are there a lot of hills, is it really snowy or rainy or windy, do you drive really aggressively, are you more of a hypermiler etc.

I know there'd be too many numbers and it would probably be too confusing, but I'd like a window sticker that showed me the average miles per kilowatt hour for the manufacturer (across all models), for the actual vehicle, and one or two for differing weather conditions or environments and maybe driving styles.

Not really sure what to do about it. It just feels like there's a good amount of data there that's not being expressed in the best way possible to the end user.

The car itself should be able to use your driving style over the past 1000 mi or something, your location, the weather and so on to really dial in what your current total range is whenever you start the car. If it's not already doing that.

Maybe it could encourage folks to take it easy by flashing a big dollar amount based on your location and cost of electricity from your provider, whenever you put the vehicle in park. Like what the last trip just cost you. Maybe even a second number showing you what it could have cost you, had you driven in your and the cars chill mode.

Great question. Let me see what I can do to answer it.

but I'd like a window sticker that showed me the average miles per kilowatt hour for the manufacturer (across all models)
That's exactly what the EPA numbers are for. They provide an comparison miles per tankful of energy for a vehicle. They can be compared across vehicles and across manufacturers. They are created on a very specific course using different speeds and conditions.
It isn't provided in miles per kWh because you can't compare that to gas and people don't know what a kWh is.


What they are NOT, is an estimate of YOUR range.

What kind of info does Tesla give the driver these days?

Tesla provides a LOT of great information for the driver using the normal screens with no special equipment nor codes required.
On the main screen Tesla shows the current EPA rated range based on the current battery charge and condition. This number will tend to drop a little over the first year as the batteries initially degrade, but then stay there for years afterwards. Essentially this is just a comparative number and unless you are driving the EPA course, doesn't really mean much. It is extremely easy for me to get a lot more, as well as a lot less than this number. Tesla provides the ability to switch this to a percentage and that's kinda recommended by many.

The best place for information is on the Energy Graph screens. The energy screen gives you an estimate of your range based on your last 5,10, or 15 minutes driving. Leave it set on 15 and that's probably the best estimate of how many miles are left in the battery.

But honestly not that many people have ever looked at the Energy Graph screens. And the biggest reason is that there really is no need to do so.

If you are going somewhere, just tell the car to navigate there. It will plot a course and, if charging is needed, determine where the best location is, and change the route to go to the charger and tell you how long you need to stay at the charger, all along with telling you your arrival time at your final destination.

But even better than that is for 90% of the time, no one cares about the charge level. I plug in when I get home. I expect the car to be charged when I leave the next morning. I KNOW that I don't have to worry about the range, because I probably won't be driving over 100 miles, let alone 200 miles going to work or back or running errands.

My Model 3 is down to about 285 miles range now. It doesn't bother me that it's not the original 310. I KNOW that the car will take care of me. I KNOW that it will figure out if and when I need to stop, if I let it do the routing. There are VERY FEW routes in this country where 320 miles is going to make it, but 285 aren't (I can probably count those on one or two fingers)

If the battery utilization is higher than is expected on the route, then the car will update the route accordingly. If it sees that I will be arriving with less than about 10% to a Supercharger, but I can still make it, it will suggest slowing down to 65 or whatever, depending on your current speed. And even then it is really conservative.

If you are in NYC and want to go to LA, just push the button and say Navigate to Los Angeles, the car will think for a minute and then show you the route with every Supercharger that you need to stop at and how long you will need to stay at each one.

As long as you are letting the car navigate to your destination, it's nearly impossible to run out of energy on the road. (The var will just flat out tell you that you can't make it before you start if it is the case)

When the car routes you, it uses an lot of information such
Elevation gain / loss
Wind speeds
Temperatures
Supercharger speeds
Supercharger availability (is it commonly busy)
and a few more that aren't coming to mind fight now.


Tesla has built / is building their Supercharger network to support the RWD variants of their vehicles with ~250 mile range in summer and that equates to about 180 in the colder months.

In all honestly 320 miles is a long time to sit in a seat. 500 miles is an eternity and bad back.

 

[Gigahorse]

So I think this gigahorse guy is a troll, I literally joined to say this. His history (over 150 posts) is almost all negative comments, take a look for yourself. Avatar is sus, as is "1 million miles on ICE toyotas". He screenshotted this part of the video of "Our Cyber Life" charging, but then ignored the part where they showed 382Wh/mi on their screen (same video). You decide.

Have you looked at this thread? Especially the edits to the original post?
I think the post edit screenshot below is likely one of the most encouraging and positive range #s we have seen. Which I added to the original post.....
Just because some of the news about range has been bad, don't assume the messenger is happy about it.

So I agree, you decide. I have posted some early real world range numbers that most of us actually planning on buying this truck are interested in. After years of no info I am posting the range #s that are coming out, some of them are disappointing but if sharing that bad news (and good in edit screenshotted below) that makes me a troll sorry.

I also deeply apologize for having used ICE trucks for the past 25 years at my job because an EV option was not available, I should have been born 30 years later.

 

[SlegMD]

All of these early anecdotal reports are interesting. If the upcoming real world range tests from Motortrend, Edmunds etc confirm these results ... well ... that is just the way it is. I would argue that the best range anxiety ... is NO RANGE ANXIETY. While anybody's guess is as good as mine ... all these new battery recipes we now read about ... will not give us 600+ mile CT ranges ... for at least 3 years. I will still get my reserved CT ... but I will be trading in for a 2nd gen CT when the new battery tech comes out in a few years that AT LEAST doubles and MAYBE can unexpectedly even triple the current range. In particular, the NASA SABERS and AMPIRUS silicone batteries seem promising. And lettuce knot forget about the similar battery tech work coming out of China.

From what I’ve read, very casually, battery tech may improve ~ 25% over(averaging over all battery types) the next 10 yrs… so….

Sponsored