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

[Gigahorse]

i think you’re being a bit unfair. Dude is clearly being a bit down on some of the range stats coming out, but that doesn’t make one a troll.

meanwhile, you’ve been on this forum since yesterday, and may be missing a lot of context that could cause someone to be down on these stats - in brief, 4 years of hopium-fueled delusion about how Tesla could distort the physics of range as relates to the Ct


which brings me back to the quoted bits above from you:

i seem to remember you have a lot of BEV/Tesla miles under your belt, but zero BEV truck miles? (Though you toe with a Y?)


point being, you yourself don’t have perfect experience towards understanding how the Ct’s range will work. Specifically, people familiar with Tesla sedans shouldn’t be too quick to think that your experience to date will tell you everything you need to know about the CT.


And on that, I think the *generous* interpretations of many of the comments here is not:

“The CyberTruck range will alway and necessarily be as bad as the worst reports”

as your responses seem to imply

Instead, the *generous* interpretation is:

“under what conditions will the CT get something like the worst reports we’re getting - I’m shocked it can get that bad”



because if I were to paint your comments with the same ungenerous brush, I would allege that you also don’t have any relevant BEV truck experience, and are essentially implying “the CyberTruck range will never be as bad as the worst reports we’re seeing,” which would be an equally incorrect stance



But let’s level set here, and realize that - more than any Tesla sedan - the point is this: because it’s a truck on 35” tires, the CyberTruck will be subject to a FAR wider range of resulting data

specifically, you’re never going to get the EPA blended range of 301mi if doing hwy driving (we haven’t seen the EPA hwy range yet, but it’ll be lower than the blended)


and on the other end of the spectrum, because it’s a truck on 35” ATs, you can easily drive the CT in a manner and in conditions that could get you nearer to 1/3rd of the blended EPA

Appreciated

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

but from what I have seen doing some physics calcs the rolling resistance it is calculated linear throughout velocity,

I think that’s only true assuming tire characteristics remain constant at all speeds/materials temps

but that real world, as speeds increase tire characteristics and temps change such as to alter rolling resistance, and never for the better - but to varying degrees

case in point, tire characteristics at various speed/temps are why the AT gets less range than the streets.


But yes, in addition to rolling resistance are the other correlated effects of drag, etc.

All collectively adding up tires constructed and shaped as ATs have greater and greater resulting inefficiencies compared to tires constructed and shaped as streets - be it from rolling resistance, aero, etc.


exactly the effects of the CT’s specific street vs AT remains to be seen.

the Rivian example is just to show what’s entirely possible and within range of possible expectations with the CT

afterall, we already know that at EPA blended conditions there is a 10% range delta between street and AT

that’s not even EPA hwy conditions

much less sustained 75mph conditions

 

[cvalue13]

My M3 can get better than the stated 205 watts per mile. My city average is 185 watts per mile.
my highway average is 267 watts per mile at 80mph and 250 watts per mile at 75mph.

case in point of

Specifically, people familiar with Tesla sedans shouldn’t be too quick to think that your experience to date will tell you everything you need to know about the CT.

again:

plus tires, plus gearing differences, etc., all amounts to a BEV truck is going to behave very differently from folks previous experiences with Tesla sedans

 

[Woodrick]

i think you’re being a bit unfair. Dude is clearly being a bit down on some of the range stats coming out, but that doesn’t make one a troll.

meanwhile, you’ve been on this forum since yesterday, and may be missing a lot of context that could cause someone to be down on these stats - in brief, 4 years of hopium-fueled delusion about how Tesla could distort the physics of range as relates to the Ct


which brings me back to the quoted bits above from you:

i seem to remember you have a lot of BEV/Tesla miles under your belt, but zero BEV truck miles? (Though you toe with a Y?)


point being, you yourself don’t have perfect experience towards understanding how the Ct’s range will work. Specifically, people familiar with Tesla sedans shouldn’t be too quick to think that your experience to date will tell you everything you need to know about the CT.


And on that, I think the *generous* interpretations of many of the comments here is not:

“The CyberTruck range will alway and necessarily be as bad as the worst reports”

as your responses seem to imply

Instead, the *generous* interpretation is:

“under what conditions will the CT get something like the worst reports we’re getting - I’m shocked it can get that bad”



because if I were to paint your comments with the same ungenerous brush, I would allege that you also don’t have any relevant BEV truck experience, and are essentially implying “the CyberTruck range will never be as bad as the worst reports we’re seeing,” which would be an equally incorrect stance



But let’s level set here, and realize that - more than any Tesla sedan - the point is this: because it’s a truck on 35” tires, the CyberTruck will be subject to a FAR wider range of resulting data

specifically, you’re never going to get the EPA blended range of 301mi if doing hwy driving (we haven’t seen the EPA hwy range yet, but it’ll be lower than the blended)


and on the other end of the spectrum, because it’s a truck on 35” ATs, you can easily drive the CT in a manner and in conditions that could get you nearer to 1/3rd of the blended EPA

I have been in this forum for yes a day, but I have been an active member in some other Tesla forums for well over 5 years. My wife waiting 4 hours in line for my Model 3. We were a first night Model Y reservation and a first night Cybertruck reservation. I have already ordered and am in the Jan-March group.
So I can see why you might think there is a lack of familiarity, but there isn't.
No, I haven't driven a EV Truck, but I have hauled boats with my Model Y. I've hauled one from Atlanta to Tesla and back with abysmal range (significantly lower than the YourTubers have posted). But I did it.
Before my Teslas, I had a couple of Leafs, one with only 88-mile range.
So I am quite familiar with degradation in range when towing and exactly how far low range vehicles can go.

I'll tell you that I've driven my Model 3 in areas in which the majority of the Cybertruck owners will never go, just like many Pick-up truck owners have never left the road.


My biggest objection is when someone picks up something from YouTube and runs it into the ground, citing it as proof that something doesn't work.

And so far, there seems to be very few posters adding any reality to some of these naysayers' threads, which allows them to get out of control and deter some folks from purchasing.
I have no doubt that there are conditions in which the Cybertruck will get nowhere near its range. ANY experienced EV driver can tell you that. Heck, Winter alone will drop you about 30%. Going above about 60 will drop you about 10% for every 5 mph.

But to flat out say that the Cybertruck won't get over 200 miles is, well, YouTubism.

I will guarantee you that I can get the Cybertruck over 400 miles.


And yes, you won't be able to meet the combined EPA number at highway speeds, that's because EVs are more efficient below highway speeds, the reverse of non-EVs.

 

[Woodrick]

I didn’t read through all the pages, but Tesla’s stated range is based on city driving, not highway.
My M3 can get better than the stated 205 watts per mile. My city average is 185 watts per mile.
my highway average is 267 watts per mile at 80mph and 250 watts per mile at 75mph.

I believe that Tesla statements are based on the EPA blended range standards.
Unlike ICE vehicles, EVs are more efficient below highway speeds.

And since the majority of driving is dome at less than highway speeds, that's the bullseye for EVs.

The range record for a Model 3 is over 600 miles at about 35 mph. The Cybertruck should be able to do nearly the same.

 

[Woodrick]

case in point of


again:

plus tires, plus gearing differences, etc., all amounts to a BEV truck is going to behave very differently from folks previous experiences with Tesla sedans

All you are doing is showing the effect of different drag coefficients on the vehicles. There's nothing here of Trucks vs Cars. The Cybertuck has an awesome drag efficient of about 0.34.
Tesla Cybertruck's Claimed Drag Coefficient Of 0.34 Put To The Test (insideevs.com)
No, it's not as good as the Model 3 of about 0.23.

But significantly better than that of the Ford F-150 of 0.44 and the Hummer EV of over 0.50

 

[JBee]

I think that’s only true assuming tire characteristics remain constant at all speeds/materials temps

but that real world, as speeds increase tire characteristics and temps change such as to alter rolling resistance, and never for the better - but to varying degrees

case in point, tire characteristics at various speed/temps are why the AT gets less range than the streets.


But yes, in addition to rolling resistance are the other correlated effects of drag, etc.

All collectively adding up tires constructed and shaped as ATs have greater and greater resulting inefficiencies compared to tires constructed and shaped as streets - be it from rolling resistance, aero, etc.


exactly the effects of the CT’s specific street vs AT remains to be seen.

the Rivian example is just to show what’s entirely possible and within range of possible expectations with the CT

afterall, we already know that at EPA blended conditions there is a 10% range delta between street and AT

that’s not even EPA hwy conditions

much less sustained 75mph conditions

I agree there will be a difference with tyres, in particular in comparison to the on road EVs.

What I'm trying to get a feel for is just how much impact there can or cannot be. 10-15% is one thing, but I'm struggling to reconcile 30% unless this is at low speed, where rolling resistance is a dominant factor, and can constitute 50% of the drag. So say around 40mph or less.

If Tesla is really using City EPA range only (which is dumb on various levels in my book) then those higher percentages might be achievable at lower city speeds. But at the same time, if so, it would not be as much in the higher speed range where aero can be 2-3x as much as rolling resistance.

In that case faster travel would desensitise the rolling resistance contribution to overall drag. So driving faster would not cause an increase in range loss from rolling resistance directly, but rather from aero interaction of the tyre and tread itself.

I can imagine that there are some "pumping" type losses from a heavy tread pattern, in that like in rain or snow, air is disproportionately displaced by the rotation of the wheel, and against the road, or in such a way wheel arch vertices create turbulence along the vehicle.

BTW A detail I neglected to mention in the previous post is that rolling resistance is not just from the tyres deforming, but also from bearing and drivetrain losses etc. (Which would be consistent regardless or tyre choice)

I'm going to have to look up tyre aero drag to get an idea of how disruptive this can be.

Lucky for me I've literally got all year to do it!

Happy New Year!

 

[jasper7821]

I believe that Tesla statements are based on the EPA blended range standards.
Unlike ICE vehicles, EVs are more efficient below highway speeds.

And since the majority of driving is dome at less than highway speeds, that's the bullseye for EVs.

The range record for a Model 3 is over 600 miles at about 35 mph. The Cybertruck should be able to do nearly the same.

I don’t know if it’s a blended average. When I average 185 watts or so, it’s driving really efficient and just cruising efficiently to work and back. That’s just kinda how I like to drive, see how efficient I can be.
But normal driving if I’m running a little late, I get about the rated 205 watts per some or so.

 

[JBee]

Unlike ICE vehicles, EVs are more efficient below highway speeds.

ICE vehicles also use less at lower speeds.

Specifically, ICE are worse at stop and go type traffic in cities, where the car is stationary with the engine idling. EV's only need to run their electric Air conditioning and heat pumps, just like hybrid cars.

 

[Gigahorse]

My biggest objection is when someone picks up something from YouTube and runs it into the ground, citing it as proof that something doesn't work.

I will guarantee you that I can get the Cybertruck over 400 miles.

So the screenshots etc on the first page of this are from Youtube, X, Tiktok, and Facebook. Nottttttt exactly ideal sources, but the 5 different sets of data now are at least SOMETHING in the void of information on real world numbers on this truck.

Due to a recent injury I have had a LOT of screen time and have seen some CT stuff that others have not, posted some of that in this tread for people like myself hungry for real world data, some of that data is disappointing for someone who has waited 4 years for a CT, like myself.
I don't understand why you would create an account simply to flame me for posting info that is new, interesting, and TBH in some cases hard to find.

All of that said, no hard feelings and I hope if you get a CT to over 400 miles you post a video or some pics of it.

 

[Woodrick]

Yea I was in line for a tri motor for the range, after new specs would love the zoom of the beast but will take the range improvement of the AWD assuming the #s are in the ballpark which I am hopeful that with a software push that charging and range will be better than early reports show.

Just how much range improvement do you think that it will be? It's not enough to really make a difference. On a cross country trip, it may mean an extra stop to charge.

 

[Gigahorse]

Just how much range improvement do you think that it will be? It's not enough to really make a difference. On a cross country trip, it may mean an extra stop to charge.

No idea, hopefully they can get it close to 300+ a lot of us who use trucks to tow things got onboard with the CT with 500+ which would be 250 towing. If the real world range of the AWD ends up being like 260 that would mean 130 towing and in some areas not enough to get from one SC to another.

 

[Woodrick]

ICE vehicles also use less at lower speeds.

Specifically, ICE are worse at stop and go type traffic in cities, where the car is stationary with the engine idling. EV's only need to run their electric Air conditioning and heat pumps, just like hybrid cars.

ICE use less, but they still use more per mile. And stoplights kill them, hence the reason why so many manufacturers are using stop-start at traffic lights.
A Model 3's range peak around 35mph. ICE numbers are well above there.

From fueleconomy.gov

Every number is much better on the highway than the EV below.

 

[cvalue13]

If Tesla is really using City EPA range only (which is dumb on various levels in my book)

no, because they’re reporting only a single figure, it’s is almost certainly the blended EPA headline number - the “combined city/hwy”

see eg this Tesla Monroney

note the headline EPA figure of 105, blended, but off to its right the sun-year figures for city and hwy


Point being, using eg the Foundation Beast (on AT) tire data we have - 301mi, that figure is almost certainly the extrapolated resulting range from the EPA’s headline blended figure, and not yet even the EPA’s pure hwy figure for the CT on ATs

Here’s a parallel example:

When talking about the Lightning ER, people always cite the blended EPA of (all ER trims, except of Platinum): 320 miles

But the EPA’s hwy-specific figure is 283.1 mi

While the EPA’s city-specific figure is 350.2 mi




This range of outcomes, eg 70mi delta, is a full 20% of the EPA blended headline number of 320mi

speaking in generalities, that delta is as large as it is because we’re here talking about a truck on large tires - one wouldn’t expect such large city vs hwy vs blended deltas out of a BEV sedan because

Which brings us back to the CT.

The 301mi figure we’re seeing from Tesla is almost certainly the EPA blended. Using the Lightning as a baseline for trucks on large tires, we might expect the CT’s epa hwy to also be ~88% of the epa blended, or 264mi

(while the CT has eg better aero than a Lightning, the Ct has bigger/worse tires for range, so net-net…)

Now remember the EPA hwy test speed is only 48mph

So 264mi at avg 48mph, only goes south from there, exponentially, as speeds get higher.

and that’s at idealized EPA test conditions.

So yeah, when Tesla reports 301mi range on Beast with AT tires, people agile with EPA figures (and BEV trucks) should be able to immediately extrapolate that one could very easily see only ~200mi max range in real world hwy conditions, and driving styles

 

[Woodrick]

No idea, hopefully they can get it close to 300+ a lot of us who use trucks to tow things got onboard with the CT with 500+ which would be 250 towing. If the real world range of the AWD ends up being like 260 that would mean 130 towing and in some areas not enough to get from one SC to another.

Tesla anticipates that you will be able to get close to the 500 miles with the range extender. They still have some tweaking to do though. But then again the range extender isn't expected for awhile.

And I can tell you that estimating 50% degradation for towing is a fools folly.
A large portion of the degradation from towing is based on the drag coeeficient of the trailer. I've got two boats, a SeadDoo Switch small sailboat. The Switch, like many pontoon boats has a front wall that kills the aerodynamics. The sailboat is aerodynamically designed to begin with . With the Switch, I'd beg for only 50% degradation. for the sailboat, it barely appears.

So just flat out saying 50% just ain't going to cut it.

Sponsored