Cybertruck Highway Range Test (Dual-Motor AWD) -- Run Until Battery Empty (by Out Of Spec)

[S1d3w1nd3r]

So 254 miles (423 kms) is not realistic as we do not typically drive our EVs from 100% to dead. Realistically, it is more in the 360-380 km range. What worries me is if I tow with my model Y, I can only get a maximum of 110 kms so realistically about 90 kms (towing a 5’ x 12’ single axle enclosed trailer). Someone please do a max rating tow test because if the cybertruck towing results are similar to my model Y, then unfortunately cybertruck towing is not a realistic option.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

There is enough real world data coming in now to let us know the approximate range of these vehicles, and it is well under half of the 500+ that got everyone excited about the future of EV Trucks..

this isn’t really a fair read if the green, Giga

1. The AWD is more range and more truck than the 2019 ‘Dual’ (granted the price increase)

2. So your comments are limited only to the ‘23 ‘Cyberbeast’ being other than the advertised compared to the ‘19 ‘Tri Motor’

3. regarding the Cyberbeast range, I still haven’t seen anything that really suggests this truck’s range is anything other than as advertised on Nov 30

4. if anything, the Cyberbeast’s range stats coming out even suggest it’s possible the range is coming in nearer to EPA combined than Tesla is typically known for

5. meanwhile, the ‘Tri-Motor’s’ “500mi” range advertised in ‘19 was also only ever interpretable as an EPA combined figure. Which means even in ‘19 it only ever had an advertised ~430mi Hwy range, under EPA test conditions … and would drop significantly from there outside EPA conditions


Reasonable folks, familiar with BEVs generally and Tesla specifically, have long correctly said, “I wanted the Tri-Motor because, the way I like to drive long distance trips, it meant I could go 300-400 miles”



The AWD is doing exactly as reasonable people have always expected, even since 2019.

The Cyberbeast is doing exactly as reasonable people have expected since the Nov 30 reveal. In fact, so far maybe even better than expected.

EDIT TO ADD:

Thr above all setting aside the real point I’ve been banging on for months around here:

the ‘Cyberbeast’ is not the ‘19 ‘Tri-Motor,’ the ‘Cyberbeast’ is a surprise new trim offering that is equivalent to a ‘performance Dual motor,’ and Tesla hasn’t yet released the equivalent of the ‘19 ‘Tri-Motor’

 

[Woodrick]

Makes sense. Kind of a bummer they don't want to actually accelerate the EV transition. Essentially, we won't be seeing that truck until the energy credits can't be claimed by Tesla.

How does raising the price accelerate adoption? I'm sure Tesla would love to know.

 

[Woodrick]

So 254 miles (423 kms) is not realistic as we do not typically drive our EVs from 100% to dead. Realistically, it is more in the 360-380 km range. What worries me is if I tow with my model Y, I can only get a maximum of 110 kms so realistically about 90 kms (towing a 5’ x 12’ single axle enclosed trailer). Someone please do a max rating tow test because if the cybertruck towing results are similar to my model Y, then unfortunately cybertruck towing is not a realistic option.

That's probably the biggest selling point for the range extender.

 

[cvalue13]

a few things

i can’t figure out why you’d say “ the Dual-motor is $100K.”

The “Dual Motor” is $79,990.

The price of these Foundation units is irrelevant to any cost comparison to the 2019 prices. (Not to mention, even in 2019 they likely anticipated a Founders/Signature/Foundation early release for a significant premium - just like they’ve done with every other model release.)


Second, I edited my last post to add the response to the bare notion of comparing the ‘19 Tri-Motor to the ‘23 Cyberbeast

But I’ll say again what I’ve been telling this forum for 4-6 months now:

The ‘23 “Cyberbeast’ is not the ‘19 Tri-Motor.

The Cyberbeast is a trim never contemplated in ‘19, and should be viewed as a “Plaid” version of the AWD/‘19 ‘Dual’

Never in Tesla’s history has it released it’s complete trim line at start of production, and NOBODY in or since 2019 should have reasonably expected that all three trims shown on screen would release simultaneously.

So, for better or worse, people would do themselves a big favor to just accept the fact that Tesla has not released the trim level equivalent to the ‘19 ‘Tri-Motor’ and that Tesla doesn’t appear to intend to anytime soon (they’ve only previewed a ‘25 single motor).

Accordingly, all this comparing the ‘19 ‘Tri-Motor’ stats or pricing to the ‘23 Cyberbeast is a false equivalence in the first place.


Yes, the pricing of the ‘Dual’ went way up. And yea, the “Plaid” version of the ‘Dual’ is even more expensive - just like the Model Y Plaid was bananas more expensive than the Model Y.

Don’t buy the Plaid version then.

 

[cvalue13]

That's probably the biggest selling point for the range extender.

If they’re are unhappy with the realities of range with the native pack, they’re going to not be made happy with the range realities of adding the ER

Run out the math on that ER, and there’ll be some people who want to “pay” for it (not just cash, but practical consequences)

But the same people currently “surprised” or “disappointed” with the realities of BEV truck range, most aren’t going to be made educated/satisfied by just adding more pack for way more money.

 

[ninja6r]

I believe he’s talking about >10K GCWR, which is curb + payload, and what is relevant to much of the regulatory triggers for the weight of trucks - including the CyberTruck not qualifying for full carbon trading credits for each CT sale, which credits are a large part of Tesla’s business model.

put differently, to add the additional pack weight natively, Tesla to retain its optimum carbon credits etc would have been forced to choose to sandbag its payload rating down to numbers that would have gotten them laughed at (after the grandiose 3,500 claims in ‘19)

some say, “give me the additional pack native, I don’t care if you post a 1,400lb payload”

to which I believe Tesla replied, “if you think a $16K range extender is expensive, you don’t want to hold my beer and see what a CyberTruck MSRP is like with 2X the native pack - plus, we’ll be keeping our carbon credit business long before we worry about your business.”

Makes sense. Kind of a bummer they don't want to actually accelerate the EV transition. Essentially, we won't be seeing that truck until the energy credits can't be claimed by Tesla.

How does raising the price accelerate adoption? I'm sure Tesla would love to know.

My point was more towards beating or matching ICE trucks on range. I mean, the F150 gets 450-600 miles (depending on tank size). How do you beat the competition? Make something greater than or equal to it. No offense to anyone who buys one, as I still love it, but this thing won't sell in high volume until you at least meet at that range.

 

[Woodrick]

My point was more towards beating or matching ICE trucks on range. I mean, the F150 gets 450-600 miles (depending on tank size). How do you beat the competition? Make something greater than or equal to it. No offense to anyone who buys one, as I still love it, but this thing won't sell in high volume until you at least meet at that range.

That was my point, that's a LOT of heavy, expensive batteries.

There's a paradigm shift that people just don't realize. For most people, 450 mile range means that you may only have to fill up once a week or every two weeks. (of course every two weeks means that you have to get a loan on the gas) EVs charge nightly at home.
People have gotten used to the ICE paradigm. It takes a little time to get used to the EV paradigm.

Most people rarely take road trips. I just did 2900 miles in December. One leg was 12 hours long. there wasn't that much time I spent just charging. I combined the charging stop with other required stops, like bio-breaks and meals.

For those straight-thru folks, my wife just reminded me of a friend of hers that had a stroke. Dr attributed it to being in the seat constantly on a cross-country drive.

Greater to or equal? Are you suggesting that EV trucks put out more pollution?

2900 miles and I had charging all along the route. Hardest job was choosing which one I wanted to stop at.

 

[Saygmo]

For the nth time:

No one promised 500 miles at 70 mph.

Stop lying.

-Crissa

500 miles…. EPA? 500 miles… city? I’m sure you could hypermile to 500 in a cybertruck, very carefully and at low speeds in the right temperature. I had a Chevy volt that would normally get 35 freeway miles, I was able to easily get 70 mile range around la city streets hypermiling it.

this isn’t really a fair read if the green, Giga

1. The AWD is more range and more truck than the 2019 ‘Dual’ (granted the price increase)

2. So your comments are limited only to the ‘23 ‘Cyberbeast’ being other than the advertised compared to the ‘19 ‘Tri Motor’

3. regarding the Cyberbeast range, I still haven’t seen anything that really suggests this truck’s range is anything other than as advertised on Nov 30

4. if anything, the Cyberbeast’s range stats coming out even suggest it’s possible the range is coming in nearer to EPA combined than Tesla is typically known for

5. meanwhile, the ‘Tri-Motor’s’ “500mi” range advertised in ‘19 was also only ever interpretable as an EPA combined figure. Which means even in ‘19 it only ever had an advertised ~430mi Hwy range, under EPA test conditions … and would drop significantly from there outside EPA conditions


Reasonable folks, familiar with BEVs generally and Tesla specifically, have long correctly said, “I wanted the Tri-Motor because, the way I like to drive long distance trips, it meant I could go 300-400 miles”



The AWD is doing exactly as reasonable people have always expected, even since 2019.

The Cyberbeast is doing exactly as reasonable people have expected since the Nov 30 reveal. In fact, so far maybe even better than expected.

EDIT TO ADD:

Thr above all setting aside the real point I’ve been banging on for months around here:

the ‘Cyberbeast’ is not the ‘19 ‘Tri-Motor,’ the ‘Cyberbeast’ is a surprise new trim offering that is equivalent to a ‘performance Dual motor,’ and Tesla hasn’t yet released the equivalent of the ‘19 ‘Tri-Motor’

The dual motor is doing as expected for range, besides the $50k price increase ($30k once they stop forcing foundation series. )
Not sure I see your point of tri motor not being cyberbeast, it seems that’s the model Tesla intended and there is likely no room for extra batteries in there the pack, so besides chemistry improvements what we have is what we get.

 

[Woodrick]

500 miles…. EPA? 500 miles… city? I’m sure you could hypermile to 500 in a cybertruck, very carefully and at low speeds in the right temperature. I had a Chevy volt that would normally get 35 freeway miles, I was able to easily get 70 mile range around la city streets hypermiling it.

The dual motor is doing as expected for range, besides the $50k price increase ($30k once they stop forcing foundation series. )
Not sure I see your point of tri motor not being cyberbeast, it seems that’s the model Tesla intended and there is likely no room for extra batteries in there the pack, so besides chemistry improvements what we have is what we get.

I like the rest of the post, but forcing Foundation Series is far from the truth. It's not forced. For me, it represents the options that I'd probably be getting anyway. And it only seems tobe impacting those that were near the top of the list anyway.

 

[cvalue13]

My point was more towards beating or matching ICE trucks on range. I mean, the F150 gets 450-600 miles (depending on tank size). How do you beat the competition? Make something greater than or equal to it. No offense to anyone who buys one, as I still love it, but this thing won't sell in high volume until you at least meet at that range.

I don’t think this is a relevant or determinative metric for “beating the competition”

let’s start by separating normal day-to-day driving from long distance trips

DAY-TO-DAY

in normal day-to-day driving, the VT, Lightning, etc., are all LIGHTYEARS ahead of the competition. Because people have a gas station at home, refill every night, and NECER have to worry about range when doing day-to-day driving. They never have to go to a gas station, and never have a morning where they wake up to realize they have to be at a meeting in 10 minutes but are so low on gas they have fit in a trip to a station.

In normal day-to-day driving, an ICE truck’s 450-600mi range is irrelevant, except to the extent it means ICE drivers have to go to gas stations less frequently than other ICE - but still far more than BEV drivers ever have to think about.

LONG DISTANCE DRIVING:

Sure, people who do truly regular long distance traveling have to weigh the differences in fuel tank sizes between ICE and BEV. Go forth and run that compare for your use case.


COMPARING THE ‘COMPETITION’:

As a result of the above, the average consumer doesn’t do regular long distance driving.

So for the average consumer, BEV trucks comparison to ICE reduces down to the day-to-day driving comparison above: BEV’s are LIGHTYEARS ahead of the competition.

On some marginal use cases, people who drive long distance regularly, there’s a cost-benefit analysis to be done per an individual’s use case.

Running out the calculations above, shows why your comparison above isnt a relevant or determinative metric for “beating the competition”

Your comparison would only be relevant to a consumer whose use case is truly regular, truly long distance, travel. There, BEVs have competition.

Everywhere else, including the entire fat part of the curve, ICE is putting up little competition.

 

[cvalue13]

500 miles…. EPA? 500 miles… city?

In all the history of of BEV, I don’t know if a single instance of a company showing a single Range number (absent any other explicit qualifications), where they weren’t citing EPA combined.

EPA combined is always the single, headline, range number.

EPA 500 combined, in a truck, is roughly equivalent to expect an EPA 437 highway, under EPA test conditions.

EPA highway test conditions average 48mph (because that is statistically the average speed of a trip in highway driving, accounting for traffic patterns, etc., and assuming a 65mph speed limit).

So now we’re at 437mi EPA highway, and from there one has to overlay their own use cases and driving style. One these people who (ridiculously) says “I could never drive less than 80mph”, that 437mi EPA highway translates to let’s call it 350 miles for that person

Then they say, “and I live in Minnesota” that EPA 437 highway now translates to 300mi for that person

Then they say “and I never increase my tire PSI for highway driving”, that EPA 437 Highway now translates to 280mi for that person

So on and so forth


Point being: anyone who in 2019 saw 500mi on the wall behind Musk and thought “I can go 500 miles on a long distance trip and drive however I want” - they were their own problem in the first place, and that hasn’t changed any since 2019

 

[Nabilriaz69]

In all the history of of BEV, I don’t know if a single instance of a company showing a single Range number (absent any other explicit qualifications), where they weren’t citing EPA combined.

EPA combined is always the single, headline, range number.

EPA 500 combined, in a truck, is roughly equivalent to expect an EPA 437 highway, under EPA test conditions.

EPA highway test conditions average 48mph (because that is statistically the average speed of a trip in highway driving, accounting for traffic patterns, etc., and assuming a 65mph speed limit).

So now we’re at 437mi EPA highway, and from there one has to overlay their own use cases and driving style. One these people who (ridiculously) says “I could never drive less than 80mph”, that 437mi EPA highway translates to let’s call it 350 miles for that person

Then they say, “and I live in Minnesota” that EPA 437 highway now translates to 300mi for that person

Then they say “and I never increase my tire PSI for highway driving”, that EPA 437 Highway now translates to 280mi for that person

So on and so forth


Point being: anyone who in 2019 saw 500mi on the wall behind Musk and thought “I can go 500 miles on a long distance trip and drive however I want” - they were their own problem in the first place, and that hasn’t changed any since 2019

So
In your logic if Elon shown 500 miles we should be understanding that it is like 400 miles , now 4 years forward he shows 320 miles then we understand that the range is 220 miles , correct ?

Sponsored