Foundation Series Remorse

[anionic1]

The bottomline is: that dude drove continuously 4 hours at 70 mph to drain out the CyberTruck. Question for us is: is that enough for our long distance trip? I would say yes. Usually driving 3 highway hours and we take a break.

And with my family, that break inevitably lasts an hour so that should be a decent amount of charge.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 8371]

You got the email. Yet you can get your hundred bucks back. You didn't configure. Which depending on when you did it cost a non refundable deposit of either another $250, then later $1000.

People are coming here to say they put the deposit of $1000 down and now they wish they didn't.

You aren't in that camp. Please go camp someplace else.

At least I have some time to see if things like mileage do improve, so please get your truck, hope there is no remorse down the line. See Ya !! CHEERS !!!

 

[anionic1]

I believe that you are missing the power going to the brakes in an ICE. When braking in an ICE significant amount of power goes to the brakes and is wasted as heat. The "hyper-milers" know that and when they drive, it seems like they start stopping for a stop sign 2 miles before it.
Some EV studies have indicated that about 30% of their energy comes from regen.

You also have to remember for an ICE, you use power going up a hill and you waste it in idle going down a hill. An EV uses it similarly going up, but then nullifies the altitude by putting it back in.

I regularly go over the Smokies, a 4,000+ ft climb. On the way up, I'm using well over 999 watts/mi. And my range starts decreasing quickly. But then I start going down the hill, and regen starts putting more than 999 watts/mi back into the battery and the range goes up.
In an ICE, well, on older vehicles the brakes tend to overheat.

So it's not a conservation of energy thing, it's a recovery of lost energy thing.

And yes, once I cross the Smokies, my range comes back to what it would have been if the road had been flat (it's 3o+ miles of road to cross)

I get it. That 30% of power from regen braking means that probably about 40% of the battery was depleted to get that 30% back. There is always a net loss. So people stating that somehow this 70 mph long trip and range reduction to 250 miles was somehow caused by the lack of regen are just wrong. That's not how physics works. The additional losses were specifically related to drag at high speeds. There is very little drag in the city. That .34 drag coefficient is a percentage and likely an average percentage or a not 70 mph percentage. So at 70 mph the drag is likely higher. So if you put in 100kWh of energy your only getting 66% or less of that due to drag alone. And if you brake and it regens your getting even less because the regen efficiency is not 100%. regen braking is probably 70% efficient so that is a 30% loss on the energy lost during regen braking. Or in your words a 70% energy recovery. And yes on the highway you are not getting that but you also never spent it in braking so there is nothing needed to recover. So regen braking is always a net energy loss. But it is critical in the city because stop and go is extremely inefficient and the energy lost in braking and in accelerating a 7000 lb vehicle back up to speed is extremely power consuming so they force regen braking specifically to increase EV range as much as possible, but it is always a net energy loss. So if you take drag out of the equation, the city regen driving (or the Smokies) and the flat highway driving the highway driving will still be more efficient because it has no braking losses. so therefore it must be something else in this persons 70mph on a long trip and that something else is aerodynamic drag. (assuming rolling resistance and elevation gains are not a factor). So anyone stating regen had any part in the range decrease is just wrong. Drag is the culprit. People don't like to hear this, but the CT design was not optimized for drag like all their other models. They worked to reduce drag, but it really was prioritized to make the stainless and exoskeleton shape work first. The model S is over 14% more drag efficient.

 

[Woodrick]

So you say, we or those that disagree with YOU are complaining, this is whats wrong with this world anymore. I made a statement about what I felt, even going as far as saying not sure what I will do, NOT A COMPLAINT!! They said they would lower the SIZE but never said anything about lowering the mileage FROM 500 TO 250 and NEVER said a word about the ramp being taken away. AND I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT I WILL DO.

So you say, we or those that disagree with YOU are complaining, this is whats wrong with this world anymore. I made a statement about what I felt, even going as far as saying not sure what I will do, NOT A COMPLAINT!! They said they would lower the SIZE but never said anything about lowering the mileage FROM 500 TO 250 and NEVER said a word about the ramp being taken away. AND I STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT I WILL DO. There YA GO woodrick...

I'm not saying anything about me. All I'm talking about is the truck and the facts around it and my experience of 9+ years driving EVs.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to stay on the forum and raise your blood pressure.

I'm taking the time out to look back and see just what was shown/said at the unveiling Tesla Cybertruck Unveil Event (Full) - YouTube . First, it's really obvious, than when compared to today's vehicle that that was a prototype, it has DOOR HANDLES! It also has very different treatment around the wheel wells, the charge port has been moved, they decreased the 0-60 from 2.9 to 2.6s, bed is no longer bare metal and...

Most importantly (a screen shot from the introduction event)

So it seems to me that unless you are buying the Cyberbeast, they met or exceeded the range that they estimated. And they even allow the AWD to use the Range Extender and get nearly 50% more than anticipated.
For the Cyberbeast, they missed the range (500+ -> 440+) but they are anticipating being able to meet it in the future.

Remember, these are Tesla indicated blended EPA numbers in both cases. They should never be considered the speed that YOU will get.

 

[anionic1]

I'm not saying anything about me. All I'm talking about is the truck and the facts around it and my experience of 9+ years driving EVs.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to stay on the forum and raise your blood pressure.

I'm taking the time out to look back and see just what was shown/said at the unveiling Tesla Cybertruck Unveil Event (Full) - YouTube . First, it's really obvious, than when compared to today's vehicle that that was a prototype, it has DOOR HANDLES! It also has very different treatment around the wheel wells, the charge port has been moved, they decreased the 0-60 from 2.9 to 2.6s, bed is no longer bare metal and...

Most importantly (a screen shot from the introduction event)

So it seems to me that unless you are buying the Cyberbeast, they met or exceeded the range that they estimated. And they even allow the AWD to use the Range Extender and get nearly 50% more than anticipated.
For the Cyberbeast, they missed the range (500+ -> 440+) but they are anticipating being able to meet it in the future.

Remember, these are Tesla indicated blended EPA numbers in both cases. They should never be considered the speed that YOU will get.

When you don't factor cost in this all makes sense. Yes, you can extend the range of the AWD but you will be at about 100% more than the initial price advertised. Anything is possible at a price. So you can't really exclude that from the conversation. And i don't see anywhere on that screenshot that says EPA range. And for the beast to have to loose bed space for added range is huge. what if they put it in the back seat and you just lose the back 3 seats. That should be fine right?. No. Its not reasonable to act like " they all meet the range except one so you are wrong". They doubled the price and barely meet the range of the beast by taking up 30-40% of the bed space. Thats not nearly close to what was advertised. So lets not go there. Yes, they tried and came up with a half assed plan to add some range. If you start taking the truck aspect away from the truck whats the point? then they havent really designed a truck, just a more rugged different shaped model X. actually a model X probably will have more storage options with that range extender shortening the bed to 4'.

The fact is that since the unveiling Elon and Tesla have come to the realization that range is not that important with the majority of people not needing that much range and with charging becoming abundant. Thats fine, but its not what was advertised.

 

[Saygmo]

I have been a tesla bull since 2016, owning stock since 2016 and a M3 since 2018.

Unfortunately, tesla is looking more and more like a car company with a p/e of a tech company.

Yeah, seems like the big 3… Promise something, deliver something else including features we didn’t ask for but remove one of the most important feature for your average truck buyer; 60% of promised range, nearly double the price. At least it’s still bulletproof stainless steal, even if they did change the thickness.

 

[Woodrick]

When you don't factor cost in this all makes sense. Yes, you can extend the range of the AWD but you will be at about 100% more than the initial price advertised. Anything is possible at a price. So you can't really exclude that from the conversation. And i don't see anywhere on that screenshot that says EPA range. And for the beast to have to loose bed space for added range is huge. what if they put it in the back seat and you just lose the back 3 seats. That should be fine right?. No. Its not reasonable to act like " they all meet the range except one so you are wrong". They doubled the price and barely meet the range of the beast by taking up 30-40% of the bed space. Thats not nearly close to what was advertised. So lets not go there. Yes, they tried and came up with a half assed plan to add some range. If you start taking the truck aspect away from the truck whats the point? then they havent really designed a truck, just a more rugged different shaped model X. actually a model X probably will have more storage options with that range extender shortening the bed to 4'.

The fact is that since the unveiling Elon and Tesla have come to the realization that range is not that important with the majority of people not needing that much range and with charging becoming abundant. Thats fine, but its not what was advertised.

I don't remember the price for the AWD and 3 motor listed. Just the "Starts at" price, which I assumed was the RWD model.

And since the RWD is "EST. $60,990" that's only a 50% increase. Yes, a lot. but everything is more expensive. And it is still competitive.

"And i don't see anywhere on that screenshot that says EPA range" Get real, that's how all manufacturers rate their vehicles. I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. And will you buy me another Cybertruck if I can show you passing the numbers? I have no question that it is easy to do.


"The fact is that since the unveiling Elon and Tesla have come to the realization that range is not that important with the majority of people not needing that much range and with charging becoming abundant. Thats fine, but its not what was advertised."

Tesla is still working at getting the range. Aside from what you stated, and Elon has mentioned this about the Model S, putting 500 miles on a vehicle means that 99.99 percent of the time you are carrying around dead weight. And you are increasing the price of the car to do so.
And since they had to raise the price a LOT more than they were expecting to, they wanted to use that information to keep the price of the truck as low as possible.

 

[Woodrick]

Yeah, seems like the big 3… Promise something, deliver something else including features we didn’t ask for but remove one of the most important feature for your average truck buyer; 60% of promised range, nearly double the price. At least it’s still bulletproof stainless steal, even if they did change the thickness.

They removed only 60 miles out of 500 miles range, slightly over 10% on the CyberBeast.

The EXCEEDED the expectations for the AWD!

 

[Tanquen]

...they have a highway range listed on that model s. I still haven’t seen any highway equivalent rating on the Cybertruck.

It just seems like the current max number they give is just not likely to ever be hit by most people. It’s not easy for them to come up with a good test for every car but it could be better than it is. We all know that all ICE and Electric cars are the same and are affected the same way by all elements and by all in-car devices but they have and it looks like they will continue to play with the way the max range is calculated... for some reason.

Some maybe helpful info here:
How the EPA determines electric vehicle range

 

[WoodChuckDad]

Totally agree. Far too many people expect their vehicles to get the range that is stated by the EPA. The real problem IMO is consumers not understanding what the rated range really means.

I have a 90 mile commute. (Each way) I drive a Nissan. “Combined rating 28 mpg. And listed as “up to 33 mpg”. I often get 31 mpg on my commute, driving most of the way at 80mph.
my dodge 2004 dodge ram is rated for 17 mpg highway and the best I ever got was 14 mpg driving from Va to Maine the day I picked it up. (Overnight stop in New York state). Practical highway milage has been 12-13 mpg, doesnt matter if I’m empty or carrying a load in the bed. (Load is supposed to be restricted to 1500 lbs. so when I have it loaded down with a lot more than that, I try to drive conservatively. I tow with it, but have never kept track of the mileage while towing. 278k on the rust bucket. Still going strong but smells like burning wood inside because I used it to light up a field while I put out a burn pile with the excavator last week and all the ash floated right toward the truck.
Anyway. I expect the mileage estimates to come in reasonably close to real world driving and real world driving is not 56 miles an hour unless the government is carressing your nutsack the whole way.

 

[Ward L]

A short time after purchasing my 2018 Model 3, I realized I was only getting about 80% of the advertised range. What was most interesting to me is that no one was talking about it. Sure, when the 3 was new with the great sound system, I raced around a little. I'm a pretty conservative driver and still get 80% of range, no matter how I drive. 80% of 320 is 256. The range issue is not new and it is not going to change. This is not an issue if you can charge it up overnight at home. If you can't charge it up overnight at home, DO NOT BUY an EV. Wait until the tech improves.

 

[cvalue13]

But there is something to be said about a company advertising "estimated" ranges and almost zero percent of their vehicles ever actually get that range. I am an estimator by profession. I have to get within 2-3 percent of my estimates or I basically fail. Tesla has a vast pool of data and really should be more realistic or maybe say, this is the EPA range and this is the user data set range.

yours is a good point and i agree, i just think it's a slightly different point than the one i was asking after

and the one i was asking after, is a bit pregnant in your comments as well "and this is the user data set range"

it implies that long distance, station-to-station driving is the substantive portion of the dataset. that *it* is "real world" driving.

statistically, for the vast majority of the data set in terms of miles, the relevant range that would be listed is "essentially infinite, because you have a gas station in your garage and average 27mi a day"

then there'd be an asterisk "*" and way down the page:
















**if you're taking a long-distance, station-to-station, trip, here's the dataset relevant to that limited use case: ...

BUT TO YOUR POINT:

On the topic of Tesla being ... aggressive ... with their EPA figures, I wouldn't be playing fair if I didn't remind folks that Tesla's certificate of conformity showed that for the Cybertruck Tesla used/proposed the most aggressive correction factor in their history

Tesla’s used 0.82 for the AWD and 0.79 for the Beast.

If Tesla instead used the default correction factor of 0.70, as do all other manufacturers than Audi, the AWD would receive a 290mi combined rating, the Beast 283.5

I suppose it's always possible we haven't seen final EPA results yet because the EPA responded, "exqueeze me?"

 

[JoeRod97]

Neither will ICE cars/trucks get EPA numbers. Too many factors that contribute to reduced range that aren’t faced in EPA range testing. Also consider that when Tesla states 320 miles of range it’s with all season tires not all terrain tires. People are choosing to pass on the FS due to the range and want the 500 miles Elon promised. If the current truck can’t give you 320 miles, what makes you believe you were ever going to get 500 miles? Because he said so? He also said the AWD would get 318 miles with all terrain tires. Comparing it to MY or M3 range is irrelevant because it weighs twice as much AND has all terrain tires, and is a truck. Personally I’m tired of paying $4.50 - $5.00 a gallon for gas in California and welcome being able to charge at home 98%!of the time where the curve doesn’t matter. If you’re primarily driving long distances, then maybe a truck generally isn’t the right choice.

Exactly

 

[cvalue13]

They doubled the price and barely meet the range of the beast by taking up 30-40% of the bed space.

the “Beast” is not the “Tri-Motor”

The “Beast” is an AWD version in “Plaid”


The irony is your comment is part of the proof the Beast is not the Tri Motor:

The “Tri-Motor” trim slotted in as a long range and heavy duty version of the Cybertruck, that happened to be fast.

The Beast is the opposite of a LR/HD Cybertruck: is has less range, identical towing, and less payload, all to make its only trim-differentiating feature, speed.

Take the AWD, make it fast, and the result is the beast. Just like the Plaid. Add a motor, Bob’s your fast uncle.



Tesla did not release the “Tri-motor.”

The released the equivalent of the “AWD,” plus a surprise performance version, plus a surprise range extender.




It makes sense to be pissed that Tesla decided the 2019 “Tri Motor” won’t be sold. THAT’s what they under-delivered on.

But saying they the Beast is an under-delivered Tri-Motor is just strange.


It’s as if Musk said he plans to sell apples and bananas, then people look in his basket and see apples and grapes - and someone exclaims, “those are the SHITTIEST little bananas I’ve ever seen!”

Sponsored