Foundation Series Remorse

[cvalue13]

you’re apparently not even understanding the discussion in order to have a basis to know who is confused

I’m not talking about how many motors exist - I know how many motors exist; a baby would understand how many motors exist in each trim offering.

the enter point being discussed isn’t a debate about how many motors are in a trim offering.

the point is that the ‘19 trim name of “Tri-Motor” was also just branding, specifically where they chose to name a trim package after how many motors were used in that trim.

When I say ‘19 “Tri-Motor”, the quotes are because I’m not talking describing the numerical value of the engines in that trim offering. For Christ’s sakes.

I’m using quotes because that’s the trim name, the branding, that Tesla gave a trim offering that did/included X, Y, Z, functionality and merely happened to involved three motors being the in the vehicle.





But fine guys, go on discussing the “Beast” like it’s some failed version of the “Tri-Motor”.

It doesn’t change the reality the ‘19 trim offering that was a LR/HD version of the cybertruck obviously isn’t being produced.

what they name it, the branding, is as irrelevant to that fact as the number of motors included.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

you’ve got the causation arrow backwards there, obviously

what’s not obvious is if you actually believe what you’re saying

 

[Woodrick]

I’m not confused about sh*t

the fact there are three motors is arbitrary and irrelevant

the unveiled roadster has three motors and goes fast. The “Beast” has three motors and goes fast.

it doesn’t mean the Beast is a “failed” version of the Roadster.

The ‘23 Beast is not some “failed” version of the ‘19 “Tri-Motor”

the ‘23 Beast a completely different trim offering, and the ‘19 “Tri-Motor” never made it to production.

Who is confused is anyone that doesn’t understand that simple point.

I'm not really sure how you are reading so much into the two different specifications.

 

[Woodrick]

So how does the fact that there are so many slow semis factor into your thoughts. So many semis struggle at 60 mph going up hills. Not mountains, hills.

 

[Woodrick]

So how does the fact that there are so many slow semis factor into your thoughts. So many semis struggle at 60 mph going up hills. Not mountains, hills.

I know that this is so hard for you non-EV drivers to understand, but the secret to driving an EV is to go faster! What, but the range suffers. Sure, so what?

If you want to move along at the fastest speeds, a group of gentlemen did some calculations 5+ years ago at speeds and charging.

The end result is that if you travel 75-85 mph, and you keep your battery at about 5-50%, you get further, faster.

The whole concept is to stay on the good side of the battery charging curve. For those driving EVs, we tend to know that the time that it takes to charge from 0-80% is about the same as 80-100%. Thie more charge that the battery has, the slower it charges. So get on the best side of the charge curves, which is about 50%.
Why not go down to only 10%? That's because from 0-10% is enormously fast. only a couple of minutes.

 

[cvalue13]

then, the correlary, is the “drive faster" group should be looking for a different automobile

player's choice

clearly

because my entire point is those "most people" are confused, wrong-headed, and not understanding the distinction between a trim offering's proper noun, vs typical Tesla short-hand descripttive language for a configuration reduced to the number of motors involved in the trim level

the point, in other words, is that "most people" seem incapable of differentiating between, e.g., when someone at Tesla says:

"the tri-motor Model S"​

​

vs​

​

"The Model S Plaid"​

this isn't a distinction that is merely about capitalization. this is a distinction that is about proper noun vs descriptive language.

the descriptive language point you keep reiterating is an entirely different, un-interesting, and un-substantive discussion than the one being had, which to follow the theme is instead a discussion about:

"the Tri-Motor Cybertruck which is a tri-motor Cybertruck"​

​

vs​

​

"the Beast Cybertruck which is a tri-motor Cybertruck"​

and CLEARLY, when someone today suggests that the "Beast" is a failed version of the "Tri-Motor", they aren't talking about the descriptive term - descriptively there can be no 'failure' ... the Beast still has three motors, too

instead, CLEARLY, when someone today says that the "Beast" is a failed version of the "Tri-Motor," they are talking about the proper noun - the substantive content of the trim offering that is denoted by a branding name.

that they both, descriptively, have three motors is irrelevant to the conversation, and so obvious that it's uninteresting.

what is in contention instead is not whether they both have three motors (they clearly do). what is in contention is whether the branded, proper noun, trim offering of the "Tri-Motor" is in any way substantively a match to the branded, proper noun, trim offering that is the "Beast"

it's worth noting that, this exact sort of confused thinking is why, since 2019, Tesla has changed its branding/trim naming strategy away from motor numbers.

Because, apparently, "most people" are unable to grasp the distinctions that matter, from the ones that don't

if I tell you my wife and I are expecting a baby girl who we have named "Legs", then month later introduce you to our instead surprise baby boy named "Max," you'd be here telling me he's a defective version of a girl - because there are still legs on him, and you heard me mention that he has legs

yes, we can end this now - because the end result is just y'alls silly players choice: feel free to keep talking about how defective the baby girl is because they still have legs but are a boy

 

[JGTESLA]

In 2019 they debuted a single, dual and tri motor variant of the CT. In 2023 they repeated this with some differences in specs for each variant.

Nothing to get caught up on. Need to just go off of 2023 actual release vs being so anchored to names and specs from concept reveal.

The cyberbeast isn’t a dual motor variant with extra speed. It is the tri motor variant that Tesla actually made. 3 variants. 3 different motor configurations. Pretty simple.

 

[Outdoors]

I know that this is so hard for you non-EV drivers to understand, but the secret to driving an EV is to go faster! What, but the range suffers. Sure, so what?

If you want to move along at the fastest speeds, a group of gentlemen did some calculations 5+ years ago at speeds and charging.

The end result is that if you travel 75-85 mph, and you keep your battery at about 5-50%, you get further, faster.

The concept is called splash and dash. That is how I can still drive over 1250 miles in a day on a Tesla 100D with 270k in miles. Over on the other forum we talk about the solo record for a day.

Summary. Faster is always better. Understand your charging curve, and ride it close, but not so close that it slows charging at beginning. Drove 72,000 miles last year all Tesla. About a 5000 of those miles were at temps -0F. The horror. I read stuff I cringe that people that live in cold climates should never buy an EV until tech improves. Ugh.

 

[cvalue13]

In 2019 they debuted a single, dual and tri motor variant of the CT. In 2023 they repeated this with some differences in specs for each variant.

Nothing to get caught up on. Need to just go off of 2023 actual release vs being so anchored to names and specs from concept reveal.

The cyberbeast isn’t a dual motor variant with extra speed. It is the tri motor variant that Tesla actually made. 3 variants. 3 different motor configurations. Pretty simple.

that's all well and good except it glosses over the heart of discussion - which is how the current content of this forum is overrun with people framing their judgments and explanations regarding the capabilities of the Cybertruck, in ways that obscure the reality and relevant critiques.

here are two very different sentiments with two very different possible sets of explanations, learnings, and inferences that result:

(1) on Nov. 30, Tesla decided to *not* offer a long range, heavy duty, Cybertruck​

​

(2) On Nov. 30, Tesla decided to offer a long range, heavy duty, Cybertruck that has less range than and identical duty to the basic Cybertruck​

It requires adopting the bizarre and non-sensible view in (2) above for people to say sh*t like this:

"Tesla promised a 500 mile/HD Tri-Motor but delivered a 340 mile Tri-Motor - the Cybertruck is a failure, and we need to take it up with the morality department"​

implies a folly, a failure, deceit, and attempt not met, and - substantively - that Tesla believes they should be selling a 500mi BEV truck, but is simply incapable of doing so. And those implications, are what the handful of inordinately butt-hurt, borderline troll-converts, are now weaponizing in discussions EVERYWHERE on this forum.

whereas I am countering that unsubstantiated, intellectually dishonest, line of thinking with the following:

"actually, it appears Tesla may have decided, for whatever reasons, that a 500mi/HD Cybertruck isn't a marketable product, and you should take it up with their engineering and corporate finance departments.​

​

And PS: whatever your views of the long range version, the "Cybertruck" isn't a "failure," insofar as while Tesla didn't decide to sell the "Tri-Motor," they over-delivered on the "Dual Motor" version, giving us not only 340mi range, more towing, more features, they even gave us a bonus "fast" version, not to mention a (somewhat silly) range extender."​

​

I'm not the one here playing semantics. I'm the one here calling out others who are playing semantics in order to gin up intellectually dishonest and unproductive lines of discussion.

Tesla didnt build the 2019 "Tri Motor." I understand that sucks for some of you, and I'm sorry. But for those of you casting that decision as some moral failing, you're being a bunch of unrealistic babies who can only try to persuade other people into outrage by mischaracterizing what has or has not occurred.

 

[cvalue13]

The end result is that if you travel 75-85 mph, and you keep your battery at about 5-50%, you get further, faster.

works great!

of course, only assuming that for a given pack size there is sufficiently ubiquitous charging infrastructure and charging speeds in all the locations people with trucks want to go (or tow) to keep that battery's given range between 5-50% without an unacceptable levels of time and effort

but *checks notes* ...

... dang, people expressing (legitimate) concerns here are doing so on the basis of the concern of there not being ubiquitous charging infrastructure relative to these packs to do all the things they want to do with the trucks and keep the battery's range between 5-50% without an unacceptable levels of time and effort


damn!

we almost had it all solved!

but turns out the substance of the idea all rested on glossing over the key issue in the first place!

 

[Outdoors]

works great!

of course, only assuming that for a given pack size there is sufficiently ubiquitous charging infrastructure and charging speeds in all the locations people with trucks want to go (or tow) to keep that battery's given range between 5-50% without an unacceptable levels of time and effort

Really? Come on. Crapping on the Tesla Supercharging network. Come on man. Surely you can do better. I splash and dash all over. Manitoba to the Florida Keys. Not much effort required. Just because one lives in a box don't speak about something you haven't had a negative experience in yet, even an experience.

You took a ride in a Cybertruck, and don't own any EV's according to your signature. Even if the F150 is electric. Your charging network you signed up for requires you to play ball with Tesla, not the other way around.

Sponsored