10,000+ Miles Driving a Cybertruck – Things learned: range, great sound and full love/hate list after 10k miles

[Strykerwsu]

what are the current real test ranges of the Lightening and R1T?

On my R1T on 21s (street tire) I have made it 324 miles at 70 mph (about 2.5 kwh) 100% to 5%. The 20s (AT) have about a 12% reduction for me on avg. I haven’t done a similar 70 mph test as only switch for longer trips. Keep in mind 80 degrees. Winter 30 degrees, I avg about 2.0 so would be about 265 miles.

Sponsored

 

[Alan]

When going through Kansa this fall I was getting 25% better range because of the altitude. Have to be carefull when comparing range from different parts of the country.

 

[cvalue13]

what are the current real test ranges of the Lightening and R1T?

guess I’d need to know what you think *real* means?

every test is *real*, including the EPA figures (subject only perhaps to what factor an OEM applies/the EPA accepts)

drive 80mph uphill against the wind, the results are real. Etc.

by in large, though, for the Lightning there is general agreement that Ford was conservative in its approach to the EPA numbers.

doing long-distance driving conscientious of range in warm weather, I and others have gotten 2.4mi/kWh

Ford’s highway EPA is 283 miles, or 2.16mi/kWh - at an average of 48mph testing.

Yet I get 2.44 or 320mi … that’s 40 miles or 14% better than EPA highway rating, doing 65-70.


Meanwhile, around town I drive with complete range abandon, use my truck as an office, HVAC running, etc.: Lightning’s EPA city is 350mi or 2.67mi/kwh, where I’m getting only 2.1mi/kWh - but because I have no range anxiety in town, I fill up every night, and don’t go far, so I not only don’t use it like the EPA does “min “city”, I abuse the energy consumption far more than I ever would in an ICE.

can’t speak for the Rivian

 

[MiddKid]

AFAIK, It's not correct. The Model S never went to 92A it was limited to 17.2kW

From a kind of random site, but it jives with what I know and remember.

1. Maximum power intake of your Tesla: This is either 17.2 kW or 11.5 kW depending on which variant you own.
   • All Model S variants come standard with 11.5 kW charging to for a maximum of 32 miles of range per hour charging.
   • Model S variants with the “High Amperage Charger” option can accept up to 17.2 kW of power for a maximum 52 miles of range per hour.

AFAIK, each vehicle has two separate "chargers" (I had one go out a while back and AC charging was cut in half). The Model S and I think the Model X has some models that supported a third "charger" So if you had the extra module installed, you got a higher charging rate.
That brought the circuit requirements up to 100A, which is far beyond what many homes have available. There are a huge number of homes that can't even support 60A charging.

Can confirm via a picture of my 2014 Model S Dual Charger on pickup day. 80A charging (on a 100A circuit in my garage) getting 52 miles of range per hour.

 

[jookyone]

Really? Were you hoping that they would swap packs to make things more fair? I have never seen a test where they swapped out gas tanks or engines to make things more equal.
I guess I also completely ignored the fact that the aerodynamics are completely different as well?
Do buyers care about range or pack size?
The temperature was virtually the same as well.
How many times does it need to be stated that for many the CT pack is too small?
Fact is a larger pack will go farther at speed for the same efficiency (mi/kwh) especially if it has a lower Cd.

You are the one that made a direct comparison the tests were "quite similar" with " Rivian having the better long range travel results by at least 10%." Your words not mine. Not disclosing that the entire advantage is likely battery size is disingenuous at best. I clarified your statement for you.

EDIT: The battery size is relevant in that charging costs for the Rivian are significantly more, not to mention the higher cost of the available networks (Electrify America and their horrible support for their network). The Rivian's longer range and larger pack is an ongoing cost to have the luxury of more miles. That never goes away. Tesla owners opting for the Range Extender will be opting for the same higher operating costs but cheaper costs on their network. That advantage is obviously negated when Rivian goes NACS.

 

[cvalue13]

The Rivian's longer range and larger pack is an ongoing cost to have the luxury of more miles.

I think that’s a fair point, though sort of a fringe footnote to the central one at issue




At least, people clamoring for Tesla to have given the CT more range appear to be agnostic or unfazed by the ancillary effects of a CT with a larger pack in terms of charging costs etc


and I can’t imagine that Tesla’s various rationales for not providing a larger pack included “it will be more expensive to charge”

Because the reality is, if you’re traveling say 1000 miles, you are paying for that much range either way - the only question is how many times must you stop to charge in order to achieve it

that the Rivian and CT MSRPs have rough have price parity, despite the delta in pack sizes, is worth noting too

 

[Deleted member 8371]

Can't tell if I'm getting cold feet, or if that's just the freezing rain

I am getting cold feet; I am 11304 far away from my beast order. I hope to get better mileage by then, or I might wait a few years; I am still unhappy about losing the ramp. Unhappy about paying more for the millage they were saying we would get for the 80000.00 truck. I still love the truck, just sad they lost the 2 biggest things I want.

 

[Gigahorse]

I am getting cold feet; I am 11304 far away from my beast order. I hope to get better mileage by then, or I might wait a few years; I am still unhappy about losing the ramp. Unhappy about paying more for the millage they were saying we would get for the 80000.00 truck. I still love the truck, just sad they lost the 2 biggest things I want.

The ramp was a bummer but I think that can be overcome by an aftermarket solution, the problem for me is the 80 mile range when towing getting less than the Rivian and Ford is a major bummer

 

[Ikafz001]

All of the above tells me there is a critical failure warning light flashing at Tesla. I am a long-time Tesla shareholder, owner of three Teslas, huge advocate of the company and all around fan. (I recently and reluctantly cancelled the CT FS because the range would not meet my needs.) But I am calling it: something is deeply broken.

We now have enough data to definitively say that Tesla blew it on the Cybertruck range (not least this post which is consistent with previous data). There is no way - with all of the very public testing done by Tesla - that the engineering team did not know (long ago) that the real-world range would suck. They knew. And Tesla has an incredible engineering and manufacturing team so they could have fixed this. No question. So it seems to me that we can conclude:
1) Range sucks
2) Team knew long before release that range sucks
3) It is a big deal for customers
4) They could have fixed it but didn't

With these facts on the table (I think they are facts at this point) one has to ask why did Tesla get this so wrong? We have seen this before. It is a symptom of an organization where everyone is afraid to tell the emperor that he is not wearing clothes. It is a symptom of a company where bad news is hidden and bad data is reformulated until it fits a pre-ordained internal narrative. If that diagnosis is correct, Tesla is in serious trouble. For all of its accomplishments and incredibly talented staff, it will collapse in on itself unless this gets fixed. I hope it is a wake-up call to the board and the leadership. Warning light flashing IMO.

Couldn't have said it better

 

[Woodrick]

I am getting cold feet; I am 11304 far away from my beast order. I hope to get better mileage by then, or I might wait a few years; I am still unhappy about losing the ramp. Unhappy about paying more for the millage they were saying we would get for the 80000.00 truck. I still love the truck, just sad they lost the 2 biggest things I want.

Then just wait for the invite for the standard version. No big deal. Revisit your decision then.

 

[Deleted member 8371]

Then just wait for the invite for the standard version. No big deal. Revisit your decision then.

Ed, read what I said. I was agreeing with someone just add a little.

 

[VDR]

Not disclosing that the entire advantage is likely battery size is disingenuous at best. I clarified your statement for you.

EDIT: The battery size is relevant in that charging costs for the Rivian are significantly more, not to mention the higher cost of the available networks (Electrify America and their horrible support for their network). The Rivian's longer range and larger pack is an ongoing cost to have the luxury of more miles.

Sorry didn't intend to be disingenuous, anyone buying a 100k vehicle should probably look into the specs. It has been pretty well documented that the CT is smaller than the competition.
What is truly disingenuous is marketing a vehicle with excess irrelevant marketing hype & false claims to the customer

I am not sure I would call 10% significantly. The vast majority of charging is from home so it is not that large a concern.
In the end the vehicle with the best efficiency will have the lowest cost to charge for the same distance traveled from home.
The size of the pack is irrelevant it is the mi/kwh(efficiency) & total kw used that you are paying for.
It appears that the DCFC charging cost is going to equalize this year as things open up, and there are more and more options that are sometimes cheaper as we move forward.

 

[VDR]

At least, people clamoring for Tesla to have given the CT more range appear to be agnostic or unfazed by the ancillary effects of a CT with a larger pack in terms of charging costs etc

The reason they are unfazed is because you pay per mile travelled, the cost to complete a charge is irrelevant. The mi/kwh is what matters.

 

[cvalue13]

The reason they are unfazed is because you pay per mile travelled, the cost to complete a charge is irrelevant. The mi/kwh is what matters.

Agreed obvi, and…

Because the reality is, if you’re traveling say 1000 miles, you are paying for that much range either way - the only question is how many times must you stop to charge in order to achieve it

that the Rivian and CT MSRPs have rough have price parity, despite the delta in pack sizes, is worth noting too

 

[Strykerwsu]

When going through Kansa this fall I was getting 25% better range because of the altitude. Have to be carefull when comparing range from different parts of the country.

Not sure where you are from and what part of Kansas you were in. My area of Kansas is only about 1,300 elevation.

Sponsored