Sponsored

Woodrick

Well-known member
First Name
Ed
Joined
Dec 30, 2023
Threads
6
Messages
4,786
Reaction score
4,762
Location
Gainesville Ga
Vehicles
Model 3, Model Y, Cybertruck AWD
Occupation
Consultant
Country flag
I'm not really sure what that picture is trying to say. Except that it looks the same to an ICE as an EV. I didn't see a gas station in the picture, nor charger.

These "My needs or more than yours..." are worthless, especially if there's a non-Tesla owner in the conversation.
Sponsored

 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
138
Messages
19,571
Reaction score
31,477
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Dude, you said:

And I showed a picture of mountains, with snow, which happened to actually affect roads, as opposed to your dry roads picture.

All because you can't admit you said
...Which clearly has been proven out, the truck totally can do that.

I both live in the mountains, where it clearly snows, and am right about the truck, which clearly can reach 300 miles range.

-Crissa
 

Woodrick

Well-known member
First Name
Ed
Joined
Dec 30, 2023
Threads
6
Messages
4,786
Reaction score
4,762
Location
Gainesville Ga
Vehicles
Model 3, Model Y, Cybertruck AWD
Occupation
Consultant
Country flag
Are you that stubborn to admit that people have gotten a lot closer than you thought?

I mean, the EPA numbers are not made up. They are from actual testing. Follow the testing scenarios and you'll get the range.
Stay below 60 and you'll get the range.
 


Woodrick

Well-known member
First Name
Ed
Joined
Dec 30, 2023
Threads
6
Messages
4,786
Reaction score
4,762
Location
Gainesville Ga
Vehicles
Model 3, Model Y, Cybertruck AWD
Occupation
Consultant
Country flag
I'm not sure if you are arguing against what I said or for it.

The EPA tests are highly standardized tests that every automaker must follow. The standards do change periodically. The EPA tried to make the standards representative of an average driving profile.

One of the biggest misunderstandings is between City and highway tests and how cars react to them. The first thing to understand is that the City tests are weighted more heavily, because the majority of miles are driven under City type conditions. 70 mph driving is not that common for most people.
And with that comes the big difference between an EV and an ICE. An EV does much better in the City tests. An ICE does terrible. An idling ICE is all smoke (that's why you see so many start/stop features now).
Highway driving is a different story and even more different than most people think.
An EVs economy is a simple math with air resistance equation, the faster you go, the harder the air pushes and the effect it exponential.
While the same thing happens to an ICE, there's more impacting it. The first is that an ICE has a optimal operation range. It looks like a U when charted out. You want to always be at the bottom of the U, where the engine is most efficient. How do you do it? With gears. So a manufacturer will calculate gear ratios so that the engine stays at optimal speeds at common travel speeds. And guess what, there's probably optimization for 60-70 mph. BUT, go above this or below this, in the same gear and economy suffers.
So unbelievable to many, at 75-80 mph, your ICE isn't going to hit it's economy either.


Here's a pretty good article on what goes into the EPA EV Fuel Economy test.
Here’s how the EPA calculates how far an EV can go on a full charge | Ars Technica
 

Knucklehead

Well-known member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Jan 12, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
115
Reaction score
135
Location
Virginia
Vehicles
Mustang Mach-e, Jeep GC-L, VW Jetta
Country flag
You say that it's not range anxiety, you just don't like to be forced to stop. Think of it anyways you want, but ANY vehicle today will make you stop. (Except for a train/bus with overhead cam)
Range anxiety means you are worried you cannot make it to the next refueling stop. It happens with ICEVs as well as BEVs. So no, that is not what I am talking about. Because you are right about one thing: Tesla has done an excellent job of building a network of refueling locations that practically eliminate range anxiety.

And yet again, I have to explain that it isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that I hate being forced to stop. Yes, I am forced to stop with ICEVs, and I hate that also. But guess what? On a road trip, it is a non-event. I don't have to plan where we stop. I can decide where we want to eat, pee, whatever, and then grab some gas at the same time.

As much as Tesla has eliminated range anxiety, they have not duplicated the number of refueling locations that currently exist for ICEVs, right? Right. I want a BEV that allows me to approximate my experience in a ICEV. Which means longer range. Period.

I am not complaining about the CT range. I am just disappointed. I am following this forum for several reasons, but one reason was my excitement about a 500-mile BEV. Now that it does not exist, I am disappointed. Not complaining, just disappointed. And I am not interested in a 300-mile range CT. A 500-mile range CT, very much on my list. If they ever build the extender, which I seriously doubt, I will consider it.
 

pricedm

Well-known member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Feb 17, 2022
Threads
2
Messages
935
Reaction score
1,854
Location
Denver, Colorado, USA
Vehicles
2026 Tesla Model Y LR. 2025 Cybertruck AWD. 2023 MY and 2018 M3: retired
Occupation
IT
Country flag
My wife's Jeep Grand Cherokee can go 500+ miles between refueling stops on the highway. Why do I have to settle for less in a BEV?

Plugging and charging is very nice, but really not better than gas refueling even at a SC station.

And I really, really hate stopping before I want to stop.
What this mindset never seems to acknowledge is the time spend going from home to gas station, then on to your trip, be it daily commute/ use, or longer distance travel.

I challenge this mindset to accurately acknowledge time spend on liquid fueling activities. It is not trivial.

It takes me less than 60 seconds to "fill up" my EV. That's the time to plug in after parking in my garage, and unplug before departing.

When I had my ICEmobile, I timed from leaving my garage, going to gas station, and then initial point on the highway by my house (let's call it 20 minutes). Spoiler alert-- in my EV, it took a lot less time to go from garage to highway (let's call it 10 minutes). And multiplied by once a week (or what ever), the time to refuel ICE takes longer.

500 miles between refueling stops on a road trip is 7 -9 hours of elapsed time--if one did not stop. Really? you want to sit that long? Pee in a cup while driving or something? Its not healthy.
 

RVAC

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
864
Reaction score
1,291
Location
-
Vehicles
-
At first glance Sandy gave the impression 32mm was the total height but after looking at it again in more detail the referenced 32mm must not include the exposed portion of the fiberglass member but just the aluminum stringer (25mm) plus the additional height from the stamped cover (6-7mm). Compare with his finger here:

Tesla Cybertruck Battery Pack Teardown Photos Reveals Empty Spaces (Sandy Munro Live) 4680 pack bottom


That's a lot more encouraging for the prospect of an eventual pack with a taller cell as they could theoretically fit something taller than a 4695.
 

cgladue

Banned
Well-known member
Banned
First Name
Chad
Joined
Jan 30, 2024
Threads
13
Messages
1,759
Reaction score
1,955
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicles
2017 Model S 75D, 2018 Model 3 Performance
Occupation
Software Architect
Country flag
i just finished a 3700 mile cross country roadtrip that averaged 444 wh/mile (277 miles of range 0-100%) and thats with 70MPH winds and snow and rain and no Aero covers

i have no doubt that if i had sunny weather at elevation with Aero covers on and only drove 70MPH i could get over 300 miles of range. so seems as advertised in my opinion.
 

BannedByTMC

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2023
Threads
22
Messages
813
Reaction score
1,141
Location
NYS
Vehicles
Model 3
Country flag
At first glance Sandy gave the impression 32mm was the total height but after looking at it again in more detail the referenced 32mm must not include the exposed portion of the fiberglass member but just the aluminum stringer (25mm) plus the additional height from the stamped cover (6-7mm). Compare with his finger here:

4680 pack bottom.png


That's a lot more encouraging for the prospect of an eventual pack with a taller cell as they could theoretically fit something taller than a 4695.
If they wanted taller cells, or even double stacked, it would be relatively simply to just stamp a deeper bottom cover and make taller stringers if needed. It would reduce ground clearance of course.
Sponsored

 
 








Top