CB vs AWD in handling…the data!

[CyberTexas]

As you all know, AWD model is more rear-wheel drive bias than the Cyberbeast (CB) by design of the powertrain.

But CB has torque vectoring on the rear axle for handling.

The question then is…does this mean that AWD is better in handling and/or emergency maneuvers due to RWD-bias nature? Or does the torque vectoring of CB overcome the FWD-bias and make CB handle better?

MotorTrend, in fact, tested both! Both were Foundation 2024 models. Both with factory AT tires. (Both with air suspension.) Here are the links to the individual reviews.

CB: https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...ation-series-electric-truck-first-test-review

AWD: https://www.motortrend.com/features...ual-motor-foundation-series-first-test-review

Sponsored

 

[CyberTexas]

From above links,

AWD results:

Curb weight = 6660 lbs.
Braking = 126 ft.
Lateral = 0.76g.
0-60 = 3.8 sec.
MT Figure 8 = 27.3 sec @ 0.67g.


CB results:

Curb weight = 6884 lbs.
Braking = 126 ft.
Lateral = 0.77g.
0-60 = 2.5 sec.
MT Figure 8 = 26.6 sec @ 0.72g.

What do these results tell us? Braking is null. Both vehicles stopped same distance. BUT note the lateral grip…CB actually had slightly more lateral grip!

The most important numbers to look at is the Figure 8 time and “g’s”.

“MotorTrend’s figure-eight circuit combines acceleration, braking, and cornering into a single test that tells us everything we need to know about how a car behaves when driven hard.”

The CB easily outperforms AWD in the Figure 8 test. It is far faster. Is it all due to the CB motors (2.5 sec 0-60)? Maybe a small factor. But Figure 8 is more about handling and emergency maneuvers. And this is where CB’s torque vectoring shines! It is able to do the test faster but also pulls way more g’s doing it!!

Remember, both have same tires. CB is also some 220 lbs heavier, which is a negative in side grip. Yet the lateral acceleration in the Figure 8 test proves that Tesla knew what it was designing with the CB and the torque vectoring programming!

Cyberbeast is not just a straight-line monster, but also a capable handling machine thanks to torque vectoring!

 

[SCTesla]

I think the debate has been whether the AWD is better at off-roading due to the locking diffs in the rear.

Has anyone tested that?

 

[CyberTexas]

I think the debate has been whether the AWD is better at off-roading due to the locking diffs in the rear.

Has anyone tested that?

To see the advantage of axle lockers in an area where it separates from the rest of the crowd is over rocky terrain and ledges...and going 5 mph or less.

And in such an environment where full on mechanical lockers at both axles are needed, CT or any full-size truck (or SUV) will be at a grave disadvantage. Too wide. Too much mass. Limited articulation. And not enough protection.

This is where my argument comes back......which would you use more as a CT owner? Torque vectoring (in CB) is FAR more useful to most (99%?) of CT owners than a mechanical rear locker. Because to see the superiority of a mechanical rear locker (AWD) vs. "virtual" rear locker (CB), you have to do some major gnarly rock crawling.

 

[Tallgeese179]

These threads are always a shitshow, but I like to argue so I'll hop in the mud

[checks math multiple times]

...<3% faster in the the Figure-8 = "easily outperforms" and "far faster" . These ain't sports cars, they're big comfy straight line trucks at significantly different price points that are both slower than a 6 year old Prius in the Figure-8.

Now, there's no denying that the CB is faster in a straight line and that torque vectoring will give any car an advantage in corners, just like an LSD would. Just remember, your dual rear motors are just paper weights most of the time and you're driving a FWD truck . Where as I, a man of taste, sit in my core wheel, grey interior, non-FS CT knowing that I'm being pushed instead of dragged.

 

[CyberTexas]

These threads are always a shitshow, but I like to argue so I'll hop in the mud

[checks math multiple times]

...<3% faster in the the Figure-8 = "easily outperforms" and "far faster" . These ain't sports cars, they're big comfy straight line trucks at significantly different price points that are both slower than a 6 year old Prius in the Figure-8.

Now, there's no denying that the CB is faster in a straight line and that torque vectoring will give any car an advantage in corners, just like an LSD would. Just remember, your dual rear motors are just paper weights most of the time and you're driving a FWD truck . Where as I, a man of taste, sit in my core wheel, grey interior, non-FS CT knowing that I'm being pushed instead of dragged.

0.7 seconds is a big margin when you compare apples to apples and then you add in the g difference. (A man of taste likes to make random comparisons between an apple and a tic tac. ). Note that I was making a comparison between two vehicles of nearly identical setup.

Paperweights in a straight line? Sure. But turning a corner, they are not.

 

[Tallgeese179]

It's really just a paper weight in stop and go light acceleration, under hard acceleration those motors are doing serious work. The 0-60 and drag race videos between CT and CB are wild. Then again, they better be given the 50% price delta (or more if you got the $7.5K tax credit).

Love my CT, love that the CB exists, we're all winners man

 

[Black306]

To see the advantage of axle lockers in an area where it separates from the rest of the crowd is over rocky terrain and ledges...and going 5 mph or less.

And in such an environment where full on mechanical lockers at both axles are needed, CT or any full-size truck (or SUV) will be at a grave disadvantage. Too wide. Too much mass. Limited articulation. And not enough protection.

This is where my argument comes back......which would you use more as a CT owner? Torque vectoring (in CB) is FAR more useful to most (99%?) of CT owners than a mechanical rear locker. Because to see the superiority of a mechanical rear locker (AWD) vs. "virtual" rear locker (CB), you have to do some major gnarly rock crawling.

Here's another perspective.....neither. I don't go off roading so a mechanical locker in an AWD is pointless. And if I'm going to take tight corners, I'd rather do it in my Mustang, Z, or Corvette. So torque vectoring in a CB is also pointless.

 

[3PinkyToes]

" The CB easily outperforms AWD in the Figure 8 test. It is far faster. "

AWD - MT Figure 8 = 27.3 sec

CB - MT Figure 8 = 26.6 sec

.7 sec difference - LMAO

 

[AWDMK4]

From above links,

AWD results:

Curb weight = 6660 lbs.
Braking = 126 ft.
Lateral = 0.76g.
0-60 = 3.8 sec.
MT Figure 8 = 27.3 sec @ 0.67g.


CB results:

Curb weight = 6884 lbs.
Braking = 126 ft.
Lateral = 0.77g.
0-60 = 2.5 sec.
MT Figure 8 = 26.6 sec @ 0.72g.

What do these results tell us? Braking is null. Both vehicles stopped same distance. BUT note the lateral grip…CB actually had slightly more lateral grip!

The most important numbers to look at is the Figure 8 time and “g’s”.

I take that comparison with a grain of salt. These were on different months (AWD in the winter, CB in the spring), different drivers, and who knows, different surfaces. Pick 2 new CTs off the lot and test them on the same day, same tire pressures, drivers, and surface.

Hell, two CBs could be that far apart based on the test conditions in those 2 tests.

 

[Black306]

" The CB easily outperforms AWD in the Figure 8 test. It is far faster. "

AWD - MT Figure 8 = 27.3 sec

CB - MT Figure 8 = 26.6 sec

.7 sec difference - LMAO

 

[Black306]

Things that make you go ... hmmmm.

Front motor in a CB is a rear motor in an AWD. That implies that a CB rear dual motor, which bolts into the same place as an AWD rear motor, can be installed in the front. Quad motor anybody?

 

[gregr]

To see the advantage of axle lockers in an area where it separates from the rest of the crowd is over rocky terrain and ledges...and going 5 mph or less.

And in such an environment where full on mechanical lockers at both axles are needed, CT or any full-size truck (or SUV) will be at a grave disadvantage. Too wide. Too much mass. Limited articulation. And not enough protection.

This is where my argument comes back......which would you use more as a CT owner? Torque vectoring (in CB) is FAR more useful to most (99%?) of CT owners than a mechanical rear locker. Because to see the superiority of a mechanical rear locker (AWD) vs. "virtual" rear locker (CB), you have to do some major gnarly rock crawling.

If a full size truck will be at a disadvantage, that’s exactly _why_ you’d want mechanical lockers!

I like both trims - CB and AWD. But for me, for the way I use the truck, I would (and did) opt for a mechanical locker over multi-motor torque vectoring.

But to each their own - both options are great!

 

[CyberWalrus]

The RWD had the best handling.

One of a few that owned an RWD. Compared to my current AWD and demo driving a Beast, the RWD was so light especially up front, the steering response was instant and cornering was sharp.

 

[HaulingAss]

Because to see the superiority of a mechanical rear locker (AWD) vs. "virtual" rear locker (CB), you have to do some major gnarly rock crawling.

This is false. Major gnarly rock crawling is not the only time the lockers (or torque vectoring) is needed just to get through. Steep slippery off-off camber slopes, deep heavy snow, any slippery terrain that unloads one of the rear tires will benefit from torque transfer to the loaded tire (and show up any differences in control and traction of the AWD vs. Beast).

I haven't driven a Cyberbeast to say which one one is better when traction gets scarce, but I've long suspected the two individual rear motors is better in most situations than a rear locker. It really depends upon how good the programming is. The disadvantage of the rear locker compared to torque vectoring is that it requires the tires to break traction if turning any amount is required.

That said, I love my front and rear lockers, they have been indispensable many times (although a Cyberbeast probably would have worked great too). To me, the real benefit of the AWD over the Beast is the 220 fewer pounds in the rear and the somewhat better efficiency. I don't take the figure 8 test too seriously since they were so close and were not done side-by-side with the same temperatures and drivers. Hopefully it was the same skidpad!

Sponsored