CB vs AWD in handling…the data!

[CyberTexas]

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!

My off-road gnarly comparison comment is between torque vectoring and rear locker. NOT between rear locker and no locker. Thus I stand behind my above comment based on my past off-roading experiences.

Motortrend testing protocol is meant to be repeatable and environment controlled as much as possible. Read:

https://www.motortrend.com/about-us/how-motortrend-tests-cars

As for whether 0.7 sec and 0.5g difference are significant or not is perspective. I have been following cars of all sizes for all my life. In my opinion, those differences between similar vehicles (apples to apples) are significant…and I believe that most car enthusiasts would agree with me.

Sponsored

 

[CyberTexas]

The original posts by me are NOT meant to show that the CT is a Porsche or even a Luce or a Prius.

Instead they are meant to show that torque vectoring does indeed work very well and overcomes the FWD-bias nature of CB around corners. That is my only purpose. I wanted to share the data from a reputable source with you all.

If some of you think that this was meant to denigrate AWD model, then I apologize. It was not my intention.

 

[MCraft99]

I think the heavier motor in the front helped with weight distribution for lateral Gs. Unlike ICE trucks, the front end of these trucks is lighter than the rear, especially when loaded. This leads to the front wheels slipping more on steep winding gravel roads that I drive every day, so I enable 'slippery conditions' option to prevent it usually.

Front wheel drive is safer in wet or icy conditions but the traction control and ability to adjust all the motors 1000x/s should make the dual motor nearly as good.

Lockers also help in sand and mud. There was a video comparing the CB/AWD and a Rivian going up a gravel pit when the locker update first came out. Dual lockers did a better job crawling.

 

[CyberTexas]

Lockers also help in sand and mud. There was a video comparing the CB/AWD and a Rivian going up a gravel pit when the locker update first came out. Dual lockers did a better job crawling.

True. The “virtual” rear locker of CB and rear mechanical locker of AWD both help in sand and mud.

 

[carsly]

don’t forget “slippery surface mode” which forces four wheel drive. i use it in any snow/ice conditions which have become far too frequent in the northeast

 

[CyberWalrus]

I think the new standard AWD will have better handling than premium AWD and Beast. Not as light as RWD, but has the coil suspension which is more consistent in compression. Air suspension is made for comfort and insulation rather than performance. Thus don't see performance cars with air suspension. They use magnetic particles in fluid.

In terms of the difference between Beast and AWD, I think Beast should handle more neutral in track with it's torque vectoring. AWD more push, but also good. Both good. I see the Beast like the Mitsubishi EVO, versus Subaru WRX STi like the AWD in comparison of the yore.

 

[speedstuff]

don’t forget “slippery surface mode” which forces four wheel drive. i use it in any snow/ice conditions which have become far too frequent in the northeast

I use this mode daily in our CB due to our rural roads - it all but eliminates the front end hop/thud that beasts suffer from. I wish Tesla would allow it to stay selected full time rather than having to enable it every drive. (much like the 2026's now where you must disable lane keeping on each and every drive if that is a nuisance)

 

[carsly]

I use this mode daily in our CB due to our rural roads - it all but eliminates the front end hop/thud that beasts suffer from. I wish Tesla would allow it to stay selected full time rather than having to enable it every drive. (much like the 2026's now where you must disable lane keeping on each and every drive if that is a nuisance)

Agree, and would be nice to just call it 'four wheel drive'.

I bet most CT owners don't know what 'slippery surface mode' actually does.

 

[DoberManPin-Sure]

Agree, and would be nice to just call it 'four wheel drive'.

I bet most CT owners don't know what 'slippery surface mode' actually does.

I've never used it, but I've never encountered snow or ice to-date. Recommend it for rainy conditions where highway driving often has standing water that causes slippage? TIA.

 

[carsly]

I've never used it, but I've never encountered snow or ice to-date. Recommend it for rainy conditions where highway driving often has standing water that causes slippage? TIA.

even better for local roads if you have deep puddles or flowing water coming perpendicular to the driving surface with pooling here and there. Having all four wheels powered on keeps things very stable.

 

[eswimm]

Torque vectoring in my BMW X6M was a magical thing. I'm not surprised the CB can out-handle the AWD. Still happy I went with the AWD though, because I'm not a fan of front wheel bias AWD. Rear wheel bias and torque vectoring was the one main thing I missed going from my X6M to a Model X P100DL. Model X could beat the BMW in a straight line, but it couldn't touch it in the curves.

 

[CyberTexas]

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!

In what situation/trail?? For such a big and heavy vehicle, the CT is really not a great technical off-roader. Since you live in CO, a trail like Poughkeepsie would be very difficult simply from the size and weight. I transverse that trail in my G-wagen in 2004 and it was difficult as heck and that G-wagen was lighter, much smaller in every dimension, and had better angles.

And if you are planning to go on a trail where full front & rear (mechanical or virtual) lockers are needed, then the stock CT underbody and rocker panels will be damaged/mangled badly. My CT underbody and rocker panels got damaged from just small highway debris!

I have the Terrestrial Armor Package on my CB now. While good for general off-roading, I would argue that Armor Package is not made for gnarly trails like Poughkeepsie and the likes. I am not crazy to think that I can run with Jeep Rubicons of the world over technical trails. Our CT, while a bank vault, is still a unibody. And rock sliders connecting directly to the actual body is never a good idea over technical trails.

Have some people done extreme trails with CT? Of course, but expect damage galore and winching help. I would NEVER come close to those technical trails in my CT as I would in a Jeep Rubicon or G-wagen.

And given the extreme weight of the CT (and gravity), going up a big rock ledge would require some "aggressive" throttling.......and I would argue in that type of situation, a mechanical rear locker or a virtual one makes zero difference. (And of course, CB also has front mechanical locker just like AWD.)

Given that Tesla does the software, in off-road mode, I would bet that the virtual real locker is quite aggressive in engagement and probably locks itself in certain situation without needing to wait for slippage. Look at the torque-vectoring of CB and how well calibrated it is given the Figure 8 test time above and the lateral g.

 

[MCraft99]

In what situation/trail?? For such a big and heavy vehicle, the CT is really not a great technical off-roader. Since you live in CO, a trail like Poughkeepsie would be very difficult simply from the size and weight. I transverse that trail in my G-wagen in 2004 and it was difficult as heck and that G-wagen was lighter, much smaller in every dimension, and had better angles.

And if you are planning to go on a trail where full front & rear (mechanical or virtual) lockers are needed, then the stock CT underbody and rocker panels will be damaged/mangled badly. My CT underbody and rocker panels got damaged from just small highway debris!

I have the Terrestrial Armor Package on my CB now. While good for general off-roading, I would argue that Armor Package is not made for gnarly trails like Poughkeepsie and the likes. I am not crazy to think that I can run with Jeep Rubicons of the world over technical trails. Our CT, while a bank vault, is still a unibody. And rock sliders connecting directly to the actual body is never a good idea over technical trails.

Have some people done extreme trails with CT? Of course, but expect damage galore and winching help. I would NEVER come close to those technical trails in my CT as I would in a Jeep Rubicon or G-wagen.

And given the extreme weight of the CT (and gravity), going up a big rock ledge would require some "aggressive" throttling.......and I would argue in that type of situation, a mechanical rear locker or a virtual one makes zero difference. (And of course, CB also has front mechanical locker just like AWD.)

Given that Tesla does the software, in off-road mode, I would bet that the virtual real locker is quite aggressive in engagement and probably locks itself in certain situation without needing to wait for slippage. Look at the torque-vectoring of CB and how well calibrated it is given the Figure 8 test time above and the lateral g.

The long wheelbase prevents going on some of those crazy trails that 2D Jeep/Rovers can only do. Personally, I think the stock tires aren't wide enough or big enough for the 7klbs unloaded. I'm still debating if it's worth adding 2" spacers(will they break?) and 2.5" lift($10k) from unplugged to fit 39x13.5 BFG HD-Terrains.

 

[gregr]

In what situation/trail?? For such a big and heavy vehicle, the CT is really not a great technical off-roader. Since you live in CO, a trail like Poughkeepsie would be very difficult simply from the size and weight. I transverse that trail in my G-wagen in 2004 and it was difficult as heck and that G-wagen was lighter, much smaller in every dimension, and had better angles.

And if you are planning to go on a trail where full front & rear (mechanical or virtual) lockers are needed, then the stock CT underbody and rocker panels will be damaged/mangled badly. My CT underbody and rocker panels got damaged from just small highway debris!

I have the Terrestrial Armor Package on my CB now. While good for general off-roading, I would argue that Armor Package is not made for gnarly trails like Poughkeepsie and the likes. I am not crazy to think that I can run with Jeep Rubicons of the world over technical trails. Our CT, while a bank vault, is still a unibody. And rock sliders connecting directly to the actual body is never a good idea over technical trails.

Have some people done extreme trails with CT? Of course, but expect damage galore and winching help. I would NEVER come close to those technical trails in my CT as I would in a Jeep Rubicon or G-wagen.

And given the extreme weight of the CT (and gravity), going up a big rock ledge would require some "aggressive" throttling.......and I would argue in that type of situation, a mechanical rear locker or a virtual one makes zero difference. (And of course, CB also has front mechanical locker just like AWD.)

Given that Tesla does the software, in off-road mode, I would bet that the virtual real locker is quite aggressive in engagement and probably locks itself in certain situation without needing to wait for slippage. Look at the torque-vectoring of CB and how well calibrated it is given the Figure 8 test time above and the lateral g.

I don't disagree with most of this! I personally have no intention of taking my CT on very difficult trails. A (long) while back, I had a modified Wrangler TJ, and took it on many of the difficult trails in CO, and also out to the Rubicon; I have an excellent idea of what's required to survive trails like that. Luckily I managed to get it mostly out of my system, so while I think it's fun, I don't feel the need to stress my CT in that way!

What I _do_ want to do is take my CT out to remote-ish camping sites; down forest roads where I might not know exactly what I'm getting into, etc. By this I mean I know it's not a serious rock crawling road, but I don't know the current conditions, recent runoff, etc. I think the most common situation one would run into here is a steep wet hill with deep diagonal ruts, where one wheel is in the air and another has very little weight on it. Certain situations could make slipping a wheel lead to sliding to one side, which may or may not be an issue depending on the situation. So while I'm very confident either CT build would get up this hill just fine, I would choose predictability over anything else. If I can avoid slipping a tire (even briefly), that might make a difference.

I should add this is a made-up scenario - I can't remember the last time I truly needed lockers to get up a hill like this. But even so, I choose predictability, should I find myself in a situation where I _do_ need them.

All that said, I think the Beast setup would be superior in any higher-speed situation, notably including slick highways.

 

[gregr]

The long wheelbase prevents going on some of those crazy trails that 2D Jeep/Rovers can only do. Personally, I think the stock tires aren't wide enough or big enough for the 7klbs unloaded. I'm still debating if it's worth adding 2" spacers(will they break?) and 2.5" lift($10k) from unplugged to fit 39x13.5 BFG HD-Terrains.

Wow that lift is seriously expensive! Seems like 39's would be a bit of a stretch given the size of the wheel wells - they mention in a blog post that up to 37's will work. I bet it would look awesome though!

Sponsored