3000 Mile Range Test Completed & EPA Estimate Confirmed in my real world driving

[HaulingAss]

I'm still expecting trials and results on the brutal 6%to 9% grades in dead of winter while pulling an average RV, lol.

I don't get it. What's wrong with using a heavy-duty ICE pickup truck for your non-local towing needs?

Sponsored

 

[rizvend]

After nearly 3000 miles of driving since I took delivery on 2/14, I can confirm the Range estimate is accurate.

FS AWD
TONNEAU CLOSED
1-5 passengers
CA temps 40-75
65% hwy posted speed limit up to 70 mph
35% city streets

IF you drive 100% on city streets you can easily get 350 miles from full pack.
IF you drive 100% on hwy you will get less than advertised.
Includes a 700 mile round trip road trip.. Trip “A” does not include road trip and therefore Beats EPA estimate due to less highway driving.

I guess my driving has been about what the EPA criteria is confirming this might be the most accurate range estimate of any Tesla. Not overly optimistic at all as seen in Edmunds revised review. See photo

View attachment 39906

Tonneau closed is key. I cringe at these youtubers publishing use cases with open covers putting the range issue in bad light for clicks.

 

[HaulingAss]

I’d like to see real flight test data to support that. My understanding of physics is even if the average altitude change is zero, that any roller coaster motion is less efficient than just staying level. There’s a reason hilly run/bike/XC ski/etc. circuit courses have slower race times and are physically harder than flat ones.

"Physics" is not a single thing and a generalized principle like 'level flight is more efficient' cannot be applied to aircraft of different designs due to the fact that thousands of individual principles of physics will come into play, and they will vary from design to design.

Let's take the example of a sailplane with power assist, and to simplify the variables let's further assume that it's travelling in absolutely still air (no wind or thermals). It will certainly be the case that the most efficient way to travel 1000 miles would be to run the engine periodically to gain altitude and then shut it off and glide to a lower altitude. This violates absolutely no rules of physics. It has to do with the efficiency of the motor/prop combination at different power outputs and a drone would be no different.

Similarly, in an EV with only an AC induction motor, the most efficient way to cover 1000 miles on a flat road would be to power up to a certain speed and then coast down to a certain slower speed. Rinse and repeat. In an EV with either a permanent magnet motor or both induction and permanent magnet motors the situation is more complex and a steady state speed may actually be more efficient due to the energy cost of a "coasting" permanent magnet motor.

Likewise, an EV rolling at 5 mph dissipates less energy per mile than one driving 30 miles per hour, but it is almost certainly more efficient to drive 30 mph due to the poor efficiency of most EV motors/inverters at very light loadings. Driving too slowly also entails running the relatively fixed consumption items like lights, computers and cabin climate systems for a longer period of time to travel the same distance.

These examples show why one can't rely on simple theoretical principles of physics to model complex processes; the physics of the entire system must be accounted for. That includes the physics of the propulsion system. It becomes complicated quickly.

 

[JBee]

"Physics" is not a single thing and a generalized principle like 'level flight is more efficient' cannot be applied to aircraft of different designs due to the fact that thousands of individual principles of physics will come into play, and they will vary from design to design.

Let's take the example of a sailplane with power assist, and to simplify the variables let's further assume that it's travelling in absolutely still air (no wind or thermals). It will certainly be the case that the most efficient way to travel 1000 miles would be to run the engine periodically to gain altitude and then shut it off and glide to a lower altitude. This violates absolutely no rules of physics. It has to do with the efficiency of the motor/prop combination at different power outputs and a drone would be no different.

Similarly, in an EV with only an AC induction motor, the most efficient way to cover 1000 miles on a flat road would be to power up to a certain speed and then coast down to a certain slower speed. Rinse and repeat. In an EV with either a permanent magnet motor or both induction and permanent magnet motors the situation is more complex and a steady state speed may actually be more efficient due to the energy cost of a "coasting" permanent magnet motor.

Likewise, an EV rolling at 5 mph dissipates less energy per mile than one driving 30 miles per hour, but it is almost certainly more efficient to drive 30 mph due to the poor efficiency of most EV motors/inverters at very light loadings. Driving too slowly also entails running the relatively fixed consumption items like lights, computers and cabin climate systems for a longer period of time to travel the same distance.

These examples show why one can't rely on simple theoretical principles of physics to model complex processes; the physics of the entire system must be accounted for. That includes the physics of the propulsion system. It becomes complicated quickly.

Wow thanks for the backup bud. ?
Exactly right.

I’d like to see real flight test data to support that. My understanding of physics is even if the average altitude change is zero, that any roller coaster motion is less efficient than just staying level. There’s a reason hilly run/bike/XC ski/etc. circuit courses have slower race times and are physically harder than flat ones.

In the case of an aircraft the propeller is only about half as efficient as a electric motor, and that only at max climb.

This has to do with the disc loading, swept area and prop pitch, which all need to match motor torque and rpm at that airspeed.

These typically are such that max thermodynamic engine efficiency is just below wot, and that needs to be transferable via a matching prop design. This design is even worse efficiency at cruise at partial throttle used for cruise.

So with a folding prop you use the max efficiency envelope to climb which gains potential energy against gravity, which then is recovered on the glide, whilst the motor is switched off and prop folded back.

This is similar to hypermiling by accelerating and coasting instead of constant speed or regen. This works because both momentum and gravity are lossless, whereas electric propulsion is not.

 

[Tinker71]

I don't get it. What's wrong with using a heavy-duty ICE pickup truck for your non-local towing needs?

I give away million dollar ideas to Tesla like candy. Here is another one, they probably won't embrace .

As an add option subscription Tesla should have road trip special PHEV or ICE vehicles available for rent when you absolutely need to do the long and fast road trip or towing.

I am envisioning this as a subscription club where you pay a fee for the privilege of being able to swap your Tesla for the PHEV at the Tesla dealer. Your drop your Tesla off at a dealer or park and ride and pick up your PHEV maybe even with the Tesla app. Your rental will include a nominal daily fee and cost per mile depending on vehicle type. Packages could have blackout dates or higher fees for popular dates. Since these vehicle will be all long trip miles they should be fairly new because they will hit their warranties fast.

The point for Tesla is:

1.) It increases sales, because that 1-5 time per year your Tesla won't work is no longer an impediment to a sale.
2.) Increases the BEV vs ICE miles and furthers the mission statement/better for the planet.
3.) Another opportunity for a for profit service. Say 20% mark up.

The point for consumers is it adds flexibility to your Tesla purchase and is very convenient. You don't have to maintain an ICE or worry about crashing values of your ICE and you get to use BEV miles for 90% plus of your annual total.

 

[BannedByTMC]

I give away million dollar ideas to Tesla like candy. Here is another one, they probably won't embrace .

Let's hope not. Tesla would need to keep and maintain a fleet of vehicles in great enough numbers to handle peak demand, which means most of these vehicles would be sitting around unused most of the time. Plus there are already places that rent trucks out if you need one.

 

[SentinelOne]

I don't get it. What's wrong with using a heavy-duty ICE pickup truck for your non-local towing needs?

Nothing in my mind - only way to get the toy hauler over the mountains without taking forever!

 

[Tinker71]

Let's hope not. Tesla would need to keep and maintain a fleet of vehicles in great enough numbers to handle peak demand, which means most of these vehicles would be sitting around unused most of the time. Plus there are already places that rent trucks out if you need one.

Not necessarily. Hence the blackout date option. Lots of people are off cycle with school and fed holidays.

That said finding the right amount to have in a rental fleet would be tough. Maybe some kind of partnership with 3rd parties.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

I don't get it. What's wrong with using a heavy-duty ICE pickup truck for your non-local towing needs?

I won't have anymore ICE after Cybertruck.

I don't get it when people will have several trucks when one can multi task.

Been there where there are several in the garage doing nothing but aging (and depreciating just by being idle). In my skills set that's called non performing asset -- also for men's part it's when they reach certain age. .

 

[Stuck4ger]

"Physics" is not a single thing and a generalized principle like 'level flight is more efficient' cannot be applied to aircraft of different designs due to the fact that thousands of individual principles of physics will come into play, and they will vary from design to design.

Let's take the example of a sailplane with power assist, and to simplify the variables let's further assume that it's travelling in absolutely still air (no wind or thermals). It will certainly be the case that the most efficient way to travel 1000 miles would be to run the engine periodically to gain altitude and then shut it off and glide to a lower altitude. This violates absolutely no rules of physics. It has to do with the efficiency of the motor/prop combination at different power outputs and a drone would be no different.

Similarly, in an EV with only an AC induction motor, the most efficient way to cover 1000 miles on a flat road would be to power up to a certain speed and then coast down to a certain slower speed. Rinse and repeat. In an EV with either a permanent magnet motor or both induction and permanent magnet motors the situation is more complex and a steady state speed may actually be more efficient due to the energy cost of a "coasting" permanent magnet motor.

Likewise, an EV rolling at 5 mph dissipates less energy per mile than one driving 30 miles per hour, but it is almost certainly more efficient to drive 30 mph due to the poor efficiency of most EV motors/inverters at very light loadings. Driving too slowly also entails running the relatively fixed consumption items like lights, computers and cabin climate systems for a longer period of time to travel the same distance.

These examples show why one can't rely on simple theoretical principles of physics to model complex processes; the physics of the entire system must be accounted for. That includes the physics of the propulsion system. It becomes complicated quickly.

I agree, I should have read your post better as I’m sure you can have prop/propulsion efficiencies that might make climb/glide more efficient for range. But if that’s the case, the aircraft wasn’t designed for cruise performance, was it? All aircraft are a compromise but a passenger aircraft is more likely to be designed for cruise performance. We can always compare apples and oranges, we just can’t get a waiver for the laws of physics. [edit]

 

[Tony stank]

Yea if you were looking to sell it the time for that was a couple of weeks ago, a CT sold last week for $121,000 and it was a cyberbeast so the aftermarket prices on them are coming down.

As you are getting close to the 1k mile mark would you be so kind as to share a picture of your lifetime wh/mile?

Only gonna sell this thing when my 992 3rs comes in.

My stats are definitely skewed cause I love to floor it.

 

[HaulingAss]

I won't have anymore ICE after Cybertruck.

I don't get it when people will have several trucks when one can multi task.

Been there where there are several in the garage doing nothing but aging (and depreciating just by being idle). In my skills set that's called non performing asset -- also for men's part it's when they reach certain age. .

I'm not recommending having several trucks, just buy the one that suits your needs. If you have a need to tow big trailers out of your locale, then just buy an ICE truck. Most ICE pickup truck owners don't use their pickups to tow out of the local area. The pickup market is so huge that Tesla will not have to adjust their product line to take into account the minority of people who tow big trailers long distances for many years, even if they grow Cybertruck sales by 50% per year for years to come.

Tesla is not trying to replace EVERY pickup truck in North America, and particularly not HD pickup trucks, and particularly not in the first several years. I've been driving pickups and using them for towing a huge variety of different towing needs for many decades. And in all that time I've towed a large trailer further than Cybertrucks towing range exactly one time. To be clear, I'm not a fan of huge RV's. Those that are will either deal with the inconvenience of frequent charging or use a more appropriate truck, like a HD ICE pickup.

This isn't that complicated, and Tesla has no pressure to be everything to everyone.

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

I'm not recommending having several trucks, just buy the one that suits your needs. If you have a need to tow big trailers out of your locale, then just buy an ICE truck. Most ICE pickup truck owners don't use their pickups to tow out of the local area. The pickup market is so huge that Tesla will not have to adjust their product line to take into account the minority of people who tow big trailers long distances for many years, even if they grow Cybertruck sales by 50% per year for years to come.

Tesla is not trying to replace EVERY pickup truck in North America, and particularly not HD pickup trucks, and particularly not in the first several years. I've been driving pickups and using them for towing a huge variety of different towing needs for many decades. And in all that time I've towed a large trailer further than Cybertrucks towing range exactly one time. To be clear, I'm not a fan of huge RV's. Those that are will either deal with the inconvenience of frequent charging or use a more appropriate truck, like a HD ICE pickup.

This isn't that complicated, and Tesla has no pressure to be everything to everyone.

I have a simple and short answer to your usual kilometric post: Cybertruck is a truck and expected to do truck stuff.

 

[JBee]

I agree, I should have read your post better as I’m sure you can have prop/propulsion efficiencies that might make climb/glide more efficient for range. But if that’s the case, the aircraft wasn’t designed for cruise performance, was it? All aircraft are a compromise but a passenger aircraft is more likely to be designed for cruise performance. We can always compare apples and oranges, we just can’t get a waiver for the laws of physics. [edit]

I think you might have missed my post above where I describe why no typical fixed wing aircraft can be optimised for cruise, if it must also accomplish configurations for take-off, landing and climb. The only way you could do that with a combustion engine would be to disable and fold propellers back for cruise, because max thermodynamic efficiency of internal combustion engines, including turbines, is very close to max throttle. Max throttle is only used for takeoff/climb, but not just for cruise. The same applies for propeller/bypass turbine design in that they are also optimised for max power.

This means that switching operation between climb (max motor/prop eff) and glide (max aerodynamic cruise) gives better economy than cruise at sub-optimal motor/prop and sub-optimal aerodynamic cruise at the same time, but all the time.

This is similar to the premise I presented of using the eVTOL configuration for better efficiency, in that the forward prop need not be optimised for takeoff at all, because it doesn't need a runway to takeoff or land, because it does so vertically, using separate rotors. This means that both the forward motor and propellor only need to operate at cruise speeds, and only produce enough thrust to maintain altitude at cruise speed, and overcome lift induced and form drag. This also means that the wings can be much smaller (the faster you go the more lift from the same wing area), can be optimised to operate at cruise speed only (cruise missile style), and don't need flaps as they do not need to operate at low stall speeds to takeoff and land etc. because it can supplement lift at low airspeeds using the vertical lift rotors before the wings stall instead. Overall this means both takeoff/landing and cruise efficiency can be decoupled, meaning each can be optimised individually.

 

[Stuck4ger]

I think you might have missed my post above where I describe why no typical fixed wing aircraft can be optimised for cruise, if it must also accomplish configurations for take-off, landing and climb. The only way you could do that with a combustion engine would be to disable and fold propellers back for cruise, because max thermodynamic efficiency of internal combustion engines, including turbines, is very close to max throttle. Max throttle is only used for takeoff/climb, but not just for cruise. The same applies for propeller/bypass turbine design in that they are also optimised for max power.

This means that switching operation between climb (max motor/prop eff) and glide (max aerodynamic cruise) gives better economy than cruise at sub-optimal motor/prop and sub-optimal aerodynamic cruise at the same time, but all the time.

This is similar to the premise I presented of using the eVTOL configuration for better efficiency, in that the forward prop need not be optimised for takeoff at all, because it doesn't need a runway to takeoff or land, because it does so vertically, using separate rotors. This means that both the forward motor and propellor only need to operate at cruise speeds, and only produce enough thrust to maintain altitude at cruise speed, and overcome lift induced and form drag. This also means that the wings can be much smaller (the faster you go the more lift from the same wing area), can be optimised to operate at cruise speed only (cruise missile style), and don't need flaps as they do not need to operate at low stall speeds to takeoff and land etc. because it can supplement lift at low airspeeds using the vertical lift rotors before the wings stall instead. Overall this means both takeoff/landing and cruise efficiency can be decoupled, meaning each can be optimised individually.

Yeah, there’s a lot of cool advances and innovative concepts in the eVTOL world but I don’t want to derail this CT forum any further.

Sponsored