40,000 Production this year prediction

[Greshnab]

No I don’t believe this

“we’ve” just not even gotten to the basic agreement on principals, to next turn to the minutia of how those differences in batteries relate to range loss from towing. NOTICE, for example, that my comparisons to f an ICE F150 to a Lightning aren’t comparing differences in two battery technologies

and in any event, this is why I keep talking in terms of max range and % loss of max range, not another parameter

because those differences in batteries are inherent to (or ‘behind’) the stated max range

Battery X, whatever its composition/characteristics, evidence themselves in a max range of X’ at [EPA conditions]

Battery Y, whatever its composition/characteristics, evidence themselves in a max range of Y’ at [EPA conditions]

in any event, to reiterate, these theoretical differences in efficiency curves between two battery technologies aren’t yet even ripe in the discussion

because the discussion to date has centered around either (A) why the Lightning doesn’t achieve EPA max range, depending on variables, or (B) whether those same variables have roughly equal effect on the range of an ICE F150. No battery comp going in in either.

the max range is calculated like MPG and all other stated stats for a car under normal use... when you are talking about maximizing towing capacity this is NOT normal use; this is extreme duty use.

Increasing the load on an electric motor increases the current drain SIGNIFICANTLY; and ramping this up to the highest level will effect batteries in different manners based on the basic design. If you refuse to accept this simple fact and calculate it okie ddokie.. we have to agree to disagree and I will no longer comment on your posts.. in my world all that matters is actual real world performance not math equations that assume a perfect battery.

obtw.. i mighta worked with a few batteries in my time 8)

Sponsored

 

[BeastSlayer]

And to think, I have a very simple buy-or-not-buy decision criteria for F150 Lightning.

Why would I pay double on F150 Lightning when it's performance for my intended use of towing and winter driving is a lot lower than it's replacement/alternative F150 counterpart?

Then some wise guy said, I'm uninformed buyer and so are the other F150 Lightning owners selling their unit when they found out by their own experience the 70% in range when towing and 50%-60% in freezing conditions.

 

[Rutrow]

Why is everyone so determined to tow 10,000 lbs at 75 mph?!? When I was a plumber the owner wouldn't allow anyone to tow the track-hoe any faster than 60mph, and he was paying to whole crew by the hour!!! He knew towing fast was stupid dangerous. Give me tow stats at 65 mph, they'll probably increase considerably over getting there 30 minutes earlier.

 

[Roy2001]

What doesn't make sense to me is how two identical truck profiles (ICE F-150 vs. Lightning) can vary so much in delta efficiency when comparing unladen vs. towing.

ICE F-150 towing is roughly 70% efficient vs. unladen.
EV Lightning towing is roughly 50% efficient vs. unladen.

Why the discrepancy?

Please don't get sidelined by the exact percentage numbers, these are simply rough observations by numerous people after having performed various range tests.

If a theoretical ICE vehicle has an EPA range of 500 miles and a theoretical EV has an identical EPA range of 500 miles, why can the ICE vehicle tow farther than the EV when outfitted with the identical theoretical trailer?

See my comment #129

 

[BeastSlayer]

Why is everyone so determined to tow 10,000 lbs at 75 mph?!? When I was a plumber the owner wouldn't allow anyone to tow the track-hoe any faster than 60mph, and he was paying to whole crew by the hour!!! He knew towing fast was stupid dangerous. Give me tow stats at 65 mph, they'll probably increase considerably over getting there 30 minutes earlier.

And in California and other West Coast states, speed above 55 mph while towing is already a violation.

I found logic to that. Towing my RV at 60-65 mph makes it unstable and I even have an over-the-specs weight distribution and sway control system.

 

[SSonnentag]

See my comment #129

So, in terms of work accomplished (mass moved, etc.), gasoline vehicles are more efficient under heavy load than under light load?

 

[TyPope]

The EV tow mpg drops more because it is SO efficient!

For ICE, let's say for 100 miles it consumes 5 gallons of gas. Among 5 gallons of gas, only close to 1.5 gallons were used to drive the truck, rest were wasted as max thermal efficiency for gas engine is usually just over 20%.

When towing, let's say it needs another 1-1.2 gallons of gas to tow, but it won't need to waste another 3 gallons since it would be more efficient when it is working hard. So it may just needs 2 gallons. So gas consumption would increase from 5 gallons to 7 gallons when towing.

For EV, since there is almost no thermal waste, all the energy was used to drive the truck, when you add the trailer, then energy consumption would be doubled. It is just that simple.

Well said. The CT will only have 150KwH of energy in its tank (yes, I'm assuming the CT has a 150KwH battery and uses 300 watts per mile giving it a range of 500 miles) while an F150 ICE has 775 KwH of energy in a 23-gallon gas tank.

CT has 150 KwH available. It uses 300 watts per mile unloaded. It will require 955 watts loaded per mile based on the physics model in my previous post.

The F-150 ICE is less efficient and based on personal experience with mine, it gets 20mpg unloaded (1,685 watts per mile) and gets 12 mpg when towing (2,808 watts per mile). (It's usually less than 12 but I did get 12 mpg on a couple of occasions.

So, the CT will use 3.18 times more energy to pull 7,000 pounds than when it is unloaded.
The F150 with its little 2.7L EcoBoost engine uses 1.66 times more energy to pull 7,000 pounds than when unloaded.

Cybertruck range: goes from 500 to 157 miles (loss of 68.6% of range)
F150 2.7l Ice range: goes from 460 to 276 miles (loss of 40.0% of range)

Physics.

 

[TyPope]

So, in terms of work accomplished (mass moved, etc.), gasoline vehicles are more efficient under heavy load than under light load?

No. But, their % of energy lost to thermal is lower than when the entire system is using more energy. The waste energy does not increase as fast as the lateral movement energy requirements.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

He did not say that.

Question: Once CT is fully ramped in Austin what is the target production

Elon Answer: "We'll start production and handing over cars later this year, there will be an S-curve of production, and I guess we'll see what the demand is, we're likely to do a quarter million a year, maybe more, very much dependent on what the demand is like. We don't just need to ramp up production but improve production cost efficiency which is a very hard thing. We'll make as much as people want, but like I said it's going to be hard to make the cost affordable. In the grand scheme of things it will be small, but still very cool"

Full ramp is a quarter million a year, maybe more...not "250k next year".

I am not going to go back through every quarterly meeting to find the quotes but they said in no uncertain terms 250K/yr and they said full production in 2024. I never said that he said it at this shareholder's meeting. If you do not remember that far back I am fine with it, but to negate what i said, well, do what you want. I expect better from @Crissa though.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Well said. The CT will only have 150KwH of energy in its tank (yes, I'm assuming the CT has a 150KwH battery and uses 300 watts per mile giving it a range of 500 miles) while an F150 ICE has 775 KwH of energy in a 23-gallon gas tank.

CT has 150 KwH available. It uses 300 watts per mile unloaded. It will require 955 watts loaded per mile based on the physics model in my previous post.

The F-150 ICE is less efficient and based on personal experience with mine, it gets 20mpg unloaded (1,685 watts per mile) and gets 12 mpg when towing (2,808 watts per mile). (It's usually less than 12 but I did get 12 mpg on a couple of occasions.

So, the CT will use 3.18 times more energy to pull 7,000 pounds than when it is unloaded.
The F150 with its little 2.7L EcoBoost engine uses 1.66 times more energy to pull 7,000 pounds than when unloaded.

Cybertruck range: goes from 500 to 157 miles (loss of 68.6% of range)
F150 2.7l Ice range: goes from 460 to 276 miles (loss of 40.0% of range)

Physics.

300 Wh/mile? That would be good (Model 3 is 260 and Model X is 330). Does this assumption come with some rationale? Did someone say (I have forgotten all the battery pack discussions - sorry) they thought 300 might be possible for the Cybertruck, maybe given the new batteries or great drag coefficient?

 

[SSonnentag]

So, the CT will use 3.18 times more energy to pull 7,000 pounds than when it is unloaded.
The F150 with its little 2.7L EcoBoost engine uses 1.66 times more energy to pull 7,000 pounds than when unloaded.

Cybertruck range: goes from 500 to 157 miles (loss of 68.6% of range)
F150 2.7l Ice range: goes from 460 to 276 miles (loss of 40.0% of range)

Physics.

This all says ICE is more efficient under load than EV when using no-load as a baseline.


Using your numbers:
--------------------------
Baseline EV: 100% efficient
Baseline ICE: 100% efficient

Loaded EV: 31.4% efficient
Loaded ICE: 60% efficient

 

[Frank Mendez]

Sorry, let me reframe my point and see if it helps clarify what you view as contradictory:

The F150, like the CT, converted many from ICE to BEV for the first time. Like myself. I’ve loved the idea of BEV, but need (want?) a full-sized truck. Now, here’s an option for one.

Accordingly, the Lightning has been subject to many critiques from two camps that need qualification:

First, first-time BEV buyers that don’t appreciate the quirks that are unique to all BEVs: e.g., performance effects of cold weather. Many first time BEV Tesla buyers go through these same learning curves. These folks need only education and acclimatizing.

Second, YouTubers and media outlets that are sensationalists. You yourself appear to reference these as the source of your opinions. And the CT is going to receive its fair share of lumps from these very same infuencer-wannabes. This group I ignore, about any manufacturer, and we all should.




If one of your “reasons” is towing performance, then you’re not an informed buyer. And, the CT isn’t going to perform any differently than the Lightning in this respect, except to the extent the CT offers a larger battery pack and better interstate charging infra.

If one of your “reasons” is cold weather performance, then you’re not an informed buyer. And the CT isn’t going to perform any differently than the Lightning in this respect, except to the extent the CT offers a larger battery pack and better interstate charging infra (and maybe heat pump).

That sort of list goes on.

But rather than acknowledging that the fundamental towing/cold weather performance between the Lightning and CT boil down to the (painfully obvious) differences in battery size and intrastate charging infra, you instead seem to just regurgitate YouTube FUD that is based on sloppy thinking.

If you think you’re waiting on a CT to not experience a >50% reduction in range while towing, you’re going to be disappointed.

If you think you’re waiting on a CT to not experience material reductions in range due to cold weather, you’re going to be disappointed.

To avoid these disappointments, you should focus on the actual, substantive, advantages of the CT in these respects: choose a trim with a far larger battery than any Lightning, and be prepared to stop and recharge at the better Tesla intrastate charge infra.

With my expectations at towing to be 50%, I believe I am not being too optimistic.
Regarding cold weather effects, My model 3 is not that impacted in cold weather. I do not see a drastic drop in range. What I do see in my 3 and my hybrid Lincoln is similar effects in the heat of summer and the cold of winter. Nothing too drastic. I expect the truck to be the same.
I expect the 500 mile 3 motor to realistically be 350 miles at 80% (natural drop as I've seen in my 3) charge levels. That is just fine around town and I expect 425 when charged for trips to the hills.
I am good with these ranges. I am not impacted by range anxiety due to my experience with my 3.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Now do it for 75mph!

75 mph pulling 7,000 pounds? Is that even legal? It certainly isn't smart. I want to be a few states away from anyone doing that.

 

[SSonnentag]

75 mph pulling 7,000 pounds? Is that even legal? It certainly isn't smart. I want to be a few states away from anyone doing that.

The freeways and highways are full of CA-plated lifted trucks towing loads at least that heavy while doing 80-90 mph during busy Imperial Sand Dune weekends. It is indeed quite scary.

 

[uscbucsfan]

I am not going to go back through every quarterly meeting to find the quotes but they said in no uncertain terms 250K/yr and they said full production in 2024. I never said that he said it at this shareholder's meeting. If you do not remember that far back I am fine with it, but to negate what i said, well, do what you want. I expect better from @Crissa though.

They've changed predictions based on the economy/ "affordability" and potential demand. Elon has just recently started saying how slow the ramp will be as well.

Things change.

Sponsored