900 Mile Road Trip Efficiency Test w/ Modded Cybertruck

[Cybertruck 1974]

Guessing high speed freeway (vs. epa cycle), that's what kills my range aka the i25 in Colorado is 75mph with everyone doing 85-95mph....I do it 2x's per week for 100miles....I could slow down but there's enough range so nope. Not a Tesla thing, it's an ev thing.

not here. I don't speed for anyone. Speed cameras here in California everywhere now and you get a ticket in the mail. I drive 65 and am in the left lane mostly, occasionally I see the truck at 70 because it's so easy. I'm 100 to 150 miles a day have tested this trucks mileage with trailers, hills, flats, dirt, snow, desert. Efficiency is not what this truck is about and that's not why I bought it. It saves me money even when I get 100 miles of range with a trailer, that's why. But in future with all the issues I've had with recalls, breakdowns I'm not sure I'll keep it. If it keeps breaking down I wont be able to afford the repairs after Warranty is up which for me will be 2025 on the 40k mile items under warranty.

Sponsored

 

[SentinelOne]

not here. I don't speed for anyone. Speed cameras here in California everywhere now and you get a ticket in the mail. I drive 65 and am in the left lane mostly, occasionally I see the truck at 70 because it's so easy. I'm 100 to 150 miles a day have tested this trucks mileage with trailers, hills, flats, dirt, snow, desert. Efficiency is not what this truck is about and that's not why I bought it. It saves me money even when I get 100 miles of range with a trailer, that's why. But in future with all the issues I've had with recalls, breakdowns I'm not sure I'll keep it. If it keeps breaking down I wont be able to afford the repairs after Warranty is up which for me will be 2025 on the 40k mile items under warranty.

Got it. Sux you've had lots of issues. I've had a few recalls fixed in 2 service visits and my seats replaced but no other unplanned deviations from bliss.

 

[Cybertruck 1974]

Got it. Sux you've had lots of issues. I've had a few recalls fixed in 2 service visits and my seats replaced but no other unplanned deviations from bliss.

I've heard from alot of owners and the service center personnel that the CThas been in alot once you start reaching 20k miles. 6 recalls you should have received and for me the others were Blocked Coolant Flow, HV Batt module. What seat issues did you have?

 

[SentinelOne]

I've heard from alot of owners and the service center personnel that the CThas been in alot once you start reaching 20k miles. 6 recalls you should have received and for me the others were Blocked Coolant Flow, HV Batt module. What seat issues did you have?

I got mine in June so didnt have all 6 applicable. Seats would shift in turns aka movement....they replaced both fronts (I only complained about drivers).

 

[JBee]

I agree, as I was told by Tesla support by phone once, that with my now oldest Model S 90D, to remain below 70ph as much as possible as anything above 70 was essentially reducing the efficiency by almost x2.
Around here in central PA even on highways, the average speed is between 65 & 70 for cruising.
However I’ve noticed many people driving like speedy Gonzales and doing upwards of 90 the closer I get to anywhere east PA like Philly or even south central where I see lots of other out of state plates.
I get it, as you drive longer periods you tend to start picking up speed but honestly I’d rather hang around 70 and speed only when necessary to pass slow moving semis or other traffic congestion, just to gain the separation of not driving within a pack while on highway.

I see peoples related speed comments all over YouTube and wonder how in the world does everyone drive so fast yet expect great range?

To be pedantic here, but technically it's actually doing more work by displacing air faster when it drives faster, but conversion efficiency is still similar, you just don't get as far with the same energy if you go faster, you just do more work to get less far.

 

[JBee]

It's pretty hard to modify a Cybertruck to get better range than OEM because Tesla has already optimized it. Sure, you could improve it slightly, but not without nerfing it in other ways, the best strategy if you think you need as much range as possible is to not fuck up what Tesla has done.

I'm open to someone proving me wrong.

Probably the most obvious way to improve the highway range with minimal downside is to construct an aero tail for it (like out of foam board and glue) that attaches to the rear face of the tailgate and extends rearward about 6 feet. I figure that could be good for about a 5%-7% improvement at 75 mph if done properly.

I agree it's not the easiest to mod for better aerodynamics.

The easiest mods would be to take off the mirrors, put on flat wheel covers, low ride height adjustments and then rear wheel fairings, but then you'd have to contend with the RWS clearances, which can be done.

Then next is as you also say making a rear hitch mounted, swing out luggage box that helps bring the air back together instead of the Kambach rear end the CT uses. The nose in the aerodynamics sims looks pretty good in comparison.

But there's also the option to add some active aero (forced steerable airflow) that could help reduce drag. The flat surfaces aren't helping laminar flow here so injecting some compressed airflow at various points to round off the airstream would probably help.

 

[HaulingAss]

I agree it's not the easiest to mod for better aerodynamics.

The easiest mods would be to take off the mirrors, put on flat wheel covers, low ride height adjustments and then rear wheel fairings, but then you'd have to contend with the RWS clearances, which can be done.

Then next is as you also say making a rear hitch mounted, swing out luggage box that helps bring the air back together instead of the Kambach rear end the CT uses. The nose in the aerodynamics sims looks pretty good in comparison.

But there's also the option to add some active aero (forced steerable airflow) that could help reduce drag. The flat surfaces aren't helping laminar flow here so injecting some compressed airflow at various points to round off the airstream would probably help.

Right, and most of those optimizations have downsides too. In the end, you might get 12% higher efficiency which would add about 36 miles of range from 100%-0%. A better solution is simply to keep installing more and faster DCFC in increasingly remote areas. And that's exactly what Tesla is doing.

People who think EV range above 400 miles is the future of the personal automobile don't understand how to use EVs. Charging them is always going to be better than hauling around hundreds of pounds of unnecessary mass just for those few times per year that you don't want to stop for a few minutes to add some range.

I'm all about aero efficiency but trucks have never been particularly aerodynamic to begin with due to the functionality needed.

 

[JBee]

Right, and most of those optimizations have downsides too. In the end, you might get 12% higher efficiency which would add about 36 miles of range from 100%-0%. A better solution is simply to keep installing more and faster DCFC in increasingly remote areas. And that's exactly what Tesla is doing.

People who think EV range above 400 miles is the future of the personal automobile don't understand how to use EVs. Charging them is always going to be better than hauling around hundreds of pounds of unnecessary mass just for those few times per year that you don't want to stop for a few minutes to add some range.

I'm all about aero efficiency but trucks have never been particularly aerodynamic to begin with due to the functionality needed.

Yeah trucks aren't ideal, a van would be better in that it doesn't add much frontal area in comparison and could still have a low Cd, but loads could be securely placed inside the vehicle and inside a aerodynamic shape, instead of on the bed, or towed, which is extra dead weight and wheels, and causes even more drag all up, and costs more to buy, use and store.

Vans are really trucks with trailers, and are why they are so popular in Europe. My van holds 530cuft, 1.6tonnes and you can either drive with 3 or 8 passengers etc by removing some seats, or slide 3 pallets in with a forkift.. stand up inside, use as camper, secure lockable toolbox, weathproof material transport etc.

In comparison though mass does not add as much drag in the form of rolling resistance as aerodynamics, and it also doesn't increase with speed very much unlike aero. Also lifting mass to additional altitudes in a EV also means it it is recoverable on the way back down.

Also adding just battery does not mean that the rest of the vehicle also has to get bigger and heavier, especially with a structural pack setup.

And then you can also use higher energy density batteries, which currently can be up to twice as much at around 500Wh/kg, so technically you could keep the same mass and double range, and probably halve the cycling if charging at home. The mass fraction of battery need not stay the same throughout a model range.

I agree that there is a obvious tradeoff of cost vs mass vs range vs utilisation, but I think there is enough scope to allow for at least two range models, say 250-300 and 400 actual usable at highway cruise speeds is well within reason of what is possible and what would sell, without limiting what customers want, need or think they need to a arbitrarily value determined by a best guess of whats need in most places.

I can agree that a key to mitgating these issues is increasing SC coverage, but the reality is that there are many places where DC will never exist, be that because of lack of network, or lack of people and customers to make it profitable to put one there.

Here in Australia that is already the case, and in undeveloped nations this issue will also be a problem for decafes to come, so having a model with more range would make more sense here.

We also need to be mindful that Tesla is not really the forerunner in battery tech, and others are surpassing both peak performance and energy capacity and range, whislt offering much faster charging speeds at similar of lower costs. There is real competition emerging and that needs to be compensated for if you want to stay ahead.

This might not have been the case when CT was first announced, but is most definitely the case now.

 

[SlegMD]

Also- part of getting into EV ownership, for me, was having control over energy and costs. I’d rather not have a 3rd party control energy costs and rarity. I’m happy to know SC are available but I am reluctant to be reliant on them and give them that control. It’s basically another petrol scenario. I support the idea of more miles available with expanded capacity.

 

[HaulingAss]

I can agree that a key to mitgating these issues is increasing SC coverage, but the reality is that there are many places where DC will never exist, be that because of lack of network, or lack of people and customers to make it profitable to put one there.

Tesla has already installed plenty of DCFCers in locations so remote they will never even pay for the direct costs of maintaining them, let alone be profitable. But that's why it's called a Supercharger "Network", the network has to be looked at as a business entity in its entirety. Tesla doesn't cherry pick locations for maxium charging profits, they pick locations to enable convenient EV travel. This is a major reason why the Supercharger Network in N. America is the only network that allows you to go anywhere most people will ever want to go. EVs are still around 10% or below of all cars on the road and the network is still growing to eventually make EVs the most practical choice for basically everyone. I imagine by 2040 you will still find edge use cases where a gas car just makes more sense, but they will be so few and far between as to be inconsequential.

Even when batteries double in energy density, it will make more sense, in almost all use cases, to halve the battery weight rather than increase range to 700 miles. It's really all about making the charging happen seamlessly so it's not an issue. I've never heard anyone complain their ICE car can only go 350 miles! That's a lot of driving.

 

[HaulingAss]

Also- part of getting into EV ownership, for me, was having control over energy and costs. I’d rather not have a 3rd party control energy costs and rarity. I’m happy to know SC are available but I am reluctant to be reliant on them and give them that control. It’s basically another petrol scenario. I support the idea of more miles available with expanded capacity.

How many cars are in your family, and what are the average annual miles travelled by each car?

There is a principle called "competition" that will ensure DCFC networks cannot unfairly profiteer. No one will go to those who have unreasonable pricing. Even with gas stations you will pay more in very remote locations, but I can't say I was ever concerned about it, I was just glad they were there. It's a rare event that I ever need to fill up at one of those kinds of remote stations, even on my motorcycles that only go 200-280 miles per tank. And I love riding in the most remote places I can find in the American West.

 

[JBee]

Tesla has already installed plenty of DCFCers in locations so remote they will never even pay for the direct costs of maintaining them, let alone be profitable. But that's why it's called a Supercharger "Network", the network has to be looked at as a business entity in its entirety. Tesla doesn't cherry pick locations for maxium charging profits, they pick locations to enable convenient EV travel. This is a major reason why the Supercharger Network in N. America is the only network that allows you to go anywhere most people will ever want to go. EVs are still around 10% or below of all cars on the road and the network is still growing to eventually make EVs the most practical choice for basically everyone. I imagine by 2040 you will still find edge use cases where a gas car just makes more sense, but they will be so few and far between as to be inconsequential.

Even when batteries double in energy density, it will make more sense, in almost all use cases, to halve the battery weight rather than increase range to 700 miles. It's really all about making the charging happen seamlessly so it's not an issue. I've never heard anyone complain their ICE car can only go 350 miles! That's a lot of driving.

You need to visit Australia and see what remote long distance driving really is, we don't have petrol stations for hundreds of miles on routes to somewhere with people, let alone a bush to park a charger next to a roo. USA is small and overpopulated in comparison just have a look at plugshare in WA using even just a 25kw filter.

This is a Diesel charger in the nullabor which is the only sealed road directly to the eastern states, and it is 900miles from the state capital to the border, and 1800miles to the nearest metropolitan area one way.

Us Aussies need range, and we don't need less options, we need more.

If batteries are twice as energy dense and cost the same I'm sure most will want it, the extra mass is fairly trivial in comparison. Everyone in Australia will have it though.

 

[HaulingAss]

You need to visit Australia and see what remote long distance driving really is, we don't have petrol stations for hundreds of miles on routes to somewhere with people, let alone a bush to park a charger next to a roo. USA is small and overpopulated in comparison just have a look at plugshare in WA using even just a 25kw filter.

This is a Diesel charger in the nullabor which is the only sealed road directly to the eastern states, and it is 900miles from the state capital to the border, and 1800miles to the nearest metropolitan area one way.

Us Aussies need range, and we don't need less options, we need more.

If batteries are twice as energy dense and cost the same I'm sure most will want it, the extra mass is fairly trivial in comparison. Everyone in Australia will have it though.

Yeah, but crossing the Australian continent is a niche use case, relative to global EV sales. Most Australians would never even consider doing it by car, they fly if they need to visit the other coast, a small portion chose the train. Even fewer drive. And Australia is a very small country, population wise. California has more people, nearly twice as many.

Aussies actually drive less miles per year than Americans, far less.

Australians average 7,502 miles/year or 21 miles per day
Americans average 13,476 miles/year or 37 miles per day

That said, even ignoring the vast empty middle of the continent, EV charging infrastructure in Australia is far behind the rest of the developed world. It will get vastly better over the next 5 years.

 

[JBee]

Yeah, but crossing the Australian continent is a niche use case, relative to global EV sales. Most Australians would never even consider doing it by car, they fly if they need to visit the other coast, a small portion chose the train. Even fewer drive. And Australia is a very small country, population wise. California has more people, nearly twice as many.

Aussies actually drive less miles per year than Americans, far less.

Australians average 7,502 miles/year or 21 miles per day
Americans average 13,476 miles/year or 37 miles per day

That said, even ignoring the vast empty middle of the continent, EV charging infrastructure in Australia is far behind the rest of the developed world. It will get vastly better over the next 5 years.

So you are admitting that Australia and many other nations don't have the population density, nor the network infrastructure for chargers everywhere, so we NEED longer range battery packs in our vehicles??

Sweet I'm glad we agree.

And there will be never a power grid accross the nullabor over 1000miles of nothing, so not in 5 or 50years.

Maybe in your grid dense part of the world you drive one of these?

 

[AlmostHuman]

Sponsored