Any 500mi range updates?

[Ogre]

I wouldn't expect 600 miles of range on ANY versions of the Cybertruck unless you just like to be disappointed.

I would add that I seriously doubt battery capacity will be anywhere near 250 kWh.

Most likely it’s less than 200 kWh and Tesla ships with ~500 miles range (with a tailwind; at 55 MPH; a skinny driver; no climate control; aero rims; and utility/ long range tires).

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

I didn't know Tesla changed the range on the web page. That isn't good news at all :-(

No, it said 'up to 500+' on the trimotor spec, but it always said 'up to 500' on the description page. We no longer have the variant specs page with the number of motors and prices.

They won't under shoot the range, they never have. They removed the Plaid+ because it needed battery packs they didn't have yet and they decided not to fragment their S demand into more variants.

-Crissa

 

[Cybertruck Hawaii]

?I plan to use the power from the long range battery for my “Dog Mode” status in hot weather Hawaii.

 

[Ogre]

?I plan to use the power from the long range battery for my “Dog Mode” status in hot weather Hawaii.

I don’t think there is anywhere in Hawaii where you would need a truck with 500 miles range. Dog or not.

 

[SpaceYooper]

No, it said 'up to 500+' on the trimotor spec, but it always said 'up to 500' on the description page. We no longer have the variant specs page with the number of motors and prices.

They won't under shoot the range, they never have. They removed the Plaid+ because it needed battery packs they didn't have yet and they decided not to fragment their S demand into more variants.

-Crissa

That's not true. The trimotor page displayed it the same way the single motor page displayed it.
https://images.app.goo.gl/V579ya1XRqTD6bCx7

That wasn't the only place 500+ was mentioned. And didn't always say "up to".
https://images.app.goo.gl/FHz3heD7iLeZZqSQ6

Tesla has sent mixed messages about this issue from the start, because stating "up to" a number gives a ceiling, adding the + afterwards makes it confusing because the + isn't defined.

Like the linked photo. That photo tells me I'll get at least 500 miles of range (assumed based on some level of epa standard...driving 55, not towing, not fully loaded, but under ideal circumstances I could expect at least 500 miles).

And then there were those gui pics that showed a 610 number. Some (not me) think that number was also an indication of range.

 

[Crissa]

That's not true. The trimotor page displayed it the same way the single motor page displayed it.
https://images.app.goo.gl/V579ya1XRqTD6bCx7

That wasn't the only place 500+ was mentioned. And didn't always say "up to".
https://images.app.goo.gl/FHz3heD7iLeZZqSQ6

Tesla has sent mixed messages about this issue from the start, because stating "up to" a number gives a ceiling, adding the + afterwards makes it confusing because the + isn't defined.

Like the linked photo. That photo tells me I'll get at least 500 miles of range (assumed based on some level of epa standard...driving 55, not towing, not fully loaded, but under ideal circumstances I could expect at least 500 miles).

And then there were those gui pics that showed a 610 number. Some (not me) think that number was also an indication of range.

None of that contradicts me? So what part is not true?

-Crissa

 

[Macgyverfever]

Within the context of the Denali EV interior heater (along with Rivian, Lightning, etc), if it doesn't use some sort of efficient heat pump etc, range of a full trip with the heater on will be diminished by 25-50+ miles more than a Tesla, so a 400 Denali range might be 375 at best. This of course makes the assumption all else is apples to apples (drag coefficient, weight, etc).

I would, therefore, wait on the Denali (if GMC doesn't already make you wait as others have pointed out) until the CT has been released..

unless you're < 450,000 in-position, for-which I would then say: please forget everything I said and drop your reservation for the good of yours truly.

 

[Ogre]

I would, therefore, wait on the Denali (if GMC doesn't already make you wait as others have pointed out) until the CT has been released.. Hell Freezes over.

Little suggested edit there. GM has done little to nothing to convince me they know how to build a good EV. The LYRIQ has a 25% larger battery to achieve the same range as the Model Y. Charges much slower, and has less cargo capacity. Don’t even start on the Hummer.

No reason to expect the Silverado or Denali will be any better.

Rivian makes a very nice truck. It’s a bit pricy, but it’s much nicer than anything I’ve seen from GM.

 

[SpaceYooper]

None of that contradicts me? So what part is not true?

-Crissa

It's not true that I he trimotor page said "up to 500+".

It just said 500+

 

[HaulingAss]

I have little doubt Tesla will release a version with 500 miles but keep in mind that not all manufacturers are created equal in terms of percent of range loss under more demanding use scenariosthat tend to be eas-normal conditions in terms of acceleration and temperatures.

Some EV's will have more range loss in the cold, for example. Some have more range loss when you put your foot into it. The EPA range is a metric for very specific operating conditions and parameters that doesn't take into account how much energy cold weather or towing will sap from your range. It's not always proportional between different vehicles because they have different efficiencies at different portions of the power curve and at different temperatures and Tesla is very good at optimizing the entire range of possible usage scenarios - they don't just focus on the EPA number like some manufacturers who are trying to get as close to Tesla's EPA numbers as possible.

I don't have charts and graphs showing efficiency at higher levels of load, but I did run across this article that attempts to quantify range loss in cold weather between different EV models. It's very interesting although I don't have access to the methodology used. If someone finds it, let me know:

Why winter saps your electric car's driving range (axios.com)

 

[Crissa]

It's not true that I he trimotor page said "up to 500+".

It just said 500+

But that was the model page, not the general description pages.

-Crissa

 

[CostcoSamples]

Who needs a long range battery when a rapid charge battery is a better solution? It would be smaller and lighter.

People who have real winters... Here in the frozen wasteland of the north, where distances are vast, charging infrastructure is limited, and soul-crushing winters kill range. By my calculations, a 500 mile battery is the starting point for "useful" work.

 

[Crissa]

People who have real winters... Here in the frozen wasteland of the north, where distances are vast, charging infrastructure is limited, and soul-crushing winters kill range. By my calculations, a 500 mile battery is the starting point for "useful" work.

You must hate most ICE powered vehicles with their piddly winter range, then.

-Crissa

 

[CostcoSamples]

You must hate most ICE powered vehicles with their piddly winter range, then.

-Crissa

why do you say that? Cold weather has little impact on highway range for ICE vehicles, plus gas stations are everywhere.

 

[HaulingAss]

Tesla has sent mixed messages about this issue from the start, because stating "up to" a number gives a ceiling, adding the + afterwards makes it confusing because the + isn't defined.

Like the linked photo. That photo tells me I'll get at least 500 miles of range (assumed based on some level of epa standard...driving 55, not towing, not fully loaded, but under ideal circumstances I could expect at least 500 miles).

Let's break this down:

First, not even Tesla knows what the exact range will be until they have the production version and run the EPA test cycles. They know what they are designing it to, not what it will return on the actual carefully regulated test. So "500+" would mean at least 500 miles and probably not more than 3-5% more margin of error, so about 500-525. "Up to 500 miles" would probably mean 475-500 miles of EPA range and "up to 500+" would probably mean "up to 500ish miles EPA range" , although I suspect this phrase might be used only when speaking inclusively of all models, hence the "up to 500+ miles".

Secondly, all range figures quoted by Tesla will be for the EPA combined drive cycle (unless specifically stated otherwise). This is the combined City and Hwy drive cycles so, no, it won't necessarily be driving at a steady 55 mph (although it does often work out close to that).

Under ideal conditions, but not downhill or with a tailwind, you should be able to exceed the combined EPA range simply by maintaining a steady speed that is not too fast. I can match or exceed the EPA combined efficiency in our Model 3 LR RWD by cruising over 60 mph non-stop in mild weather (between 60 and 80 degrees) on a route including rolling terrain and even some larger grades and mountain passes as long as they are not so exessively steep that I need to use regen to slow the descent. It helps if the tires are inflated to 45 PSI cold.

A big factor that is often overlooked when stating range is the road surface. I have spent all day driving on sharp, angular chip seal roads and it impacts range more than one might guess. On the otherhand, a concrete Interstate, that is worn smooth by a few years of traffic, can be incredibly efficient.

I pay attention to these things, not because they matter in most actual use cases, but because I am interested in things that impact efficiency to either direction. And my experiences, at least with the very aerodynamic Model 3 with Aero wheels, is that cold temperatures are a very minor impact at speeds 60 mph and below when using the seat heater to maintain comfort while keeping cabin temperatures on the cool side (not freezing) and travelling continuously and not doing a lot of shorter trips and parking. Even in gas powered cars I do not like stuffy, warm cabins and have always used seat heaters and cooler air to optimize my comfort in cold weather.

If one is so inclined on a crispy, cold day, one can turn the heater on high, making the cabin toasty warm, drive at 75-80 mph through the cold, dense air, and the range will suffer somewhat dramatically. Very cold, dense air creates much more aero drag and this impacts range more at higher speeds, just as it does in a gas car. At more moderate speeds the impact of more dense air is greatly lessened. I keep the cabin as warm as I want it but maintain a lower fan speed so all my warmed air is not being quickly exhausted out the air exit portlets at the rear of the car. None of this is necessary unless you know you will be pushing the range limits anyway. I mention these things because a lot of reports of dramatic range loss in cold weather are done using purposefully wasteful techniques to prove a point or simply because they have little understanding of how to best use their tools.

500 miles of EPA range will be something entirely new to me. However, even the 310 miles (degraded after 4+ years of ownership to 290 miles) is more than I need, even on long trips. It's nice when you need it, but 300 miles does seem excessive most of the time, even in very cold winter weather.

Sponsored