Beast better than AWD, change my mind

[cvalue13]

I know. This was already pointed out to me. Not discounting it. I just didn’t realize it was the case

Got it

separately, ironically, the Turbo S often tests (outside of Porsche Cirporate) at 2.2sec (including rollout)

so to your point about “if it can’t be reproduced, then it is truly false advertising”

Sponsored

 

[Cyber Man]

It's interesting to see that we are splitting hairs on 0 to 60 for CB. All I can say is if you ride/drive anything that does 0-60 in under 3 secs, it'll take your breath away, and no it doesn't get old, and no the experience is not just for launch. 0-60 seconds at 4.2 secs might be good enough for most. Whatever floats your boat.

OP asked whether there are any other advantages with CB. I can see few:
1. More torque might help for short bursts of hauling, or towing out a stuck vehicle. In general more torque is always good when towing/hauling. I know because I tow. CB has good enough torque to do that compared to CT, though range sucks right now with towing. I can see how someone who is into ranch/farming/agriculture business might benefit with this extra torque. If they don't exceed 1100 lbs tongue weight (generally 10% of towing capacity), they can do some serious hauling with this level of torque. When you own a farm, moving things around within the property is one of the most important things people do. Trucks are heavily used for this. Some might laugh at the thought of CB used by a farmer, but nobody knows the future. CT has created a whole new segment of market for all types of scenarios. Metal body, superior torque, vaulted bed with large capacity, short turning radius, hospital grade air filters, cameras everywhere, independent motors Torque vectoring, off road light bar.. these are all extremely useful in a farm setting. You might not need these in a farm, but the new owner you want to sell might!

2. CB Trimotor might add some advantage with off roading, though IMO it won't be as good as individual torque vectoring of Rivian quad motor, but I might be wrong. Differential locking is not same as Torque vectoring. I don't know for sure how much Tesla has tuned Torque vectoring for Trimotor, but I definitely believe these things will improve with time through software update as they get more data on stuck vehicles in snow/dirt/off road. LOL.

3. If you are one of the early CB FS adopter, you might get some advantage in terms of content creation if you are considering to monetize on content.

4. If you are traveling remote, off road light bar might be a huge help. Apparently it can throw light as far as five football fields (based on Sandy's interview with folks who built CT). I'm curious to know the range drop. The drag might take a hit because of this accessory. Of course, AWD CTs can get this installed after market.

5. Don't quote me on this, but I think CB FS resale might hold better than FS AWD for some of these reasons, but I wouldn't bet on CB FS exclusivity in terms of resale value. All FS models are going to depreciate like hell.

IMO, 20K extra is worth for all these reasons. The acceleration itself might be enough to justify the price difference as the driving experience will be quite different, but the extra motor is there not just for speed.

I think if Tesla can increase the range and reduce the cost compared to the competitors, CB/CT will sell like hotcakes.

 

[cvalue13]

CB Trimotor might add some advantage with off roading, though IMO it won't be as good as individual torque vectoring of Rivian quad motor

like all things off-roading, there is genuine and reasonable disagreement on this

invoicing that the AWD will be the better offroad performer, having physical lockers

not vouching for either view, but pointing out that some pretty serious off-roaders would disagree and folks will have to decide how to flip that coin

 

[PerfectFlaw]

Lol dude I just changed out my intake on mine and get 3.6-3.7 to 60 according to my Dragy GPS testing device.

That same device was used on a AWD Cybertruck model and only got , 4.2-4.3s

AWD models will get smashed by TRXs and Raptor R's. That's embarrassing, but that's why I am paying the extra few bucks for the fast one myself, I waited all these years no way I am going the cheap route and getting the slow version of the Cybertruck.

 

[Bartman]

Nah, when I get into the X Plaid I almost never use the performance. I like a more relaxed drive for that kind of vehicle. S Plaid is where I have my fun. Only reason I got the X Plaid is because it was only a $3k difference from the long range when configuring a 6 seater. But everyone has different use cases. I have NO interest in a trucks 0-60. 4.1, 3.9 with roll out is plenty fine for me.

Agree!!! Plenty fast enough for a truck.

 

[PerfectFlaw]

The difference between a 0-60 in 2.6 seconds and a 0-60 in 4.1 seconds is so massive though dude. That's huge. Tesla has been very accurate with their 0-60 info so I'm not thinking they are being shady with their marketing.

I've seen the Beast beat the Lamborghini Urus and Raptor R by a huge margin, where the AWD would easily lose against them. That's worth the $20K right there to me, and that's the only marketing I needed to decide

 

[tenetke]

People always say the acceleration gets old after a while. My decade-long experience with Teslas says otherwise. Fast acceleration never gets old!

Tires won't get old with that acceleration either enjoy it!!

 

[Cyber Man]

like all things off-roading, there is genuine and reasonable disagreement on this

invoicing that the AWD will be the better offroad performer, having physical lockers

not vouching for either view, but pointing out that some pretty serious off-roaders would disagree and folks will have to decide how to flip that coin

Probably I should say trimotor has more potential to be a better off-roader in the future. Torque and traction are extremely important while off roading. The extra motor and individual torque vectoring is a game changer, but software will play a huge role in this. I think Tesla is still tuning this to perfection. So AWD might better perform now, but over time, I believe that trimotor will have an upper hand. This is why Rivian quad has a huge advantage when it comes to off-roading. Nothing can be beat the physics of each wheel getting a dedicated motor with precise torque to avoid slips and spins.

 

[OnTheSnap]

I would have bought the beast if it had a big scoop on the hood. It just looks too pedestrian to be that powerful.

 

[Demonvial]

Dude again where are you getting this .4 rollout number from? Rollout is .2-.3, it’s not .4. The Model S Plaid is far closer to 2.2 than 2.3 and the beast will be closer to 2.9 than it will be 3

Also I don’t know where this myth of the AWD being better than the Beast offroad came from. Torque vectoring makes a massive difference in handling both on and off road. You mentioned the Plaid S but have you ever actually driven one after driving a normal S? The cornering is so much better and being able to control the rear wheels independently comes with so many advantages both on and off road.

It’s ok that you went with the AWD but don’t make up stuff like saying the AWD with rollout goes 3.7 when it’s actually 3.9 or that it will be better off road, because it won’t be.

 

[Cyber Man]

This is where I get confused. I'm trying to learn more on how this works as I don't have much experience doing serious off-roading. AFAIK, once you have individual motor torque controlled through software, you can get precise torque on any of the wheels you prefer. Manufacturers believe that when individual wheels get their own torque, the off road performance is way better than physically locking the differentials. I feel people often confuse between Torque vs Spin. To navigate tough terrains, you need torque under that wheel with the right amount of spin to get strong traction. Before Torque vectoring, locking differentials were the only way to achieve this. EV technology has enabled manufacturers to go beyond simple differential locking.

The software is not good enough yet, but the Physics checks out. So I don't understand why active Torque vectoring is not superior for off-roading if software gets better. Real world testing is bad because software is not there yet, IMO.

Just because the current off-road experience is bad with Torque vectoring doesn't mean that it's a dumb technology. I need someone to explain from physics standpoint why this is a bad choice. Software will catch up. Is it bad because when you lock the differentials, you have more combined Torque for the wheels locked versus individual motors pumping less Torque for the particular wheel? Do we really need that much Torque per wheel for getting out of steep inclination? I honestly think this is a software tuning problem.

Sponsored