CT end of life

OP
OP
Tinker71

Tinker71

Well-known member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Threads
82
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
1,967
Location
Utah
Vehicles
1976 electric conversion bus
Occupation
Project Manager
Country flag
Donated a ‘91 Range Rover to Navajo in desert when its wire harness corroded. Living on ocean peninsula a UK truck was last expected to fail in moisture.

CT is the Corvette EV that never dies. Its life timeline will parallel the Corvette in which the ‘56 Corvette is iconic with wire mesh over headlights standard, as was the six cylinder. A rare one year only. Ditto CT gen 1 will be the iconic rare variant.

Tesla will rev CT gen1 replacing it with its next variant same as Chevrolet introduced the hardtop. SO the gen1’s will quietly slip into history gracefully.

Good question is whether the iconic CT is Quad, Tri, Dual or Single motor. OR some “other” way?

Cybertruck will rev in software beyond the useful battery lifetime. Granted there will be the necessity to “upgrade” computers along the way. That won’t be free. But the more invested the CT with mods, the more value there will be to keep doubling-down on the OG CT.

For my purposes, Tesla changing suspension to trailing arms would trigger churning-over the OG CT.
EVs and motors are like 94% efficient. Not too much room for improvement. Batteries might go from 230ish to 400whr per Kg in 10 years with faster charging. That would be significant. Body composites might advance in that time. Beyond that wheeled vehicle might start to be obsolete with VTOL becoming the next thing. Call that 20 years out.
Sponsored

 
OP
OP
Tinker71

Tinker71

Well-known member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Threads
82
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
1,967
Location
Utah
Vehicles
1976 electric conversion bus
Occupation
Project Manager
Country flag
If you buy the 300 mi range model and you drive 300 mi between charges.. you are stuck and waiting for a flatbed tow. So you are already overestimating usable range.
Whatever. Leave a 10 % buffer on 270. Even worse. You don't run deisels dry either but you count the entire range.
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
164
Messages
10,719
Reaction score
26,998
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
Whatever. Leave a 10 % buffer on 270. Even worse. You don't run deisels dry either but you count the entire range.
We don’t know what the range is going to be to start. It’s unlikely it’ll be exactly 300 miles. More likely is 320 or 330. But… speculation.

Also, the battery chemistry is improving and it’s possible it will degrade slower. Again, speculation.

We just don’t know. Welcome to the bleeding edge. 🤷‍♂️
 

Cyberman

Well-known member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Threads
35
Messages
2,278
Reaction score
3,651
Location
San Diego
Vehicles
F150,F550, Escape
Occupation
Cybercontractor
Country flag
Since the batteries are the most expensive single part of a EV many people think that when they see significant degradation that is the end of life for an EV. Because other component failures will start to fail around that time as well. I have been hoping since the beginning that 2-3 million CTs will be produced in a 10 year period and that improved replacement battery packs will be an economical thing.

In relation to heavy equipment sometimes the trigger is when the wiring harness starts to fail. It is very frustrating to be trouble shooting electrical problems all the time. Motors and transmissions can be rebuilt and you feel ok about sinking that money to get it going again for another 5 years. Wiring harnesses can be replaced if you can find one, but it just doesn't feel like a concrete investment.

With the SS body and potentially million mile motors, what is going to cause us to retire our CT? What won't be practically replaced indefinitely.


I am interested to hear what others think might be the trigger for retiring a CT and when.

This car had a motor that was made in 1902. You only needed to check it every 15 years or so. We've got 120 years on that tech. Yeah, lifetime motor f'sho.
 


charliemagpie

Well-known member
First Name
Charlie
Joined
Jul 6, 2021
Threads
42
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
5,133
Location
Australia
Vehicles
CybrBEAST
Occupation
retired
Country flag
For someone smart :

Does the 300 or 500 range versions already allow for the .036 drag co-efficient ?

Does .036 drag co-efficient mean a 36% drop in potential distance a truck could travel without a load ?

I take it that advertising should match the likely use... if it says 500 miles, it should mean with a full working load.

Tesla Cybertruck CT end of life 1652602173445


Tesla Cybertruck CT end of life 1652601803093


If it travels about 2kwp per mile.. 1000 kw of batteries loaded with 80k lb. How far could empty semi travel with that same 1000kw ?

Or maybe I mis-read. Maybe its 500 miles when empty, and you take off the drag when loaded.
 

Challeco

Well-known member
First Name
Christopher
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
297
Reaction score
562
Location
Oregon
Vehicles
23ModelY,71F250,14Fusion,66Galaxie
Occupation
Medical Technologist
Country flag
Tesla publishes stats on battery life. This is for the Model S/X, I’d assume Cybertruck with newer batter tech will be even better.

1652550890453.png


I have to ask, how many miles does your oldest/ most beat up vehicle have on the odo? How well does it run? I think ~83% capacity after 200k miles is pretty decent. Not exactly 1:1 with ICE vehicles, but ICE engines tend to get less efficient over time too.
Honestly, I was waiting for someone to pose the degradation question this way. Thank you. Even with the superstar outliers of 500K to 1M miles driven on a single chassis, most of the cars in the junk yards have just over 200K miles on the Odometer. Yes, many of them are smashed in some way, but auto recyclers have a large population of straight bodies, complete engines, perfect tires and wheels, and immaculate interiors. This is because the resale (current economy notwithstanding) value of these cars and trucks to the used car dealers is not profitable. There is just too much wear on the chassis, suspension, etc. to take a chance on these vehicles coming back on their reputations and budgets.

Also, and maybe more important, the costs of rebuilding an engine or a transmission is easily in the $5000 range for each item. The only reason I do it is because I don't charge myself for my labor. The last engine I rebuilt for less than $1000 was a stock 1991 Subaru 1800cc back in 2010. Again, I didn't charge labor to my son to do it. The EV cost equivalent to an engine is the battery OR the transmission... not both. Yet, the current Tesla batteries FAR outlast the lifespans of I.C.E. and their transmissions. Even if you were to replace a battery at 200K miles you would still be even money factoring in labor costs. Now factor in the lifespan of the new battery packs, the lifespans of the Tesla motors. These are conservatively 500K mile assemblies. Even IF you didn't get bored of the same old ride for the requisite 25 years the average person would take to reach 500K, the suspension, the wheel bearings, the interior, and the obsolete electronics would have you thinking of a new car. The costs of maintaining, repairing, operating, fueling, and overhauling an I.C.E. vehicle dwarf the comparable costs for any serious E.V. even with the cost of the batteries.
I.C.E. vehicles suffer the cold with lower fuel economy. They consume more of their fluids as they age, causing a loss of efficiency. Spark plugs are NOT immortal, nor are the belts or hoses. Timing chains and belts snap if neglected and have dramatic results when they do. The fuels themselves degrade the longer they sit in the tank unused. If you have ever tried to start and drive a car that has sat for months, the fuel in the tank just doesn't give a lot of power. Further, the same fuel that cools the immersed fuel pump gums and plugs the pump as the fuel ages. There really isn't a comparison that favors the Internal combustion contraption in any category... especially when compared to Tesla and their charging network.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
6,129
Location
Australia
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
. Professional Hobbyist
Country flag
For someone smart :

Does the 300 or 500 range versions already allow for the .036 drag co-efficient ?

Does .036 drag co-efficient mean a 36% drop in potential distance a truck could travel without a load ?

I take it that advertising should match the likely use... if it says 500 miles, it should mean with a full working load.

1652602173445.png


1652601803093.png


If it travels about 2kwp per mile.. 1000 kw of batteries loaded with 80k lb. How far could empty semi travel with that same 1000kw ?

Or maybe I mis-read. Maybe its 500 miles when empty, and you take off the drag when loaded.
Yep it does. But CT should be around 0.30 Cd according to EM which is the same as the Rivian currently is. Cd is not a percentage as such, it is a aerodynamic drag coefficient. It is predominately not affected by vehicle weight at all, beyond suspension compression creating a lower vehicle, or a load that increases the surface area of the EV and increases aerodynamic drag. Note weight creates it's own separate drag that is not connected to the aerodynamic Cd.

So there are multiple forces acting on the vehicle to reduce range and looks something like this:

Tesla Cybertruck CT end of life Different-forces-excerted-on-the-EV


As you can see the aerodynamic drag force, power transfer losses, rolling resistance and inclination force all consume energy in order to power against them. If you apply a force over a distance you do work using power (watts), and if power is required over time it uses energy (Wh). Hence the energy used in a EV is expressed in Wh/km or Wh/mile. Wh being watt hour, and kWh being kilo watt hour. This means that the simplest method to encompass all forms of energy use listed above, that is used in a vehicle is simply "Wh/km", being specifically Watts, hour and distance in meters. For energy you need to have a time component, (h) otherwise it's just power in W or kW.

If you know the Wh/km energy consumption rate for the EV then it's just a matter of sub-dividing the anailable battery pack size in kWh by it to figure out range.
 
Last edited:

Challeco

Well-known member
First Name
Christopher
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
297
Reaction score
562
Location
Oregon
Vehicles
23ModelY,71F250,14Fusion,66Galaxie
Occupation
Medical Technologist
Country flag
I'm going to catch hell for this here, but this is still one my gripes about EVs. I've also previously mentioned that I'm still hoping the CT battery's "longevity" performance and warranty are better than what is currently being offered with the other Tesla models.

The last truck I owed was a 97' F250 7.3L diesel. When I traded it in (2015), it had over 200k on it and I was getting about 16 MPGs. The diesel doesn't have an EPA rating, but it's pretty safe to say that 16 MPGs was damn close to what that truck got when it was new. So I lost next nothing in terms of range ability after 200k miles. I tracked some of the milage and maintenance via Fuelly. https://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-250/1997/lancethibault/167388 For comparison if it was getting 83% of it's initial range that would be about 13.3MPGs

My current truck is 2013 F150 with 115k miles. I get about 14.5-15MPG with 35s on it. Prior to putting the 35s on it I think I was around 75k miles I was still getting about 17 MPG. The EPA rating for this truck is 17 MPGs combined. So I lost no MPGs at around 75k miles.

My wife's last vehicle was a 2010 Explorer. She traded it in with 190k miles on it and she was getting 18 MPGs...which is still the EPA rating. Her current 2017 Explorer has 77k miles on it and she averages over 20 MPGs which is also right in line with the EPA numbers.
All of your examples of fuel economy are directly comparable to my 1971 naturally aspirated F250 with a 390 and a C6 automatic. Sure, you have the same economy as you did when it was new. But at damn near $4.50/gallon you are standing on really shaky ground. Your example isn't expressing what you think it is. Sure you could consistently refuel you 20 to 40 gallon tanks and travel anywhere you want. But at what cost? 20 gallons at $4.50 is $90 and will get you 340 miles IF you don't idle at stop lights, get caught in stop and go traffic, or worse a traffic jam, and you don't warm up you truck before you take off on your trip. Compare that to the meager 280 miles I get in my model 3. The hills hit me like they do you, the cold hits me the same, but the stop and go traffic doesn't, neither does a traffic jam, or city driving. Even if I get my model 3 to 200K before I trade up for a newer model, I haven't lost any appreciable range except when I travel to family in Vancouver WA from my home in eastern Oregon. I will still be able to make the trip in the dead of winter driving between charging stations like I do now. The charging stations are another benefit of owning a Tesla. I don't have to stand outside for more than a few seconds in 9 degrees and an added wind chill. I plug in the car to the charger and sit my but back in my heated seat. I watch a T.V. show on Netflix or Amazon prime, or I surf the internet, or play a stupid game while I use the heat pump to keep warm. When the car has reached the charge I set, I step back out briefly, disconnect without smelling like fuel, and get back in the car. Tesla charges me, even on the highest rate, less than $30 over the air and I am off on my trip rested, fed, and ready for the ice and snow.

Your range anxiety is blinding you. I am glad you can afford the cost of the gas and diesel trucks and SUVs. But they pale in comparison. Before you think I am just blowing smoke, I own and have driven long distances in my F250 with over a ton of grain in the bed. The ride of my beast is like a shiatsu massage in all the wrong places, yet I LOVE that truck. But the only thing it has over an electric is an 8 foot bed and a cab over rack. Otherwise, there is NO comparison.
 

charliemagpie

Well-known member
First Name
Charlie
Joined
Jul 6, 2021
Threads
42
Messages
2,887
Reaction score
5,133
Location
Australia
Vehicles
CybrBEAST
Occupation
retired
Country flag
ty Jbeeee, great.

So
The Semi has a >< 1000kw battery, it can travel 500 miles with a full 80k lb load.
And BTW, the drag coefficient is 0.36.

We can't have free energy. Energy is consumed by factors in your illustration.

I surmise rolling resistance / accelerating / decelerating forces would be effected by weight.

________________________

If the Semi sets a precedent, the CT's advertised range also includes carrying the 1.5 tons.

I know I won’t be loading that much and should gain some miles.

Maybe why the CT's rating is 500 miles +

Have to see what the '+' amounts to.
 


JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
6,129
Location
Australia
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
. Professional Hobbyist
Country flag
ty Jbeeee, great.

So
The Semi has a >< 1000kw battery, it can travel 500 miles with a full 80k lb load.
And BTW, the drag coefficient is 0.36.

We can't have free energy. Energy is consumed by factors in your illustration.

I surmise rolling resistance / accelerating / decelerating forces would be effected by weight.

________________________

If the Semi sets a precedent, the CT's advertised range also includes carrying the 1.5 tons.

I know I won’t be loading that much and should gain some miles.

Maybe why the CT's rating is 500 miles +

Have to see what the '+' amounts to.
No worries. I don't want to sound pedantic, but it's important to use the right units when describing things. So for battery "energy" capacity use kWh and for "power" use kW.

I referred to CT aerodynamic because it wasn't clear in your post that you were talking about Semi.

Rolling resistance is affected by weight, but vehicle inertial state, being velocity, need not add extra energy consumption that is not recoverable through coasting or regen braking. That means acceleration and deceleration forces can, and often do, cancel themselves out when driven appropriately, which would be the case in day to day use.

As such range reduction due a load in the enclosed CT would be limited to drive train, rolling losses, and to some extent inclination losses should the journey not return down the same hill.
Rolling losses however are not as pronounced or variable as aerodynamic drag at low velocities, as such a small load is unlikely to significantly improve range by itself.

Tesla Cybertruck CT end of life 7609_58_144-graph-rolling-resistance-vehicle
 
OP
OP
Tinker71

Tinker71

Well-known member
First Name
Ray
Joined
Aug 8, 2020
Threads
82
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
1,967
Location
Utah
Vehicles
1976 electric conversion bus
Occupation
Project Manager
Country flag
ty Jbeeee, great.

So
The Semi has a >< 1000kw battery, it can travel 500 miles with a full 80k lb load.
And BTW, the drag coefficient is 0.36.

We can't have free energy. Energy is consumed by factors in your illustration.

I surmise rolling resistance / accelerating / decelerating forces would be effected by weight.

________________________

If the Semi sets a precedent, the CT's advertised range also includes carrying the 1.5 tons.

I know I won’t be loading that much and should gain some miles.

Maybe why the CT's rating is 500 miles +

Have to see what the '+' amounts to.
I gave this article a quick read. EPA testing apparently they don't figure on a payload. If they are still doing this for ICE or other vehicles it is asinine. How hard would it be to designate a section of roadway on a wind free day at 60F to perform the test. The city part would admittedly be more difficult.

As I wrote this I realized there is probably a reason for everything they did to standardize the test, but the fact that they bothered to spend government resources to test the obscure Porch and Bugatti is kind of funny and sad. Bored government employees I guess.

Since this is done on a dyno and they mathematically add the wind resistance I wonder who they get the Cd numbers from or if they have their own wind tunnel. The article is pretty old.
 

Dids

Well-known member
First Name
Les
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Threads
8
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3,771
Location
Massachusetts
Vehicles
04 Tacoma, 23 Cybertruck
Occupation
Self
Country flag
No worries. I don't want to sound pedantic, but it's important to use the right units when describing things. So for battery "energy" capacity use kWh and for "power" use kW.

I referred to CT aerodynamic because it wasn't clear in your post that you were talking about Semi.

Rolling resistance is affected by weight, but vehicle inertial state, being velocity, need not add extra energy consumption that is not recoverable through coasting or regen braking. That means acceleration and deceleration forces can, and often do, cancel themselves out when driven appropriately, which would be the case in day to day use.

As such range reduction due a load in the enclosed CT would be limited to drive train, rolling losses, and to some extent inclination losses should the journey not return down the same hill.
Rolling losses however are not as pronounced or variable as aerodynamic drag at low velocities, as such a small load is unlikely to significantly improve range by itself.

7609_58_144-graph-rolling-resistance-vehicle.jpg
So what you are saying is load increases affects CT less than ICE pickups.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
6,129
Location
Australia
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
. Professional Hobbyist
Country flag
So what you are saying is load increases affects CT less than ICE pickups.
In energy consumption for a given range yes, but ICE offsets this by having much higher energy density in fuel, that more than offsets the EV truck advantage from regen. Note coasting still works in a ICE too, and coasting has a higher 100% efficiency in converting inertia, unlike regen that is around 80% max because of the recharge/discharge cycle.
 

CyberGus

Well-known member
First Name
Gus
Joined
May 22, 2021
Threads
67
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
19,086
Location
Austin, TX
Website
www.timeanddate.com
Vehicles
1981 DeLorean, 2024 Cybertruck
Occupation
IT Specialist
Country flag
In energy consumption for a given range yes, but ICE offsets this by having much higher energy density in fuel, that more than offsets the EV truck advantage from regen. Note coasting still works in a ICE too, and coasting has a higher 100% efficiency in converting inertia, unlike regen that is around 80% max because of the recharge/discharge cycle.
Coasting is only 100% efficient if you turn the engine off. Even idling consumes fuel.
Sponsored

 
 




Top