CT end of life

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
Coasting is only 100% efficient if you turn the engine off. Even idling consumes fuel.
I mean the conversion of interia into forward momentum is 100% efficient.
Sponsored

 

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
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.
Yes the given range is from here to there. The energy density of a given fuel doesn't change with a change in load, so that is a red herring and can be ignored hereafter. I am rewording what you said and I agree with it 100%. A CT with 300 miles range will experience less range reduction with an increase in load than ICE counterpart with 300 miles range.
 

KrodEKid

Well-known member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Threads
7
Messages
161
Reaction score
406
Location
Ohio
Vehicles
Toyota corolla, Mazda 5
Country flag
I'm hoping to get 300k miles with minimal issues.

That should give me about 25 years before serious overhauls needed. What will battery and motor technology look like in 2048-2050?

I might consider a modular reactor replacement for my battery. Hopefully Thorium won't be too expensive. I should get some decent range. 🤔🤔🤔

One source says 11 billion KW can be generated from 1 ton Thorium in a reactor.
1 gram of Thorium yields 11,000 kWh!

Current market price for Thorium is only $176 per kilogram!

Wow!
So let's make assumptions for the math:
-50 MPGe for CT (or 50 miles per 33.7 kWh)
-10% reactor efficiency on yield
-1,000x markup for retail Thorium from current market

Gives...
1,632 miles per gram of Thorium at $176
Or 9.3 cents/mile

I just spent
$44 for my Corrolla to go 380 miles
Or 11.6 cents/mile
...hmmm... maybe I just keep my Corrolla🤷‍♂️
 

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
Yes the given range is from here to there. The energy density of a given fuel doesn't change with a change in load, so that is a red herring and can be ignored hereafter. I am rewording what you said and I agree with it 100%. A CT with 300 miles range will experience less range reduction with an increase in load than ICE counterpart.
Um sort of not really?

We'd have to define load first, is it load in a enclosed bed or a trailer etc, as this determines how much load there actually is. Likewise the energy density changes the amount of energy available to counteract drag caused by weight etc, and therefore range.

It is true that the energy required to move any given vehicle or load is not dependant on its energy source, (EV, ICE, nuclear, elves, unicorns) but rather by the vehicles ability to counteract the forces as described above. So it is not a red herring at all.

An EV truck will most definitely be more sensitive to a change in load, in particular for a trailer type load, in comparison to a ICE truck.
 

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
Um sort of not really?

We'd have to define load first, is it load in a enclosed bed or a trailer etc, as this determines how much load there actually is. Likewise the energy density changes the amount of energy available to counteract drag caused by weight etc, and therefore range.

It is true that the energy required to move any given vehicle or load is not dependant on its energy source, (EV, ICE, nuclear, elves, unicorns) but rather by the vehicles ability to counteract the forces as described above. So it is not a red herring at all.

An EV truck will most definitely be more sensitive to a change in load, in particular for a trailer type load, in comparison to a ICE truck.
Why do we have to define the load? Work is work. Are you trying to say that a higher energy density fuel has a lower rate of increase as work increases. That a power plant gets more efficient as load increases? Again I am paraphrasing you saying "an EV will most definitely be more sensitive..." BTW I am certain you are not saying that because in fact ICE engines become less efficient as load increases so I am confused that you would say that an EV is less effected ( I agree) but then say that because of energy density of the fuel somehow an EV would be more effected. 😃
 


TyPope

Well-known member
First Name
Ty
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Threads
19
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
2,756
Location
Papillion, NE
Vehicles
'18 F150, '23 MY, '24 CT, '23 Maveric hybrid soon
Occupation
Operations Planner
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.
The efficiency of the CT will also not go down with age. You may lose some capability (as if your diesel tank got a little smaller) but at 200,000 Miles, at 80% of 500, you'd still have 400 miles of range. If you only top to 90% and go no lower than 10%, you'll still get 320 Miles between charges which is not bad. However, the efficiency (Watts per mile) at 200,000 Miles will probably be just as efficient as it was when new.
In 5 years or so by the time we start seeing high mileage CTs, it may very well be cheap and easy to upgrade battery packs.
 

Jhodgesatmb

Well-known member
First Name
Jack
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Threads
63
Messages
4,913
Reaction score
7,092
Location
San Francisco Bay area
Website
www.arbor-studios.com
Vehicles
Tesla Model Y LR, Tesla Model 3 LR
Occupation
Retired AI researcher
Country flag
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. 🤷‍♂️
They did put ‘+’ symbols after all the range estimates. It is hard to imagine Tesla bothering to make such a claim if they weren’t pretty certain that they would be somewhat over those numbers. And that was in 2019. Recent reports from credible sources (Dahn and Straubel) tell us that the total number of cycles is already up and that the degradation is already going down.
 

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
Why do we have to define the load? Work is work. Are you trying to say that a higher energy density fuel has a lower rate of increase as work increases. That a power plant gets more efficient as load increases? Again I am paraphrasing you saying "an EV will most definitely be more sensitive..." BTW I am certain you are not saying that because in fact ICE engines become less efficient as load increases so I am confused that you would say that an EV is less effected ( I agree) but then say that because of energy density of the fuel somehow an EV would be more effected. 😃
Sorry I think we might be talking past eachother. Let me try again. 🙂

There are two distinct sides of the range "coin" conversation. One is vehicle energy consumption, or rate of work, the other is available energy capacity to do said work.

So given these two distinct sides, we can say that on a EV the energy "consumption", or work, that is caused by weight is less pronounced as it is on a ICE. Thats fine.

But, range is a consequence of energy vs work, and in the case of a ICE, its fuel energy storage "battery" is simply some 5x the "usable size" of a CT TM battery in kWh to the wheels. So even if the ICE had twice the consumption of the EV because of the load* the ICE would still have 2.5times the range.

So effectively EVs have less weight induced consumption (mostly because of regen), but ICE still have much more available energy.

(*load being weight, and weight having the effect of increasing rolling resistance, which is only part of the total drag according to the previously posted graph.)

BTW ICE typically have maximum Carnot efficiency at max RPM/Power. So that would be a correct assumption but not my point here. 😋
 
Last edited:

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


Deleted member 12457

Guest
JBee, my Tacoma sucks whenever I put anything of weight into it other than me. Forget towing and getting anything more than half the rate mpg. Today's vehicles are so leaned out simply to try and meet EPA standards that they aren't really worth the cost of the gasoline you put into them. Diesel has gotten away with being stinky but it still isn't that efficient. Yes, gasoline can explode but not produce the power the way the engines are being tuned today. My '64 Chevy II Nova 194 inline 6 would be a monster in todays world especially with the "wimpy" 94 octane regular it ran on. One barrel carburetor and I could easily hit 100 mph. We don't have those cars anymore or the 49-cents a gallon cost. We have to quit supporting ICE engines using physics and chemistry. Neither of these will do anything other than continue to pollute this world and support oil barons around the world. Time to get into the 21st century and help this world actually get into the 22nd.
 

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
JBee, my Tacoma sucks whenever I put anything of weight into it other than me. Forget towing and getting anything more than half the rate mpg. Today's vehicles are so leaned out simply to try and meet EPA standards that they aren't really worth the cost of the gasoline you put into them. Diesel has gotten away with being stinky but it still isn't that efficient. Yes, gasoline can explode but not produce the power the way the engines are being tuned today. My '64 Chevy II Nova 194 inline 6 would be a monster in todays world especially with the "wimpy" 94 octane regular it ran on. One barrel carburetor and I could easily hit 100 mph. We don't have those cars anymore or the 49-cents a gallon cost. We have to quit supporting ICE engines using physics and chemistry. Neither of these will do anything other than continue to pollute this world and support oil barons around the world. Time to get into the 21st century and help this world actually get into the 22nd.
Sorry I think you missed the point of the conversation here, I'm not promoting ICE, only stating why the physics of a higher energy density fuel is less impacted by weight. Maybe start reading a couple of pages back. :)
 

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
I'm hoping to get 300k miles with minimal issues.

That should give me about 25 years before serious overhauls needed. What will battery and motor technology look like in 2048-2050?

I might consider a modular reactor replacement for my battery. Hopefully Thorium won't be too expensive. I should get some decent range. 🤔🤔🤔

One source says 11 billion KW can be generated from 1 ton Thorium in a reactor.
1 gram of Thorium yields 11,000 kWh!

Current market price for Thorium is only $176 per kilogram!

Wow!
So let's make assumptions for the math:
-50 MPGe for CT (or 50 miles per 33.7 kWh)
-10% reactor efficiency on yield
-1,000x markup for retail Thorium from current market

Gives...
1,632 miles per gram of Thorium at $176
Or 9.3 cents/mile

I just spent
$44 for my Corrolla to go 380 miles
Or 11.6 cents/mile
...hmmm... maybe I just keep my Corrolla🤷‍♂️
Just go back to the future and get a Mr Fusion for the back of the CT as well...

Tesla Cybertruck CT end of life download (3)
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
126
Messages
16,211
Reaction score
27,074
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Does the 300 or 500 range versions already allow for the .036 drag co-efficient ?
Yes.

Does .036 drag co-efficient mean a 36% drop in potential distance a truck could travel without a load ?
No.

Frontal area, speed, and air density (temperature) also figure in to this multiplier. (As well as weight, rolling resistance, slope...).

The Cybertruck may have a similar drag coefficient, but it'll smaller, so it'll have a lower total air resistance than the Semi.

I take it that advertising should match the likely use... if it says 500 miles, it should mean with a full working load.
Standard range assumes a driver and a mix of driving conditions and speeds.

It doesn't assume a load (unless Semi). So you'll get more if you go slower and less if you go faster, weight doesn't matter as much but makes acceleration more costly but in a certain range makes regen work better (but has a cap).

That's why on the Semi it says specifically the load.

So yes, empty the Semi will be less. Maybe down to half a kWh per mile.

-Crissa
 
Last edited:
 




Top