Cyberbeast vs Cybertruck AWD Comparison

[JBee]

This is incorrect. Both Torque vectoring and diff locks have their place and benefits.

Torque vectoring is not as good at low RPM as mechanucal diff locks.

Diff locks are passive traction devices that not only have zero response time and no lag, but also can infinitely vary torque from 0-100% without changing rpm to the other wheel.

This is particularly noticeable in loose and steep terrain, where directional stability cannot be maintained, and the vehicle ends up sideways and pointing off the road. Rivian has QM and has this exact issue.

Even if you frequency sync two motors on the same axle at the same rpm, alternating traction levels at each wheel well produce alternating torque to which the inverter must respond to to keep sync. A single motor with diff lock doesn't need to do this between wheels.

Torque vectoring on the other hand allows for better higher rpm control and intentional wheel slip for drifting, as well as for directional control. Like a reverse Stabilty Assist.

Neither of these are as slow as what is required for low latency SbW steering and feedback. Motor controllers are in the high kHz range, SbW user noticeable feedback in the 10's Hz range.

Sponsored

 

[Dman_CT]

@HaulingAss re-reading my post I realize that I didn’t write it very well. Thanks for your comments. I think you and I actually agree. When I said that it’s not really a differential, I was thinking of the tri-motor rear, or either end of the quad motor Rivian where it’s not mechanically a diff, but functions like one, so I think it would be useful if the two sides could be optionally locked together physically by the driver to instantly operate at the same rotational speed. This in addition to a default mode where Tesla’s undoubtedly good SW could most of the time, do it far better than most humans. Certainly in my ownership of one truck with a selectable rear locker only, and one with selectable rear or front and rear, the locker was very effective in some situations but a liability unless really needed, compared to modern traction/stability controls or even a smooth limited slip. Even though I don’t own a Tesla yet, the reason I’ve kept my CT reservation and canceled my R1T and Lightning reservations is exactly because I believe Tesla will offer better off-road capability, even if it takes a few OTA’s to get there. Not mention all the other cool stuff that it has.

I’ll also admit to having watched too many video’s of Rivian’s struggling offroad as the computers decide how much torque to give to each wheel. Quad motors sound cool for 4wd but a Jeep Rubicon or Ram Power Wagon are pretty good off-roaders with only one motor. And my use is also to get to interesting places, but I have needed my lockers to make things easier, a few times. That said I’ve never driven a really modern traction controlled 4wd like a Range Rover so it is likely that with even better SW wizardry from Tesla, the Dual Motor will work very well. If I actually get a chance to order a CT in the next few years, that’s certainly what I’d pick. No need for Beastly acceleration and the price premium, for me.

 

[HaulingAss]

@HaulingAss re-reading my post I realize that I didn’t write it very well. Thanks for your comments. I think you and I actually agree. When I said that it’s not really a differential, I was thinking of the tri-motor rear, or either end of the quad motor Rivian where it’s not mechanically a diff, but functions like one, so I think it would be useful if the two sides could be optionally locked together physically by the driver to instantly operate at the same rotational speed.

Thanks for the clarification, we do agree on that.

You say above that you think it would be useful if the left and right wheels could be optionally locked together physically to instantly operate at the same rotational speed. I agree, that lacking more sophisticated enhancements, that would be good in situations where a mechanical locker would typically be used.

And, if you want that basic functionality, with no added enhancements, it can be done with software so perfectly that it is for all intents and purposes locked together physically, with the only exception being if one motor is torque limited. Since electric motors have maximum torque at zero RPM's, that should not come into play in the real world. As long as both motors have enough torque available to meet the amount of torque requested, the motors can be, for all practical purposes, perfectly syncronized (contrary to repeated claims by Jbee that this is not possible).

The reason this is true, is that electric motors require high precision rotation position sensors just to function. This information can be processed at essentially the speed of light and compared to the other motor to "lock" the rpm's together at any speed simply by varying the torque commands to each motor to keep the instantaneous motor rpm's equal at all times. I doubt advanced signal processing techinques would even be required to achieve this. Only if maximum torque to one motor was not sufficient to keep up to the other motor would they fall out of synch. Because Cyberbeast's rear motors have plenty of reserve torque at slow speeds, particularly off-road, that would not happen. It would be exactly like a locked differential for all practical purposes. That is what huge torque at low speeds can achieve with digital controls.

The fact that Rivian has not implemented it yet should not be used as evidence that Tesla cannot do it.

 

[ED_SFO]

Interesting, from the EPA report, the three motors are permanent magnet not 1xperm & 2xinduction

Curious it also says the pack is 150kw..so does that mean they said 123kw of usable?

Maybe possible for a software unlock to allow for more range in AWD and Trim motor trim...around 50-65 additional miles is possible if 150kw is true.

 

[Dman_CT]

^^ It does seem that synchronizing the two motors to the same rpm should be easy and instantaneous, without needing an actual “locked” connection. And while I agree that Rivian’s SW capabilities probably aren’t as good as Tesla’s, if it’s easy I’m surprised they haven’t done that yet. Just give me a switch to do that, preferably a real switch and not a screen button . This discussion has got me wondering, how do these vehicles with separate motors for left and right drive handle the normal differential function? A low speed full lock turn under gentle throttle (sorry, ICE term there) requires quite subtle axle speed variation to feel smooth … does the motor control system take into account steering angle, or look at wheel speed variation on the front and extrapolate based on wheelbase etc what that means for the rear? Sounds pretty complicated to me, or am I missing something obvious?

 

[JBee]

^^ It does seem that synchronizing the two motors to the same rpm should be easy and instantaneous, without needing an actual “locked” connection. And while I agree that Rivian’s SW capabilities probably aren’t as good as Tesla’s, if it’s easy I’m surprised they haven’t done that yet. Just give me a switch to do that, preferably a real switch and not a screen button . This discussion has got me wondering, how do these vehicles with separate motors for left and right drive handle the normal differential function? A low speed full lock turn under gentle throttle (sorry, ICE term there) requires quite subtle axle speed variation to feel smooth … does the motor control system take into account steering angle, or look at wheel speed variation on the front and extrapolate based on wheelbase etc what that means for the rear? Sounds pretty complicated to me, or am I missing something obvious?

You can read more details about it works and compares to lockers here:

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...ister-hills-stairs-steps-climbing-video.9734/

and here:

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...ding-hollister-hill-rsva-10-23-23.9559/page-1

They are actually two threads with similar info.

As my post above it depends on the RPM and terrain conditions which works better, be that traction control, torque vectoring or lockers. Each condition has it's own challenges and each solution it's own advantages.

I should really start a new one with condensed outcomes as a point of reference.

 

[cvalue13]

Curious it also says the pack is 150kw..so does that mean they said 123kw of usable?

Maybe possible for a software unlock to allow for more range in AWD and Trim motor trim...around 50-65 additional miles is possible if 150kw is true.

its 150Ah not kWh

works out to 122.4kWh

 

[delphiwiz]

Besides the off-roading features which on the Cyberbeast will definitely exceed AWD, are there any build differences?

1. Are the motors in CB carbon fiber wrapped?
2. Due to the upgraded and additional motors, will the other components of the truck be upgraded? For example, the high voltage parts and harnesses?
3. Will we have issues with the tire wear like we did with Plaid? Is the tire wear only affected by high acceleration and racing/speeding?
4. It is obvious that the CB will be heavier than AWD due to the additional weight of the motor, any data on the weight increase?
5. 20K extra is a lot more to pay other than performance, any other gains by buying a CB? We already know about off-roading features, but Is build quality better? Anything else?
6. What are the interior differences between the two, any forum posts cover this?

Besides the bragging rights and YOLO urges, any compelling reason to buy the CB vs AWD if price was not an issue?

-DW

 

[PilotPete]

1. 20K extra is a lot more to pay other than performance, any other gains by buying a CB? We already know about off-roading features, but Is build quality better? Anything else?

Really? $20K is "a lot more to pay other than performance"??? Since when? Let's go to some other company and see....

The Porsche Taycan is a BEV car. 800V architecture, and Porsche is all about performance. The base Taycan starts at $90.9K. It does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds. The Taycan 4S 0-60 time is 3.8 seconds, at $111.7K so a 1.3 second improvement is $20.8K. Hmmm. The GTS model does 60 in 3.5 sec for $139.3K. It does have some extra options on it, but $27.6K? And now we are up $48.4K over the base. The "Turbo" model (not sure how one turbocharges an electric motor, but I digress) gets to 60 in 3.0 and runs $160.8K. Now we are at nearly $70K over the base. But wait, there is a "Turbo S" model that goes all the way up to MATCHING THE CYBERBEAST 0-60 time at 2.6 seconds (on far less range) for a measly $194.9K, more than DOUBLE the price of the base model and checking in at a whopping $104,000 MORE than the base to almost cut the base performance in half, almost. Yes, there are "better" rims and brakes and some interior options (Porsche do love to sell you options!) but look at these number and costs and tell me again how $20K is "a lot more". OR by percentage, tell me how 25% increase is "a lot more" when the market has other companies getting 109% more at the same time?

Compare the CB to the Turbo S with the matching 0-6 time, CB greater range, utility, seating, storage, tech, etc. for 91% more? (the MS Plaid with the track pack has already whipped the Porsche on the Nurburgring with a single lap to hold the BEV record, at nearly the same price delta)

Seems to me that we are just spoiled with price and value of the Teslas.

 

[JBee]

Besides the off-roading features which on the Cyberbeast will definitely exceed AWD, are there any build differences?

1. Are the motors in CB carbon fiber wrapped?
2. Due to the upgraded and additional motors, will the other components of the truck be upgraded? For example, the high voltage parts and harnesses?
3. Will we have issues with the tire wear like we did with Plaid? Is the tire wear only affected by high acceleration and racing/speeding?
4. It is obvious that the CB will be heavier than AWD due to the additional weight of the motor, any data on the weight increase?
5. 20K extra is a lot more to pay other than performance, any other gains by buying a CB? We already know about off-roading features, but Is build quality better? Anything else?
6. What are the interior differences between the two, any forum posts cover this?

Besides the bragging rights and YOLO urges, any compelling reason to buy the CB vs AWD if price was not an issue?

-DW

Couple of things:

1. No they are not CF wrapped, and are also not PM motors in the rear, rather they are induction but at a higher 800V than the Plaid, which means they are also a bit smaller lighter but similar power.

2. As far as we know the whole CT range including the AWD and CB are 800V and use the same pack and charging. The only meaningful difference is the extra rear motor, and that those two motor can do torque vectoring, which the AWD cannot at all. The AWD has a rear diff locker however, so just as good or better off road depending on terrain.

3. A bit early to tell but highly like that acceleration will increase tyre wear, as this is a function of traction to change the internal state.

4. Weight is around 200lbs extra

5. Not much except some time, the beast labelling, and of course the torque vectoring mentioned above. You are basically paying the premium for that extra acceleration. The AWD is plenty fast and in no way underpowered.

6. White interior dash and door trim from what we can tell so far.


Overall you are correct, that the AWD is by far the best value proposition, and you will not miss the CB version performance in everyday use.

Another factor here that is important is that the CB is likely to be produced in very low numbers this next year, meaningbif you want one sooner, the AWD will be more available as well.

 

[JBee]

Really? $20K is "a lot more to pay other than performance"??? Since when? Let's go to some other company and see....

The Porsche Taycan is a BEV car. 800V architecture, and Porsche is all about performance. The base Taycan starts at $90.9K. It does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds. The Taycan 4S 0-60 time is 3.8 seconds, at $111.7K so a 1.3 second improvement is $20.8K. Hmmm. The GTS model does 60 in 3.5 sec for $139.3K. It does have some extra options on it, but $27.6K? And now we are up $48.4K over the base. The "Turbo" model (not sure how one turbocharges an electric motor, but I digress) gets to 60 in 3.0 and runs $160.8K. Now we are at nearly $70K over the base. But wait, there is a "Turbo S" model that goes all the way up to MATCHING THE CYBERBEAST 0-60 time at 2.6 seconds (on far less range) for a measly $194.9K, more than DOUBLE the price of the base model and checking in at a whopping $104,000 MORE than the base to almost cut the base performance in half, almost. Yes, there are "better" rims and brakes and some interior options (Porsche do love to sell you options!) but look at these number and costs and tell me again how $20K is "a lot more". OR by percentage, tell me how 25% increase is "a lot more" when the market has other companies getting 109% more at the same time?

Compare the CB to the Turbo S with the matching 0-6 time, CB greater range, utility, seating, storage, tech, etc. for 91% more? (the MS Plaid with the track pack has already whipped the Porsche on the Nurburgring with a single lap to hold the BEV record, at nearly the same price delta)

Seems to me that we are just spoiled with price and value of the Teslas.

Sort of?

I suppose if you compare Porshes or super cars or acceleration times with a work truck, this all seems a bit silly?

The questions he specifically asked was how the AWD compared to the CB, so no need to defend Teslas CT pricing...which I do actually agree is completely disproportionate for what you get, let alone it knocks out the $7500 rebate as well, meaning it's effectively $27,500 more for a CB for many customers.

That is half another SM CT....and that even would come with a "extra motor" and another "battery pack", and another 5 seats, and truck....

I'd rather put that money towards a SM any day.

As for performance comparison, did you see the brake tests where the Hummer EV outbrakes the CB, despite being a ton heavier than the CB? The Lambo SUV was 30ft shorter than that again. Pretty lame, definitely not a sports car. Apparently, in the teardons they're saying the brakes are pretty small and average dimensioned. Hopefully they fix it.

 

[cvalue13]

]

Apparently, in the teardons they're saying the brakes are pretty small and average dimensioned. Hopefully they fix it.

Maybe, like they Plaid, the offer a >$20K track package to fix some of the ways in which it’s not a sports car

Now you’re at $140K for a truck that stops more like a sports car, but still likely isn’t remotely dialed in suspension-wise for being thrown around corners etc

If we’re comparing prices of the resulting CT, the seemingly more relevant “sports car” would be another straight-line drag car, like the 2023 Dodge Challenger SRT Demon 170 … MSRP $100K and a good clip faster than the CT

 

[Cybertruck 1974]

For 99% of all situations average driver will see of dirt-road, light off-road, muddy dirt parking areas, and occasional snow driving, the AWD with locking rear will more than suffice. Having the locking front is bonus.

being I live in the mountains where i get a good amount of snow the locking differentials as stated front and rear for AWD is a huge bonus. Can't wait.

 

[VR Driving]

The brakes are imo the Achilles heels of the Cybertruck. The 4-pot brembo up front will not hold up well under hard driving. With Cybertruck's performance and weight, I'd think something like the Cayenne's brake size would be more suitable. However, when compared to other trucks, the CT is already far superior. But then, Teslas are known for weak stock brakes since under regular driving, you rarely need to use them.

 

[delphiwiz]

Really? $20K is "a lot more to pay other than performance"??? Since when? Let's go to some other company and see....

The Porsche Taycan is a BEV car. 800V architecture, and Porsche is all about performance. The base Taycan starts at $90.9K. It does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds. The Taycan 4S 0-60 time is 3.8 seconds, at $111.7K so a 1.3 second improvement is $20.8K. Hmmm. The GTS model does 60 in 3.5 sec for $139.3K. It does have some extra options on it, but $27.6K? And now we are up $48.4K over the base. The "Turbo" model (not sure how one turbocharges an electric motor, but I digress) gets to 60 in 3.0 and runs $160.8K. Now we are at nearly $70K over the base. But wait, there is a "Turbo S" model that goes all the way up to MATCHING THE CYBERBEAST 0-60 time at 2.6 seconds (on far less range) for a measly $194.9K, more than DOUBLE the price of the base model and checking in at a whopping $104,000 MORE than the base to almost cut the base performance in half, almost. Yes, there are "better" rims and brakes and some interior options (Porsche do love to sell you options!) but look at these number and costs and tell me again how $20K is "a lot more". OR by percentage, tell me how 25% increase is "a lot more" when the market has other companies getting 109% more at the same time?

Compare the CB to the Turbo S with the matching 0-6 time, CB greater range, utility, seating, storage, tech, etc. for 91% more? (the MS Plaid with the track pack has already whipped the Porsche on the Nurburgring with a single lap to hold the BEV record, at nearly the same price delta)

Seems to me that we are just spoiled with price and value of the Teslas.

Pete,

Thanks for the detailed analysis with Porsche Taycan and I couldn't agree with you more, CB is a monster of a vehicle when comparing specs and price.

My post was more towards "Help me justify CB purchase besides the fact that the only apparent gain is speed"

I'm already sold on the CB but do have some concerns now with insurance costs and unique issues due to lower production numbers and with less of them on the road,

Sponsored