Cybertruck Range: Losing the Story

[Cyberostachu]

I think if Tesla had not advertised the initial 500-mile claim for the CT, people would probably be stoked about the new stated range of 340miles. That's an impressive number for a truck and people should appreciate it (likewise the 352mi large-pack option on the Rivian).

Like everyone else, I was a little disappointed to hear the 340mi range number, until I realized the battery size is only 123kWh. That's smaller than I was expecting and it has the upside that the truck is significantly lighter weight than I was expecting. This ain't no Hummer, and ain't no Silverado (thankfully). I was actually quite worried that driving a 500-mile range truck would feel like driving a dump truck.

Tesla made a conscious decision to sacrifice range on the CT in order to have a more reasonably sized battery, and they gained more headroom, better performance, better handling, more payload capacity, and better off road capability. Those are big upsides. Worth the trade off.

As for the stated vs actual range debate, I'm not worried about it personally. I live in a place with max speed limits of 55mph, and I drive very conservatively. I strive to maximize efficiency and tire life in every vehicle I drive, EV or not. From what I hear, drivers like me get pretty damn good range numbers as long as the weather cooperates.

It depends on who you are and where you live. I live in a 75+5 mph limit, I don't drive very fast but I'm not slow. I don't tow, don't carry heavy loads. I want to use it for long trips so I need to average 250 to 275 miles fully charged for dual but based on what I read, real world range is nowhere close.
What about range extender battery pack to get to 400 miles ($8,000), instead of going to 470 miles ($16,000), which can be negotiated so it qualifies the $7,500 IRS rebate?

Sponsored

 

[intimidator]

On reveal night, four years ago, it was the 500 mile range of the Tri-Motor trim that stuck in my mind more than anything else.

We don’t know what we don’t know, though. And sometimes something that seems imminently clear… turns out anything but.

Fast forward those four years. Cybertrucks are now finally rolling out of Austin. And here is my stake-in-the-ground: Lots of people are going to be complaining about the range they experience.

Not because they’re towing things. Not because they’re hauling stuff. And not because the truck Tesla finally shipped ended up rated at 300 miles and change instead of the 500 miles that was originally expected.

Even had Tesla hit that bogey, people would be unhappy. Because most people – even longtime EV owners – continue to look at EV range through the prism of their lifelong ICE experience.

There are a hat trick of things going on. First, drivers don’t usually appreciate the vast difference in fuel stores between ICE cars and their EV counterparts.

One gallon of gas is approximately 121,000,000 joules; and is equivalent to around 33.6 kWh.

Here’s a quick chart of the fuel capacities of several sample ICE trims, and what would be the equivalent energy in an EV.

Note the extraordinary kWh capacities necessary to match up with what we think of as run-of-the-mill, common-as-can-be vehicles. It underlines how grossly inefficient ICE cars are. The Raptor is just nuts.

It’s even more revealing when you turn it around and look at it from the EV perspective.

Imagine if your ICE family sedan had a 2.5 gallon gas tank. When I go out later this morning and climb into my Model 3, that’s essentially what I’m doing. It underlines how little fuel a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y carries onboard, compared to a similar ICE vehicle. It emphasizes how much more efficient an EV is.

There’s a “But,” though.

All vehicles - ICE or EV - are affected by things like temperature, altitude, and speed. And yet the EV world is inundated with complaints of range falling off as the calendar rolls into winter. Or when a drive involves a long slog on the interstate at speed. Or when a trip sends one up into the mountains.

While ICE drivers rarely give a thought to any of those things.

Lithium EV chemistries certainly have some issues that need to be managed in cold weather. I’m not saying they don’t.

But much of the effect of those kinds of things in the ICE world is hidden within the cavernous supply of fuel that they carry.

Lose ten percent efficiency in an ICE car because you’ve entered a slight uphill grade and it’s lost in the noise. Lose ten percent in an EV, with its tiny fuel supply and parsimonious allocation of energy, and it’s immediately obvious.

I’m reminded of the scene from Apollo 13 when Ken Mattingly, down on the ground, struggles to find a way to power up the Command Module of the ailing spacecraft with the tiny amount of power available in the Lunar Module’s batteries.

How we use our batteries is sometimes a very big deal.



The second thing, the next reason many people will be unhappy with the range they see in their new Cybertruck, is because full in the ICE world is a little bit different than full in the EV world.

Both worlds require some buffer on the low end, in order to find that next gas station or DC fast charger.

But whereas the ICE world habitually fills their tank all the way when they stop, that’s rarely the case in the EV world. Lithium batteries don’t like full charge because it accelerates pack degradation. So those of us who care about such things tend to back away from full charge some amount – 80% or 70% or, for some of us, even more – unless we’re on a road trip or some other situation that absolutely demands 100% SOC.

That promised 320 miles of range can quickly turn into 250 or 270 before we’ve driven the first mile. And that’s with a brand new pack, before any degradation has occurred.



The last reason for range frustration is because of something most people never give a thought to – themselves.

A lot of people look at rated range, fail to ever hit it, and then just squint hard at their vehicle, shaking their head. Muttering something about Elon once again promising something he never delivered.

Well, no.

Most drivers have pretty close to zero appreciation for how much energy it costs pulling away from a traffic light. Or how much is thrown away every time they tap the brakes.

They have not once, during their entire driving life, ever given a thought to momentum or what the benefit of conserving it might be.

They drive their EV exactly like they’ve always driven their ICE car. They press on the throttle to make it go. They press on the brake to make it stop.

And because that ICE car always had such a glorious extravagance of energy carried onboard, they never learned not to waste it.

Even in a car – such as a Tesla – that has the real-time telemetry for such things, they’ve never once contemplated the actual kilowatts of power their rear motor is putting out. Or where the threshold is for when the motor on their front axle engages.

They see the green line on their screen stretch out like a rubber band when they come off the throttle and their car begins regen braking. But they have no idea how much energy got sent back into the pack.

I won’t belabor this. Discussing how to optimize EV driving efficiency is a story for another time. For now, I’ll just say that an EV driver complaining because the “real world” range of their vehicle never approaches its rated range… is probably not seeing the whole picture.

Speaking of that rated range thing. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an objective, unbiased third-party from whom we could get “real world” numbers?

Turns out we do. It’s called the EPA. They designed the test suite from which rated range emerges. Not Tesla.

The second chart above has the watt-hours/mile needed to hit the vehicle’s rated range, written in red. For the Cybertruck, we’ll be wanting to hit right around 384 in order to make that 320-mile bogey.

Some of us expect to.

I have an EV. I drive an EV. But still have a dinosaur breather in the driveway as well.

Had a "long range" F150 with the large gas tank and got 700 miles of range before adding more liquid carbon in the tank.

I don't care about joules, or kWhs. Just want convenience when using my vehicles.

Roadtrips take a lot more brain cells, and time, with the EV. Done it a number of times. So tbh we take the ICE now. Love the EV but there are clear limitations. Maybe in 5+ years there will be 10x more charging locations, and EVs will all be 800 volt architecture and charge in 15 minutes. Just not now.

 

[Woodrick]

My wife and I have been Tesla owners for almost 6 years and, no, we are not familiar with plugshare, we use Superchargers exclusively. We tried third party charging a couple of times initially but never got one to work and we quickly learned life is too short to mess around with unreliable chargers.

You really need to broaden your horizons then, especially if you are headed into areas where there aren't a lot of Superchargers.

Here's the non-Tesla chargers available to you

And here's the Superchargers

There's a lot of holes filled by the CCS and J-1772 chargers.

Sure, the J-1772 chargers may be slower, but sometimes sitting at one for an hour may make an impossible trip possible.

You should have a J-1772 adapter with your current vehicle and the CCS adaptor should be made available for the Cybertruck.

In my recent trip to Branson, a stop at a CCS kept me from going an extra 100 miles out of the way.

 

[Jimbo Ringo]

On reveal night, four years ago, it was the 500 mile range of the Tri-Motor trim that stuck in my mind more than anything else.

We don’t know what we don’t know, though. And sometimes something that seems imminently clear… turns out anything but.

Fast forward those four years. Cybertrucks are now finally rolling out of Austin. And here is my stake-in-the-ground: Lots of people are going to be complaining about the range they experience.

Not because they’re towing things. Not because they’re hauling stuff. And not because the truck Tesla finally shipped ended up rated at 300 miles and change instead of the 500 miles that was originally expected.

Even had Tesla hit that bogey, people would be unhappy. Because most people – even longtime EV owners – continue to look at EV range through the prism of their lifelong ICE experience.

There are a hat trick of things going on. First, drivers don’t usually appreciate the vast difference in fuel stores between ICE cars and their EV counterparts.

One gallon of gas is approximately 121,000,000 joules; and is equivalent to around 33.6 kWh.

Here’s a quick chart of the fuel capacities of several sample ICE trims, and what would be the equivalent energy in an EV.

Note the extraordinary kWh capacities necessary to match up with what we think of as run-of-the-mill, common-as-can-be vehicles. It underlines how grossly inefficient ICE cars are. The Raptor is just nuts.

It’s even more revealing when you turn it around and look at it from the EV perspective.

Imagine if your ICE family sedan had a 2.5 gallon gas tank. When I go out later this morning and climb into my Model 3, that’s essentially what I’m doing. It underlines how little fuel a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y carries onboard, compared to a similar ICE vehicle. It emphasizes how much more efficient an EV is.

There’s a “But,” though.

All vehicles - ICE or EV - are affected by things like temperature, altitude, and speed. And yet the EV world is inundated with complaints of range falling off as the calendar rolls into winter. Or when a drive involves a long slog on the interstate at speed. Or when a trip sends one up into the mountains.

While ICE drivers rarely give a thought to any of those things.

Lithium EV chemistries certainly have some issues that need to be managed in cold weather. I’m not saying they don’t.

But much of the effect of those kinds of things in the ICE world is hidden within the cavernous supply of fuel that they carry.

Lose ten percent efficiency in an ICE car because you’ve entered a slight uphill grade and it’s lost in the noise. Lose ten percent in an EV, with its tiny fuel supply and parsimonious allocation of energy, and it’s immediately obvious.

I’m reminded of the scene from Apollo 13 when Ken Mattingly, down on the ground, struggles to find a way to power up the Command Module of the ailing spacecraft with the tiny amount of power available in the Lunar Module’s batteries.

How we use our batteries is sometimes a very big deal.



The second thing, the next reason many people will be unhappy with the range they see in their new Cybertruck, is because full in the ICE world is a little bit different than full in the EV world.

Both worlds require some buffer on the low end, in order to find that next gas station or DC fast charger.

But whereas the ICE world habitually fills their tank all the way when they stop, that’s rarely the case in the EV world. Lithium batteries don’t like full charge because it accelerates pack degradation. So those of us who care about such things tend to back away from full charge some amount – 80% or 70% or, for some of us, even more – unless we’re on a road trip or some other situation that absolutely demands 100% SOC.

That promised 320 miles of range can quickly turn into 250 or 270 before we’ve driven the first mile. And that’s with a brand new pack, before any degradation has occurred.



The last reason for range frustration is because of something most people never give a thought to – themselves.

A lot of people look at rated range, fail to ever hit it, and then just squint hard at their vehicle, shaking their head. Muttering something about Elon once again promising something he never delivered.

Well, no.

Most drivers have pretty close to zero appreciation for how much energy it costs pulling away from a traffic light. Or how much is thrown away every time they tap the brakes.

They have not once, during their entire driving life, ever given a thought to momentum or what the benefit of conserving it might be.

They drive their EV exactly like they’ve always driven their ICE car. They press on the throttle to make it go. They press on the brake to make it stop.

And because that ICE car always had such a glorious extravagance of energy carried onboard, they never learned not to waste it.

Even in a car – such as a Tesla – that has the real-time telemetry for such things, they’ve never once contemplated the actual kilowatts of power their rear motor is putting out. Or where the threshold is for when the motor on their front axle engages.

They see the green line on their screen stretch out like a rubber band when they come off the throttle and their car begins regen braking. But they have no idea how much energy got sent back into the pack.

I won’t belabor this. Discussing how to optimize EV driving efficiency is a story for another time. For now, I’ll just say that an EV driver complaining because the “real world” range of their vehicle never approaches its rated range… is probably not seeing the whole picture.

Speaking of that rated range thing. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an objective, unbiased third-party from whom we could get “real world” numbers?

Turns out we do. It’s called the EPA. They designed the test suite from which rated range emerges. Not Tesla.

The second chart above has the watt-hours/mile needed to hit the vehicle’s rated range, written in red. For the Cybertruck, we’ll be wanting to hit right around 384 in order to make that 320-mile bogey.

Some of us expect to.

Very well done! Thank You!

 

[Mtnrunner]

On reveal night, four years ago, it was the 500 mile range of the Tri-Motor trim that stuck in my mind more than anything else.

We don’t know what we don’t know, though. And sometimes something that seems imminently clear… turns out anything but.

Fast forward those four years. Cybertrucks are now finally rolling out of Austin. And here is my stake-in-the-ground: Lots of people are going to be complaining about the range they experience.

Not because they’re towing things. Not because they’re hauling stuff. And not because the truck Tesla finally shipped ended up rated at 300 miles and change instead of the 500 miles that was originally expected.

Even had Tesla hit that bogey, people would be unhappy. Because most people – even longtime EV owners – continue to look at EV range through the prism of their lifelong ICE experience.

There are a hat trick of things going on. First, drivers don’t usually appreciate the vast difference in fuel stores between ICE cars and their EV counterparts.

One gallon of gas is approximately 121,000,000 joules; and is equivalent to around 33.6 kWh.

Here’s a quick chart of the fuel capacities of several sample ICE trims, and what would be the equivalent energy in an EV.

Note the extraordinary kWh capacities necessary to match up with what we think of as run-of-the-mill, common-as-can-be vehicles. It underlines how grossly inefficient ICE cars are. The Raptor is just nuts.

It’s even more revealing when you turn it around and look at it from the EV perspective.

Imagine if your ICE family sedan had a 2.5 gallon gas tank. When I go out later this morning and climb into my Model 3, that’s essentially what I’m doing. It underlines how little fuel a Tesla Model 3 or Model Y carries onboard, compared to a similar ICE vehicle. It emphasizes how much more efficient an EV is.

There’s a “But,” though.

All vehicles - ICE or EV - are affected by things like temperature, altitude, and speed. And yet the EV world is inundated with complaints of range falling off as the calendar rolls into winter. Or when a drive involves a long slog on the interstate at speed. Or when a trip sends one up into the mountains.

While ICE drivers rarely give a thought to any of those things.

Lithium EV chemistries certainly have some issues that need to be managed in cold weather. I’m not saying they don’t.

But much of the effect of those kinds of things in the ICE world is hidden within the cavernous supply of fuel that they carry.

Lose ten percent efficiency in an ICE car because you’ve entered a slight uphill grade and it’s lost in the noise. Lose ten percent in an EV, with its tiny fuel supply and parsimonious allocation of energy, and it’s immediately obvious.

I’m reminded of the scene from Apollo 13 when Ken Mattingly, down on the ground, struggles to find a way to power up the Command Module of the ailing spacecraft with the tiny amount of power available in the Lunar Module’s batteries.

How we use our batteries is sometimes a very big deal.



The second thing, the next reason many people will be unhappy with the range they see in their new Cybertruck, is because full in the ICE world is a little bit different than full in the EV world.

Both worlds require some buffer on the low end, in order to find that next gas station or DC fast charger.

But whereas the ICE world habitually fills their tank all the way when they stop, that’s rarely the case in the EV world. Lithium batteries don’t like full charge because it accelerates pack degradation. So those of us who care about such things tend to back away from full charge some amount – 80% or 70% or, for some of us, even more – unless we’re on a road trip or some other situation that absolutely demands 100% SOC.

That promised 320 miles of range can quickly turn into 250 or 270 before we’ve driven the first mile. And that’s with a brand new pack, before any degradation has occurred.



The last reason for range frustration is because of something most people never give a thought to – themselves.

A lot of people look at rated range, fail to ever hit it, and then just squint hard at their vehicle, shaking their head. Muttering something about Elon once again promising something he never delivered.

Well, no.

Most drivers have pretty close to zero appreciation for how much energy it costs pulling away from a traffic light. Or how much is thrown away every time they tap the brakes.

They have not once, during their entire driving life, ever given a thought to momentum or what the benefit of conserving it might be.

They drive their EV exactly like they’ve always driven their ICE car. They press on the throttle to make it go. They press on the brake to make it stop.

And because that ICE car always had such a glorious extravagance of energy carried onboard, they never learned not to waste it.

Even in a car – such as a Tesla – that has the real-time telemetry for such things, they’ve never once contemplated the actual kilowatts of power their rear motor is putting out. Or where the threshold is for when the motor on their front axle engages.

They see the green line on their screen stretch out like a rubber band when they come off the throttle and their car begins regen braking. But they have no idea how much energy got sent back into the pack.

I won’t belabor this. Discussing how to optimize EV driving efficiency is a story for another time. For now, I’ll just say that an EV driver complaining because the “real world” range of their vehicle never approaches its rated range… is probably not seeing the whole picture.

Speaking of that rated range thing. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had an objective, unbiased third-party from whom we could get “real world” numbers?

Turns out we do. It’s called the EPA. They designed the test suite from which rated range emerges. Not Tesla.

The second chart above has the watt-hours/mile needed to hit the vehicle’s rated range, written in red. For the Cybertruck, we’ll be wanting to hit right around 384 in order to make that 320-mile bogey.

Some of us expect to.

“While ICE drivers rarely give a thought to any of those things.” Including their carbon footprint

And I happen to be that third party real world objective range analyst, in my own EVs! Everyone’s driving habits, route conditions and range requirements are unique. And for the vast majority of actual EV drivers the range is perfectly usable, and impressive.

Not sure what the point of your long winded, faulty analysis is but maybe stick to gas and feel good about it each time you fill up

 

[rudedawg78]

I wonder, is there a chance that Tesla increases the size of battery pack for CT?
Without that I can't get rid of impression that CT is a very expensive toy

I hope. So much for all that "we have to make the Cybertruck affordable" talk by Elon.

 

[rudedawg78]

This is a troll post full of lies. M3 LR battery is equivalent to a few gallons of gas tank? I loled so hard.

People charge to 70% or less to avoid degrading battery? Wtffff did u pull that out of your arse? I charged to 90% for three years with zero issues. 80% is as low as u wanna go but also still on paranoid side.

Battery life wasn't ever an issue on my Tesla. While wanting more range is fine, who doesn't want 1,000 mi range without compromises in some magic madeup world, you're looking mighty smart posting utterly madeup bs.

ahahha wtf how is this allowed by the mods. Delete this FUD from a tslaq member

 

[Gigahorse]

I wonder, is there a chance that Tesla increases the size of battery pack for CT?
Without that I can't get rid of impression that CT is a very expensive toy

^100%

I think that the vast majority of truck owners are hoping for that, with the 500+ >320 > who knows maybe 320 maybe 180 but it is not 500 a lot of people are feeling range letdown and are frustrated due to waiting for 4 years for this truck to figure out in the real world the range is going to be about half of 500. Towing etc will be pretty much not possible any kind of distance.

I think Tesla will see the # of people buying battery packs or simply passing on their reservation and bump the pack size to 165 or 195 getting at least in the ballpark of range needed for towing, camping, etc.

 

[Knucklehead]

“While ICE drivers rarely give a thought to any of those things.” Including their carbon footprint

And I happen to be that third party real world objective range analyst, in my own EVs! Everyone’s driving habits, route conditions and range requirements are unique. And for the vast majority of actual EV drivers the range is perfectly usable, and impressive.

Not sure what the point of your long winded, faulty analysis is but maybe stick to gas and feel good about it each time you fill up

Well, I don't care at all about my "carbon footprint", whatever that is.

When it comes to BEVs, if you want to use one to travel, range is critical. A big ass battery is critical, especially on a big ass truck. Telsa sets the gold standard for public charging, but is still the biggest drawback to owning a BEV. Longer range vehicles mean fewer stops and less public charging pain.

His "long winded" analysis seemed pretty spot on to me. BEVs have a long way to go before they are truly capable of replacing ICEVs for traveling.

I wish Tesla had delivered the 500 mile range CT as promised, because it would have been a game changer. I guess the technology doesn't exist yet to change the game at a reasonable price point. Otherwise I am sure they would have done it. Obviously they wanted to.

 

[drift]

I have an EV. I drive an EV. But still have a dinosaur breather in the driveway as well.

Had a "long range" F150 with the large gas tank and got 700 miles of range before adding more liquid carbon in the tank.

I don't care about joules, or kWhs. Just want convenience when using my vehicles.

Roadtrips take a lot more brain cells, and time, with the EV. Done it a number of times. So tbh we take the ICE now. Love the EV but there are clear limitations. Maybe in 5+ years there will be 10x more charging locations, and EVs will all be 800 volt architecture and charge in 15 minutes. Just not now.

When is the last time that you drove 700 miles non-stop ?

 

[Mtnrunner]

Well, I don't care at all about my "carbon footprint", whatever that is.

When it comes to BEVs, if you want to use one to travel, range is critical. A big ass battery is critical, especially on a big ass truck. Telsa sets the gold standard for public charging, but is still the biggest drawback to owning a BEV. Longer range vehicles mean fewer stops and less public charging pain.

His "long winded" analysis seemed pretty spot on to me. BEVs have a long way to go before they are truly capable of replacing ICEVs for traveling.

I wish Tesla had delivered the 500 mile range CT as promised, because it would have been a game changer. I guess the technology doesn't exist yet to change the game at a reasonable price point. Otherwise I am sure they would have done it. Obviously they wanted to.

Not knowing what a carbon footprint is makes you part of the problem, not the solution but wateva

And I’m so sorry that Tesla broke its promise to you, did you get a sympathy card?

Fact is EVs are taking over and for many good reasons, the biggest being THEY MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE!

For those who wanna pull a house up the mountain for a wknd and make it back to their trailer park; stick with diesel, but please STAY OUTTA THE LEFT LANE!

 

[SentinelOne]

"Fact is EVs are taking over and for many good reasons, the biggest being THEY MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE!"

Agree, and that's great, when they actually meet needed use cases - here's mine!

Commuter/ Performance car = Model 3P / Financial Sense
Street bike-long range = no EV Alternative (unless you live in CA with chargers everywhere)
Street bike - crotch rocket = Entergica at 2x price, won't yet do my 90mil mountain loop = no EV Alternative / no financial sense
Dirtbike = Stark Varg on Order (been waiting 2 years), but will keep 1 ICE Bike because Varg doesn't have the range / limited financial sense
Truck = Getting a Cyber Truck but it will replace my M3p vs. replacing my Diesel Truck as was the original plan (aka it's a utilitarian toy but not a truck replacement for me)- because they missed their specs (tow weight / range)...and I have a house to pull

So yeah, EV's are taking over when they make sense...and im trying to go all EV as I can, just doesnt make sense for everything as of yet...and for the truck, while I'll get one for a toy - you cant fault people for being pissed if it stated it would meet use case and 4 years of waiting it changed and now doest - I have the luxury of keeping my diesel and getting a CT, not everyone does.

PS - pulling a house up the mountain - you're in Colorado so you must see thousands of the houses going up the mountain / RV Dealerships, etc - it's a real use case for a lot of people. Original specs could cover my trailer (13k) and have reasonable range (200 of 500)...now that's a hard no (< 100 of 301)- and that sux because I'd rather have had 2 tesla's vs. 1 CT and 1 Diesel Truck...

ps - we're also not all eco warriors, but I do know what carbon footprint is!
pss - "please STAY OUTTA THE LEFT LANE" - why? only have to stay in it for 5 miles till you run out of range at the 85mph everyone drives in CO!

 

[Knucklehead]

Not knowing what a carbon footprint is makes you part of the problem, not the solution but wateva

And I’m so sorry that Tesla broke its promise to you, did you get a sympathy card?

Fact is EVs are taking over and for many good reasons, the biggest being THEY MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE!

For those who wanna pull a house up the mountain for a wknd and make it back to their trailer park; stick with diesel, but please STAY OUTTA THE LEFT LANE!

I'm only part of the problem if having a carbon footprint is a problem. It isn't.

I am disappointed we don't have a 500 mile range CT, but not surprised. If you go back a few months to one of my few and far between posts, you will see I was saying the CT will be similarly priced or more than the X. I also didn't really think we would get 500 miles for anything less than a Lucid Air GT, which at the time was $150k.

BEVs don't make financial sense of you include the purchase price. If you ignore the purchase price they are definitely cheaper to operate than an ICEV, and I love the fact there is practically no maintenance needed. No exhaust system to rust out, no motor oil that needs to be changed, etc.

The high purchase price is worth it to me to have a cool vehicle and the latest automotive technology. But it isn't financially better than the equivalent ICE. In fact, there are many ICEVs that don't have an equivalent BEV yet. And those that do, the BEV is a lot more expensive to buy.

 

[wshunter]

Do you stop “more frequently”??? Or do you spend more time charging than sitting at gas stations?

I’m not talking about a single trip, I am talking about over a year. If you charge at home, and your daily drive is within the range that you can recharge at home (say, 30 miles each way), and let say every other weekend you take a 1,000 mile round trip vacation. (Or a 500 mile round trip towing a trailer) Let’s look at it…

A REAL truck/car;
You can get 400 miles out of a tank of gas, but you stop and fill up around 360. You are stopping at the gas station every 6 days. So between your every 2 week trips, you are making 2 stops at a gas station. Average time 5 minutes. And then on your trip, you’ve driven two days since filling up, so you leave the house with 240 miles of effective range (meaning you drive until that light is almost on, but you ain’t empty) You’re filling up once enroute on your trip each way and arriving home with, oh wait, you have to choose between stretching the trip between fill ups to 370 or stopping again. Well, there’s a gas station on every off-ramp, so you stretch each leg another 10 miles and you arrive home with less than 10 miles of gas. Just enough to get you to the gas station first thing in the morning before work, OR, you stop just as you are arriving home. Either way, another 5 minutes. And on the way to/from you have to stop at Starbucks for a potty break, so another 5 minutes each way, add 10 minutes overall.

So every two weeks you are stopping 6 times, at 5 minutes each., or 30 minutes of your life each two weeks is at a gas station, and 40 minutes with bathroom breaks. And here we are assuming you aren’t ever having to wait for a pump to open up, best case. And you don’t ever go anywhere other than work and your trips. You take something else out to dinner, or shopping, or getting groceries, or to drive through for dinner, or a lunch run at work, or whatever.

One of them dang MARS trucks/cars
You get 340 miles from a full charge, but you stop around 270-275, doesn’t matter really. You plug in at home every night and leave the house with 80% like the book says. So during your two weeks, you never stop to charge. And when you leave for your trip, you leave with 340 miles of range. you stop once on your way, and use a destination charger to top it off before you head home. You stop once on the way. Each stop is 30 minutes, and you stop at Starbucks while you are charging. You are charging for 60 minutes every two weeks. You also have enough range to get groceries every few days, take little Susie to soccer practice twice a week, and little Bobby to baseball practice as well. You have the range to take your spouse out to dinner in your car, make a lunch run for the office everyday, and run other errands whenever, without impacting the amount of time you spend “refueling” your car.

Not many people drive 1000 miles on a trip every two weeks, but the ICE car/truck has stopped 7 times for 40 minutes, and the BEV has stopped 2 times for 60 minutes. Not a huge difference. And certainly the BEV is more convenient overall in day to day real life. You aren’t stopping more often, just a few more minutes and far LESS often.

Make that long trip just 4 or 5 times a year, and you now are spending MORE time filling up with gas than charging your car. The difference is like having a gas station in your garage, and someone else to fill it up every night. Make the daily commute to work longer, and it tilts even more in favor of the BEV. This is one of the (many) reasons I’m making the change to a BEV.

That scenario fits us very closely. We made 4 trips this past year of 1 - 2000 miles in our M Y LR. . Last trip we lost about 30 min because our potty breaks didn’t coincide with stops for charging. At charge stops, if we went in for food, or whatever, it usually worked out that we got back to the car about the time charge was sufficient to get us to the next stop. Incidentally, we lost another 20 - 30 min in stop and go traffic jams where FSD was just great. Stopped - very little energy being used, and my eyes didn’t have to be constantly glued to the car ahead. We ate dinner while charging (had to hurry a bit for that), went to our hotel for the night, and on our way next morning. Honestly, it does cost us around an hour on a 1000 mile or so trip, but we arrive much less road weary. Also on that last trip, we saved about $188.00 over what our gas costs would have been. At home, charging costs us about $0.14/kWh. At that rate it costs us $0.04/mile. Our Nissan Murano - $0.20/ mile. Last point is that all gas stations are not alike. Just driving until I feel the need to stop for fuel has landed me in some pretty unsavory places, maybe not even open, and then I had to figure out about the next available station. In the Tesla, chargers always open, the longest I have had to wait for one to be available was 3 min. I know exactly where they are, and I have yet to feel uncomfortable with the place where the charger was.

 

[HaulingAss]

You really need to broaden your horizons then, especially if you are headed into areas where there aren't a lot of Superchargers.

Here's the non-Tesla chargers available to you

And here's the Superchargers

There's a lot of holes filled by the CCS and J-1772 chargers.

Sure, the J-1772 chargers may be slower, but sometimes sitting at one for an hour may make an impossible trip possible.

You should have a J-1772 adapter with your current vehicle and the CCS adaptor should be made available for the Cybertruck.

In my recent trip to Branson, a stop at a CCS kept me from going an extra 100 miles out of the way.

I use destination chargers when I travel, sometimes with a J-1772 adapter. We have two of them but our cars, along with three Mobile Connectors for our three Tesla. But our cars are very efficient and have lost very little range since new so all we need are Tesla Superchargers and destination chargers/outlets where we stay. If we are staying overnight in a charging "hole", we make sure we have a destination charger. Otherwise we use Superchargers.

We have family in Flathead Valley so are very familiar with the Supercharger "holes" but they are only "holes" if you don't know what you're doing. More importantly, when I show up to a Supercharger, I'm comfortable arriving with less than 10%, because I know a Supercharger will work. That is not the case with third party chargers, even so, I don't want to fool around with payment methods and different apps, so I simply don't find them useful. I would use one if push came to a shove, but I prefer to plan around them due their unreliability, often slow speeds and all the dinking around with different apps and payment systems.

Gas stations were bad enough, third party chargers are worse. Superchargers are a breath of fresh air and they continue to double the network size every year and a half or so.

Sponsored