Cybertruck timeline schedule prediction -- Agree or Disagree?

[happy intruder]

I agree. It makes sense that Tesla would have some kind of process where you put down an actual deposit prior to customizing your Cybertruck. I could see them asking for $5,000 down to ensure they have a delivery tied to an actual customer.

well if there is such a backlog, (1.2M CT's) and the price is about the same as awfully loaded Model Y and less than a model S, both of which dont require that kind of deposit, I think that would be a tough $5,000 pill swallow.....

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

The Plaid Model S has a completely different drivetrain.

If the quad is the Plaid and the tri sticks around then this all makes more sense.

Have you watched the Plaid teardown?
The plaid drivetrain is the same motors with a CF wrap on the rotor. Thats the "Plaid" upgrade. Theres a different final gear ratio, and likely to be a few software changes on the motor controller, plus maybe some electronic component upgrades (to handle higher switching frequencies or power), but otherwise nothing that Monroe pointed out.

The reason why Plaid can extract more power from the same stator and motor assembly is because the motor simply spin at higher RPM because of the CF wrap. No need to upgrade anything substantial, things just spin faster in relation to the wheels. Provided the battery can handle the draw its all good. (It’s interesting that the CF was needed because they were already approaching rpm limits with their motor design used everywhere)

Unlike engines in ICE electric motors are only really limited by their thermal capability and therefore how they are thermally throttled. Hence why they are precooled for launch mode. The reason Tesla doesn't advertise their HP/kW ratings is because they would have to quote two, one the peak performance over a few seconds that it requires for fast acceleration before it gets to hot, and a much lower rated power that can be continuously used which is also the capacity of the cooling system.

You can never run the Plaid at max power for longer than 10 seconds even in a racing scenario, because you will exceed vmax beforehand, and then have to brake before you accelerate again. Note motor power output only gets to max over 100mph, because under that it is limited by tyre traction, nothing else.

So given the above, I fully expect Plaid type CF wrapped motors on all future models, including the CT. The price differential is negligible in comparison, I beleive the CT quad CF motor will actually be smaller dimensions individually, but will have more performance overall through the addition of the 4th motor. The amount of material cost could actually be less than the TM though.

I think its very important to realise that given the battery size required for range, which doesn't limit output on a CT, that Tesla are now reaching the physical limits of tyre traction, and that producing enough power to reach that limit can be both easily and affordably acheived within their current Plaid rotor design.

The whole quad motor will cost $20-30k more, because of a extra motor is absolute nonsense.

So you can be satisfied in knowing that, at least from a physics and engineering standpoint, those price predictions have no base in reality. How Tesla tries to market the extra performance or functionality is a somewhat different matter, but EM's tech based ego will keep that in check.

 

[Raebrek]

I disagree that CT3 reservation holders will be given priority configuration opportunities. When reservations began at the 2019 unveiling, there was no indication that any of the 3 trims would be built ahead of the others and in fact, many speculated that the CT1 would be first off the line.

I think it's more likely that configurations will be offered in order of reservation number because there will be many (myself included) who reserved a CT2 who will gladly upgrade to a CT4 if that trim is first to production.

I can think of two ways it could roll.
1. They fill the higher dollar Cyber Truck orders first.
2. They fill the lower cost trucks that use fewer batteries first.

Each method has some precedent we have already seen in Tesla production. There are a jillion other ways that come to my mind.

 

[Ogre]

"Rivian might not exist by the time the Cybertruck comes out"
This is sad, I hope this isn't the case. They make a good product

I forget exactly how Musk said it first, but the impression I get is that they think of the car factory as the product. The vehicles are the output of the product.

Rivian has good output, but they do not have a good product. It is slow and expensive and does not delivery what they need—trucks in enough volume to make a profit.

 

[Ogre]

Have you watched the Plaid teardown?
The plaid drivetrain is the same motors with a CF wrap on the rotor. Thats the "Plaid" upgrade. Theres a different final gear ratio, and likely to be a few software changes on the motor controller, plus maybe some electronic component upgrades (to handle higher switching frequencies or power), but otherwise nothing that Monroe pointed out.

Did I miss something?

Because when I saw the Plaid tear down I saw a drivetrain with 2 motors in the rear end.

TWO MOTORS.

Did you miss the fact that they added a second entire motor to the rear drivetrain? I mean… that’s a pretty big thing to miss.

When I say “A completely different drivertrain”, I’m not talking about the motor windings.

I’m talking about the fact that they have an entire second motor on the ass end of the car.

For the math challenged out there. That’s 150% more motors on the car than the LR.

 

[ED_SFO]

Did I miss something?

Because when I saw the Plaid tear down I saw a drivetrain with 2 motors in the rear end.

TWO MOTORS.

Did you miss the fact that they added a second entire motor to the rear drivetrain? I mean… that’s a pretty big thing to miss.

When I say “A completely different drivertrain”, I’m not talking about the motor windings.

I’m talking about the fact that they have an entire second motor on the ass end of the car.

For the math challenged out there. That’s 150% more motors on the car than the LR.

Yeah I think he missed the point of plaid upgrade which is a tri-motor drivetrain which is completely different than the dual motor P100D it replaced.

Imagine Quad CT with two sets of plaid motors front and rear ... Cannot even imagine the launch in that beast. 7000 lb truck 0-60 in 1.9 seconds lol

 

[charliemagpie]

If you wear a Toupee, don't buy a Tesla !!!

 

[JBee]

Did I miss something?

Because when I saw the Plaid tear down I saw a drivetrain with 2 motors in the rear end.

TWO MOTORS.

Did you miss the fact that they added a second entire motor to the rear drivetrain? I mean… that’s a pretty big thing to miss.

When I say “A completely different drivertrain”, I’m not talking about the motor windings.

I’m talking about the fact that they have an entire second motor on the ass end of the car.

For the math challenged out there. That’s 150% more motors on the car than the LR.

Haha lol. Funny!

Ogre buddy, the question was not how many motors the plaid had, the statement I made was about how much will a Quad motor "cost more" than a Tri motor, seeing now the TM has gone?

That's just one motor more than the TM right? Did you miss that the Tri motor CT has three motors, which is like the Plaid, but is not the Plaid, because the CT Plaid will be based on the Quad motor, the one that has four motors?

My point was this $20-30k cost figure for one extra motor, regardless if from 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, is just bananas, it is not worth repeating in discussion because it's not real. And BTW the tri won't come back, as you said would "make sense" for the same reason as it is also a pointless configuration, if you read my post as intended, in context with the below:

I commented that I think the CT will have smaller motors now, but use CF wrap to have at least the same performance if not more than the existing M3/MY/MX/MS one. Therefore all models will now be quad motor, except for maybe a dual motor that will be rear wheel drive.

A couple of extra points to consider as reasons why:

• A QM will also be missing two differentials because you can do that electronically with torque vectoring.
• The three motor MS Plaid actually weighs 175lb LESS than the previous two motor MS Performance, despite having an EXTRA MOTOR!
• The MS Performance, M3/MY etc, have PMSR in the front and Induction motors in the rear, the Plaid only have PMSRM and CF wrapped rotored motor in the front and rear - this accounts for an increase of 30% by itself PER Plaid motor, Which is like ummm.... having a WHOLE OTHER MOTOR!! lol.
• Further the Plaid power band now holds linear throughout most of the RPM range which no other Tesla models ever did. Power stays up even at high RPM/vehicle speed. Remember this from the Plaid release:
  
  
• The taper no longer occurs because of CF wrapped motor that can operate at higher RPM without tearing itself apart, and with the higher gearing used.
• Seeing there is only one fixed gear in Teslas, the graph above also demonstrates how the power develops with motor RPM. Now imagine the same motor, but with gearing configured to vmax out at 120-140MPH instead of 200MPH in a CT. The power curve will be steeper in the beginning and not quite so long, with oodles of power to run a CT at the traction limit (did you catch why I said that in the previous post?)

Anyways, hopefully you can see from the above that there is a lot more to it than just "adding motors" when it come to vehicle performance and in particular cost. 3+1 ≠ 4 or Plaid, especially not if one doesn't consider the motor types used.

 

[rr6013]

Seeing there is only one fixed gear in Teslas, the graph above also demonstrates how the power develops with motor RPM. Now imagine the same motor, but with gearing configured to vmax out at 120-140MPH instead of 200MPH in a CT.

Whoa! Not so fast. Backup.

We’ve both played around with power, traction, speed and load. I’ve blown up my share of Chevrolet transmission casings, ring gears and traction components. From auto to 4x4 to truck drag racing, tractor pulling to field work we can tear shit up.
The linear supposition put forward that torque can gear down for “more” flies in the face of broken housings, traction arms, spun bearings and broken axels. I draw your attention to the “slope” of all plotted Tesla variants. That’s no accident - that’s engineering “margin of safety”. Put bluntly, don’t tear shit up slope.
Gearheads like us play either on a higher schedule curve or earlier and steeper the better. Tesla can’t. Well it can, but opens up warrantee, claims and service stats.
For that limiting factor, expecting Quad CT to regear torque, reduce motor design and increase rpm is inviting SHTF carbon fibre all over the highway. A trail of broken Quads out the Service doors is not the picture of success Tesla is aiming. “Quad” nameplate gets Tesla 90% way to top of class. Engineering can drop weight as you’ve documented getting Tesla another %. Software is the BIG win for Quad enabling true 4WD traction control without 4x4 driveline penalties.
THUS, color me surprised the day Quad is launched with a steeper slope, earlier rise in torque and more continuous horsepower. Because from my experience how much HP doesn’t buy you anything but straightline speed. How HP is delivered, controlled and applied determines the 4x4 winners. Cybertruck shouldn’t need 1000 ft. lb. torque unless its going to perform wheelies from standing start over 1/8th mile track. That’s one hell of a visual selling point but nah. That gearing, slope and torque as suggested would totally have wheelie races on weekends in the desert. Imagine FORD et.al. lining up to watch. I’d love that visual. But it ain’t gonna unless one of us gear heads makes it.
When did CT3 die?

 

[Bill906]

The plaid drivetrain is the same motors with a CF wrap on the rotor.

The plaid motors are very different than the non-plaid motors. Typical iPM motors use a circular laminate where the PM's are inserted into slots. The circle holds the magnets in when spinning.

The Plaid PM motor laminates are a star shaped laminate. I have limited (but some) background in iPM motors. From what I've gathered, the air gap created by using separate spacers to hold the magnets in (and carbon wrap to hold the spacers) instead of using the continuous metal of the laminate to hold the magnets in is a big part of the "secret sauce" in Tesla's Plaid motors. So, although subtle to the lay eye, very different and significant.

 

[TexasTesla]

I don’t think the launch party/ happens until Tesla has rolled at least a few trucks off the line. We’ll likely see those early beta trucks before the next Cybertruck event happens. Shortly after the Launch Party, emails go out where people can finalize their orders and put deposits on their truck.

Also, at one time I swear Musk said volume production and deliveries will start in mid 2023.

I’m mostly in wait-and-see mode. We still don’t have a gigapress or 4680 production in Texas. Both of those are vital.

Musk did say just today that Semi is coming later this year which makes me think the first 4680s from Austin are eminent.

I’m driving a Y with 4680 batteries

 

[JBee]

Whoa! Not so fast. Backup.

We’ve both played around with power, traction, speed and load. I’ve blown up my share of Chevrolet transmission casings, ring gears and traction components. From auto to 4x4 to truck drag racing, tractor pulling to field work we can tear shit up.
The linear supposition put forward that torque can gear down for “more” flies in the face of broken housings, traction arms, spun bearings and broken axels. I draw your attention to the “slope” of all plotted Tesla variants. That’s no accident - that’s engineering “margin of safety”. Put bluntly, don’t tear shit up slope.
Gearheads like us play either on a higher schedule curve or earlier and steeper the better. Tesla can’t. Well it can, but opens up warrantee, claims and service stats.
For that limiting factor, expecting Quad CT to regear torque, reduce motor design and increase rpm is inviting SHTF carbon fibre all over the highway. A trail of broken Quads out the Service doors is not the picture of success Tesla is aiming. “Quad” nameplate gets Tesla 90% way to top of class. Engineering can drop weight as you’ve documented getting Tesla another %. Software is the BIG win for Quad enabling true 4WD traction control without 4x4 driveline penalties.
THUS, color me surprised the day Quad is launched with a steeper slope, earlier rise in torque and more continuous horsepower. Because from my experience how much HP doesn’t buy you anything but straightline speed. How HP is delivered, controlled and applied determines the 4x4 winners. Cybertruck shouldn’t need 1000 ft. lb. torque unless its going to perform wheelies from standing start over 1/8th mile track. That’s one hell of a visual selling point but nah. That gearing, slope and torque as suggested would totally have wheelie races on weekends in the desert. Imagine FORD et.al. lining up to watch. I’d love that visual. But it ain’t gonna unless one of us gear heads makes it.
When did CT3 die?

The graph is a power curve not a torque curve.
So no need to backup just yet.

 

[Ogre]

Haha lol. Funny!

Ogre buddy, the question was not how many motors the plaid had, the statement I made was about how much will a Quad motor "cost more" than a Tri motor, seeing now the TM has gone?

That's just one motor more than the TM right? Did you miss that the Tri motor CT has three motors, which is like the Plaid, but is not the Plaid, because the CT Plaid will be based on the Quad motor, the one that has four motors?

My point was this $20-30k cost figure for one extra motor, regardless if from 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, is just bananas, it is not worth repeating in discussion because it's not real. And BTW the tri won't come back, as you said would "make sense" for the same reason as it is also a pointless configuration, if you read my post as intended, in context with the below:

I commented that I think the CT will have smaller motors now, but use CF wrap to have at least the same performance if not more than the existing M3/MY/MX/MS one. Therefore all models will now be quad motor, except for maybe a dual motor that will be rear wheel drive.

A couple of extra points to consider as reasons why:

• A QM will also be missing two differentials because you can do that electronically with torque vectoring.
• The three motor MS Plaid actually weighs 175lb LESS than the previous two motor MS Performance, despite having an EXTRA MOTOR!
• The MS Performance, M3/MY etc, have PMSR in the front and Induction motors in the rear, the Plaid only have PMSRM and CF wrapped rotored motor in the front and rear - this accounts for an increase of 30% by itself PER Plaid motor, Which is like ummm.... having a WHOLE OTHER MOTOR!! lol.
• Further the Plaid power band now holds linear throughout most of the RPM range which no other Tesla models ever did. Power stays up even at high RPM/vehicle speed. Remember this from the Plaid release:
  
  
• The taper no longer occurs because of CF wrapped motor that can operate at higher RPM without tearing itself apart, and with the higher gearing used.
• Seeing there is only one fixed gear in Teslas, the graph above also demonstrates how the power develops with motor RPM. Now imagine the same motor, but with gearing configured to vmax out at 120-140MPH instead of 200MPH in a CT. The power curve will be steeper in the beginning and not quite so long, with oodles of power to run a CT at the traction limit (did you catch why I said that in the previous post?)

Anyways, hopefully you can see from the above that there is a lot more to it than just "adding motors" when it come to vehicle performance and in particular cost. 3+1 ≠ 4 or Plaid, especially not if one doesn't consider the motor types used.

You are way out from my original point.

Folks are suggesting there will be a Plaid option and this Plaid option will be $20k-30k more than the quad motor truck. I don’t see how this huge price increase can be justified (or people will pay it) when the difference is small.

If we take the tri motor, at $69k, add inflation ($10k), add an extra motor ($5k) and we’re right around $85k.

The current (X/S) Plaid upgrade is $18k and you get 1 extra motor, fancy windings, and brakes. A Cybertruck Plaid upgrade wouldn’t be getting the extra motor so what could Tesla do to justify a Plaid Cybertruck which is $15k - $45k more expensive? Windings and brakes? As you suggest, that’s not really a $20k upgrade.

 

[JBee]

The plaid motors are very different than the non-plaid motors. Typical iPM motors use a circular laminate where the PM's are inserted into slots. The circle holds the magnets in when spinning.

The Plaid PM motor laminates are a star shaped laminate. I have limited (but some) background in iPM motors. From what I've gathered, the air gap created by using separate spacers to hold the magnets in (and carbon wrap to hold the spacers) instead of using the continuous metal of the laminate to hold the magnets in is a big part of the "secret sauce" in Tesla's Plaid motors. So, although subtle to the lay eye, very different and significant.

I know about the star layout, didn't want to make it too technical, but how much extra cost will it be for the Plaid magnet/plate layout? "Secret sauce" doesn't mean expensive, and also doesn't invalidate the idea of only QM CTs using Plaid rotors. Let alone the silly $30k price for one motor.

They need the performance and efficiency it achieves to save weight and batteries for more range. That is also a cost saving, as its a total system balancing act.

 

[Ogre]

I’m driving a Y with 4680 batteries

But the cells were built in California. They can’t scale that facility up enough to supply Cybertruck production.

Sponsored