First Cybertruck down while offroading! Rear steering tie-rod broken @ KOH (by Unplugged Performance)

[JBee]

Directly related really. If you double the energy density you basically halve the cost. Same amount of material providing twice the energy storage.

It's physically impossible to double the energy density with that NCM chemistry.
The cost also depends on the materials used. Apparently they didn't use silicon to boost capacity.
Battery yield, aka how many pass QC, is a dominant factor, and pushing capacity leads to more cells not making QC. So a cost analysis is not as simple as double capacity = half cost.

Better in what way? It would add significant cost and only a tiny amount of additional range even in ideal conditions.

Not because of the solar, but rather because of the weatherproofing of a glass panel and aerodynamics, if it slid over the rear roof instead to open. Would of allowed a midgate too. But this would have opened up the "gear tunnel" space where the vault cover roll sits, and a range extender would of fit in there instead of the gear tunnel storage, nice and close to the middle of the car for better weight distribution, and would of taken up none of the bed at all. The solar on the vault glass cover, would of just been some icing to keep the car alive with sentry mode on and a bit of active fan for cabin cooling.

Only relatively small items that wouldn't be towed anyway. Unless you are considering a much longer overall vehicle which would cost more and weigh more.

You can fit 12ft items in the back of a van with just the front seats in, With a Bollinger style load through you could have 18ft. Volume wise you could have around 320cuft in a van body that fits on the same ground footprint as a CT, the CT only has 120cuft including the rear seats. Hence also the idea to use seats on rails to make the inside reconfigurable.

320cuft is the equivalent volume of towing 200cuft trailer this behind a CT with full storage, but all inside the same footprint of the CT using a van type body.

The point is that a van body would not cost as much as a extra trailer, in fact would cost less than a couple of grand extra in body panels, in comparison to a CT truck with the same payload, but would offer far superior payload/range capacity for the same battery, and extra space and versatility without needing to tow at all for most jobs. Could also be a 12 seater if you wanted, or Class B motorhome, all with the same vehicle.

Sponsored

 

[BannedByTMC]

It's physically impossible to double the energy density with that NCM chemistry.

Jeff Dahn has achieved almost 600Wh/kg with NCM 811 chemistry, double the density of what Tesla is currently using. Note that NCM chemistry has vastly increased energy density over LiCo by replacing more expensive Cobalt with less expensive Nickel and Manganese.

Not because of the solar, but rather because of the weatherproofing of a glass panel and aerodynamics, if it slid over the rear roof instead to open.

I'd say the engineering required to have the cover ride up over the roof while not getting ripped off by wind at highway speeds would be a challenge, not to mention the aerodynamic efficiency loss.

The point is that a van body would not cost as much as a extra trailer

But most people never trailer so that's targeting a niche market. Trucks are more popular than cargo vans in the US which is the target market for the CT. I'd like to see Tesla do a van at some point too but the CT was never going to be that.

 

[Sleipnir]

"EV trucks are gonna be more efficient at doing what 90% of trucks do 90% of the time, transport a couple people and a few things within 100 miles of their home." at speed!

While it may be momentarily amusing it's statistically irrelevant. At efficiency is more interesting.

Sponsored