To be fair that Electrek article is a collection of hit pieces. Displaying range based on the EPA rated consumption can in no way shape or form be construed as rigging range estimates. Tesla is also not the only manufacturer using the 5-cycle test and the Lightning, which is rated on the 2-cycle test, sees about the same range loss when doing a 70mph highway run. That said I do agree the EPA should have everyone test on the same cycle.
I see.
again, good news is, whatâs announced in the next few weeks may only be relevant to the first ~yearâs worth of orders, which may be only 30K-70K peopleI see.
Well damn. I guess I will be bathing in my tears if there is no 500+ mile version announced in a few weeks.
Well, in this case, I will likely just wait until the 500+ mile range is offered (well, technically 400+ mile range is my requirement).again, good news is, whatâs announced in the next few weeks may only be relevant to the first ~yearâs worth of orders, which may be only 30K-70K people
by the time most people get to order, whatâs being offered in a few weeks is old news, and possibly irrelevant to the then-available models
early adopters get early model offerings ??â
Same here , I'll pass until a 400+ model comes . I can definitly see the 500+ mile version not happening until they add silicone to the 4680 but a 400+ version should be possible.Well, in this case, I will likely just wait until the 500+ mile range is offered (well, technically 400+ mile range is my requirement).
Basically, what you're saying is that you doubt that initial production will have the 500+ variant offered. I think otherwise but I can see your point and appreciate where you're coming from.
Let us wait and find out!
thatâs not what Iâm saying
Oh yeah.
I want performance. I'm not buying a "truck", I'm buying the tech and performance.
I have every *expectation* the base dual motor will match the Lightning Lariat ERâs 3.9 sec 0-60
But you are only hobbling it off the line. Look at the 30-70mph acceleration. I don't think even ATs would be that hobbled in performance. Or towing acceleration, or just hauling 1X,000# in a trailer. If you are entering a highway at ~40 and you need to step on it to merge, are your ATs a big constraint? They might even be a benefit in the heavy rain or some other contaminated scenarios.
Like I said, those test conditions are prescribed by the EPA, not Tesla, and every manufacturer has the option to use whatever methods can eek them a small advatage. If you drive under the test conditions, you should get the EPA results. Porsche has tried to get their Taycan EPA numbers higher by repeating the testing in various ways, but failed. I believe they even asked the EPA for an exception, but were denied.
Keep in mind that the controlled testing that showed the original 2018 Model 3 with an EPA range of 310 miles could actually go well over 600 miles under ideal conditions did not use tailwinds or negative elevation gains to game the "ideal conditions", they merely travelled at a steady speed that was near the peak efficiency speed without stopping or going into regen braking. They were also on smooth roads in weather not requiring the use of cabin heaat or cooling, the radio was not on, the fog lights were not on (who runs fog lights during clear weather anyway).
oh I agree, generally
Everyone has a different usage case. For ME, my normal round trip is less than 150 miles. My "long haul" drive is less than 300 miles. I fly everywhere else. Heck, I had a meeting 127 miles away and I flew to that one! So while I'd like 500 miles for bragging rights, I'm not inclined to pay extra for it in either cash or weight. Again, that's just me. I know there are "real truck guys" out there with other needs.
Most people with EVs don't need a charging station where they live. They charge at home and that's a huge bonus. Any morning when you get in your vehicle it's charged and ready to go. What you need charging stations for is a trip away from home. And Arkansas has quite a few.
