More 500-mile range rumors!

[Coolbreeze704]

I would mostly agree with that, but I think Troutman has a little better than average weather than the rest of the lower 48 in terms of EV efficiency and battery longevity. Primarily from avoiding the extreme heat of much of the southwest and the extreme cold of most of the north and the midwest. The reason for that is EV's have thermal management systems to manage battery temperatures and it's the extremes that put the battery outside the ideals. It's pretty easy for the thermal management system to deal with less extreme temperature variations.

I understand your point and it helps level set those in much colder regions.

I am just pointing out
I live in NC
I HAVE 4 seasons
I have averaged 2.5 miles/kWh over 10,000 miles

I will let that information be useful those who feel they can use it. Much as I would not want to use your data and experience to gauge what I can expect in NC. Lots of bright minds to figure this out here.

Sponsored

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

What are the main reasons why Tesla can't/won't make a 500 mile cybertruck (in your opinion)?

• 4680 production rate
• 4680 energy density
• cybertruck cant hold that many 4680s
• weight of the stainless/armor glass (not bulletproof)
• shape of the vehicle -> high Cd
• 3500 lb payload rating and keeping GVWR < 10K
• Price/Cost -> Margins
• They dont want to make multiple pack sizes
• Tesla: just trust me bro, you dont need 500 miles (EPA rated)
• ???

That is a great list!

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

It seems like you're using the term "energy density" to mean "stored energy per unit of volume", which is technically correct. However, the term is used more loosely to mean "stored energy per unit of mass" (i.e., "Wh/kg").

So when you say "less weight for the same capacity", this means "higher Wh/kg", which is often called "energy density".

Perhaps there would be less confusion if everyone was technically correct.

For reference, I'm responding to those talking about Tesla wanting to achieve energy density in their 4680 cells, and that greater cell density is needed to hit 500 mile range. This is completely incorrect. Tesla talking about cell density is simply talking about achieving satisfactory production quality for the 4680; essentially that it has the same density as their other more mature lines. There was never a goal of 4680 cells achieving greater density.

4680 packs and vehicles will achieve more kWh with less weight, not by having more energy stored in the lithium mixture in the cells, but through more efficient packaging. The larger cells have more content, less container. Like buying a gallon of juice instead of a bunch of juice boxes, and saving on packaging. It's not increasing density, but it is allowing more energy storage material to fit in the same vehicle footprint by removing material that has no value but adds cost. This concept seems to not be understood by most talking about "energy density".

Ultimately, this is how the Cybertruck will have longer range with less weight: not through greater density, but through reduced unnecessary materials.

 

[jerhenderson]

Yeah, I never doubted it but there are plenty on this forum that have. Even recently ?

they must also deny the moon landings

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Teslas mission statement, "to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy through increasingly affordable electric vehicles in addition to renewable energy generation and storage." 95% of people dont need a 500 mile truck. Most trucks are used for daily work and much less travel even when fully loaded. A 200 kWh battery is not affordable in general. I don't think the 500 mi option is going to be Teslas primary focus and I bet it will be priced accordingly. The demand for limited battery resources is going to be limited for a very very long time. So folks that think Tesla is going to magically make more resources for batteries and thus battery capacity won't be an issue wont be correct for the next couple decades unless a real battery and energy storage breakthrough happens.

You are certainly right that most people don't need a 500-mile range on a day-to-day basis. But what they do need is reassurance that when they do need to go some larger distance, in the winter, or at real highway speeds (or both) that the truck will have the range to get them where they need to go without stopping every 2 hours to charge. There is just no way to argue against range anxiety, and stopping more frequently is not the answer. My MYLR got us to Denver and back last winter. It has a full-charge range quoted at about 320 miles. It has never gotten 320 miles. When we drove to Denver in temperatures in the 'teens I never let us get below 20% SOC and tried to keep it about 25% SOC because I will not risk the safety of my family. As a result I was having to charge every 120 miles. Is 120 miles on a road trip and adding hours every day for charging going to do it for people, for you? The only viable answer to range anxiety is increased range.

When the truck was unveiled the number of reservations for the tri-motor were 40%. I bet that percentage has risen since then, and it isn't about the extra motor or acceleration as 2.9 seconds for 0-60 in a pickup truck is just crazy. It is about range. It has always been about range.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

And after that they announced the quad-motor with unknown battery size. The quad-motor may be the first version released, or one of the first two versions released.

My only point here is to not necessarily expect a 500+ mile range version in the initial release. No one knows, yet, but I expect the 500+ mile version will come later.

Maybe you are right about it coming out later but Tesla will not sell a lot of Cybertrucks that only get 300 miles on a full charge with no payload or towing and only at 65 mph in 65 degree temperatures and only on 60% available charge (20%-80% nominal). That doesn't move the needle in terms of BEV truck adoption.

 

[jerhenderson]

You are certainly right that most people don't need a 500-mile range on a day-to-day basis. But what they do need is reassurance that when they do need to go some larger distance, in the winter, or at real highway speeds (or both) that the truck will have the range to get them where they need to go without stopping every 2 hours to charge. There is just no way to argue against range anxiety, and stopping more frequently is not the answer. My MYLR got us to Denver and back last winter. It has a full-charge range quoted at about 320 miles. It has never gotten 320 miles. When we drove to Denver in temperatures in the 'teens I never let us get below 20% SOC and tried to keep it about 25% SOC because I will not risk the safety of my family. As a result I was having to charge every 120 miles. Is 120 miles on a road trip and adding hours every day for charging going to do it for people, for you? The only viable answer to range anxiety is increased range.

When the truck was unveiled the number of reservations for the tri-motor were 40%. I bet that percentage has risen since then, and it isn't about the extra motor or acceleration as 2.9 seconds for 0-60 in a pickup truck is just crazy. It is about range. It has always been about range.

100% in northern BC I'm 600 km from the next town of similar size, south. there are none north or west, and 900 km east. in the winter, I need range.

 

[Stuck4ger]

they must also deny the moon landings

There are plenty that deny my flight

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

im honestly not sure of the point you’re making in my direction, that *I* know and *we* know

could they *build* a 500mi variant by now? Sure. Just change the trucks dimensions, lower the payload, increase the price, etc.

could they *sell* one? apparently not (in the deeper all things considered sense)

but fair enough correction that come reveal event we’ll likely see one of two angles:

(1) 500mi variant coming [someday], or
(2) Tesla believes not even trucks need 500mi ranges, it’s a waste of pack

I just don’t know if, from a marketing/public perception perspective, Tesla feels it’s time to express (2) even if that’s where they are privately … they’ve given plenty of hints at it though

so we may hear (1) eitherway, with the wild card being some breakthrough in battery tech that negates (2)?

My only issue with this: "could they *sell* one? apparently not (in the deeper all things considered sense)" is that at least 40% of known reservations (those in the spreadsheet) are for tri-motor, LR variants with the higher ranges. I bet that the vast majority of those are for the higher range rather than more power/acceleration. So they can definitely sell the higher range truck. The other possible interpretation of your statement is the cost. Trucks are not cheap and I suspect that Tesla will have no problem selling LR Cybertrucks so it is worthwhile providing a true LR variant. It does not need to be initially, but I find it hard to believe that they will sell a lot of tri-motor variants that are not LR (and by that I mean a significant increase of the dual-motor variant).

For me, if they find their way out of whatever issues they have for a shorter-range variant in the time between now and the time my number comes up, then I am fine. A shorter range tri-motor, for me, would feel like a betrayal, and that has consequences.

 

[PilotPete]

And after that they announced the quad-motor with unknown battery size. The quad-motor may be the first version released, or one of the first two versions released.

My only point here is to not necessarily expect a 500+ mile range version in the initial release. No one knows, yet, but I expect the 500+ mile version will come later.

Was the quad motor “announced”, or just possible? Was it in a tweet, or a press release or something like that? I haven’t done a great deal of homework on a quad. I know originally at the reveal they mentioned a tri with a 500+ mile range.

 

[cvalue13]

Was the quad motor “announced”, or just possible? Was it in a tweet, or a press release or something like that? I haven’t done a great deal of homework on a quad. I know originally at the reveal they mentioned a tri with a 500+ mile range.

it was a Musk tweet, 2 years ago

 

[Coolbreeze704]

Maybe you are right about it coming out later but Tesla will not sell a lot of Cybertrucks that only get 300 miles on a full charge with no payload or towing and only at 65 mph in 65 degree temperatures and only on 60% available charge (20%-80% nominal). That doesn't move the needle in terms of BEV truck adoption.

At reveal the dual was estimated 300+ and it took a few reservations if I am not mistaken.

I expect the range to be 320 or more but I would not hesitate if it was 300 at 55k or less. Now 300 and 69k and I doing a hard rethink on this.

 

[CyberGus]

Was the quad motor “announced”, or just possible? Was it in a tweet, or a press release or something like that? I haven’t done a great deal of homework on a quad. I know originally at the reveal they mentioned a tri with a 500+ mile range.

This Tweet was quite a surprise 2 years ago, but little else has appeared about it.

 

[cvalue13]

My only issue with this: "could they *sell* one? apparently not (in the deeper all things considered sense)" is that at least 40% of known reservations (those in the spreadsheet) are for tri-motor, LR variants with the higher ranges. I bet that the vast majority of those are for the higher range rather than more power/acceleration. So they can definitely sell the higher range truck. The other possible interpretation of your statement is the cost.

i meant that in the all-in, all-things-considered, sense

e.g., ranging from the cost to produce it would be unacceptable, and/or the MSRP to sell it unviable, and/or the fundamental design changes needed to accommodate it untenable from a market perspective, etc.

In other words, the *could* build a CT that used solid gold for its panels and seats 10 people - but that doesn't mean they could *sell* it (in terms of creating a product that fits the desired market penetration thesis of the product).

cost, design, and required market share for viability aren't independent.

 

[cvalue13]

This Tweet was quite a surprise 2 years ago, but little else has appeared about it.

not as surprising and people feeling they can't be surprised twice

Sponsored