Promised range of 500 miles ?

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

Those who are saying that CT range, tech nor Tesla charging infrastructure is a non-issue:

1. Have not made a road trip to Northwest Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Alberta, Northwest part of WA, Oregon and CA.

2. Have not experienced a 70% drop in range while pulling a 4,200 lbs RV for 89 miles.

3. Have not experienced an unexplained drop in range by 50% without towing and in mild weather in relatively flat freeway in 40 miles.

4. Have not seen the CT giving an estimated
23% charge remaining that was actually 12% when I reached the supercharger (i would have been f'd bigly had I follow the advise for an 80% charge).

And yeah, I am a hypermiler driving 65 to 69 mph and max 55 mph towing an RV.

My puchase use-case for the CT is road trip, camping and hunting up the boondocks that I cannot yet do with confidence after that Canadian turn-around anxiety.

Sponsored

 

[YDR37]

Tesla is not in the market of making toy vehicles.

Well, except maybe for the Levitating Cybertruck, the Wind-Up Cybertruck Racer, the Cybertruck for Kids, and the Cybertruck Diecast, all of which are currently featured in the Tesla store.

 

[cybercricket]

Well, except maybe for the Levitating Cybertruck, the Wind-Up Cybertruck Racer, the Cybertruck for Kids, and the Cybertruck Diecast, all of which are currently featured in the Tesla store.

They also sell T-Shirts and baseball caps, but we don't call them an apparel company. Stay clever, my friend.

 

[YDR37]

Let me help you understand this then. Tesla is not in the market of making toy vehicles. They consistently talk about sustainable transportation at scale and not the weekend fun. They did their analysis and decided it's not worth building a significantly more expensive/heavy vehicle variant upfront because absolute majority of their customer base aren't likely to buy it over a cheaper and sufficiently capable variant. That is not to say that they don't want a larger market, but they simply decided to optimize for the largest market segment first. It is possible that they will release other variants in the future iterations, but they already sort of went through this exercise with their Model S and Model X lineups. Most Americans are cheap and paranoid. Cheap comes first.

Look, the real problem here is that Tesla didn't optimize for cheap. Stainless steel is not the way to make a "cheaper and sufficiently capable" vehicle. An $80-$100K price tag is not "optimizing for the largest market segment".

In April 2024, the average selling price for a new F-150 was $58,433. I'll bet that Tesla's engineers could have designed a "cheaper and sufficiently capable" $60,000 BEV truck that would have been more likely to be adopted at scale. In fact, it's been widely reported that Tesla's engineers hated the Cybertruck design, and kept trying to promote alternatives.

 

[tingmo13]

Get real, people-now, average is $3.64

 

[cybercricket]

Look, the real problem here is that Tesla didn't optimize for cheap. Stainless steel is not the way to make a "cheaper and sufficiently capable" vehicle. An $80-$100K price tag is not "optimizing for the largest market segment".

I didn't say they optimized to build the cheapest BEV truck on the market. I said they optimized to build the cheaper vehicle out of what they could build while making a practical and appealing vehicle. Stainless steels are expensive compared to most carbon steels, but in this context you'd need to perform a much deeper analysis as to whether it is justified, not just pound for pound comparison. I suspect you're not in the position to do that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

In April 2024, the average selling price for a new F-150 was $58,433. I'll bet that Tesla's engineers could have designed a "cheaper and sufficiently capable" $60,000 BEV truck that would have been more likely to be adopted at scale. In fact, it's been widely reported that Tesla's engineers hated the Cybertruck design.

I assume you're talking about F-150 lightning. Now can you point me to the variant (I tried checking their website, but it's a mess) that actually directly compares say to the current Dual Motor CT in terms of EPA range, towing capacity and carrying capacity. I will agree with you Tesla missed an opportunity if there is one F-150 as capable as CT for less money.

 

[devdrone6]

Look, the real problem here is that Tesla didn't optimize for cheap. Stainless steel is not the way to make a "cheaper and sufficiently capable" vehicle. An $80-$100K price tag is not "optimizing for the largest market segment".

In April 2024, the average selling price for a new F-150 was $58,433. I'll bet that Tesla's engineers could have designed a "cheaper and sufficiently capable" $60,000 BEV truck that would have been more likely to be adopted at scale. In fact, it's been widely reported that Tesla's engineers hated the Cybertruck design, and kept trying to promote alternatives.

Tesla doesn't do cheaper vehicles from the get-go, they come much later. Maybe in a couple years they will have cheaper trucks, but the features will still be more than anything comparible out there.

Check the price for F-150 with: Adaptive Cruise, 360 Parking, Auto braking, blind spot, vented seats, heated mirrors, lane keep, keyless, leather, memory mirrors/seats/steering, navigation, auto bed cover, lighted bed , premium auto, regular bed, moon roof, video in the back, heated rear seats. I'm willing to bet it's going to more than a CT and still not have all the features.

 

[acey]

Get real, people-now, average is $3.64

Wait tell next month..

 

[Crissa]

Get real, people-now, average is $3.64

Have you heard of bird flu?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eggs-shortages-bird-flu-h5n1-whole-foods-trader-joes/#:~:text=The%20return%20of%20bird%20flu,USDA's%20Animal%20and%20Plant%20Health

-Crissa

Edit: made sure to not be political.

 

[tingmo13]

Have you heard of bird flu?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eggs-shortages-bird-flu-h5n1-whole-foods-trader-joes/#:~:text=The%20return%20of%20bird%20flu,USDA's%20Animal%20and%20Plant%20Health

-Crissa

Edit: made sure to not be political.

more than that Inflation, pandemic,-every year money loses it's purchasing power-people should stop whining looking back-it won't do any good.

 

[YDR37]

I didn't say they optimized to build the cheapest BEV truck on the market. I said they optimized to build the cheaper vehicle out of what they could build while making a practical and appealing vehicle.

It's possible to build a "practical and appealing" BEV truck for less than $80K. Rivian and Ford both do it. And I'll bet that Tesla could do it better, if they tried. In fact, they did try: Tesla accepted reservations for a $61K RWD CT for years, as recently as August. Of course Tesla has every right to drop that option, but then let's not say that Tesla is prioritizing affordability.

Stainless steels are expensive compared to most carbon steels, but in this context you'd need to perform a much deeper analysis as to whether it is justified, not just pound for pound comparison. I suspect you're not in the position to do that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I'm not, but others are. Why don't we see more stainless steel cars?

I assume you're talking about F-150 lightning. Now can you point me to the variant (I tried checking their website, but it's a mess) that actually directly compares say to the current Dual Motor CT in terms of EPA range, towing capacity and carrying capacity. I will agree with you Tesla missed an opportunity if there is one F-150 as capable as CT for less money.

I'm not talking about optimizing for EPA range, towing capacity, or payload. I'm talking about optimizing for low cost, while maintaining "sufficiently capability". A low-end F-150 -- whether ICE or BEV -- is sufficiently capable for most users, at significantly lower cost than a Cybertruck.

The CT has certain advantages over the competition (both ICE and BEV). It has buyers for those reasons. But it is not a low-cost vehicle, and that reflects Tesla's design decisions. Elon himself has acknowledged that it is "insanely difficult" to make Cybertrucks at a price people can afford.

 

[cybercricket]

It's possible to build a "practical and appealing" BEV truck for less than $80K. Rivian and Ford both do it.

I admit, there is no universal definition for "practical and appealing", but you also have to grant that Rivian had a first comer advantage and yet a lot of people ended up buying a later coming "more expensive" Cybertruck. Same with F150, it became available earlier than Cybertruck.

Your comparison otherwise isn't valid because you're bringing up vehicles with significantly lesser utility in the category where utility is the top priority. Kind of like offering a two-seat vehicle for less money to somebody who is on the market for a minivan. Why do some people buy F350's and not F150's for example ? Isn't F150's cheaper, is "practical and appealing" ?

And I'll bet that Tesla could do it better, if they tried. In fact, they did try: Tesla accepted reservations for a $61K RWD CT for years, as recently as August. Of course Tesla has every right to drop that option, but then let's not say that Tesla is optimizing for cheap.

I already commented on that. If you remember, at the presentation they announced three potential trims at different price points: single, dual and triple motors, with ~200, ~300 and 500mi ranges. Towing capacity was also different across the 3, with dual being 10k and triple being 14k or something like that. Finally, they said they'd produce dual motor version first, then add the two others into the lineup in the following years. Again going by memory the order was supposed to be dual, single, triple.

Then they opened the reservation system which was up for a month or two before they did an announcement saying that they're changing the order of delivery because... few people want single motor version. That's how they brought more expensive variants to the front.

I'm not, but others are: [url=https://wisconsinmetaltech.com/why-dont-we-see-more-stainless-steel-cars/]Why don't we see more stainless steel cars.

That article has both valid information about general issues of working with stainless and also outdated claims regarding CT specifically. It still doesn't present a comprehensive analysis as to whether stainless in CT is justified, and how it would compare to doing the same with carbon steel which is then galvanized and painted in terms of product cost and manufacturing rate.

I'm not talking about optimizing for EPA range, towing capacity, or payload. I'm talking about optimizing for cheap, while maintaining "sufficiently capability". A low-end F-150 -- whether ICE or BEV -- is sufficiently capable, at significantly lower cost than a Cybertruck.

People can vote with their wallets. F-150 isn't doing great. Neither is Rivian R1T.

The CT has certain advantages over the competition (both ICE and BEV). It has buyers for those reasons. But it is not a low-vehicle, and it does not have a low-cost design.

The claim I am making is that it's the lowest cost for the capability.

 

[dalton108]

Millions of people in your town are off-roading like there is no tomorrow ? Okay.

You’ve never been to the west, southwest, desert southwest, Sierra Nevada high desert have you? We have significantly more off-road than on-road, Amigo.

They did their analysis and decided it's not worth building a significantly more expensive/heavy vehicle variant upfront because absolute majority of their customer base aren't likely to buy it over a cheaper and sufficiently capable variant.

Again, you’re making assumptions that can only be made in hindsight. Elon didn’t walk into that presentation without having done any homework. Covid and other complications wrecked their math, but they most certainly believed (correctly) that for the truck that they were producing to handle the capabilities that were promised -towing, doing Baja, and offroading/overlanding- that it would need 500 miles range for those who really wanted to get after it. There were lesser models for those who were only going to be going to the mall.

They had every intention of addressing this market and most certainly had calculations to make it both profitable and practical. That didn’t work out. And you know what happened as a result of that???

? They promised 500 miles, but didn’t deliver it. ?

It’s not a federal case, it’s just what happened.

Nighty-night!

 

[CyberTruckeeTheOne]

I think Tesla was capable.

I was even optimistic on the 500 mile range promise as demonstrated in it's semi which came out earlier and shown in Bay Area to San Diego trip on full load.

 

[ModelC]

The OP is in Canada. Tesla's estimated price for the Range Extender is actually $22,000 in Canadian dollars, with a $700 CAD deposit. It's $16,000 in US dollars, with a $2,000 USD deposit. No idea why the deposit is so much lower in Canada ($700 CAD is about $500 USD).

Alternatively, Tesla's estimated price for the Range Extender is $350,000 in Mexican pesos, with an $11,000 MXP deposit.

Holy Heck - You never hear Massive and Dong in the same sentence coming out of Vietnam, but that $20000 US would be equivalent to 508,899,999 Dong. Now that is one massive Dong sitting in someones lap.

Sponsored