Range Extender in the bed - no capacity left 🤷‍♂️

[YDR37]

Elon has said (with pride or similar emotion) that it will haul more in interviews.

Many vehicles can successfully tow or haul more than their rated capacities. They may not be so successful at coming to a sudden stop.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

Many years ago I read a critique of a Mercedes with ludicrously low recommended total weight to avoid exceeding a regulatory limit, suggesting very little cargo capacity.

sounds familiar …

 

[cvalue13]

It's true that Ford or Chevy will, on customer request, de-rate certain borderline trucks to something like 9,990 lbs, in order to keep the GVWR below the 10,000 pound threshold for Class 3. This is apparently a popular option in some states, depending on the Class 3 truck rules.

Ford/Chevy don’t have the same stakes in the Class 3 designation.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the payload of a Cybertruck is "really" 3,000 lbs (not 2,500 lbs). OK, 6,669 lbs plus 3,000 lbs is 9,669 lbs. That's still not a Class 3 truck. So why not simply use the "real" number?

Did you read the linked post?



Unlike Ford and Chevy, Tesla has a $1 billion/yr carbon credit trading addiction.

Those credits are hit negatively if the CT is designated Class 3.

So, for Tesla, a Class 3 designation is basically a third rail for corporate finance reasons.

So if the Class 3 third rail is electrified:

• You can’t have a 6,800curb, 3,500payload truck like advertised in 2019 - curb weight turned out too heavy

• You also can’t have a 6,800curb, 3,000payload payload truck, because you’re not going to risk touching the third rail by some needed or unexpected rehomologation of the truck (whether for popular options, or redesigns of discovered mechanical

• You instead go forward with, having a 6,800curb, 2,500payload truck. But not without some trepidation

Why trepidation?

Because you have two heavy options waiting in the wings, the ~700lb+ Range Extender and the vehicle-side ~400lb wireless charging offering.

Those two heavy options in the wings present two risks. First, if you sell too many of them the Cybertruck can be forced to rehomologate and add their weight to the curb. That sort of foot-fault puts the CT too close or touching the third rail.

Second, you want to instead have the option possibiy increase sales of those options or include them in future trim packages in a controlled way, so as to get close to the third rail only in a precise way.

So that, if you want to sell a lot of the 700lb option like the RE, the third rail number is no longer 10Klbs, but effectively 9,300lb. If you want to also one day sell a lot of the 400lb wireless charging system, the effective third rail is now 8,900lb. Rehomologated that way, your 2,500lb payload is already too high.


To which someone says again, “2,100 would still be respectable in the class.” Which is true. But, first, “respectable in the class” wasn’t the target, “blowing out the class with 3,500” was the target.

Regardless, and second, the point of the thread was less about about whether 2,100 is respectable, and more about why the CT’s stated payload isn’t 3,500lb.

The causation arrow of your comments is backwards.

Even if the true payload capability of the CT today is 3,500lb (or higher), you can’t state that without touching the Class 3 third rail.
That’s why you would sandbag stated payload at 2,500lb, given the distance you want to keep from the 3rd rail and the issues around the heavy options in the wings that pose rehomologarion considerations.

Not to mention, maybe you want to leave some payload headroom for the possibility of a future ‘HD’ trim with an increased payload.

That’s why Tesla would sandbag states payload.

An entirely separate issue, with the causation arrow running the opposite direction, is why Tesla doesn’t just avoid all this tightrope walking by further sandbagging the payload to even less than 2,500lb.

Some appear to think that Musk wouldn’t mind coming in even further below the 2019 stake in the ground of 3,500lb, despite having had to also swallow the materially higher MSRP, materially fewer seating positions, and materially lower top range offering.

Maybe so, but I personally think - based on no worse anecdotal feelings - that musk would have a strong preference for not coming in materially lower that eg the Lightning’s payload range of 2,350-1,950.

Because don’t forget, this hypothetical “2,500lb” payload is actually only the Cybertruck top configuration stat, and depending on configuration it goes at or below 2,000lb already. Which means certain configs of the CT are already closer to the third rail than is comfortable.

 

[Startreknerd]

Believe payload is 2,500lbs
But yea, if you add the range extender you basically get a shiny Model Y that has a 330 mile range

Wouldn't the range extender give it 470 miles?

 

[Gigahorse]

Wouldn't the range extender give it 470 miles?

Based on the real world range numbers being reported the CT gets about 210 miles, not 320.
So with the range extender one could expect 330ish, or 180ish when towing.

 

[Startreknerd]

Based on the real world range numbers being reported the CT gets about 210 miles, not 320.
So with the range extender one could expect 330ish, or 180ish when towing.

No, those results were for speeding in the winter. Given those same conditions the Y would get proportionally less as well. Don't fall for FUD shit.

 

[Gigahorse]

No, those results were for speeding in the winter. Given those same conditions the Y would get proportionally less as well. Don't fall for FUD shit.

It is winter so no getting around that. But some pretty significant mileage has been reported on some early deliveries and the real world range looks closer to 200 than 300.
6,000 miles is a LOT of driving, and 592 Wh/mile would mean the truck gets 207 miles of range 100% to 0% driving speed/conditions/etc will vary but 6,000 miles on one CT is a BIG sample size.
Have not seen any other reports with a vehicle over 2,000 miles yet

 

[Keeney]

In all this discussion which seems to be aimed at justifying if the CyberTruck can be safely overloaded or not, there is one number that people can easily verify that I would consider the hard limit - the rating on the tires.

Multiply x 2 tires per axle. I wouldn't go over that number per axle. If you are close to that max load number, make sure the tires are inflated to the corresponding max pressure.

 

[Startreknerd]

It is winter so no getting around that. But some pretty significant mileage has been reported on some early deliveries and the real world range looks closer to 200 than 300.
6,000 miles is a LOT of driving, and 592 Wh/mile would mean the truck gets 207 miles of range 100% to 0% driving speed/conditions/etc will vary but 6,000 miles on one CT is a BIG sample size.
Have not seen any other reports with a vehicle over 2,000 miles yet

Without knowing how that person is driving it's worthless.

I can find data on really crappy Prius results too. If we're just pulling random samples.

If you break hard and accelerate hard all the time and speed you're not going to get EPA in any vehicle.

 

[Gigahorse]

Without knowing how that person is driving it's worthless.

I can find data on really crappy Prius results too. If we're just pulling random samples.

If you break hard and accelerate hard all the time and speed you're not going to get EPA in any vehicle.

The #s were posted along with others, but for simplicity they are below, not hypermiling but not crazy driving.

AWD CT
2 Drivers
Mix of about 70% highway 30% city
Due to insurance being VERY high and insurance app speed limit has NOT been broken (maybe a couple 5-10MPH over instances for a very short amount of time)
No hauling, towing
Mostly driven in warmer weather for this time of year minimum of about 30, max of about 80, avg of about 70
Almost about 80% supercharging and 20% destination charging
Charging at V2 superchargers pretty slow and tedious if a 60% charge was needed to reach next charger
Charge curve similar to the ourcyberlife curve at V3 superchargers
No V4 superchargers tested yet
Real world range for this almost 6,000 mile sample is about 208 miles of real world range not as much data as we would like but super grateful to get some significant distance #s

 

[agordon117]

These debates always fascinate me. none of us are (or should be) surprised that the epa estimate isn't a thing that is real under any reasonable conditions. But also, nobody should be surprised that driving 80mph in 20F weather is a consideration for a large number of people buying any vehicle. Speed limits at 70mph or above are common now.

People who were counting on the 500 mile range that was shown in 2019 were doing so hoping that 300 real world miles could be achieved without being told they are driving in the wrong season, driving on the wrong roads (because the speed limit is above 55mph), etc.

My model Y, which was claimed to have 326 miles of range, for example, gets (at the worst that I've measured) 141 miles of range under the conditions of:

-Not living in florida or socal (it was cold that day, maybe 10F)
-Winter tires (factory option, nothing crazy)
-79MPH (speed limit on the turnpike is 70mph, so nothing crazy)
-Charging only to 90% for daily use (which, they now are pushing notifications to lower that to 80%)

"oh but ICE vehicles have problems too"

Really? Sure, my jeep wrangler doesn't get near the epa estimate (of 19mpg), but in summer and winter, I maybe go from 17.5mpg, to 16.5mpg. And my overall range is, in that worst condition *gasps* 354 miles of actual, real world range. Falling a whole 54 miles from the normal combined range estimate. Getting 87% of the claimed range vs 40% is an enormous difference.


Having said all of that, I'm pretty happy with the range people are getting in various conditions. I'm gonna try not taking the extended pack and see how I feel about it later on. I sort of figured that climate would be a lesser percentage of energy spent since it costs more to push the cybertruck each mile. getting 210 miles out of 310 (which, upon announcement in 2023 was claimed to be 340) is pretty decent, but only with the disclaimer *for an EV

 

[cvalue13]

In all this discussion which seems to be aimed at justifying if the CyberTruck can be safely overloaded or not, there is one number that people can easily verify that I would consider the hard limit - the rating on the tires.

yes there is also this, which you also raised correctly in the other thread on this topic

people forget that for a BEV to be “more utility than a truck, and faster than a sports car” there are not just regulatory/corporate financial boundaries but also materials science boundaries

to say nothing of having to be a truck, sports car, and get adequate range, and be on 35” rubber.


For the current Cybertruck’s offerings, Goodyear and Pirelli already had to custom make the tire offering.

All reasons that Tesla has various needles it much thread that eg Ford/Chevy do not with their traditional lineup of offerings.

Compared to 2019, a full-sized, 500mi, 3,500lb payload, 14,000lb towing, 2.6sec 0-60 version that is still eligible for full carbon credit trading, required - if nothing else - a resulting curb weight WAY below 6,800lb.

And tires that don’t exist (at least that satisfy all OEM requirements like road noise, etc.).




Separately and addition, your practical observation that even if the “truck” can handle more payload than the stated 2,500lb, it doesn’t mean all the relevant componentryis safe for that out-of-the-box

EDIT TO ADD: for related reasons when at the delivery event Musk said “it can actually handle a lot more than that,” it made my General Counsel tingle

 

[Startreknerd]

The #s were posted along with others, but for simplicity they are below, not hypermiling but not crazy driving.

AWD CT
2 Drivers
Mix of about 70% highway 30% city
Due to insurance being VERY high and insurance app speed limit has NOT been broken (maybe a couple 5-10MPH over instances for a very short amount of time)
No hauling, towing
Mostly driven in warmer weather for this time of year minimum of about 30, max of about 80, avg of about 70
Almost about 80% supercharging and 20% destination charging
Charging at V2 superchargers pretty slow and tedious if a 60% charge was needed to reach next charger
Charge curve similar to the ourcyberlife curve at V3 superchargers
No V4 superchargers tested yet
Real world range for this almost 6,000 mile sample is about 208 miles of real world range not as much data as we would like but super grateful to get some significant distance #s

We need more than one "honest" account to draw conclusions.

But fourth-hand-account info is fourth-hand-account info.

 

[Gigahorse]

We need more than one "honest" account to draw conclusions.

But fourth-hand-account info is fourth-hand-account info.

There are about half a dozen decent reports out now, compiled in the first post of this thread.
https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...cybertruck-after-many-real-world-tests.10983/

Perfect, no
Comprehensive, no
Better than nothing, yes
Enough to give a pretty good idea of real world range, I think enough to get close

 

[Startreknerd]

There are about half a dozen decent reports out now, compiled in the first post of this thread.
https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...cybertruck-after-many-real-world-tests.10983/

Perfect, no
Comprehensive, no
Better than nothing, yes
Enough to give a pretty good idea of real world range, I think enough to get close

I doubt Tesla would be so horrendous compared to Rivian. Less, maybe. Half, no.

I'll wait for real tests.

Sponsored