Range Extender in the bed - no capacity left 🤷‍♂️

[Gigahorse]

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

I'll wait for real tests.

Yea expected a lot more, jury is not out yet but Out of Spec did a pretty good test, and there are half a dozen in so far, hoping that there is a software release that helps the 1hour charge time and 200ish mile range #s we are currently seeing.

Sponsored

 

[YDR37]

Did you read the linked post?

I did, but found it unconvincing. Here's how I see it:

1. We can agree that Tesla has an incentive to avoid producing Class 3 trucks.

2. We should be able to agree that today’s Cybertrucks, with GVWR of only 9,169 lbs, are well below the 10,000 lb Class 3 threshold.

3. We should be able to agree that there is no need to “sandbag” the payload -- as long as we are only considering today’s Cybertrucks. If the “real” payload of an existing Cybertruck is 3,000 lbs, Tesla could advertise that, stay safely below the Class 3 threshold, and blow traditional half-tons away. For example, the advertised maximum payload for a 2024 ICE F-150 is only 2,455 lbs.

4. OK, but what about potential future Cybertrucks? Let's suppose that Tesla rates existing Cybertrucks at 3,000 lbs of payload. Now let’s also suppose that a future “Cybertruck Platinum” has about 900 lbs of additional weight (mostly batteries). So the curb weight rises to about 7,500 lbs. If the Cybertruck Platinum gets the same 3,000 lbs of rated payload, then the GVWR would rise to 10,500 lbs, into Class 3 territory. We can agree that this would be undesirable.

5. So at that point, sure, Tesla could de-rate the payload of the Platinum version specifically, let’s say by 500 lbs. Now the payload of the Cybertruck Platinum is only 2,500 lbs, and it stays (barely) in Class 2b.

6. The only downside: now the Cybertruck Platinum has a rated payload of 2,500 lbs, which is lower than the rated payload of other Cybertrucks at 3,000 lbs. But is that really a problem? No, for two reasons.

7. First, payload is not an overriding concern for most customers, and they would not care much about the apparent downgrade. Consider that the maximum advertised payload of a 2023 ICE F-150 was 3,310 lbs, thanks to the optional “Heavy Duty Payload Package”. Ford discontinued that package for 2024, so the maximum payload of an F-150 dropped to only 2,455 lbs. That's a whopping decrease of 855 lbs -- but most customers did not even notice.

8. It’s likely that a hypothetical “Cybertruck Platinum” would only supplement, not replace, the Cybertruck in its existing form (which would maybe become the “Cybertruck XL”). In that case, Tesla could still claim that the Cybertruck has “up to 3,000 lbs payload”. OK, the highest payloads would only be available on the lowest, most basic XL trim, and not on the Platinum trim. But that is no different from the F-150 or any other pickup.

TL;DR: There is a valid case that Tesla might need to de-rate the payload on future, heavier Cybertruck models. It doesn’t follow that they need to de-rate the payload on today's versions.

 

[cvalue13]

I did, but found it unconvincing.

ditto in response

for one, you’re focused on this “de-rating” sideshow which which was really only ever that: a side-show missive about the potentiality, that potentially made sense of eg Musk’s comments at the Delivery Event.

The core of the post’s point was instead about potentially explaining why Tesla was solving for the range issue in the form of the range extender as opposed to that pack/weight being native to the truck.

All the math around that point is pure speculation. The range extender could be 700lbs as it’s often attributed here, based on one back-of-napkin sketch. It could also be 500lb, or 1,000lbs all-in, ancillary kit included.

Which, even if we knew the exact weight of the RE, would still be only an inaccurate and rough approximation of what weight really matters to the validity of the point: adding enough NATIVE battery/pack to the Cybertruck to approach the “470+” or 500mi notion from 2019. As a structural pack, there’s not merely the weight of the cells and their packaging, but the resulting potential weight of the structural mass of the vehicle framing, the suspension components, etc.


The parable of the RE approach, then, was to emphasize in equally back-of-napkin terms just how - with current cell/energy density and current CT structural mass - even if there was a location for stuffing “more” native battery under the CT, and even if it wouldn’t result in other unacceptable performance results or engineering challenges:

a CT with a 6,800lb curb weight simply may not leave ample enough payload headroom for adding that pack natively AND delivering the previewed 3,500lb payload because Class 3 designation is a third rail for Tesla

to execute on that 2019 plan, would have required the CT’s structural/curb weight to have achieved far more weight savings that it did.

How much more weight would it have required shaving?

Well, according to you, not much.

According to you,

• 6,800lb curb
• 700lb additional native pack
• 3,5000lb
= 11,000

Seems on your view, Tesla could have done what other OEM’s do in a parallel situation and either (a) shaved 1,001lbs off the curb weight, or (b) simply de-rated payload by 1,001lb to 2,499lb

Maybe so.

Personally, I find that view uncompelling and extremely unlikely.

Other OEM’s have the luxury of such close-call shennanigans because they simply make Class 3s with abandon and don’t have the carbon credit third rail that Tesla has.

Other OEM’s don’t have a plan for and laser focus on a single-platform vehicle.

Other OEM’s are free to offer and sell as many heavy options as they wish. Free to come back and change the nature/weight of parts. Free to uprate payload on HD versions. Etc.

Tesla, meanwhile, needs a platform with room for errors, changes, additions, etc. - which requires a comfortable distance of their chassis and/or payload from the Class 3 third rail.

That’s Tesla’s ceiling, in my view: a comfortable distance from the Class 3 third rail. Folks who think they have no such ceiling, I think aren’t seeing the playing field.

But they also have a floor. For one, presumably the chassis weight wasn’t picked out of a hat and reflects the all-things-considered balance of manufacturability, performance, and cost.

So now you’re Tesla, your floor is your chassis weight of 6,800lbs, your ceiling is your comfortable distance from Class 3. Your previewed 3,500lb payload is out, because despite and unlike other manufacturers you aren’t right-ripe walking Class 3 with no outs.

WYD?

I think there are only a few options, viable commercially and strategically.

That, anyway, is the view I find possible if not probably, and in any event interesting to the extent is sheds some light on both the floor and ceiling Tesla was operating between in composing the CT offering as relates to weight and range.

Maybe there was no room for extra native pack, and that’s why the ER is the offered solution.

Maybe they didn’t design towards having room for that native pack because too greatly narrowed the distance between floor and ceiling.

Either way

 

[Strykerwsu]

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

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

If you currently drive an EV truck, in a cold region, these #’s are in line with the conditions And normal driving. If you live in Florida or Cali no worries they will be better. My R1T is vey close to the same % reductions in such conditions. I get over EPA in the summer.

Let’s get back to the payload discussion. There are 37 range threads.

Overall payload is more than I expected, but the future range extender and wireless weight are great points. it is more than my R1T but the R1T has bigger battery and full size spare Taking away payload.

 

[cvalue13]

it is more than my R1T but the R1T has bigger battery and full size spare Taking away payload.

yeah, adding the spare to the CT's lowest payload trim would be a knock

one that, again, if enough people order would cause Tesla to have to rehomologate the curb weight of the truck that much higher

 

[YDR37]

a CT with a 6,800lb curb weight simply may not leave ample enough payload headroom for adding that pack natively AND delivering the previewed 3,500lb payload because Class 3 designation is a third rail for Tesla

A CT with a 6,800 lb curb weight and 3,500 lb payload would be into Class 3 even without adding extra batteries natively. I agree that Tesla does not want this.

to execute on that 2019 plan, would have required the CT’s structural/curb weight to have achieved far more weight savings that it did.

I agree. We can assume that Tesla was aware of the 10,000 lb Class 3 threshold in 2019. So by announcing a 3,500 lb payload for the Cybertruck, Tesla was also implicitly announcing a curb weight of 6,500 lbs or less. In fact, Tesla (or at least Elon) actually expected to match the curb weight of a traditional ICE F-150, which is less than 5,800 lbs (the Lightning is heavier, but it didn't exist at the time). Elon spelled this out explicitly during the 2019 event:

"So the functionality I’m going to describe is within a space that is less than the most popular pickup truck in the United States, the F150. So we didn’t cheat in either width, height, or length, and we’re able to achieve much greater capability in the same dimensions, same weight."

Did Tesla succeed? In terms of “same weight”, obviously not. The Cybertruck has the approximate curb weight of an F-250, which is around 1,000 lbs heavier than an F-150.

Seems on your view, Tesla could have done what other OEM’s do in a parallel situation and either (a) shaved 1,001lbs off the curb weight, or (b) simply de-rated payload by 1,001lb to 2,499lb

Maybe so.

Tesla aspired to match the curb weight of an ICE F-150, but they failed. So option (a) was off the table. To stay out of Class 3, they had to turn to option (b), and reduce the payload.

 

[Aces-Truck]

Five passengers because the Cybertruck has five seats. 150 lbs because that is an industry standard for passenger weight (probably established long ago). So 750 lbs is the assumed maximum passenger weight for a five-seat vehicle.

So the manual is saying that if you max out the passengers in a dual-motor Cybertruck with all-season tires, you will have 1,010 lbs of capacity left in the bed. If mom, dad, two kids, and the dog weigh a total of 500 lbs (which is 250 lbs less than the nominal max), then you will presumably have 1,260 lbs of capacity in the bed.

And I have seen calculations like this from other manufacturers. For example, the 2023 Ford RV & Towing Guide says the following about slide-in campers and the F-150:

I started a thread where I calculate capacity based on various scenarios. Biggest surprise for me was that with a Range extender you'll likely be limited to towing 6,500 lbs of Trailer weight.

 

[cvalue13]

Biggest surprise for me was that with a Range extender you'll likely be limited to towing 6,500 lbs of Trailer weight.

this is the correlate to the available payload discussion ongoing

assuming a 10% tongue weight max of 1,100 pounds, a 2,500lb payload is down to 1,400lb before you put your toothbrush in the glovebox

add a [700]lb RE,and a spare tire, and you’ve got enough payload room for two of me


this isn’t exactly unique to 1/2 ton trucks, but right for trucks viewed as good for towing, and certainly emphasizes the point RE available payload being 2,500 vs 3,500

or, emphasizes the point of what the truck’s payload/.towing stats start to look like if you shave another 700lb natively off the 2,500 payload

 

[SolarWizard]

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.

to think that the most detail oriented range & charging tester on all of YouTube is spreading 'fud' is extremely daft. 70 mph is not speed on most state highways and certain areas are up to an 85 mph limit

 

[SolarWizard]

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

I'll wait for real tests.

real tests have already been conducted. see out of spec channel on YouTube

 

[scottf200]

...
70 mph is not speed on most state highways and certain areas are up to an 85 mph limit

A visual: via
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

 

[Jager]

Out of Spec does range tests as well as anyone and we should applaud their efforts. I wish Tesla would loan them both an AWD and a CB for a month.

The problem is that cars are "rated" for range using an EPA test suite that is in no way remotely akin to what Kyle and company do. And so when a vehicle inevitably fails to hit that EPA bogey, there's a general wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It's particularly pernicious with larger, heaver EV's. The Lightning was panned unmercifully - and unfairly - by lots of folks upon its introduction for just that reason.

Making a 1/2 ton truck into an EV is hard, simply because of the physics.

 

[Ward L]

My f150 platinum only has a 900lb payload. The 2500lb payload on the cyber truck is great.

My F150 payload is 1,000# and I have loaded 2,000# in, but it is "Built Tough". We will see about the CT...

 

[YDR37]

Tesla aspired to match the curb weight of an ICE F-150, but they failed. So option (a) was off the table. To stay out of Class 3, they had to turn to option (b), and reduce the payload.

So the Cybertruck’s announced payload of 3,500 lbs (for all configurations) in 2019 became the real-world payload of 2,000 to 2,500 lbs (depending on configuration) in 2023. This may raise the question: how exactly was the payload reduced?

Did Tesla artificially de-rate the original payload capacity? If so, the “real” payload of a 2023 CT could be significantly higher than advertised.

Or are the components of a CT, as delivered, consistent with the lower payloads as specified in 2023?

We don’t have full technical details. But we do know something about one relevant component: the tires. And they don’t seem like appropriate tires for higher payloads.

The Pirelli all-season tires are clearly payload-limiting, because choosing that option automatically downgrades the payload (as per the Owner’s Manual). The Goodyear All-Terrain tires are stronger and provide 300 lbs of additional payload; they appear to be Load Range D.

However, Load Range D still doesn’t seem like an ideal choice for heavy loads. For example, F-250s commonly have payloads of 3,500 lbs, but I don’t think Ford offers any stock tires below Load Range E.

 

[ecotrials]

According to the screenshots from the Owner's Manual (discussed in a different thread), the total payload of the Cybertruck ranges from 2,000 to 2,500 lbs. The dual-motor has more payload than the tri-motor, and the all-terrain tires can handle more payload than the all-season tires.

However ... the capacity of the cargo bed specifically is much lower, at only 919 to 1,310 lb (see image below). Apparently the rest of the payload is supposed to go in other parts of the truck, like the frunk (up to 441 lbs), the underbed compartment (up to 220 lbs), and the cab (no weight specified, but presumably can handle five adult passengers).

So yeah, seems like a 750-lb range extender actually would use up most of the weight capacity of the cargo bed. If you had a dual-motor with all-season tires, a 750-lb range extender would leave only 260 lbs of rated bed capacity. The total payload for that configuration is 2,200 lbs, so there would still be 1,190 lbs of additional weight capacity between the frunk, the cab, and the underbed compartment.

Both bed capacity and payload are 300 lbs higher for a dual-motor with all-terrain tires.

Don't forget tongue weight. Perhaps that comes under cargo bed weight limit?
Yikes! Let's hope we get more info on this soon. Some folks might be scrambling for their particular use case.

Sponsored