Range Extender Officially Cancelled!

[mongo]

I was addressing how silly of an idea driving around with propane canisters and generator for your unstrandable solution is.

So seriously how many bottles of propane would one use to generate a full charge from 10%?

Also no sacrifices from the trailer to use for truck. Using tanks from RV doesn't guarantee they would be there. Secondary tanks and generator. In truck bed or extra vented area for tanks? Can't put in trailer for safety reasons.

It's not for going to 100% from 10%, it's for getting to the Supercharger from 0%. I'm not saying it's necessary, but when the nav says I'm leaving Des Moines at 100% and arriving at Shelby, IA with 0, one starts planning contingencies. However, it's only 88 miles so I think it's overestimating our speed. Still, it's a highway and headwind can be a big factor.

One 20 pound tank gets around 20kWh, so 50 miles without trailer, 20-30 with.
The Cybertruck bed is vented already so no issues there. Or stick them on a cargo carrier. When traveling through a known iffy spot, the travel trailer could have 40-60 pounds already.

Otherwise, one needs 20kWh of battery + inverter/charger or X kW of solar * time + smaller battery (which assumes weather and time of day are favorable).

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

Nope, just not as naive as you.

I'm naive to think the best selling electric truck in the world is not about to be cancelled?

Sheesh! Do you think Ford is going to cancel the Lightning, GM is going to cancel the Silverado and Sierra and Rivian is going to cancel the R1T?

Because these other trucks sell in lower volumes than the Cybertruck. And they all lose significant amounts of money compared to the Cybertruck. Think about what you're saying.

So if one wants to spend an indefinite time away from power. Does one bring a fractional distiller with them? Maybe the 73 miles from solar might be better than bottles of propane bouncing around in the truck.

That's such a niche use case, I'm not even going to address it, even if a few people here want that. Tesla is about transitioning the world from fossil fuels as quickly as possible, not addressing every niche use case before they even have 10% penetration into the high volume market.

It's ridiculous in the extreme to think they should prioritize what most people don't need or want.

 

[mongo]

It added a lot of mass for minimal benefit (for the vast majority of truck users), the mass was well above the original center of gravityand further rearward than ideal from multiple perspectives.

Better to just have more DCFCers.

Sure, a lot of my issues would be addressed by one or two more charging locations, but that's not the situation we're dealing with.
Given the need of some owners for more kWh, the extenders seems like the best engineering option given a locked in platform. Of course, a bigger pack would be preferred, but again not the situation.

Hauling anything substantial is going to be at least as rearward and as high as the extender would have been. Unless it fit in frunk (441 pound limit) or rear cabin. (ok, sheet steel would be lower)

 

[Choosing Wonder]

I'm naive to think the best selling electric truck in the world is not about to be cancelled?

Sheesh! Do you think Ford is going to cancel the Lightning, GM is going to cancel the Silverado and Sierra and Rivian is going to cancel the R1T?

Because these other trucks sell in lower volumes than the Cybertruck. And they all lose significant amounts of money compared to the Cybertruck. Think about what you're saying.




That's such a niche use case, I'm not even going to address it, even if a few people here want that. Tesla is about transitioning the world from fossil fuels as quickly as possible, not addressing every niche use case before they even have 10% penetration into the high volume market.

It's ridiculous in the extreme to think they should prioritize what most people don't need or want.

I just asked Grok AI to make a chart on Sales of EV Trucks (see attached)... interesting. Cybertruck was best selling in its launch year (last year, of course), but YTD now behind Ford Lighting and Rivian R1-T. While, I do not think Tesla will scrap the Cybertruck, I do think some factory shutdowns/pauses will occur (especially when Elon is pissing off the initial base of buyers, green buyers mostly democrats) and now pissing off current owners/future owners with canceling things AFTER purchasing/making the decision to purchase. If Ford comes out with a bigger battery in the 400-500 range (and more efficiency/aero), they could really take advantage of the low Cybertruck range with no extended pack now. Rivian really is a great truck and now I miss mine (I sold it to get the Cybertruck with the extended battery for longer range towing and miss the extra range! But the CT does drive better!). While many will not ultimately buy the extended pack (and now can't), I bet people bought Cybertruck thinking they could add it if needed (future proofing in a way). Obviously people like me that bought the Cybertruck because of the extended pack, will not buy Cybertrucks now.

But, I think there is second derivative, if you will, that will hurt future CT sales when the extended pack is no longer an option, as under 300 miles of real world miles is (I am about 285 at 100%) is not enough for a "Truck" that tows & hauls things beyond the city or 150 miles of radius. I love the way the Cybertruck drives, but the range is a real issue for real towing! And I plan on towing the Lightship RV, which will lose very little range, so the extended battery would have towed it 350+ miles including some wind/hills/weather/fully loaded etc. Now I might have to go back to a Rivian R1-T Max. RJ/Rivian would NEVER cancel something AFTER the fact like this (if you think about the extended pack as a "Due Bill" when buying your Cybertruck, then people will better understand why I am so pissed. I was expected to install it this summer/year as I literally put the deposit in WITH the purchase!). Rivian is all about their customer's experience with real humans to give feedback to and they truly respond, which is why they are still in business and outselling the Cybertruck YTD, even with the CT free supercharging and FSD, etc... that is very interesting and tells you a lot!

Imagine if we had a company with a big picture tech genius/Elon with the heart and care of customer experience like RJ? One can dream...

 

[PunkOuter]

I think Rivian is profitable now too, as of last quarter. So can't really use that claim anymore.

 

[mongo]

I think Rivian is profitable now too, as of last quarter. So can't really use that claim anymore.

Not sure what claim you are referring to, Rivian was gross margin profitable, but not yet profitable overall.

 

[Outdoors]

I don't see where I said the idea was easy or practical to execute in the Cybertruck post-design, I said it's what is needed in a vehicle intended for towing. I had a BMW i3 REX for a month or two as a loaner and it was a decent vehicle. Full EV drive train, the generator was just there to top up the battery charge. It was something like 60 miles of EV range and 60 miles added from the rex with 0.9 gallons of gas. Obviously the CT would need something a little beefier for both generation capabilities and capacity. At least one person has done something similar with a Model S, in theory it would be easier to recreate in the CT since the bed is outside the passenger cell. It would be interesting to see if somebody could commercialize such a unit for the Cybertruck, but I'm not sure there would be enough return on the investment.

ROI. LOL. No not for investment silly. I read here often. All I need is a propane generator and some propane tanks and I can go off grid for days and days. Let's see it in practice. Many here own such things, and spout these ideas. One doesn't need to start a company to make it an investment for all to use. I would just like to see someone put it in practice for how easy it is.....

The solar option is much more palatable and workable. Yet I envision many here the idea of boondocking is not that. It is driving around in your truck each day. Not really out in the woods sitting still with the truck stationary.

@mongo if you have to tow like that across IA I feel sorry for you. Like sitting on the side of the road with a propane generator running charging your electric truck. I couldn't help but laugh if I saw such a thing.

 

[PunkOuter]

Not sure what claim you are referring to, Rivian was gross margin profitable, but not yet profitable overall.

Sorry, I should have quoted the two folks talking about it. It was started by this person claiming Rivian loses significant amounts of money on their vehicles, which I don't think is accurate anymore, though really only a recent thing. And time will tell if they can continue their growth.

 

[HaulingAss]

I think Rivian is profitable now too, as of last quarter. So can't really use that claim anymore.

Please don't spread fake narratives. Rivian is no more profitable now than Tesla was in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Remember, all those years when people were wailing that Tesla was selling vehicles at a loss and would soon go bankrupt? Yeah, they were gross profitable every one of those years. Gross profitability means very little, even when it's not faked.

But Rivian loaded regulatory credit sale income into 2024 Q4 and 2025 Q1, above what their average sales would support over time. It's not a natural condition and real Net Profits are nowhere in sight. Don't be fooled by the fake news.

 

[PunkOuter]

Please don't spread fake narratives. Rivian is no more profitable now than Tesla was in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Remember, all those years when people were wailing that Tesla was selling vehicles at a loss and would soon go bankrupt? Yeah, they were gross profitable every one of those years. Gross profitability means very little, even when it's not faked.

But Rivian loaded regulatory credit sale income into 2024 Q4 and 2025 Q1, above what their average sales would support over time. It's not a natural condition and real Net Profits are nowhere in sight. Don't be fooled by the fake news.

It's not a fake narrative. It's the same truth behind Tesla's last quarter being profitable. They both did so through selling credits, correct? And neither would have been profitable without that as a whole company?

But I think I get what you are saying overall and agree with you. Rivian is making a profit on each vehicle they sell now as of Q4 2024, and into Q1 2025, but their overall expenses as a company would have put them into the negative without credits. Same for Tesla more or less, correct?

I read your original statement as you claiming Rivian was losing money on each vehicle they sell which is no longer true, and wanted to correct that if that was your base claim. Forgive me if I misread it wrong. You are welcome to clarify.

 

[SCTesla]

This is nonsense. They could easily increase the size of the battery by 30% using same subframe.

Just watch …

How? There's no room as confirmed by Tesla. They need the space for cooling.

 

[HaulingAss]

If Ford comes out with a bigger battery in the 400-500 range (and more efficiency/aero), they could really take advantage of the low Cybertruck range with no extended pack now.

I don't see it that way.

First of all, 340 EPA miles satisfies the vast majority of light truck buyers. It's a very small segment of light truck buyers that need more range than that. Those that do can buy a Silverado, but your chart shows how that's working out for them. There is not a single period in which the Silverado outsold the Cybertruck, including the most recent quarter. And the Silverado went into production and was released BEFORE the Cybertruck. It only sold 2,383 in the entire Q1 2025.

If maximum range was important to as many buyers as you imply, and if Elon has damaged sales as much as you think, then why did the Silverado only sell 1/3 the number of Cybertrucks in the most recent quarter? Range is not what matters to most buyers as the sales figures show.

Secondly, Ford is already bleeding money with the 145 kWh pack they have now. And the truck is too heavy as it is. I really don't think they will be coming out with a heavier, more expensive battery to fix their problems. It doesn't make any sense given the low percentage of light truck buyers who need more than 300 miles of range.

 

[HaulingAss]

It's not a fake narrative. It's the same truth behind Tesla's last quarter being profitable. They both did so through selling credits, correct? And neither would have been profitable without that as a whole company?

If you are truely interested in understanding this, I can help. But I don't want to just argue for the sake of arguing.

But I think I get what you are saying overall and agree with you. Rivian is making a profit on each vehicle they sell now as of Q4 2024, and into Q1 2025, but their overall expenses as a company would have put them into the negative without credits. Same for Tesla more or less, correct?

No. Tesla is gross profitable without the regulatory credit sales income, Rivian is not. You are confusing gross profitability with net profitability. The other factor is that Rivian loaded more regulatory sales income into those two quarters than they could earn during those quarters from vehicles actually sold during the quarter. That doesn't mean it's nefarious, it means it's misleading because they cannot continue reporting such high regulatory credit income without increasing the number of vehicles sold.

I read your original statement as you claiming Rivian was losing money on each vehicle they sell which is no longer true, and wanted to correct that if that was your base claim. Forgive me if I misread it wrong. You are welcome to clarify.

If the numbers Rivian posted were sustainable, I would say Rivian is making money on each vehicle sold. But they are not sustainable without having an outsized number of regulatory credits posted in the quarter. It's normal for sales of regulatory credits to be "lumpy" over the four quarters of a year. That doesn't mean Rivian is suddenly making money.

 

[Bobo_LaDouche]

Tesla, Ford, and Rivian are essentially selling the same volume now. What is needed are more people to buy electric trucks. It is great that there are choices.

As for extended range.... turns out I don't really need it. And Tesla figured that out.

 

[PunkOuter]

If you are truely interested in understanding this, I can help. But I don't want to just argue for the sake of arguing.



No. Tesla is gross profitable without the regulatory credit sales income, Rivian is not. You are confusing gross profitability with net profitability. The other factor is that Rivian loaded more regulatory sales income into those two quarters than they could earn during those quarters from vehicles actually sold during the quarter. That doesn't mean it's nefarious, it means it's misleading because they cannot continue reporting such high regulatory credit income without increasing the number of vehicles sold.



If the numbers Rivian posted were sustainable, I would say Rivian is making money on each vehicle sold. But they are not sustainable without having an outsized number of regulatory credits posted in the quarter. It's normal for sales of regulatory credits to be "lumpy" over the four quarters of a year. That doesn't mean Rivian is suddenly making money.

Thanks for your patience. I think I am understanding. Cheers!

Sponsored