- Banned
- #46
Worse unfortunately, was hoping the CT would be head and shoulders above the other two major truck EVs.How do these numbers compare to Rivian R1T and Ford Lightning under similar conditions?
Sponsored
Worse unfortunately, was hoping the CT would be head and shoulders above the other two major truck EVs.How do these numbers compare to Rivian R1T and Ford Lightning under similar conditions?
I didn't say to speed down the hill and burn up your height potential with high air speed did I?This is not true. You have to add all losses and wind is a MASSIVE loss especially in the Cybertruck. You will be more efficient using regen to keep the truck at 35mph down a hill than you will coasting down a hill at 70mph because there will be so much loss to wind.
I can guarantee you will have more charge in the battery at the bottom of a 5 mile long descent going 35mph using regen and no mechanical brakes than you will letting the truck coast at high speeds using no regen or acceleration.
I don't agree.I didn't say to speed down the hill and burn up your height potential with high air speed did I?
You can't go 70mph very often down Pikes Peak or many miuntain passes anyway. But even if you could you could slipstream someone else to avoid extra aero too. So driving at moderate speed downhill and avoiding regen is still the best way to get that potential energy stored in altitude back.
We done a few trips uphill in June with a MYP, Yosemite and visiting the General Sherman in Sequoia NP and it was fairly obvious how much the altitude difference extended range. We only used minimal regen all the way down for traffic and corners. It wasn't steep enough anywhere to roll at 70mph, which is often the case when doing mountain passes anyway.
But the point is still the same, gravity is 100% efficient, but regen has energy loses all the way through, from running the motor as a generator through the inverter to charging the battery, and then all the way back again, from discharging the battery, through the inverter and motor. It's a good 15% extra. Gravity does none of that, neither does inertia.
So even "if" you factor in aero, for the same speed, regen is still always using more battery overall by the time you get it back.
But it's also obvious you have to follow traffic and stay safe, so nobody is arguing not to brake at all, rather keep your distance in corners to avoid cars braking in front of you, and accelerate and brake as smoothly and as little as possible, like a good limo driver.
Essentially drive in the lowest acceleration vectors you can safely to achieve best range. It's actually a fun driving game.
You didn't correctly read my post.I don't agree.
Regen or not if you drive a Tesla at 35mph it will always get more range than driving it at 65mph.
Aero is a massive loss at high speed and that must be factored in to your "gravity" equation, much bigger loss than regen efficiency.
Coasting at 70 is more efficient than regen to 35. Because coasting. The losses you get from converting motion to energy will exceed the greater air resistance.This is not true. You have to add all losses and wind is a MASSIVE loss especially in the Cybertruck. You will be more efficient using regen to keep the truck at 35mph down a hill than you will coasting down a hill at 70mph because there will be so much loss to wind.
I can guarantee you will have more charge in the battery at the bottom of a 5 mile long descent going 35mph using regen and no mechanical brakes than you will letting the truck coast at high speeds using no regen or acceleration.
Given your investment in the Winnebago like that, would you buy a Powerboost with a 13 gallon fuel tank?I'm too old, too invested, and too full of newly-retired wanderlust to give up the Winnebago.
can we at least keep the hand-wringing logically consistentYup, was a no brainer for $80k truck and 500 miles of range.
It's easy to "coast" with a Tesla or any EV. You just use the throttle so there's no or little energy going in or out of the pack. It is not necessary to coast at "100%" any value of regen that you don't do is adding range by avoiding losses.Coasting at 70 is more efficient than regen to 35. Because coasting. The losses you get from converting motion to energy will exceed the greater air resistance.
But Teslas (except the Semi) don't actually coast, or apply regen during braking, so it's kinda a pointless exercise.
-Crissa
I don’t have a max pack Rivian but I do own a Large Pack Quad Motor R1S on 20” AT(rated for 274mi) and I am very confident in the dash mileage, especially coming from Tesla (I have owned every model). I recently drove from Palmdale, CA to Palm Springs, to Glendale, CA for a total trip 258 miles. I only charged to 95% which gave a dash mileage 260 and I made it home with miles to spare. I also drove 70+ mph on the freeway for most of the trip.I mean, let's at least compare the same numbers together.
400 mile rivian = 320 mile cybertruck (awd with AT tires)
400 mile rivian =/= real world range
320 mile cybertruck =/= real world range
500 mile tri motor =/= real world range.
You can't compare 500 to 200 (or 400 to 200). 500 (for 2019 tri motor spec) and 400 (rivian max pack) mile ranges are dashboard ranges only, not real world. Those numbers would never have been real world.
Comparing 500 miles of dashboard range with 200 miles of real world range (from 320 mile dashboard range) isn't a real comparison. It would have been more like 312 miles of real world range (for 500 miles dashboard range) vs 200 miles (using the same multiplier for dashboard vs real world range)
I am among the people disappointed that the 500 mile version never materialized, but let's not be disingenuous with our comparisons.