Real world range

[Gigahorse]

How do these numbers compare to Rivian R1T and Ford Lightning under similar conditions?

Worse unfortunately, was hoping the CT would be head and shoulders above the other two major truck EVs.

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

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 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.

 

[MountainRatMatt]

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.

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.

 

[JBee]

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.

You didn't correctly read my post.

I said at same speed.

Not many hills and roads around that let a car roll over the speed limit for long.

I don't disagree that travelling faster uses more energy to overcome aerodynamic drag, I'm saying regen braking always uses more than coasting. Mountain passes especially don't let you go fast so aero is irrelevant there anyway.

Plenty of data confirming this.

 

[Crissa]

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.

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

 

[PilotPete]

We've grown up thinking that going slow gives you lousy gas mileage, and getting up to freeway speed gives you great gas mileage. But that has been because of gearing. The rpm range of ICE engines is quite a bit narrower than a BEV motor. And at higher RPM, the ICE engine is causing more wear, and creating more heat. So the OEMS gear them up and try and run them at low RPM on the highways.

BEV motors aren't built that way. And there are very few electric motors sitting behind transmissions, and those that are are generally Hybrids. Oh sure, the motors are geared, just not usually shiftable. So we don't see huge power reductions due to gearing at highway speeds. This makes drag the biggest factor to range, all else being equal. It's a paradigm shift for those who were raised on ICE cars.

 

[cvalue13]

I'm too old, too invested, and too full of newly-retired wanderlust to give up the Winnebago.

Given your investment in the Winnebago like that, would you buy a Powerboost with a 13 gallon fuel tank?


If the answer is “no,” then you’ve made the right decision for your use case

 

[Crissa]

It's because of stop and go, and optimal ICE output, specifically.

-Crissa

 

[cvalue13]

Yup, was a no brainer for $80k truck and 500 miles of range.

can we at least keep the hand-wringing logically consistent

choose which metric you want to constantly contrast, and stick with it

the EPA combined 500mi vs the EPA combined 340mi

OR

the 290mi “real world”** vs 200mi “real world”**

mixing and matching the above to rhetorical effect comes across as intellectually dishonest, and betraying ulterior motive




**whatever that means

 

[JBee]

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

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.

The same applies for when you need to slow down for traffic or corners, in that it's only a small portion of the trip you used regen to change speed so the overall efficiency stays higher.

 

[derichio02]

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.

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 can’t speak of the Max Pack Dual Motor but for my vehicle and the testing I have seen for the Quad Motor, Rivian doesn’t fudge numbers as much as some other manufacturers.

I’m not a hater and love Tesla btw. I have owned 10 of them. CT will be number 11.

 

[clarkbariowa]

I have been combing through youtube videos trying to grab energy screenshots and figure out some numbers. It seems that temperature and speed are the largest factors. Anything to do with stop and go is going to really throw off the numbers too, so trying to see what the real range is on a normal highway drive is what matters to me.

Here is what I gathered so far from various videos.

70 mph
42 deg
490 wh/mi
250 miles

75 mph
42 deg
520 wh/mi
236 miles

80 - 85 mph. (latest What’s inside family youtube)
42 deg
590 wh/mi
207 miles

It looks like ~380 wh/mi is needed to hit the target EPA range of 320 miles. Maybe in 70 degree weather going about 70?

no one knows yet because its freaking cold across the whole country!

Sponsored