Taking the CYBERTRUCK on a MASSIVE ROADTRIP | Charging was TOUGH

[Cybertrip.world]

I punched the same Austin-Joshua Tree route into ABRP, assuming a MYLR. Sure enough, I got a very similar list of 10 stops.

But there was one noticeable difference. The MYLR route plan only included 179 minutes of charging time, or an average of 17.9 minutes at ten stops. As noted above, the Cybertruck route plan averaged 33.5 minutes at ten stops.

So yes, the ranges are similar during winter driving on the freeway — but apparently the 123 kWh battery of the CT needs significantly more time to recharge than the 81 kWh battery of the MYLR. Which does not seem too surprising.

This is a useful comparison. Sorta obvious, but good to see numbers. Please report again with actual results compared to the route plan.

Sponsored

 

[YDR37]

This is a useful comparison. Sorta obvious, but good to see numbers. Please report again with actual results compared to the route plan.

Sorry, but I don't have the truck. The dudes who do made another video when they finished the trip; it's in Post #1 of this thread. Unfortunately, seems like they lost track of the numbers after too many hours on the road.

Apparently the actual mileage was 1,340 miles, there were at least 10 supercharger stops (maybe more?), the trip took like 26 hours, and "charging was TOUGH" (their words).

It would be great to have more technical detail, but somehow I don’t think that the two dudes who took the trip are engineers.

 

[RayzorBEV]

Ditto with my Rivian's 135kWh battery pack. I road trip once or twice a month with either my R1T or R1S; 850-1450 miles round trips through a few states on mostly wide open interstates going at least the posted speed (ok, mostly above but hey, I'm just going with the flow..., mostly...ok, I'm mostly chasing the fastest vehicle on the road ). I will typically have to stop 4-6 times (in Dual-Motor mode, instead of Quad-Motor, 33in M/S street tires (34in AT tires uses around 12% more), in milder Temps, add 1-2 stops in colder months) to charge per my nav trip planner, with each stop around 30 minutes. For me, that is okay. It gives me time to stretch my legs, do my number thang, get something to eat, take a few selfies, etc. It's rather pleasant, actually

 

[Woodrick]

Am curious to see how the range extender eventually affects all of this…

If won't make much difference. You go longer, you charge longer.

You want to reduce the charging time, then stay below 50% charge. 5-50% is about as fast as 50-80%. You need to stay on the optimal side of the charging curve.

 

[Woodrick]

That is in line with our trip from the Bay Area to Denver last January. About 10 stops over 2 days and about the same distance. Also the same on the way back. Model Y LR driving about the speed limit the whole way. I think it says more about winter driving with a BEV than about the Cybertruck.

From everything that I have seen so far, the Cybertruck is going to be on-par with the Model Y or Model 3 when road tripping, they all have about the same range. Just will have to charge a few minutes more due to the higher energy consumption in the Cybertruck.

 

[cvalue13]

From everything that I have seen so far, the Cybertruck is going to be on-par with the Model Y or Model 3 when road tripping, they all have about the same range. Just will have to charge a few minutes more due to the higher energy consumption in the Cybertruck.

do you have a BEV truck?

 

[edc]

Cybertruck stops are very similar to regular Tesla stops. We did the same exact trip and actually drove with a black cybertruck for many stops. On the way to Austin from CA took longer I believe due to less stops in between where as coming back there were way more in Arizona area so we didn't need to stop and wait to charge longer even though Tesla told us to.

 

[Woodrick]

do you have a BEV truck?

Do you have an EV car?
Do you have a Tesla?

 

[cvalue13]

Do you have an EV car?
Do you have a Tesla?

EV car? No, which might be why I’m not on a forum about an EV car.

Tesla? No, which is why I stick to mostly to assertions that have nothing to do with the brand, and instead the effects of laws of physics to which Tesla is subject.


But since physics applies to Tesla, and since we’re talking about BEV trucks:

From everything that I have seen so far, the Cybertruck is going to be on-par with the Model Y or Model 3 when road tripping, they all have about the same range. Just will have to charge a few minutes more due to the higher energy consumption in the Cybertruck.

Causes me to wonder what you’re getting at here?

Because just like you’ll “have to charge a few minutes more due to the higher energy consumption in the Cybertruck,” you’ll similarly due to physics have to expend more energy per mile at a given speed, but more importantly exponentially more energy as speeds increase

That’s just a fact that applies to EV cars, or trucks, any every OEM that exists in this world - including Mitsubishi or GM, Tesla or Ford.

But that since you only have a Tesla sedan, you may not understand.

A Model 3/S/X/Y that gets 340mi of range at EPA combined conditions, and a Cybertruck that gets 340mi of range at EPA combined conditions:

(1) all else equal guarantees that the CT will not get the same range at EPA highway conditions, and

(2) as speed increases from those conditions (or temperature/humidity decreases), etc., the CT will get increasingly worse range compared to a Model 3/S/X/Y

Which is why earlier in this thread I mentioned:

this, I think, is indicative of reality that “Tesla people” are rooted in charging sedans.

BEV trucks do not behave like sedans.

…

So, like this guy’s realization, folks who have been extrapolating from their eg Model Y’s performance to the CT performance (eg they’re both rated for about the same range”), are going to need a recalibration.

 

[Crissa]

He'd charge faster if he let it get another 10% lower.

His hops are about the right size, tho.

-Crissa

 

[tidmutt]

1 hour stop on an 18.5 hour drive? Are you freaking kidding me? Are you on some kind of medication? Do you have cyborg legs? Like what...

18.5 hours.... seriously. That's probably an overnight stop for me, bugger driving 18.5 hours plus food and toilet breaks without stopping for the night! I'm not a long haul trucker, hell, they aren't supposed to do that either.

I'm stopping to pee, grab a drink at least a few times, I'm also stopping for a lunch, dinner, breakfast, second breakfast.

I'd insist on a CT just to enforce some kind of reasonable breaks. Stop. Revive. Survive. and all that...

 

[cvalue13]

1 hour stop on an 18.5 hour drive? Are you freaking kidding me?

you see, every long-distance trip is a young man’s own little Cannonball Run.

You buy the biggest fuel tank, you weave through traffic, you eat only Soylent green, and you piss into several empty cans of Monster Energy.

Then after many years, you realize that, in the real world, you got there only a little bit faster. A lot more on edge. And now needing an entire day to recoup and sleep.

Plus you sped past some good restaurants. Took a bland interstate packed with semis, instead of a more scenic hwy, because the computer said it will save 15 minutes.

You eventually, with some accumulated wisdom, realize an 18hr Cannonball Run is more of a waste of energy and life than a “2 day road trip”.

Or at least, that if a Cannonball Run is what you must have, a BEV isn’t.

 

[Woodrick]

A Model 3/S/X/Y that gets 340mi of range at EPA combined conditions, and a Cybertruck that gets 340mi of range at EPA combined conditions:

(1) all else equal guarantees that the CT will not get the same range at EPA highway conditions, and

(2) as speed increases from those conditions (or temperature/humidity decreases), etc., the CT will get increasingly worse range compared to a Model 3/S/X/Y

Which is why earlier in this thread I mentioned:

The Cybertruck has larger battery than the Model 3 and Model Y, that's why it can match the cars. Also, I'm quite sure that when Tesla was unable to get the 500 miles, they then resorted to the next best thing, to match the range to the #1 selling car in the country. (after all is seems a lot of people are accepting that range)

We are already quite proficient with the coefficient of friction and exponential drag created by speed. You see, there's a Model X that's much bigger and heavier than the Model Y or Model 3 So there' not really any new ground here.

The range is going to be comparable, at the comparable point, which for Teslas is about 60-65 mph constant warm temperature. Just as the Model X gets worse a little quicker, the Cybertruck is going to get a little more worse.

But the range really doesn't mean much. The difference between 60 mph and 75 mph is rarely enough to skip a charging location. And for charging time, let's guess 10 minutes, but since you went 20+ miles further, it's a win!
.

The Model 3 starts with a coefficent of .208, Model 3 0.23, Model X 0.25 and now the Cybertruck 0.36. And both the Model X and Cybertruck are heavier.


Like you said it is simple math that we've been doing in the other forums well before this one was ever created.

Why did I ask if you had a car ? That's because you seem to be making a big deal that cars are different. Why did I ask about a Tesla? You aren't intimately familiar with the way Tesla does it's range numbers.

And yes, the truck is going to use more energy per mile. I'm guessing that it's going to be around 100 watts per mile more, which equates to about 30% more energy and slightly more time, since the battery charge rate isn't linear.

Remember, you tried to pull the car thing on me first.

 

[cvalue13]

The Cybertruck has larger battery than the Model 3 and Model Y, that's why it can match the cars. Also, I'm quite sure that when Tesla was unable to get the 500 miles, they then resorted to the next best thing, to match the range to the #1 selling car in the country. (after all is seems a lot of people are accepting that range)
We are already quite proficient with the coefficient of friction and exponential drag created by speed. You see, there's a Model X that's much bigger and heavier than the Model Y or Model 3 So there' not really any new ground here.

The range is going to be comparable, at the comparable point, which for Teslas is about 60-65 mph constant warm temperature. Just as the Model X gets worse a little quicker, the Cybertruck is going to get a little more worse.

But the range really doesn't mean much. The difference between 60 mph and 75 mph is rarely enough to skip a charging location. And for charging time, let's guess 10 minutes, but since you went 20+ miles further, it's a win!
.

The Model 3 starts with a coefficent of .208, Model 3 0.23, Model X 0.25 and now the Cybertruck 0.36. And both the Model X and Cybertruck are heavier.


Like you said it is simple math that we've been doing in the other forums well before this one was ever created.

Why did I ask if you had a car ? That's because you seem to be making a big deal that cars are different. Why did I ask about a Tesla? You aren't intimately familiar with the way Tesla does it's range numbers.

And yes, the truck is going to use more energy per mile. I'm guessing that it's going to be around 100 watts per mile more, which equates to about 30% more energy and slightly more time, since the battery charge rate isn't linear.

Remember, you tried to pull the car thing on me first.

you’re just repeating more things that demonstrate a certain level of misunderstanding.

at some level, a bat can’t tell a cat what it’s like to “see”

The Cybertruck has larger battery than the Model 3 and Model Y, that's why it can match the cars.

It “matches” the cars at EPA combined conditions.

That doesn’t mean it necessarily “matches” the cars in other conditions.

that’s not how math/physics works, which is what I’ve been saying twice over - but somehow still not registering with you


If you need to witness this further, just think about what you’re saying when it comes to the eg Model Y vs the Lightning ER - which also both have an “EPA Curve” that overlaps at ~320 for the EPA combined.

Here’s a 22 Y LP
Combined: 330mi
City: 342.3
Highway: 315

Notice the Y has a city-to-highway delta band of 27 miles, or 8% of its EPA combined figure.

Here’s a ‘22 F150L
Combined: 320mi
City: 350
Highway: 283

The F150L has a city-to-highway delta band of 67miles, or 21% of its EPA Combined figure.

The reasons for that, in the main, aren’t some magical mechanicals of the Tesla vs the Ford. The reasons are frontal plain and drag coefficient as relates to speed.

Your comment about the battery being bigger, having the same EPA combined, all meaning the have the same range across conditions is as misguided as is proven by the Lightning also having a bigger battery and same EPA combined.

You see, there's a Model X that's much bigger and heavier than the Model Y or Model 3 So there' not really any new ground here.

I think you’re doing a great job of showing just how much new ground there is

because in addition to there being people who need to get up to speed, you’re additionally the case of people so cock-sure in their misunderstanding they refuse to believe anything but their own misunderstanding

The Model Y has a CD of 0.23. The Model X 0.25. Their frontal planes are nearly identical.

both are significantly different from the CT’s a Cd if 0.34 and frontal plane of a CT

Ultimately, if you haven’t grasped and continue thrashing against the basics noted above, zero utility in running out the maths of an Y vs an X vs a CT

Sponsored