Taking the CYBERTRUCK on a MASSIVE ROADTRIP | Charging was TOUGH

[Woodrick]

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”




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.






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

And I'm not really sure what you are arguing. I feel fairly assured that if I drive the truck at 55 mph that I will meet the combined EPA numbers.

Currently, the Model Y, the Model 3 and the Cybertruck are all showing nearly the same EPA numbers. I don't give a flying flip if they differ by 30 miles, it's irrelevant.

Just looking around, I found this thread:
Efficiency report: 76 kWh over 190 miles (402Wh/mi) on highway in Cybertruck dual-motor AWD

That's pretty much what I'm expecting (maybe be even a little better), 100Wh/mi more than the Model Y which at EPA blended range is 245 Wh/mi, but commonly more than 300Wh/mi on the road.

But I can see you disagreeing in that thread also. All we are saying, it's like our cars. It's not unexpected for us.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

And I'm not really sure what you are arguing. I feel fairly assured that if I drive the truck at 55 mph that I will meet the combined EPA numbers.

i see

you’re that lost

-> that way’s north

 

[SolarWizard]

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

Its going to lengthen charging stops, reduce the lockable storage dramatically and eliminate carrying a spare

 

[cofree]

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 above is really important.

The reasons for that, in the main, aren’t some magical mechanicals of the Tesla vs the Ford.

Yep.

The reasons are frontal plain and drag coefficient as relates to speed.

That is not how I would phrase it...

If for a moment we talk purely of drag, citing the Drag equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
The drag force is proportional to the drag coefficient, the area, and the square of the velocity.
As such if you increase the battery of a vehicle by 50% but also increase either the area or drag coefficient by 50% then the range is the same. Or similarly if you increase the drag by 20% and the area by (1.5/1.2) then the effect is the same.
As such if the drag force were the only component determining range then doubling the velocity would divide the range by 4 on all vehicles, assuming the drag equation is accurate.

The reason why doubling speed does not divide the speed by 4 for all vehicles at all speeds is precisely because the drag force is not the only force involved.
For example if we consider the ancillary losses for HVAC and running computers and the screen... these are likely similar in value (measured in kW) on the Y and the Lightning and the Cybertruck. i.e. these values are not affected much by the differences in battery/Cd/Area.
Similarly the effect of weight and rolling resistance, while it does increase on the heavier vehicles it likely won't quite be proportional to the battery size on these vehicles.

In other words, drag is simply a bigger component (proportionally) of the energy usage on the larger vehicle (BEV truck) than the model Y, and hence the larger vehicles have range more impacted by speed. This is what we're seeing in the data you insightfully presented.

So yes, a "combined 320 mile (under 2024 rules)" model Y will likely have higher freeway range than a Cybertruck with "combined 320 mile (under 2024 rules)" range. The Cybertruck likely won't be identical to the Lightning (one of the companies may have more efficient HVAC, one company may be more efficient at regen, etc), but still the effect should still exist.
Indeed as you go from a 50mph EPA test up to an 80mph speed the effect will be more pronounced, but only slightly. This is because at 50mph the velocity (squared) already causes the drag to dominate the losses experienced by the vehicle, so there isn't as much effect of this factor left beyond that as the other components are already small.
Ultimately the real world freeway range of a "combined 320 mile" Cybertruck may be around 10% less than a "combined 320 mile" model Y... and the real world city range of the Cybertruck would be a little higher than for the model Y (not that I care much about city range).

Of course in the above I am simplifying somewhat as the EPA rules appear to use some fudge factors for things like climate... and things get rather complex... obviously we don't know exactly what derating factors Tesla used for adjustments, and this can affect the above. See
Arestechnica on EPA range calculations

 

[cofree]

Its going to lengthen charging stops, reduce the lockable storage dramatically and eliminate carrying a spare

Yeah, in general all of the above, but sometimes it will shorten charging stops.

When I'm driving an EV across country I drive around 8 google-map hours per day, around 600 miles per day (depending on traffic etc). This means around 5 supercharger stops (e.g. at the 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 mile marks approx, and often the limitation is me, not the battery).
With the range extender:
* I start each day with an extra 130 miles of range. This is assuming that the hotel/AirBnB charging station is able to get me to 100%, which isn't always true with such a large battery.
* I use a little more range each leg (due to additional weight).
* My lunchtime stop is more productive for range. e.g. the Applebee supercharger in Kansas takes long enough that charging throttles, so the range extender gets me more range. Currently on the model 3 I end up at 98% or so and slow charging by the time I'm done eating. As more new superchargers roll out this will become a larger factor for the larger batteries. Right now the Cybertruck charges slowly enough (from the trip planner at the start of this thread) that this factor might not even exist right now for the Cybertruck for my lunch stop.

So if the range extender causes a 5% increase in energy consumption (could be reasonable given that it doesn't affect air drag) then for me the effect on travel time will be an improvement. I would need to do a lot of driving for that 5% to eat up 130 miles of range in a day.
Yes, if your drive is 2000 miles and you don't charge at hotels and you don't do a lunch stop then likely your overall charging time may increase.

For me the advantage of the range extender is traveling to areas not well covered by superchargers such as Glacier National Park or the 4 corners. The disadvantage is the storage space in size and ability to carry long items... traveling across country just isn't a significant factor. I'm quite surprised that the takeup rate for the range extender is over 20%.

 

[Sjohnson20]

1,340 miles I’m stopping at a hotel! Even in a gas car.

The cooler weather added 2-3 Supercharger stops to their trip. Usually if I drive to Atlanta in the summer from Orlando, I can do it in 1-2 stops. But winter time it’s 3 stops for sure.

 

[cvalue13]

Of course in the above I am simplifying somewhat

reciprocating that sentiment first, and then agreeing with effectively all you said, then on that basis:

If we’re going weeds (I love weeds), then the double-click on these departures of range as speeds increase also include:

• to do all BEV truck things well (launch fast, tow, cruise), the “tuning” of the motors has to be more compromised across each “thing” - essentially high speeds piling on the range effects in virtue of the motors having increasingly compromised efficiency up in those bands of speed relevant to range (you can’t get something down low for nothing up high)

• related to the point above, the fastest of cars are limited fundamentally not by their ability to accelerate the vehicle relative to the ground, but against the air - with “top speed” being the point at which the driveline is incapable not of moving the car itself, but more exactly the point at which the air resistance is in effect equal to the power of the motor. The larger/less aerodynamic the vehicle, the sooner a given motor will reach that point. Which is to say, in vehicles unlike equations, speed/power is not a theoretical variable, but an input variable from a given powertrain’s characteristics relative to the forces on it - not merely in terms of gearing efficiency, but of total available power relative to a given air resistance. Put driveline X (with identical tuning) in a Model S, and then put driveline X in a CT, and it will be unlikely to result in similar eg wh/mi at identical speeds - not merely because of the eg Cd, but because it’s now differently powered. And why build a truck driveline that, unlike a sedan, isn’t beginning to realize these effects more as you approach statistically more irrelevant air resistance.

• while theoretical rolling resistance of a tire alone and in a proverbial vacuum would change only nominally and be drowned out by the drag effects at speed, tire materials, especially for heavy truck-duty BEVs compared to performance sedan tires, are more prone to change characteristics at increasingly higher speeds, thereby changing rolling resistance not on the theory but on the materials compliance to any one μR at all speeds/conditions. It’s easier to “tune” a tire to do the relatively limited things a performance car does, than it is to “tune” a truck tire to do truck things AND behave in terms of μR at all speeds.

• the drag coefficient is often treated as a singular static for a given object and liquid, but it can in fact vary by several orders of magnitude based on velocity and/or the liquid quality; in highly aerodynamic vehicles low to ground (and with low range scrutiny at levels of normal drivers) these effects are minimized/ignored or (or are tuned to actually tend to improve - see eg Bobsleds which move to increasingly low Re with speed) - but eg raise that vehicle up, put it on 35”x11 nobby tires, and carve out giant articulation-permissive wheel wells around it, etc., and conditions are ripe for strong variation of Cd with velocity (not for the better), due to various interactions, interferences, and complex geometries, ‘exposed’ to one-another.

Even basic Navier-Stokes equations are beyond me (in strict concept and maths), but I understand the gist enough to surmise: companies site average Cds, based on some assumption, which resulting figure may/not be of equal info across all models (under high range scrutiny).


All-in-all, the point you made primarily on the equations is correct, that Cd alone explains only a portion of why eg aerodynamic BEV sedans behave differently in terms of range effects of air resistance compared to less aerodynamic trucks. But the “other part” of that range effect at speed isn’t merely eg HVAC etc, but also a constellation of other mechanical, materials, etc., forces that are simultaneously each of three things (1) inherent to trucks doing truck stuff (eg gearing, tires, wheel wells, and vehicle height), and (2) variably more sensitive to increased air resistance (speed, temp, humidity etc.), not for the better as speeds increase.


In all, where conditions that effect range are concerned, BEV trucks are not just big/less aerodynamic BEV sedans - but also less efficient at speeds due in part as a result of their respective composition.

Boiling it down earlier to Cd was, as you say, “simplifying it somewhat.”

The exact details of how the CT will behave compared to eg a Lightning remain to be detailed and supported. But in broad strokes, one extrapolating their understanding of BEV range effects solely from their experiences in a sedan will - in the end - exponentially more confused as air resistance, speed, etc.., increases.

 

[Woodrick]

1,340 miles I’m stopping at a hotel! Even in a gas car.

The cooler weather added 2-3 Supercharger stops to their trip. Usually if I drive to Atlanta in the summer from Orlando, I can do it in 1-2 stops. But winter time it’s 3 stops for sure.

When graduating college, a group (~8) of students got the option to do a cross country. We took 10 days on the way out, but were ready to get home on the way back. So we started driving straight thru. Basically rules, rotate driving until you needed more gas (loaded 16 pass van). We made it from Los Vegas to Memphis before we decided that we were all smelling too badly and had to stop for a hotel!

 

[YDR37]

Its going to lengthen charging stops, reduce the lockable storage dramatically and eliminate carrying a spare

Does the range extender option really eliminate the spare tire option? The range extender is supposed to take up a third of the six-foot bed, so about two feet, right? Seems like there should still be room to lay a spare in the remaining part of the bed. There just wouldn't be room for very much else.

Would have to acknowledge that this is one respect where the Cybertruck falls short of the ICE competition. Traditional half-ton trucks commonly have both a "range extender" (in the form of a 36-gallon gas tank) and a full-size spare; in fact, I think both features are standard on 2024 F-150s. And neither feature consumes any bed space at all.

 

[Gigahorse]

Think we all realize the range of the CT is a lunch box letdown and have accepted that fact.
What is a really tough pill to swallow is the charging time, JUST to get to the next supercharger.
No one minds "taking 20 mins to use the bathroom and get a coffee" but with MINIMUM charge times to arrive at 5% at the next supercharger being 30-50mins I think some may have a tough time.

 

[Woodrick]

Does the range extender option really eliminate the spare tire option? The range extender is supposed to take up a third of the six-foot bed, so about two feet, right? Seems like there should still be room to lay a spare in the remaining part of the bed. There just wouldn't be room for very much else.

Would have to acknowledge that this is one respect where the Cybertruck falls short of the ICE competition. Traditional half-ton trucks commonly have both a "range extender" (in the form of a 36-gallon gas tank) and a full-size spare; in fact, I think both features are standard on 2024 F-150s. And neither feature consumes any bed space at all.

I don't think that it will eliminate it, you just loose the default spot to place it. But all of the is TBD, waiting the availability of those parts.

 

[Bill W.]

When I changed from a Model-3 to a Model-X, I remember muttering to myself about the MX being a bit of an energy hog when compared to the M3. As others have stated, the physics cannot be ignored (greater mass, poorer cd, etc.). I expect to see the same observation of greater energy usage when I finally get my cybertruck.

One item has me curious - the MX has the ability to automatically adjust the air suspension when driving. For example, it will usually lower the vehicle at highway speeds, ostensibly improving energy usage somewhat. I know that the CT also has an air suspension, but does it also have the automatic adjustment feature? I can see where someone running too high (the vehicle, not the driver...) will increase the energy usage even further.

 

[Woodrick]

When I changed from a Model-3 to a Model-X, I remember muttering to myself about the MX being a bit of an energy hog when compared to the M3. As others have stated, the physics cannot be ignored (greater mass, poorer cd, etc.). I expect to see the same observation of greater energy usage when I finally get my cybertruck.

One item has me curious - the MX has the ability to automatically adjust the air suspension when driving. For example, it will usually lower the vehicle at highway speeds, ostensibly improving energy usage somewhat. I know that the CT also has an air suspension, but does it also have the automatic adjustment feature? I can see where someone running too high (the vehicle, not the driver...) will increase the energy usage even further.

I don't think that I've seen or heard about the auto-suspension adjustment.
I'd tend to say why not. But after thinking about it, Why? It's not that a highway will have a hump bog enough to bottom out.

But the suspension adjustment will still probably be preferred for smooth riding as well as entry/exit of the vehicle.

 

[Space monkey]

Think we all realize the range of the CT is a lunch box letdown and have accepted that fact.
What is a really tough pill to swallow is the charging time, JUST to get to the next supercharger.
No one minds "taking 20 mins to use the bathroom and get a coffee" but with MINIMUM charge times to arrive at 5% at the next supercharger being 30-50mins I think some may have a tough time.

I agree. I am disappointed with the range, but a hard no on the supercharging time. That ultimately is what kills it as a road trip capable vehicle, at least to me.
I can only hope that charging times improve eventually.

 

[SolarWizard]

I don't think that it will eliminate it, you just loose the default spot to place it. But all of the is TBD, waiting the availability of those parts.

Oh you could likely shove a spare into the compartment but then all you have is a 7500lb 5 seater with around the same storage space as a model Y.

Sponsored