Tesla: "First Cybertruck Built at Giga Texas! 🤠"

[CyberGus]

Efficiency drops significantly above 55MPH for EVs and ICEs alike, which is why it was made the national standard.

Fortunately, conservation is for tree-hugging socialists, and now we can drive as fast as we want. Wheeeeeeeee

Sponsored

 

[Cyberostachu]

To be honest, I cannot

EV mileage should be discussed with 3 variables:
1. Watts per mile. This is the efficiency, really. It takes 282 Watts to drive my Model Y one mile.
2. Available Watts to the driver... Basically, available battery size.
3. Total battery size for "reserve"
4. For our European friends, watts per 100 Kilometers. This makes it easier to compare two cars.

I asked someone what kind of mileage she got and she replied with "I get about 350 miles per tank." I said "Wow. That's pretty good for a 3 gallon tank!... or it sucks if you have a 100 gallon tank. Which is it?"

But, that's what we do with EVs... The Model Y gets 330 miles per tank... We SHOULD be saying "My Model Y uses 282 watts per mile". (or, I suppose, 'My Model Y uses 28.2 per 100 miles'')

The Hummer EV can go 329 miles on a full battery but does that with a 212.7 KwH battery! Holy inefficiency, Batman!

Fun math:
Model Y - 282 Watts/mile (2.8 cents per mile here or $2.80 per 100 miles)
Hummer - 625 Watts/mile (6.3 cents per mile here or $6.30 per 100 miles)
My F-150 - 0.055 Gallons/mile (18 mpg) (16.7 cents per mile here or $16.70 per 100 miles)
Bonus, just for me: My incoming Maverick ~ 40mpg - 0.025 gallons/mile (40mpg) (7.5 cents per mile here or $7.50 per 100 miles)

In the other forums, people talk about hypermiling... They'll say "I got 51 mpg on this trip out and back". Do any of you do that... try to maximize your efficiency? Got any tricks? I would like to hear your average watts per mile.

I'll start. My wife has averaged 282 watts per mile over 27,000 miles. Her car is going to be for sale in about a week when we pick up the new one, btw.

I cannot give you the watts per mile as I'm on a cruise and won't be back home for 8 days. The only info I see in my app are the miles driven at 11,873 miles but I cannot access the charge stats from my app right now?

 

[Cyberostachu]

To be honest, I cannot

EV mileage should be discussed with 3 variables:
1. Watts per mile. This is the efficiency, really. It takes 282 Watts to drive my Model Y one mile.
2. Available Watts to the driver... Basically, available battery size.
3. Total battery size for "reserve"
4. For our European friends, watts per 100 Kilometers. This makes it easier to compare two cars.

I asked someone what kind of mileage she got and she replied with "I get about 350 miles per tank." I said "Wow. That's pretty good for a 3 gallon tank!... or it sucks if you have a 100 gallon tank. Which is it?"

But, that's what we do with EVs... The Model Y gets 330 miles per tank... We SHOULD be saying "My Model Y uses 282 watts per mile". (or, I suppose, 'My Model Y uses 28.2 per 100 miles'')

The Hummer EV can go 329 miles on a full battery but does that with a 212.7 KwH battery! Holy inefficiency, Batman!

Fun math:
Model Y - 282 Watts/mile (2.8 cents per mile here or $2.80 per 100 miles)
Hummer - 625 Watts/mile (6.3 cents per mile here or $6.30 per 100 miles)
My F-150 - 0.055 Gallons/mile (18 mpg) (16.7 cents per mile here or $16.70 per 100 miles)
Bonus, just for me: My incoming Maverick ~ 40mpg - 0.025 gallons/mile (40mpg) (7.5 cents per mile here or $7.50 per 100 miles)

In the other forums, people talk about hypermiling... They'll say "I got 51 mpg on this trip out and back". Do any of you do that... try to maximize your efficiency? Got any tricks? I would like to hear your average watts per mile.

I'll start. My wife has averaged 282 watts per mile over 27,000 miles. Her car is going to be for sale in about a week when we pick up the new one, btw.

I cannot give you the watts per mile as I'm on a cruise and won't be back home for 8 days. The only info I see in my app are the miles driven at 11,873 miles but I cannot access the charge stats from my app right now?

 

[Arctic_White]

The range does "suck" because the range is impacted by so many conditions:
- Outside temperature
- How you drive
- Sentry mode being used
- Car is being preconditioned without being plugged in

And 69 other different factors. This whole idea bout Tesla lying about the range is ridiculous. If I drive within the speed limit and hypermile and don't turn on the AC, I can easily beat the estimated range.

 

[cvalue13]

EV mileage should be discussed with 3 variables:
1. Watts per mile. This is the efficiency, really. It takes 282 Watts to drive my Model Y one mile.
2. Available Watts to the driver... Basically, available battery size.
3. Total battery size for "reserve"
4. For our European friends, watts per 100 Kilometers. This makes it easier to compare two cars.

I *think*, though, this is effectively what the EPA range tests provide in a single, standardized, format - subject to some gaming at the margins.

While the EPA range isn't reported in terms of Watts per mile, the EPA range is merely a conversion of that underlying term?

to that extent, the EPA could change and make more stringent its format. E.g., not allow OEM's to provide other data to change the standard 30% deduct factor. It could also create a standardized set, for BEVs, of temperature conditions sub-tests.

separately, the problem with doing any reporting of 'reserve' is that nobody would or should stand behind that precisely because of the variance in conditions that can effect the only meaningful factor.

what i mean is, with respect to 'reserve,' OEM's effectively say "no matter how your drive or ambient conditions, if you refill before zero, we can guarantee you'll not be stranded, because there's a reserve; but going below zero, we can't make any guarantees that you wont be stranded."

 

[TyPope]

To be honest, I cannot

I cannot give you the watts per mile as I'm on a cruise and won't be back home for 8 days. The only info I see in my app are the miles driven at 11,873 miles but I cannot access the charge stats from my app right now?

One of the guys here at work asked me about his range. He had cabin heat protection on and was keeping the car at 90... His AC would run half the day. His "mileage" was bad because 15 miles per day plus half a day running the AC made it seem like he wasn't doing well.

I get that you are away on a cruise (poor guy... ) but when you get back, look at your efficiency and see what it actually is. You may have some vampiric loss you haven't accounted for. (pre-conditioning when not plugged in is a big one)

 

[cvalue13]

This whole idea bout Tesla lying about the range is ridiculous. If I drive within the speed limit and hypermile and don't turn on the AC, I can easily beat the estimated range.

but what you just said is also true of other OEMs. So to that extent, it's a constant and irrelevant to identifying the variable.

The relevant question being asked has nothing to do with the fact that range is affected by variables - because the relevant question already presumes and accounts for that obvious fact.

And just so I don't get mistaken for suggesting that Tesla is "lying" about range, I don't take that position nor do I think we should take that formulation of the critique seriously.

The remaining and still substantive position is instead and merely: does Tesla take aggressive positions with respect to it's reporting of range that has a disproportionately misleading effect on consumers.

And Tesla not only takes a far more aggressive/optimistic approach to reporting range than other OEMs, Tesla has even DOWN-RATED range of models when it wanted to create the mere appearance that a cheaper Model 3 did not have superior range to a more expensive Model 3 varient.

it's not a question of lying. it's a question of whether these approaches to the data are disproportionately misleading to consumers.

im not saying the answer is a clear "yes." im just pointing out that an irrelevant response is "consumers can drive differently and improve their range."

 

[TyPope]

I *think*, though, this is effectively what the EPA range tests provide in a single, standardized, format - subject to some gaming at the margins.

While the EPA range isn't reported in terms of Watts per mile, the EPA range is merely a conversion of that underlying term?

to that extent, the EPA could change and make more stringent its format. E.g., not allow OEM's to provide other data to change the standard 30% deduct factor. It could also create a standardized set, for BEVs, of temperature conditions sub-tests.

separately, the problem with doing any reporting of 'reserve' is that nobody would or should stand behind that precisely because of the variance in conditions that can effect the only meaningful factor.

what i mean is, with respect to 'reserve,' OEM's effectively say "no matter how your drive or ambient conditions, if you refill before zero, we can guarantee you'll not be stranded, because there's a reserve; but going below zero, we can't make any guarantees that you wont be stranded."

We all know there are some efficiency ratings that would be really helpful for comparisons:

1. watts per mile
2. total miles to zero (range)
3. miles to zero at freezing while keeping the cab at XX temp.
4. miles to zero at 90 degrees while keeping the cab at XX temp.

Those last two let you see how efficient the HVAC is... Heat pump for the win!

Oh, two more!
5. Range while towing 2,000# (so more EVs will be able to be measured)
6. Range while max towing because, Cybertruck, of course.

 

[cvalue13]

We all know there are some efficiency ratings that would be really helpful for comparisons:

1. watts per mile
2. total miles to zero (range)
3. miles to zero at freezing while keeping the cab at XX temp.
4. miles to zero at 90 degrees while keeping the cab at XX temp.

Those last two let you see how efficient the HVAC is... Heat pump for the win!

on one hand, no doubt BEVs would presently be well serviced with some additional range data that helps inform the public

on the other hand, the good news, is that none of that additional testing becomes 'necessary' if the battery tech and infra simply improves - and it will improve, soon-ish

because the only reason the ICE world isn't tested and reported this way, despite behaving exactly the same, is that for the most part consumers don't care anymore given the size of gas tanks and availability of refills

until then, Tesla's left having to 'compete' with the range/infra of ICE in part on the proxy war battlefield of the EPA range tests.

all this will resolve then they close the battery / infra gap

 

[PilotPete]

to be fair, it was only last year Tesla was purportedly “so inundated with driving-range complaints that it created a special team to cancel owners’ service appointments.”

What they couldn’t confirm about today’s cars was only the part about the software programming that juiced the dashboard figures.

But todays cars are still widely confirmed to have uniquely optimistic ranges still, and the story walks through that, though only partially.

still, it’s the sort of facts that if true one might expect to convert to a state AG’s investigation, so it’ll bubble up or not

I take the range estimates the same way I take the mpg estimates on an ICE car. Those numbers are “yea, sure, maybe downhill all the way with the wind.“ No one whines about it on an ICE car. In fact, no one really calculates their “range” in an ICE car. Why? Because there are gas stations at almost every freeway off ramp most places. People worry about mpg far more as a cost of driving a specific model of car. Yet in BEVs, it’s the opposite. Why? Because the “gas” for a BEV is relatively cheap. So the difference between X kWh/mile and Y kWh/mile is a couple pennies between charges. But without understanding the density of the charging network, people get range anxiety. And it’s the ICE market that emphasizes that you are about to get stranded without a long range BEV. Your normal 25 mile drive to work and then another 25 home is only going to work with an ICE car. How many ICE cars are above 3/4 of a tank at this very moment?
Yet with home charging, you need never leave the house in the morning with less than “3/4 tank”. Or with LFP or LMFP batteries, a full tank. It’s a whole different thought process for BEV/ICE. And the BEV industry is doing a lousy job of changing that. I’ve said before, I don’t drive a lot. I’ll probably use a supercharger one or two trips a year, if that. I fill up my current ICE car sometimes TWICE in the same month! (OMG) And it ain’t because I get great mileage, or I drive a hybrid. I drive a Porsche that gets 25mph with my 85%+ highway driving of 5,000 miles/yr. I drove to/from work TWICE in the month of July. I put 130 miles on my car going to/from work In July. I drove to the airport I work out of once this month for a pleasure trip. That’s a whopping 200 miles total on my car. Should I be worried about range and/or charging times? But I think about it. Why? Because the industry has programmed me to do it, to be worried about it. “Ya know, AAA ain’t gonna show up with a 5 gallon can of electrons to get you to the next charging station.”

 

[cvalue13]

Those numbers are “yea, sure, maybe downhill all the way with the wind.“

I dont and couldnt disagree with any of what you say in your post.

I was only pointing out that, with respect to the report (and the historical data/reporting on the topic), none of what you say in your post is really relevant to the substance of the report.

To use your framing, the substance of the report is getting instead at:

"For other OEMs, those numbers are “yea, sure, maybe downhill all the way with the wind, while for Tesla those numbers are instead "yea, sure, maybe downhill at 125% greater grade, and with a 125% greater wind."

And again, to highlight the *reason* one might care: Tesla has been known, when advantageous from a marketing perspective, to instead throttle its range estimates DOWNWARD - e.g., when it's lower priced Model 3 variant received a better EPA performance than its higher priced Model 3 variant, Tesla submitted data necessary to DOWN-RATE the lower priced variant Model 3's range to be in line with the higher priced Model 3 variant.

which to be both fair and clear, means this is a discussion not about how range or EPA ratings work.

it's a discussion about Tesla's philosophy towards prioritize using EPA range as a marketing lever, over prioritizing customer expectations of range. Not to take a position on that judgment, but to only to say that's where criticism or support of Tesla is relevant.

THAT SAID - and moving on, one thing I enjoy about all this discussion, when it comes to TOWING results, I hope everyone keeps this same energy about the dominance of physics to range!

 

[TyPope]

on one hand, no doubt BEVs would presently be well serviced with some additional range data that helps inform the public

on the other hand, the good news, is that none of that additional testing becomes 'necessary' if the battery tech and infra simply improves - and it will improve, soon-ish

because the only reason the ICE world isn't tested and reported this way, despite behaving exactly the same, is that for the most part consumers don't care anymore given the size of gas tanks and availability of refills

until then, Tesla's left having to 'compete' with the range/infra of ICE in part on the proxy war battlefield of the EPA range tests.

all this will resolve then they close the battery / infra gap

That's true and because ICE doesn't report it, it would only look bad if EVs did. People will lament losing range when towing in their EV while forgetting they also lose range in ICE. I drove home from school in Alabama twice... once with and once without a 7,500# trailer. My fuel mileage dropped from somewhere around 19mpg to somewhere in the 7-9mpg range when towing. It was startling how much it dropped. I got no shit range anxiety a couple of times.

 

[PilotPete]

We all know there are some efficiency ratings that would be really helpful for comparisons:

1. watts per mile
2. total miles to zero (range)
3. miles to zero at freezing while keeping the cab at XX temp.
4. miles to zero at 90 degrees while keeping the cab at XX temp.

Those last two let you see how efficient the HVAC is... Heat pump for the win!

Oh, two more!
5. Range while towing 2,000# (so more EVs will be able to be measured)
6. Range while max towing because, Cybertruck, of course.

You don’t need the companies to do that…

 

[Cyberostachu]

One of the guys here at work asked me about his range. He had cabin heat protection on and was keeping the car at 90... His AC would run half the day. His "mileage" was bad because 15 miles per day plus half a day running the AC made it seem like he wasn't doing well.

I get that you are away on a cruise (poor guy... ) but when you get back, look at your efficiency and see what it actually is. You may have some vampiric loss you haven't accounted for. (pre-conditioning when not plugged in is a big one)

I'll be home tomorrow night 8/6/23 but the losses you talked about includes when the car is parked. My complaint is purely starting to drive 200 round-trip miles right after 100% fully charged, preconditioned. I get home, check the % of charge left at around 10%. I prorated the miles on the 10% without considering the reserve, which I have no idea, it seems only 230 miles or so was made. Assuming the reserve can go another 20 miles, only 250 miles at best is attained.
You may reply but I'll move on.

Sponsored