Tesla Wall Connector (Gen 4) for Cybertruck

flowerlandfilms

Well-known member
First Name
Eryk
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Threads
6
Messages
811
Reaction score
1,707
Location
Australia
Vehicles
Yamaha SRV-250, Honda Odyssey RB1
Occupation
Film Maker
Country flag
I think if you are mocking a Cyber style charger somehow the Cyber Tesla logo spotted recently which may or may not end up on final should be part of it.

1668530923031.png
Something tells me it is not Franz approved.
Sponsored

 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
14,152
Location
Western Washington, USA
Vehicles
Cybertruck DM, 2010 F-150, 2018 Performance Model 3, 2024 Performance Model 3
Country flag
I would wait. They recently released the gen 3 with a longer cable. Also, it would probably be a good idea to make your home ready to accept any EV charger not just a tesla.
Nope. If you put in a J-1772 charge connector then you will need an adapter to charge 75% of the EV's in N. America (Tesla's). This number may get even more lopsided considering how lethargic legacy auto is at releasing compelling EV's in volumes that actually matter.

If you put in a Tesla Wall Connector you can charge 75% of the EV's in N. America without an adapter and you can still charge the remaining 25% with an adapter. Plus, the Tesla Wall Connector is a screaming value compared to the rest I've seen.

It's a no-brainer unless you had a brain fart and bought a non-Tesla EV.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
14,152
Location
Western Washington, USA
Vehicles
Cybertruck DM, 2010 F-150, 2018 Performance Model 3, 2024 Performance Model 3
Country flag
Would you also like to know the stock price 2 years out?


It isn't actually the size of the battery that matters but rather how far you drive in a day and what the vehicle's consumption turns out to be. That's probably going to be about 420 Wh/mi. If you drive 100 mi per day then you will have to load 42 kWh meaning you'll need 42/0.9 = 46.7 from the wall (90% charger efficiency0 which, at 11.5 kW (48A) would require 4.1 hr. That's not too bad.
I can confidently say the Cybertruck will not consume anywhwere near 420 Wh/mile in stock form (EPA combined hwy/city drive cycle). It will be closer to 340 Wh/mile. You will be able to cause consumption to rise from there with excessive use of the cabin heat, lots of speed changes, high speed cruising, or downgrading the clean aerodynamics of the truck.

Also, the maximum battery size will not be close to 225 kWh, probably closer to 170 kWh pack for the maximum range version.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
14,152
Location
Western Washington, USA
Vehicles
Cybertruck DM, 2010 F-150, 2018 Performance Model 3, 2024 Performance Model 3
Country flag
It is, but we should do our best not to confuse newbies.

A DC charger, is a charger. It has a specific capacity and compatibility.
An AC charger is on board, so uses an EVSE, or level 2 charging station. It's a 'fancy outlet'.

-Crissa
All true. But to confuse matters, the cable from a Wall Connector to the vehicle can still correctly be called a "charging cable" . ;)
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
166
Messages
10,739
Reaction score
27,055
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
I can confidently say the Cybertruck will not consume anywhwere near 420 Wh/mile in stock form (EPA combined hwy/city drive cycle). It will be closer to 340 Wh/mile. You will be able to cause consumption to rise from there with excessive use of the cabin heat, lots of speed changes, high speed cruising, or downgrading the clean aerodynamics of the truck.

Also, the maximum battery size will not be close to 225 kWh, probably closer to 170 kWh pack for the maximum range version.
I just plug in 200 kWh for the long range truck. Seems pretty much spot middle/ high side of most estimates.

If the long range cell is 170 kWh, that’s good news for most of us (faster more affordable charging), but range would be truly horrible with a trailer.
 


HaulingAss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
14,152
Location
Western Washington, USA
Vehicles
Cybertruck DM, 2010 F-150, 2018 Performance Model 3, 2024 Performance Model 3
Country flag
I just plug in 200 kWh for the long range truck. Seems pretty much spot middle/ high side of most estimates.

If the long range cell is 170 kWh, that’s good news for most of us (faster more affordable charging), but range would be truly horrible with a trailer.
Most people don't need to tow trailers long-distance. But those who do that with regularity should probably just set aside thousands of dollars to spend on fuel and go with ICE.
 

Ogre

Well-known member
First Name
Dennis
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Threads
166
Messages
10,739
Reaction score
27,055
Location
Ogregon
Vehicles
Model Y
Country flag
Most people don't need to tow trailers long-distance. But those who do that with regularity should probably just set aside thousands of dollars to spend on fuel and go with ICE.
I tend to agree, a smaller pack would be much better. Or better yet, a bigger pack with a 600 mile range.

Just pointing out the inevitable side-effect of a super efficient truck.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
14,152
Location
Western Washington, USA
Vehicles
Cybertruck DM, 2010 F-150, 2018 Performance Model 3, 2024 Performance Model 3
Country flag
Dual .v. Tri version Cybertruck? Nobody knows yet. Sometimes extra power at the wheel simply gets a vehicle deeper in trouble, quicker. Lower power(i.e. torque) can more smoothly deliver traction to ground which is what you want in sand, snow, rock and loose”stuff”(i.e.gravel, dirt and flooded bottomlands. This would all favor Dual. But 800 ft/ lbs is still alot of torque, seriously.

Tri Cybertruck‘s monster 1000 ft/lbs torque can thrash through heavy mud, climb like a banshee and pull stumps out of the ground. Its a certifiable racecar performance class truck. Tires will be an addictive cost of ownership. Torque is more addictive than your <FAV> so something will have to give.
These comments are misleading and show a fundamental misunderstanding of EV torque and off-roading.

First, both the dual and tri motor would have excessive torque for off-roading. So much so that there is no difference between the two of them. But there is no disadvantage to having more, because traction control.

The real difference between the dual and tri-motor will be weight. This is assuming they come configured roughly as spec'ed at the reveal. And the lighter weight of the dual motor will be an advantage in many types of off-road situations with soft surfaces like sand and mud. However, the tri motor will have better rear axle traction due to the dual motors that will function better than the best limited slip differential and even better than a full-locking differential. In snow and ice and other firm surfaces, the tri-motor will have superior climbing ability. If Tesla releases a quad motor, of course that will be the best of them all.

That said, Tesla may not release the Cybertruck with the same details laid out during the introduction reveal. Tesla could release a rear wheel drive Cybertruck with two motors. This would actually make a very capable work truck that would do far better in typical tricky traction situations than most truck owners could even imagine. This is due to two factors:

1) Better traction that the best locking differential.
2) Better weight distribution with lower center of gravity.

#2 is actually important in situations that cause the truck to lean to one side or the other because it causes less weight transfer to the downhill wheels.

If Tesla releases a RWD Cybertruck model with two motors, then it would follow that they would release two four motor versions, one with a larger battery than the other. This would actually be good news for dual motor reservationists because it would mean you could buy the lower spec 4 motor version for perhaps only $65K. Of course, the price is just rank speculation and I'm sure Tesla can't even accurately price it yet.

I'm just not convinced a tri-motor makes that much economic sense if there is a quad motor in production. It just seems so much simpler from a parts and engineering perspective to keep each wheel independently powered (or not powered at all). This only makes sense once you understand that a RWD dual motor Cybertruck would be almost as capable as most 4x4 trucks on the road today. In fact, for towing it would be far superior in terms of driving dynamics in tricky situations and this would also be the best way to wring the most range out of an electric truck used for towing.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
14,152
Location
Western Washington, USA
Vehicles
Cybertruck DM, 2010 F-150, 2018 Performance Model 3, 2024 Performance Model 3
Country flag
I tend to agree, a smaller pack would be much better. Or better yet, a bigger pack with a 600 mile range.

Just pointing out the inevitable side-effect of a super efficient truck.
We already know the Cybertruck will be super-efficient for its size and capabilities. That's Tesla's expertise and focus because it's what makes long-range EV's economically practical. It sounds like you were hoping the Cybertruck would be inefficient and have a huge battery so the hit from towing a large trailer would be a smaller percentage hit. That's not how this will turn out to be. Tesla is all about making their vehicles as efficient as possible because that saves their customers money on the size of the battery for the amount of actual range provided.

As you know, for a given size battery, it doesn't hurt towing range to make the truck more efficient, it helps it.
 

HaulingAss

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2020
Threads
17
Messages
6,873
Reaction score
14,152
Location
Western Washington, USA
Vehicles
Cybertruck DM, 2010 F-150, 2018 Performance Model 3, 2024 Performance Model 3
Country flag
No, it's not.

Charging faster can cause more heat, and it's the heat that causes the damage, but any charging causes heat. And Tesla limits charging by cell temperature and has active pack management.

So there's no pattern that finds slower charging - at least what we can control - as creating longer battery life.

-Crissa
This is not really directed at Crissa's comment but I've seen some other comments that misrepresent the effects of charging at various charge currents.

It's absolutely true that charging at 48 amps will not stress a Tesla battery. But, if we consider Supercharging near the upper allowable charge limits, there is additional stress put on the battery. The exact amount of current that will accelerate battery aging is dependent upon the battery temperature, the ambient temperature and how effectively the thermal management system can keep up with the heat produced inside the cells. At home charging rates, this is a non-issue. In fact, having plenty of power available at home would likely extend your battery life, not shorten it, because it gives the thermal management system more power to work with.

At high charge rates, like you might see at a Supercharger, thermal gradients exist inside each cell. Even though the thermal management system is cooling the pack, it's not cooling uniformly inside each cell because it takes time for the thermal energy to be conducted away. Tesla limits charge currents based upon cell temperatures but they don't draw the line at no accelerated aging, they draw it at acceptable accelerated aging. For example, driving at 75 mph will wear your tires faster than driving at 50 mph, yet we still drive at 70 mph because the increase in treadwear is acceptable to us.

Even if you could charge a 100 kWh battery at home with 20 kW of AC current it would not be stressing the battery. The on-board charger is smaller to save cost and weight, and because people don't need to charge faster most of the time, not to conserve the battery.
 


Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
137
Messages
18,437
Reaction score
30,154
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
I'd also like to point out that even DC fast charging hasn't been found to be detrimental to Tesla battery life. There's just no real-world evidence of it without super-frequent Supercharging or constantly Supercharging to 100%. Even cars that only Supercharged, and never used Destination (Level 2) charging, for the same miles over the same time, have found no degradation.

-Crissa
 

tidmutt

Well-known member
First Name
Daniel
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
604
Reaction score
996
Location
Somewhere hot and humid
Vehicles
Model Y Performance, Model X P100D
Occupation
Software Architect
Country flag
Oo… I have a wardrobe, just haven’t figured out how to point it to Narnia yet. My cats occasionally disappear into it for hours at a time though. I’ve always wondered why they like it so much.

That and my sock drawer. Are there sock drawers to Narnia?
The Wardrobe to Narnia connectivity seems random unfortunately. My kids went in as 5 and 7 and came out as 9 and 11, so that was hard to explain to their mother. However, it stopped working which ruined my plans for pushing my ex-wife into it so she could go an hang out with Aslan for a few years.

The sock drawer would explain where all the socks go I guess.
 

anionic1

Well-known member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Threads
29
Messages
1,666
Reaction score
2,011
Location
California
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
Estimator
Country flag
I tend to agree, a smaller pack would be much better. Or better yet, a bigger pack with a 600 mile range.

Just pointing out the inevitable side-effect of a super efficient truck.
We will be seeing a lot more self propelled trailers. They will be costly, but they will improve range a lot. Really upwards of 250 to 300 miles is a lot to drive without stopping anyway. So, either way, there will soon enough be a solution for EV trucks. Or just save up and get the tesla semi!
 

SolarWizard

Well-known member
First Name
MB
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Threads
20
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
2,149
Location
San Diego//Tampa//South Park, CO
Vehicles
3.0L JT // Quad CT
Occupation
solar, DCFC & battery biz owner
Country flag
We will be seeing a lot more self propelled trailers. They will be costly, but they will improve range a lot. Really upwards of 250 to 300 miles is a lot to drive without stopping anyway. So, either way, there will soon enough be a solution for EV trucks. Or just save up and get the tesla semi!
A self propelled trailer would be catastrophic in emergency situations. What does make sense is a trailer that stores energy via regen instead of only relying on friction brakes. Then you have stored energy for camping or recharging XYZ truck batteries.
 

anionic1

Well-known member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Threads
29
Messages
1,666
Reaction score
2,011
Location
California
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
Estimator
Country flag
A self propelled trailer would be catastrophic in emergency situations. What does make sense is a trailer that stores energy via regen instead of only relying on friction brakes. Then you have stored energy for camping or recharging XYZ truck batteries.
No it wouldn't. The trailer would be programmed to accelerate when the accelerator is pressed, coast when coasting and brake when braking. A couple companies are already coming out with these. If the trailer has momentum whether it created it by itself or if the momentum was created by the tow vehicle it would have the same amount of momentum in an emergency situation.
Sponsored

 
 





Top