Tesla's Crafty Move? - Carbon Credits, The Extender, GVWR, and Payload

[mhaze]

The numbers are in, and with time to think/drink about it, here's the TLDR:
....

homologate?

That looks like one o'those big words?

Sponsored

 

[Rutrow]

homologate?

That looks like one o'those big words?

The TL,DR for "homologate" is "OK"

 

[RVAC]

you’re correct about how the payload reduces

man’s I think now you’re picking up what I’m setting down, but to be clear

it’s not operational payload that’s at issue, it’s GVWR calc that’s at issue

In the example above, with and without the range extender and/or other accessories, the GVWR would be the same (10k lbs).

yes, but only with BEVs are OEMs navigating both OEM accessories that are 700lbs and carbon credit regs

and only with BEV trucks in particular are they up against weights that get them near being out of material carbon credit $

What I'm saying is a 700 lb accessory wouldn't cause to exceed 10k GVWR for the ZEV credit requirement you mention because it reduces payload by the same amount. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.

 

[Keeney]

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-523

This regulation that classifies vehicles also has a threshold at 6000 lb curb weight.

 

[cvalue13]

In the example above, with and without the range extender and/or other accessories, the GVWR would be the same (10k lbs).



What I'm saying is a 700 lb accessory wouldn't cause to exceed 10k GVWR for the ZEV credit requirement you mention because it reduces payload by the same amount. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.

I don’t think that’s how GVWR works, from the perspective I’m describing

because the perspective I’m describing assumes (perhaps incorrectly, but)that Tesla is not going to release a truck with an advertised payload max of eg 1,600lb (and a tongue weight max of 1,1000)

THIS is where I assume that what the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away

If you want to advertise an impressive payload stat, AND an impressive towing stat, AND an impressive range stat, AND impressive safety stats, AND still be below a class 3 designation - something has to give.

in 2019, I think the hope was to build the truck structurally in a way that the weight savings came from the structural design.

but for one reason or another, that plan didn’t work out.

So on my pet theory, what gave was reducing the weight of the truck for regulatory purposes (by both the pack size weight and associated structural weight savings from not having to engineer around the pack weight, including crash safety), and the stated payload, with the maneuver of getting back the range loss on the back end with this extender pack (that they price at $16K so not too many people demand it and cause a rehomologation)

And again, emphasizing, this extender may not be the only heavy accessory that will be offered - it’s just the one we’ve seen so far.

Folks who were dead set on 450+ miles now say, “Tesla would never sacrifice range for these other stats,” but I just don’t agree. Generally on range Tesla has philosophically changed since 2019. And for the few die-hard, the extender is a real (if expensive) fix, meanwhile letting Teela say with a straight face “offering up to ~450mi” (while, as is corporate custom, glossing over the associated issues with that solution in terms of lost bed volume, etc.)

 

[PilotPete]

Question is if the improved turning radius is worth the extra cost? GM tried rear steer in pickups and it didn't sell well.

The article below tries to explain why the Quadra-steer Chevy's in 2000 didn't sell well and the consensus seems to be that the $5,600 option price on a truck priced in the $20,000 range was it's Achilles heel. For me, the improved stability from in-phase RWS while towing that makes the expense worth it to me.

Exactly

And that $5,600 option price was in year 2003 dollars NOT 2023/2024 dollars.
$5,600 was worth a lot more in year 2003 than today (2023/2024).

Let's look at this a little more objectively. First off, nobody here has ANY knowledge of the cost differential between SbW and mechanical. So to say "...worth the extra cost" is a huge assumption that may not be correct. SbW allows 4WS MUCH cheaper than a mechanical solution. So when you add the cost of RWS motors to the REDUCTION in cost and engineering to make one of these bad mamajamas RHD, and the probable increase in manufacturing efficiencies, reduced parts and weight, possible better inclusion into AP and FSD, we might be looking closer to a break even or maybe a cost benefit to the switchover. I've seen the linkage Porsche used when they tried 4WS. Holy cow was that a hot mess.

Some things are really expensive to convert, but when you design it into the initial concept, it ain't that bad.

 

[Rutrow]

Let's look at this a little more objectively. First off, nobody here has ANY knowledge of the cost differential between SbW and mechanical. So to say "...worth the extra cost" is a huge assumption that may not be correct. SbW allows 4WS MUCH cheaper than a mechanical solution. So when you add the cost of RWS motors to the REDUCTION in cost and engineering to make one of these bad mamajamas RHD, and the probable increase in manufacturing efficiencies, reduced parts and weight, possible better inclusion into AP and FSD, we might be looking closer to a break even or maybe a cost benefit to the switchover. I've seen the linkage Porsche used when they tried 4WS. Holy cow was that a hot mess.

Some things are really expensive to convert, but when you design it into the initial concept, it ain't that bad.

The GM Quadrasteer system was a steer by wire set up. The rack was electrically driven, and could be turned on/off with the flip of a switch on the dash. It was HUGHLY expensive but was probably MUCH more expensive than it should have been, because GM dropped the price to $2000... then further to $1000 before it was abandoned. GM was likely price gouging with it. It was an option that was bundled with a bunch of other unrelated options because you had to opt up to higher trim levels to unlock the option. Had they offered it at a reasonable margin and at trim levels chosen by its best target buyers (trailer users and fleet customers) it probably would have succeeded decades ago. GM saw it as a flashy option their top trim buyers would shell out for, but they weren't the ones who needed it most.

 

[Sirfun]

Let's look at this a little more objectively. First off, nobody here has ANY knowledge of the cost differential between SbW and mechanical. So to say "...worth the extra cost" is a huge assumption that may not be correct. SbW allows 4WS MUCH cheaper than a mechanical solution. So when you add the cost of RWS motors to the REDUCTION in cost and engineering to make one of these bad mamajamas RHD, and the probable increase in manufacturing efficiencies, reduced parts and weight, possible better inclusion into AP and FSD, we might be looking closer to a break even or maybe a cost benefit to the switchover. I've seen the linkage Porsche used when they tried 4WS. Holy cow was that a hot mess.

Some things are really expensive to convert, but when you design it into the initial concept, it ain't that bad.

Interesting, and thought-provoking response. I saw that the Cybertruck has 3 electric motors for SbY, totaling around 5 hp. And without 48v architecture probably wouldn't have happened. being adaptable for RHD is very helpful. When I read this response, I wondered about how FSD or Autopilot would turn the steering wheel, mimicking movements to the steering. I guess Tesla would have to add another motor to the steering wheel. Otherwise, it could be really strange sitting behind a wheel that's stationary as the vehicle drives itself down the road.

 

[PilotPete]

The GM Quadrasteer system was a steer by wire set up. The rack was electrically driven, and could be turned on/off with the flip of a switch on the dash. It was HUGHLY expensive but was probably MUCH more expensive than it should have been, because GM dropped the price to $2000... then further to $1000 before it was abandoned. GM was likely price gouging with it. It was an option that was bundled with a bunch of other unrelated options because you had to opt up to higher trim levels to unlock the option. Had they offered it at a reasonable margin and at trim levels chosen by its best target buyers (trailer users and fleet customers) it probably would have succeeded decades ago. GM saw it as a flashy option their top trim buyers would shell out for, but they weren't the ones who needed it most.

Ok, cool. I never saw it there.

I think another advantage Tesla has is in the software and hardware on the automation side. They write their own software, design their own hardware, and have some pretty good experience at controlling a vehicle with software. I think this all makes SbW a much better deal for Tesla.

 

[Keeney]

Let's look at this a little more objectively. First off, nobody here has ANY knowledge of the cost differential between SbW and mechanical. So to say "...worth the extra cost" is a huge assumption that may not be correct. SbW allows 4WS MUCH cheaper than a mechanical solution. So when you add the cost of RWS motors to the REDUCTION in cost and engineering to make one of these bad mamajamas RHD, and the probable increase in manufacturing efficiencies, reduced parts and weight, possible better inclusion into AP and FSD, we might be looking closer to a break even or maybe a cost benefit to the switchover. I've seen the linkage Porsche used when they tried 4WS. Holy cow was that a hot mess.

Some things are really expensive to convert, but when you design it into the initial concept, it ain't that bad.

Modern power steering in many vehicles has been electric motor driven for a while now. Those steering assemblies are made by the millions, already.
https://www.todaysoftmag.com/article/3539/electric-power-steering-systems-the-now-and-the-future

 

[PilotPete]

Modern power steering in many vehicles has been electric motor driven for a while now. Those steering assemblies are made by the millions, already.
https://www.todaysoftmag.com/article/3539/electric-power-steering-systems-the-now-and-the-future

Those are power assist systems. This is well beyond that.

On a related note, look at the Boeing 787. Rather than use high pressure bleed air from the engines, and rather than have hydraulic pumps driven by the engines, they increased the generator size and are driving everything electrically. Makes the engines more efficient and the plane is improved in quite a few ways. There can be countless benefits to not doing it the way it has always been done.

 

[scottf200]

Otherwise, it could be really strange sitting behind a wheel that's stationary as the vehicle drives itself down the road.

I 100% use that steering wheel input "feel" when on AP/FSD.

Example: I'm driving straight down the road on FSD with a hand on the steering wheel ... I look down at the screen to pick a different audio channel ... hand feels the steering wheel move suddenly (or at all) and my brain realizes something is off even if I'm not looking forward yet. I react quickly ... even tho I'm on AP/FSD.

 

[FarAway]

Interestingly, weight and load capabilities also have a parallel in the aviation industry. Say, Boeing designs and builds an aircraft that structurally has a max designed gross landing weight of 300 thousand pounds. The jet would be certified by the FAA as such.

As a carrier I may only ever need to operate an airplane at a max landing weight of 250 thousand pounds. Boeing will sell me the aircraft with the reduced max landing weight for less money. EVEN though the jet IS physically no different than the 300,000-pound model, it can now only "legally" land at a max certificated weight of 250,000-pounds. Runways are designed for the weight and size of aircraft using them and airports charge operators based on an airplane's max certificated gross weight (not the max design weight). This will save landing fees and may save the carrier even more money in inspections, wear and tear, and ongoing maintenance.

AS with most things in life, follow the buck $$$$. Depending on the state, a heavier vehicle costs the owner more in license plates or road use fees, any property or business taxes and insurance. Heavier vehicles do more damage to the highways they use and are charged more. The Class of the vehicle matters.

NOT TO BURY THE LEAD, BUT.....
I believe something very similar is happening to the Cybertruck. It may well not only be capable of handling much higher GVWR and GCWR, but actually IS designed for such, even though, for a plethora of reasons, only certified as it is. MOST likely the reasons are all $$$$ related. BTW, this is not cheating or deceiving anyone, simply good business practice. Also, we as consumers get a better vehicle for less money.

•Empty Weight (EW) — means the empty weight of the vehicle.
• Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) — is assigned by the manufacturer. It is the total weight of the vehicle passengers, optional components and cargo that the vehicle is designed to carry.
• Gross Weight (GW) and Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR)—indicate the combined maximum load weight (vehicle, passengers, cargo and towed trailer) that the vehicle is designed to tow.

 

[JBee]

I don't know how much of an impact that made to the car.

Based on the EPA data, the CT has a 122.4 kWh battery pack that weighs 1,587lb (720kg). This gives then a 170 Wh/kg density. So where does this rate? There was a post on X (the app firmly known as twitter) that gave the following list;

Pack level energy density (Higher number is more bueno)
-187Wh/kg - Model S/X 18650 cells
-170Wh/kg - CyberTruck with 4680 Cybercells
-169Wh/kg Rivian R1T Large Pack 2170 cells
-165Wh/kg Model 3/Y LR 2170 cells
-126Wh/kg Model 3 SR LFP cells

Another 10% increase and they tie the top of the heap. That would still only bring the CT to 374 miles. To get to 500 miles in the dual, you would need 179kWh in the pack. Assuming they can't add more cells, you'd need almost 250Wh/kg density to make that range.

And, based on the pack weight per mile, the range extender batteries would weigh 317 lbs for the power. The structure to house it and case and cables are extra.

I meant the combination of those things made the difference, not "just" the pack. They should just go back to 18650...could of saved them a lot of hassle then huh?

 

[cvalue13]

NOT TO BURY THE LEAD, BUT.....
I believe something very similar is happening to the Cybertruck. It may well not only be capable of handling much higher GVWR and GCWR, but actually IS designed for such, even though, for a plethora of reasons, only certified as it is. MOST likely the reasons are all $$$$ related. BTW, this is not cheating or deceiving anyone, simply good business practice. Also, we as consumers get a better vehicle for less money.

I wouldn’t be surprised that the CT is capable of greater payload proper

I WOULD be very surprised if the Cybertruck is capable of higher tongue max and towing weights, however, because presumably Tesla certified these by SAJ2806, which would be a little odd to ‘game’.

That said, a combined scenario could I guess be possible, though for me personally would not result in exhuberance but instead a more jaundiced view of Tesla:

*if* Tesla wanted to best obscure an unstated payload, I suppose it’s possible they asked/submitted to SAE only to test up to 11K lb.

This seems a little less likely to me, insofar as cooling and braking and other parameters come into play, beyond weight-load capacity.

But if instead Tesla built for more towing capacity, and - like when Tesla is software-limiting pack availability - plans to stage model advancements in the future by merely “unveiling” a higher towing rating, that would be for me a bit offensive. At a corporate level, I wouldn’t blame them, but on a consumer level it would go in the “con” bucket.

Sponsored