I have no idea why people even thing about publishing charging to 100% numbers. Even worse someone charging at a Supercharger to 100%
The model X is quite a bit more efficient
Hereās where we remind about the paradoxical effects of towing using an aerodynamic vehicle
Thatās why itās been expected that the CT, being significantly more aerodynamic that the Lightning, would with the identical trailer experience a greater hit to towing range than a Lightning.
- The CT arrives at a headline range similar to the F150 Lightning ER, despite the CT having a pack size ~8kWh smaller, in part in virtue of the CT being more aerodynamic
- the less aerodynamic F150 busts up the air before it hits the trailer, thereby minimizing the aerodynamic impact of the trailer
- the more aerodynamic CT busts up less of the air before it hits the same trailer, causing the CT to realize more of the added drag of the trailer
- on top of all that, there is a packaging difference between the CT and F150 that will also negatively effect the CT towing range compared to the Lightning - in that the CT is materially shorter, which means an identical trailer load will stick up higher into the airstream than a Lightning (which will have more of the trailer ātucked inā behind it)
This is the point in the post where someone says āwe canāt say what Lightning would do in identical circumstances.ā Depending on what one means by āidentical,ā I suppose we canāt, strictly speaking.
But here we have some very detail-oriented testers using a Lighting to also conduct a towing test using a car hauler with a Tesla on back.
They towed a Model 3, on apparently a larger/heavier trailer (combined towing weight of 7K lb), and did both blended city/hwy and full hwy tests, both with and without the trailer, and these are their results:
In the highway test most comparable to the CT in this thread, the EV-Pulse guys got out of the Lightning ER 1.4mi/kWh and 183mi, compared to the CTās 115mi.
This comparison in terms of headline starting range is pretty uniquely paired, in that the AWD FS has a headline range of 318mi while the Lightning ER Lariat has a nearly identical headline of 320mi.
Now, the tests also have some important differences. The test in the OP post was conducted at 61Ā° while the Lightning test was conducted at 90Ā° - and that 29Ā° temp differential will have a non-trivial impact on the lower range shown by the CT.
And, while the Lightning load is purportedly heavier by ~1,000lbs compared to the OP test, aero of the trailer package is by far the major factor in drag. And, the EV-Pulse guys were pulling a hauler with a model 3, while the OP test appears to be the same hauler but with a model X?
At which point I express some uncertainty about the weight of the trailer in the OP test. The heaviest model 3 is 4000lb while the lightest Model X is 5,100lb. If that is an identical trailer, Iām not sure yet about the OP to weight (the EV-guys seem pretty fastidious) and sounds like more details are forthcoming.
Regardless, aero is still the predominant variable in drag effects on towing. If that is a Model X, the drag by towing is sure to have been larger by a non-trivial amount in the OP test.
Further working against the CT,
So, working against the CT in this test is
(1) CTās greater aerodynamics compared to the F150L (which is a general āagainstā in terms of expected range generally)(2) CTās lower ride height creates further aerodynamic costs when towing compared to the F150L (which is another general āagainstā in terms of expected range generally)(3) the CT was towing in 29Ā° cooler temperatures which will have a non-trivial negative impact on towing range (which is a test-specific āagainstā these specific test outcomes) and(4) the CT was towing a slightly less aerodynamic Model X (which is a test-specific āagainstā these specific test outcomes)
Notice that all 4 of these āagainstsā cross-amplify one-another. The two inherent āagainstsā (CT being more aerodynamic, and lower to the ground relative to a given trailer), mean that the two test-specific āagainstsā will have an even greater negative impact (the air being colder and the MX being larger, means that the CTās aero/height was working that much more against it).
What that all means, is that the CTās test result of 115mi, and the Lightnings results of 183mi, demonstrates a mixed outcome.
On one hand, the CT test conditions were expected to have a disproportionate impact compared to the Lightning, even if all else was equal.
On the other hand, even if all else was equal, the CT aerodynamics and height would be expected to mean the CT will inherently tow less than a Lightning given identical trailers - and so the range difference isnāt merely the difference in test conditions, itās also amplified by the CTās proclivity for being *more* subject to towing range effects of temps etc. the Lightning.
End of the day, the 115mi/CT vs 183mi/L discrepancy is not super surprising even before we know the relative test conditions. We should expect The CT to have a greater impact from towing that a CT given the identical trailer.
At the same time, the difference seen here is not all inherent to the CT vs Lightning, in that 30Ā° is a big temp differential, made all the more impactful by the X (sticking out over the CT) being larger than the M3 (tucked in behind the F150L).
Regardless, the results are the results. Broadly speaking, is the 115mi vs 183mi what one might (at best) expect to get in the CT at 60Ā° vs 90Ā°?
Weāll have to wait and see! Including the details of this test and its conditions (speed, etc.).
But regardless, if you plan to instead tow a load like like this at 60Ā°, in various mixes of conditions, you might in one of them expect to get something like these test results.
Isnāt that the speed limit for towing?
Think it is fairly typical to do range and performance tests starting at 100% and getting as close to zero as possible to get a better average, but in the real world people usually don't charge to 100 or take their battery to 0.
Lot less weight, but towing with EVs is tricky a lot of times they are more aerodynamically sensitive than weight sensitive, so hopefully you have a nice teardrop style aero friendly trailer
Believe me their was a lot of pissed off and surprised people on the Rivian forum about 18 months ago. Those that have followed EV Trucks and batteries knew this was coming but had slight hope that Tesla truly had some next level engineering.Don't need an excuse - if you are seriously towing, you most likely are not considering an EV today.
If you think/thought this vehicle was going to be some game changer in EV towing before today - you might be a bit delusional.
The beloved Rivian tows about the same, but because it's anand or by Elon, people have to spew FUD.
Bottom line, it's a lifestyle truck with some utility - just like every other EV "truck"
Agree with the EV let down that many experience, but I really think the CT could have been a viable towing candidate if the built in battery pack was another 75kwh larger, giving up vault underbed storage etc and pushing the towing and non-towing range #s closer to the original teaser specs.
Actually most charging tests are done from 20-80%, not 0-100%.
Aren't these the ones that shorted Tesla?
55 the limit for towing, not in most states.
