What's a deal-breaker for you?

[uscbucsfan]

The only practical difference is that with ICE you’re always close enough to a quick refuel.

ICE vehicles also have the ability for more capacity. That's why these range tests in the R1T and Lightning are so polarizing when a 6,000lb boat (7,000 with trailer) can only be towed 58 miles with a Lightning, but the same boat was previously towed over 200 miles with a gas F150...or the side by side camper towing test.

Yes, it cost more to fill up, it's bad for the environment, and inefficient, but many care about how far they can tow without refueling/recharging.

To some 58 miles on a full charge isn't enough while towing a boat...others may not care about the range at all.

The Lightning just doesn't have enough distance for me to completely ditch an ICE truck. There is no where to charge from my house to the lake I use. It's easy math...with an F150 Lightning I couldn't go there and back with my boat without a charge...There's a long list of ICE trucks that allow me to do it multiple times on a single tank of fuel.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

ICE vehicles also have the ability for more capacity. That's why these range tests in the R1T and Lightning are so polarizing when a 6,000lb boat (7,000 with trailer) can only be towed 58 miles with a Lightning, but the same boat was previously towed over 200 miles with a gas F150...or the side by side camper towing test.

Yes, it cost more to fill up, it's bad for the environment, and inefficient, but many care about how far they can tow without refueling/recharging.

To some 58 miles on a full charge isn't enough while towing a boat...others may not care about the range at all.

The Lightning just doesn't have enough distance for me to completely ditch an ICE truck. There is no where to charge from my house to the lake I use. It's easy math...with an F150 Lightning I couldn't go there and back with my boat without a charge...There's a long list of ICE trucks that allow me to do it multiple times on a single tank of fuel.

you’re seriously citing anecdotal posts from an unknown owner in an online forum?

that sort of regurgitating anecdotal YouTube FUD generates content such as this:




At least look at even moderately reasonable tests, that ultimately show that you’re going to get ranges that dramatically low by towing a wall at 70+mph:

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/ford-f150-lightning-electric-truck-towing-test/amp/

 

[uscbucsfan]

you’re seriously citing anecdotal posts from an unknown owner in an online forum?

At this point there's a ton of test that show this in real life like The Fast Lane Truck side-by-side test. MotorTrend had similar results at 90 miles.

Then there are maybe 10 or 15 other, anecdotal, examples on the Lightning forum where the range just isn't enough.

Trying to play the whole; towing is the same in ICE or EV is disingenuous at best. There are a long list of trucks that could go a 6,000lb or boat camper 350+ miles easily...getting half of that is a challenge with any EV on the market and none of us believe that Tesla will be loading the CT with a 200+ kwh pack.

If the CT comes out and only has 400 miles of EPA range, which we all know how Tesla inflates their range compared to Ford and others....you'll have maybe 320 miles (or worse) in real world range. It's reasonable to consider that inadequate.

 

[cvalue13]

At this point there's a ton of test that show this in real life like The Fast Lane Truck side-by-side test. MotorTrend had similar results at 90 miles.

go study the parameters of those test, and they do nothing but confirm and amplify everything I’ve said.

 

[uscbucsfan]

go study the parameters of those test, and they do nothing but confirm and amplify everything I’ve said.

I have.

That's the point. As Tesla cannot change physics, I need the CT to have more range than the Lightning to satisfy my towing requirements. I'm not asking for 500 miles at 7,500lbs like someone else said earlier, but I do need 150-200 miles.

As I said earlier, capacity is a big factor.

That YT video is pretty bad. They made the boat into a bass boat and cut the miles in half and then called the truck dead.

 

[Arctic_White]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Wall Street places absolutely zero value on FSD.

I guess we will find out within a few years (or at most, a decade), won't we?

 

[HaulingAss]

kind of revenues solving autonomy FSD is most definitely NOT priced into TSLA, I don't think a single Wall Street analyst includes the kind of revenues solving autonomy will bring.

The current high P/E multiple of TSLA is due to the kind of margins Tesla can generate from car sales, even though their two newest factories are not anywhere near fully ramped. Tesla could forget about the Cybertruck, the Cybervan and the smaller world car while continuing to ramp Model 3 and Model Y and, with those two models alone, could go from less than 4% market share to somewhere around 25% market share, or more, based on how cost effective these two models are to purchase and own. That's a reflection of how efficiently Tesla can manufacture and distribute autos relative to the rest. This alone can justify the current valuation of TSLA.

The energy storage battery business has huge earnings potential and will add billions to earnings. Cybertruck will end the F-150's best selling designation that it's had for 46 consecutive years by 2025 (if not late next year). Cybertruck will not outsell the F-150 by then, but it will disrupt the entire automotive market in ways that will surprise auto analysts. These earnings are not built into the stock price since most auto analysts are under the mistaken assumption that Cybertruck will be a niche product. Cybervan/Cyber SUV will follow. These vehicles will have industry leading margins, even higher than Tesla's current passenger cars.

Current share price does not reflect the development of affordable humanoid robots which will be hitting the market in this decade. Wall Street does not model earnings from any of these things while real investors, who want to see their unneeded capital grow, will start to value these things with increasing visibility. Time is the magic ingredient. Tesla demands excellence from their employees who know they will be handsomely rewarded, not only by a sense of satisfaction by being part of something that is bigger and more important to humanity than themselves, but also by the relentless increase in the value of the company stock options that every Tesla employee is granted. Other companies are literally incapable of turning their bloated and short-sighted companies around in a manner that will allow them to compete effectively against Tesla. It comes down to their poor performance when it comes to being able to bring value to the consumer. They waste consumer's money on big advertising spends that are meaningless too, in addition to all their internal corporate inefficiencies. The gap is still widening, not shrinking as the media likes to pretend, the media is actively protecting their revenue since legacy auto still sends them billions of dollars to pimp their over-priced and un-refined wares.

Buying TSLA stock, and holding for the next ten years, is just about the lowest risk/highest reward way you can 10X your unneeded capital in that timeframe. Sure, there are other stocks that will 10X (and more) in the same timeframe, but good luck identifying them. If things go on the better side of well, TSLA could 20X or more in that timeframe. The chances of TSLA stock crashing and burning, or stagnating for 10 years, is pretty damn low due to the importance to humanity of their mission and the dedication of the brilliant people who chose to carry it out. Very few methods of supporting your family are as rewarding as working for an efficient and innovative company dedicated to solving some of the planets most pressing problems. It makes it essentially impossible for legacy companies to compete with this kind of focused efficiency. This is what has been driving Tesla's success and will continue to drive it as we enter into a world increasingly driven by AI and the efficiencies of massive scale. Humanity cannot continue to grow and thrive without it and consumers will always search out the products that bring the most value, at the lowest cost, to their families. For the vast numbers of earth's billions of inhabitants, there is not the luxury of wasting money on products pimped by wasteful and bloated companies who innovate at a snail's pace and the planet cannot wait that long anyway.

 

[HaulingAss]

If the CT comes out and only has 400 miles of EPA range, which we all know how Tesla inflates their range compared to Ford and others....you'll have maybe 320 miles (or worse) in real world range. It's reasonable to consider that inadequate.

No, we don't all know how Tesla inflates their range relative to Ford and others. They all have to follow the same EPA rules and run well-defined drive cycles. The fact that most people drive less efficiently and at higher speeds than the EPA drive cycles is why gas and electric vehicles ussually do not return the same numbers you see on the window stickers.

If you think Tesla is worse than the rest, it's only because you believe all the detractors who try to pretend that a Mach-e can compete with a Model Y or that an electric truck cannot replace the family's gasoline truck. These tests are often biased against Tesla or for extra YouTube drama. Do you really think a test showing that a Lightning cannot tow a 7K lbs. boat 60 miles is fair and un-biased? If so, you are more gullible than any human would want to admit.

 

[cvalue13]

I have.

Then maybe instead it’s A misunderstanding, but…

I'm not asking for 500 miles at 7,500lbs like someone else said earlier, but I do need 150-200 miles.

Similarly, you didn’t understand the post you were replying to: they were saying they needed the stated range to be 500 miles, in order to have any comfort they can tow their desired distance that is some fraction of the stated 500

As I said earlier, capacity is a big factor.

Yes, and put that in its proper context

•EPA max range are a combo of city and highway, and those combos reduce down to an average speed of roughly 45mph

• instead go tow 7,500lb at 45mph and tell me your range compared to EPA stated max

• many Lightning “tests” (like the motor tend) utilize the Lightning Platinum trim, state it has the ER battery (true) but under address the fact that even at the EPA avg 45mi/hr, the added weight of the truck rim size of the platinum reduces its range by 10% compared to the Lariat - while at 70mph the logarithmic increase in inefficiency could be as much as 20%+

• now go tow with standard rim/tire package at 45mph and tell me your range compared to EPA max​

OR, go use a Platinum to tow at 75mph, when it’s 20 degrees outside, dry air, uphill, and a headwind - and when you say “I only got 58 miles” and my response will be “no sh*t”

Or just the same, come to the forum and post that “the lightning can only tow 6Klb for 60 miles,” and I’ll say “no sh*t”

Then in contrast I can point you to any number of people who understand towing with an EV. For example. this guy, who, using an even a Platinum, and towing a 23ft 7Klb airstream, comfortably got 150 miles of range … exactly half the EPA max stated, as should be expected

 

[uscbucsfan]

No, we don't all know how Tesla inflates their range relative to Ford and others. They all have to follow the same EPA rules and run well-defined drive cycles. The fact that most people drive less efficiently and at higher speeds than the EPA drive cycles is why gas and electric vehicles ussually do not return the same numbers you see on the window stickers.

If you think Tesla is worse than the rest, it's only because you believe all the detractors who try to pretend that a Mach-e can compete with a Model Y or that an electric truck cannot replace the family's gasoline truck. These tests are often biased against Tesla or for extra YouTube drama. Do you really think a test showing that a Lightning cannot tow a 7K lbs. boat 60 miles is fair and un-biased? If so, you are more gullible than any human would want to admit.

No. Tesla and Audi use a different method for EPA than others such as Ford. This has been commonly reported. It's not a lie as it's within the guidelines, but this method which gives them more favorable EPA range and why they typically fall further behind, even if they have more total range, in real world testing.

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/

Here's the pertinent information.

The default adjustment factor reduces the window-sticker range by 30 percent. So a car that achieves 300 miles of range during the city-cycle dynamometer test ends up with a 210-mile city rating. However, the EPA allows automakers the option to run three additional drive cycles and use those results to earn a more favorable adjustment factor. Currently, only Tesla and Audi employ this strategy for their EVs, and Tesla scores the most advantageous results, with adjustments that range from 29.5 percent on the Model 3 Standard Range Plus to 24.4 percent on the Model Y Performance. If Tesla had used the standard adjustment factor of 30 percent, the Model Y Performance's window-sticker range would drop to 292 miles. But because Tesla takes advantage of the EPA's alternate methodology, the company can instead claim a 315-mile range.

 

[uscbucsfan]

Similarly, you didn’t understand the post you were replying to: they were saying they needed the stated range to be 500 miles, in order to have any comfort they can tow their desired distance that is some fraction of the stated 500

I even said IF that's what they mean.

Yes, and put that in its proper context

•EPA max range are a combo of city and highway, and those combos reduce down to an average speed of roughly 45mph

• instead go tow 7,500lb at 45mph and tell me your range compared to EPA stated max

• many Lightning “tests” (like the motor tend) utilize the Lightning Platinum trim, state it has the ER battery (true) but under address the fact that even at the EPA avg 45mi/hr, the added weight of the truck rim size of the platinum reduces its range by 10% compared to the Lariat - while at 70mph the logarithmic increase in inefficiency could be as much as 20%+

​

• now go tow with standard rim/tire package at 45mph and tell me your range compared to EPA max​

OR, go use a Platinum to tow at 75mph, when it’s 20 degrees outside, dry air, uphill, and a headwind - and when you say “I only got 58 miles” and my response will be “no sh*t”

Or just the same, come to the forum and post that “the lightning can only tow 6Klb for 60 miles,” and I’ll say “no sh*t”

Then in contrast I can point you to any number of people who understand towing with an EV. For example. this guy, who, using an even a Platinum, and towing a 23ft 7Klb airstream, comfortably got 150 miles of range … exactly half the EPA max stated, as should be expected

For the TFL test. It wasn't a Platinum, 70 degrees, there was a slight cross wind, and they were comparing it to a v8 GMC.

The reason I want 400+ EPA miles is because in real world scenario, which is typically over 70 mph you have such a detrimental hit to range. With EVs, speed/drag kills.

I'm not going under 70 mph towing with my F150 and I get 300+ miles towing my 6,500lb boat. I averaged 10 mpg and had a 36 gallon tank. I'm not expecting that in an EV because it's not possible without a ridiculous battery size.

My Model Y rarely gets 200 miles on interstate speeds. My Model S is MUCH more efficient on the interstate and doesn't have the same % hit in range. The CT will have a worse drag coefficient than the MY and will suffer similar results. So higher (400-500) range is required because of that hit and towing.

 

[cvalue13]

With EVs, speed/drag kills.

You’re still not getting in, my guy.

EV’s are not materially different from ICE vehicles in any of these respects.

You want to do things here like compare an ICE f150 with a 36 gal tank to a BEV f150 with a 116kw battery pack, and then conclude: “see, battery powered vehicles have a problem”

That’s as meaningful as comparing an ICE F150 with a 36 gallon tank to an F150 with a 26 gallon tank, and thinking you’re saying something interesting.

Yes, take a modern F150 and all its advances, with the largest fuel tank available, and you’re going to get a longer range. But even with a modern F150 you’re still going to also get a ~50% reduction in available range if you tow 6klb at 70+mph

Do the same in an F150 Lightning under same conditions, and you’re going to also get a ~50% reduction in available range.

There’s no “code to crack” here. The “tanks” of BEV trucks aren’t as big yet as the biggest “tanks” on ICE vehicles. That’s uninteresting and obvious. The “gas stations” for BEV trucks aren’t as frequent, reliable, fast-to-fill as with ICE vehicles. That’s uninteresting and obvious.

Try this instead to make the point:

• Take a 2022 platinum BEV Lightning with an EPA max range @45mph average speed to be 300 max range … that’s the equivalent of an ICE F150 with a ~13.6 gallon fuel tank
• Drive that platinum, without towing, not at 45mph but instead 75mph continuously, and your max available BEV range is now ~200mi
• add a 6,000 tow at 75mph, and your max range is now ~100mi, or ~50% range reduction

Now go back to the a post from the guy you were originally responding to:

The effects of speed/drag to not materially effect BEV’s any differently than even modern ICE.

Try going back to the max tow range of a 1981 Chevy Silverado with a 16gal fuel tank and traveling 70mph with a 6K tow, and then tell me how people towed back then. The answer is: station to station, and slowly.

BEV’s have small “tanks” and little refueling infrastructure.

Knowing that, anyone who decides to buy a BEV to tow at 70mph in non-ideal conditions does not have a problem with some special nature of a BEV vs ICE, they have a problem with their “fuel tank” and infrastructure.

And people complaining about it should be laughed at in the same way we’d laugh at someone inn F150 with a 13 gallon fuel tanks saying “I can’t figure out why I can only tow 100miles at 75mph in 20° weather!”

 

[HaulingAss]

No. Tesla and Audi use a different method for EPA than others such as Ford. This has been commonly reported. It's not a lie as it's within the guidelines, but this method which gives them more favorable EPA range and why they typically fall further behind, even if they have more total range, in real world testing.

https://www.caranddriver.com/featur...-factor-tesla-uses-for-big-epa-range-numbers/

Here's the pertinent information.

I'm aware of the EPA testing rules. but it's not Tesla "inflating" their range, they are following the prescribed EPA test procedures and can't help it if some of the others decide they won't sell enough cars to justify more thorough testing. We have two Model 3 Long-Range that will get their EPA rating of 310 miles at a steady cruising speed of 60 mph during calm winds and moderate temperatures. The Mach-e cannot. When I see YouTube tests that put Tesla's range in a poor light, it appears they have a point to prove. The test can be easily thrown by setting less ideal tire pressures, by keeping the fog lights illuminated, subtly varying speed so the car is going into periodic regen, not gradually coasting down to stops, setting the climate control to less efficient settings, etc. There are many ways to rig those YouTube tests to insure your favorite pony wins.

There is EPA range and there is real world highway range. Tesla's are particularly good at real world highway range, all the unscientific YouTube noise to the contrary.

 

[Crissa]

ICE vehicles also have the ability for more capacity. That's why these range tests in the R1T and Lightning are so polarizing when a 6,000lb boat (7,000 with trailer) can only be towed 58 miles with a Lightning, but the same boat was previously towed over 200 miles with a gas F150...or the side by side camper towing test.

Who drives two hundred miles without stopping? That's like, three hours. That's really pushing the bladder. And while there's a few lakes a hundred miles from somewhere, there's not alot of them. Get enough of these trucks rolling around and there'll be Level 2 charging for the trucks waiting for their boats to come back.

And how do you 'more capacity'? You have to stop and refuel, or you buy the one with extra-big tanks in the beginning. The vast majority don't have those tanks.

So why does this keep coming up? Honestly.

-Crissa

 

[Deleted member 12457]

Who drives two hundred miles without stopping? That's like, three hours. That's really pushing the bladder. ....

-Crissa

I've driven >200 miles without stopping many times, especially when driving up/down I-5 between WA and CA. Start before dawn to get through Seattle before commute traffic and not stop until I'm well past Portland before I fill up with gas. In my younger old age, I left Modesto at 3:30am, got to just past Tacoma, WA, before hitting commute traffic (3:30pm). Took 4 hrs to get the last 100 miles to Anacortes. That trip was almost 900 miles, all in one stupid day. I stopped for gas twice in my Corolla. I'm sure I'm not the only crazy person to put that kind of mileage on my body.

Sponsored