-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
ALL CyberTruck discussion
- Thread starter Fact Checking
- Start date
PACEMD
Active Member
Maybe the frunk, or maybe somewhere else as yet undisclosed, or maybe nowhere. Shirley on Mars they have spare tires........
Krugerrand
Meow
Now that Tri production date moved up to dual date, I upgraded as did several others on this forum.
Read my lips: Range IS King.
That I will be able to out-drag most everything else on the road is simply a very happy bonus.
And no, I’m not concerned about complexity having a third motor. I’d be concerned about complexity if it came with a gas/diesel engine along with three electric motors.
Model S will come with Tris first. All the wrinkles will be ironed out by the time CYBRTRK arrives.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
They better go airless on Mars. And don't call me Shirley.
An East coast plant might be helpful, with a port and good rail support and maybe with a connection to the Boring Company. Hello Philadelphia.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
I believe they will use the existing under capacity S/X line(s)
I kind of doubt that because the way the S/X is made will be very different from how the Cybertruck will be made. Putting in the seats is about the only point of commonality.
It's not just Cybertruck. We have Roadster, Semi, Cybertruck and ATV.
With Y in Fremont, most likely not there.
Buffalo is all Energy.
Sparks could be put to use.
We also have Lathorp (without paint shop etc) ..could be used for Cybertruck. ... Cheers!!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Several people (both here and in the media) have raised the point that the tug-of-war demonstration Tesla made between the Cybertruck and Ford F150 was not fair. They are absolutely right! It is completely unfair to Ford to do a tug-of-war or any kind of spec comparison between a truck made using century-old technology (Ford) vs a truck made using technology still decades in the future for any company except Tesla 
Build Cybertruck in Texas near Boca Chica for SpaceX. Offer it to Texas legislators in a deal that would allow Tesla to start building dealerships in the state. It’s a huge win win. Texas likes to see it self as the energy producer of the US, now they can bring clean energy in along with the many wind farms already in the state.
Texas has a lot of potential Tesla customers
only issue is...getting batteries to Texas
PACEMD
Active Member
I don't know, I thought the Cybertruck was all battery and no cattle........
Good video, but I believe it’s possible he made a couple of erroneous assumptions
1) His calculated efficiency would be worse than Model X’s because the EPA efficiency includes charging loss.
2) On their website, Tesla compares running costs for their vehicles to competition using a premium fuel price of $2.85 which is accurate for the premium sports sedan/SUV category. However Pickups don’t use premium, so the Youtuber should have presumed Tesla used the regular price of $2.58.
Using this number yields
$130 / $2.58 = 50.39 gallons
50.39 gal. * 19mpg = 957 miles.
My guess would be that number is slightly off and Tesla actually just used 1,000 miles / month as a comparison basis.
$40.00 / $0.13 per kWh = 307 kWh
So the resultant efficiency would be 307 Wh / mile. This would indicate a battery pack size of 76 kWh, or Model 3 LR size almost exactly.
If Tesla is using premium as a basis, then my guess would be that they used an even 10k miles / year or 833 miles / month, rather than his odd number. In this case it is strange
In that case, the efficiency would be:
307,000 Wh / 833 = 368 Wh / mile.
What’s strange is that in either case, they’re using a smaller number of miles than average which actually understates the Cybertruck fuel savings!
Would love an @KarenRei (the efficiency expert) take.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Tesladorian
It's hard to say whether it's safe to assume that the comparison, on a per-month basis, of $130 F-150 gasoline vs. $40 Cybertruck electricity is based on national averages. To be very conservative, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Cybertruck "reveal" stated things more optimistically than Tesla's website. The "worst case" scenario is that the comparison was based on California's high gas prices. Where I live, I see that gasoline at the closest station is $4.099/gallon, but let's use the statewide average of $3.75/gallon as of Nov. 25 (see California Average Weekly Retail Gasoline Prices). With SCE (Southern California Edison), "super off peak" electricity is about $0.13/kWh on a TOU (time of use) residential rate plan.
Plugging in those "pessimistic" California numbers:
$130 / $3.75 = 34.67 gallons
34.67 gallons * 19 mpg = 659 miles
659 miles / 307 kWh (still based on $0.13/kWh) = 0.466 kWh/mile = 466 Wh/mile
300 miles of range * 0.466 kWh/mile = 140 kWh
I don't know what'll be closer to reality, a Cybertruck efficiency number of 466 Wh/mile or 355 Wh/mile. Based on the Cybertruck having a larger frontal area than the Model X and a higher drag coefficient, I am quite convinced (admittedly without doing actual drag calcs) that the Cybertruck won't rate anywhere near 307 Wh/mile; that just seems way over-optimistic. Hopefully it will achieve 355 Wh/mile, or who knows, maybe 375 Wh/mile.
To throw something out there, my guesstimate is that the dual motor Cybertruck will have a 115 kWh pack. That's actually pretty reasonable in terms of pack size and should be something that Tesla can handle, cost-wise, even with only incremental improvements in pack costs.
Plugging in those "pessimistic" California numbers:
$130 / $3.75 = 34.67 gallons
34.67 gallons * 19 mpg = 659 miles
659 miles / 307 kWh (still based on $0.13/kWh) = 0.466 kWh/mile = 466 Wh/mile
300 miles of range * 0.466 kWh/mile = 140 kWh
I don't know what'll be closer to reality, a Cybertruck efficiency number of 466 Wh/mile or 355 Wh/mile. Based on the Cybertruck having a larger frontal area than the Model X and a higher drag coefficient, I am quite convinced (admittedly without doing actual drag calcs) that the Cybertruck won't rate anywhere near 307 Wh/mile; that just seems way over-optimistic. Hopefully it will achieve 355 Wh/mile, or who knows, maybe 375 Wh/mile.
To throw something out there, my guesstimate is that the dual motor Cybertruck will have a 115 kWh pack. That's actually pretty reasonable in terms of pack size and should be something that Tesla can handle, cost-wise, even with only incremental improvements in pack costs.
This is the point of the cyberfactory idea. Cybertruck and cybercars won’t need stamping, paint and many of the other of the major manufacturing steps of pre-cybertruck cars. But it will need special stainless steel rolling and origami folding, metal glass manufacturing etc.
Freemont will be busy with Y. GF1 is labor constrained already with batteries and maybe semi. Tesla is in need of another factory. And making the entire building very cyberpunk seems like something Elon would do. Make it cool to work there!
bhtooefr
Active Member
Out of main:
It is worth noting that FMVSS 111 only requires one outside mirror if the inside mirror can see enough, if the vehicle is 4536 kg (10,000 lbs) GVWR or less.
However, with the tonneau cover, I suspect two mirrors will be required as it will obstruct rearward vision from the interior mirror. And, if it's over 4536 kg, two mirrors are currently required. So, law changes are likely needed.
I don't see any mirrors here:
I'm fully expecting the Trimotor Cybertruck I take deliver of ASAP will have mirrors (and they will look angular and badass) and it will also have appropriate cameras so I can remove the mirrors when they are no longer mandated!
It is worth noting that FMVSS 111 only requires one outside mirror if the inside mirror can see enough, if the vehicle is 4536 kg (10,000 lbs) GVWR or less.
However, with the tonneau cover, I suspect two mirrors will be required as it will obstruct rearward vision from the interior mirror. And, if it's over 4536 kg, two mirrors are currently required. So, law changes are likely needed.
That worst case results in an even more unrealistically low average annual mileage.
Maybe if there’s an error, it’s in his assumption of 19 mpg for the F150. It gets as high as 25 mpg.
I guess there’s enough unknowns, it’s not worth pursuing any more.
Similar threads
