We probably all heard the awful towing drivetrain noises but the noise seems to be present in almost all scenarios - even slight acceleration and deceleration.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Cybertruck is a scam.
- Thread starter Zybane
- Start date
ArchHamster
Member
I thought this was a very fair review of the cybertruck, even though some of the 'tests' were 'borrowed' from other youtube channels.
TLDW for the video: Throttle House describes the Cybertruck as an overengineered "flex machine" that breaks norms but falls short in traditional truck areas like towing range, pricing, and visibility. Its interior feels underwhelming for its price, yet the steer-by-wire system impressively lightens the vehicle's perceived weight, likening the driving experience to that of a sports car. Despite concerns, the Cybertruck achieved a decent downhill range test result of 290 miles against a rated 320 miles, without notable charging issues.
I feel like the reviews are converging on the cybertruck being a whole foods grocery runner and infrequent short range towing vehicle. For those who are buying it purely for the unique exterior, maybe that's all it needs to be to make them happy? For me, to justify the rattles, lack of noise isolation, definitely the missing features, this thing needs to come down significantly in price. I'd say in the 60-70k range or it needs an interior redesign to not just match the model X, but to go above it. Who knows, maybe we'll get a refreshed interior in a few years if they find they can't hit that 60k target. Tesla's future updates and model iterations will likely determine my purchasing decision when it comes to the Cybertruck.
Last edited:
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
Did anyone actually read the Rivian patent? It's pretty vague and I have zero concerns that Tesla can create a unique range extender without violating Rivian's patent.
GoldCountryCA
M3LR wh/bl/18”
I do not road trip the Tesla. The first year I got the car I was doing a 350 mile (each way) drive 2-4 times a month for work. I figure that’s pretty atypical, as most drive to their office and back 5 days a week.
But no, I never road trip the Tesla for pleasure. I have other vehicles I prefer for that. By the time the dogs, a long weekend worth of gear and the bikes are loaded, it’s just too small and inconvenient.
Nowadays, I only commute to the office 2x per week. However, everywhere I go is a mini road trip due to my rural home address. Driving into town is a 100 mile round trip.
Now, 75%+ of my charging is done at the office because it’s free. PG&E is $.27/kWh off peak at home, so I avoid that as much as possible. If I exclusively charged at home, total cost of ownership/per mile driven would be more than a similarly equipped hybrid.
GoldCountryCA
M3LR wh/bl/18”
Yeah, but who cares? If the cost of maintenance is too much for you to afford, then the vehicle is a bad purchase. A 911 and a Model 3 are apples and oranges almost across the board. Yes they both have four rolly round things at the corners…
However, if we are making decisions strictly on the basis of economics, you should buy a used Camry hybrid or Prius for commuting.
Leeclanual
Member
My post was in response to someone saying Tesla mx was more expensive than on ICE vehicles… Just saying mx on the Tesla is pretty much non-existent in comparison refuting what that person posted. I don’t have a problem paying for mx on my Porsches as they require more TLC annually.
lowtek
Active Member
Dear Troll, this was never a thing. The truck won't fit under your bridge anyway, not sure why you're still here.
I have similar observations. A couple of years ago the cost of road tripping using pay-per-use Tesla chargers was about the equivalent of driving a 30 MPG car; not unreasonable but not economical by comparison to a Prius. Still, not bad.
More recently, gas cars have gotten more economical with small SUVs like the Escape readily achieving MPG in the mid to high 40's. At the same time, kWh charges at super chargers have risen from .25 to over .57 in high demand locations such as in California. I don't know what the MPG equivalent is today but suspect that it has dropped. Cost of fuel is part of the calculation
Still, if one charges at home most of the time, which is what Tesla intends for us to do, owning one of these is generally more economical then a similarly sized ICE vehicle, even with the occasional road trip.
The day is still ahead when the purchase of a BEV can be justfied if based solely on cost savings in fuel and maintenance. The cars are simply too expensive at present. Still none of us are inclined to complain. These things are wonderful.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
For range, I was one of those folks that said Cybertruck falls short. I'd like to see bigger battery options, for towing if nothing else. And I think the range extender is a bad idea as shown. However, it got me thinking about the future of towing in an EV world. I would guess this has been discussed elsewhere, but big trailers like campers could have battery systems built into them, and a company like Tesla could design a power sharing standard that could connect the trailer and vehicle batteries. Essentially the trailer could bring it's own range extender.
Some potential benefits:
* The towing truck no longer needs an enormous battery to tow, and can use a smaller battery when not towing.
* The trailer could have regen braking.
* The trailer, if a camper, would no longer require external power at camp sites, opening up a lot more options for where to camp.
* The trailer, if a camper, could furthermore be outfitted with rooftop solar. They are big enough for the solar to actually be useful, and this could be handy to collect extra energy when camping in remote locations without external power, and it could also maybe help extend range a little during towing.
All combined, this could flip the script on complaints that people would lose the freedom of camping or traveling out to the middle of nowhere in an EV world; a camper with it's own solar and battery would provide superior freedom to a classic gas truck and camper.
Obviously, this would add extra cost to a trailer, but it seems like a reasonable vision on the future, especially if you don't agree with giving trucks enormous batteries of their own.
Some potential benefits:
* The towing truck no longer needs an enormous battery to tow, and can use a smaller battery when not towing.
* The trailer could have regen braking.
* The trailer, if a camper, would no longer require external power at camp sites, opening up a lot more options for where to camp.
* The trailer, if a camper, could furthermore be outfitted with rooftop solar. They are big enough for the solar to actually be useful, and this could be handy to collect extra energy when camping in remote locations without external power, and it could also maybe help extend range a little during towing.
All combined, this could flip the script on complaints that people would lose the freedom of camping or traveling out to the middle of nowhere in an EV world; a camper with it's own solar and battery would provide superior freedom to a classic gas truck and camper.
Obviously, this would add extra cost to a trailer, but it seems like a reasonable vision on the future, especially if you don't agree with giving trucks enormous batteries of their own.
These ideas would add a lot of weight and cost to an RV trailer, and they would get used maybe a handful of times per year. The batteries would expire rather quickly. I don't see the value.
Really an F150 Powerboost with it's generator capabilities just makes a lot more sense for this application. In the near future, the Ramboost thing should work.
Having always loved the idea of solar panels on a car/ trailer, the reason it hasn't been mass produced is because it's just cheaper to have the solar panels at your home and get the electricity in that manner and the amount of electricity is so miniscule.
Here is the thing: for a straight EV FS Truck or SUV used for doing truck like things to function properly, batteries need to double or triple in density, at a minimum. And honestly, that's 2 decades away. Hybrids are easily the best thing we have going near term.
Really an F150 Powerboost with it's generator capabilities just makes a lot more sense for this application. In the near future, the Ramboost thing should work.
Having always loved the idea of solar panels on a car/ trailer, the reason it hasn't been mass produced is because it's just cheaper to have the solar panels at your home and get the electricity in that manner and the amount of electricity is so miniscule.
Here is the thing: for a straight EV FS Truck or SUV used for doing truck like things to function properly, batteries need to double or triple in density, at a minimum. And honestly, that's 2 decades away. Hybrids are easily the best thing we have going near term.
I think that range extended vehicles are the best of the hybrids that we've got currently. hydrogen could be the fuel for a range extender, for example. but I think that BMW showed what could be be done with existing tech and parts bin recycling with the i3 REX. they used a 650cc twin scooter engine and that can sustain an i3 REX at 70mph indefinitely (on a flat road, with 3.5% SOC on the battery). since batteries are in high demand, and the extreme majority of people drive less than 100 miles daily, it's pretty much spot on. I drove mine 100 miles daily, consumed 5 gallons of gas in a year of driving (20k miles). instead of having a giant battery, I had just what was necessary, with no range anxiety considering gas is available as an alternate power source. when I did drive those 300 mile days, I would manually turn on the engine at higher SOC in order to sustain 80-85 mph continuous. the carbon fiber chassis helped save weight. pity the steering feel of BMW nowadays, my Rav4 EV (yes, the Tesla parts car) has such better steering feel than the i3 (any most of the recent BMWs that I've driven).
imagine the # of cars that could could be built (and, more affordable) as a PHEV or REX if every BEV was more around 30-50kw batteries. esp considering many teslas lug around 70+ kw packs, to do a round trip of <50 miles on the daily. batteries are still a limited resource, and a majority of them are used to store power that will never be released.
jebinc
Well-Known Member
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
I was referring to a vision of an EV future of towing. Presumably that future would include available pull through charging where you stay hooked up and charge both batteries simultaneously through the vehicle charging port.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
The batteries would not expire rather quickly. Battery life is often rated in number of charge cycles, which if you aren't using it much, would be experiencing fewer charge cycles.
The power you could get on a camper from solar isn't miniscule. It's insufficient on a vehicle that has a tiny roof and often parks indoors, but a camper has a huge mostly flat top and generally stays outside when in use. Some of those trailers you could fit 20 full size panels on. That's the same number as I have on my house.
Keeping it real here. One has to wonder who pay for all that extra unused real estate? At the least, probably another fee tacked onto their charging rate. An extra Fed/State/Local Gov fee upon any EV pickup or RV EV purchase? They won't do it for free and probably unfair for EV car owners to help subsidize it.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
It's no different than for gas. The only reason you don't have pull through chargers now is because the infrastructure is still in it's infancy and it's cheaper to build charging stations into existing parking spaces. In an EV future, gas stations would probably start converting into charging stations, and that is probably where most of the pull through charging would come from, at least in places where there isn't much available undeveloped real estate.
FEERSUMENDJIN
Member
Importantly it is NOT all about cost. People need to take responsibility here.
I appreciate your point here, but you are ignoring the financial realities for most of the world, even in 1st world countries.
Any decision as big as this, needs to also make financial sense.
Similar threads
