-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
cybertruck range - post it here
- Thread starter oldsport
- Start date
Atomadam
Member
It doesn't matter what drive train you have ICE, electric or other, the faster you drive the more energy you use and the less range you have. Basic physics. Welcome to reality. Even the cybertruck can't change that.
I don't think anyone is suggesting it should. That's not the issue here.
CT range is much less than originally advertised. And there's still questions about the 4680. Apparently the factory is quickly switching 4680 chemistries with the hope of better range and charging. Bottom line - this is looking more and more like a desperate rush to production.
Cybertruck will be more severely impacted by speed thanks to its shape though. It has the highest Cd *and* the largest frontal area of all of them. Similarly of all the Teslas, the model 3 is least effected by speed
Good point and I can’t stress this enough. My model 3 takes a 20% range reduction from a 55 mph trip to a 70 mph one. With some rough math the CT could be more like a 30-35% reduction 55 vs 70
EPA rates range with a combination of city and highway use. Regeneration plays a big role in their estimated range. Driving on a cold day, non stop at high speeds with no regeneration, of course will result in lower numbers.
People wanting to get more clicks for their posts often will produce "Man bites Dog" headlines to gain additional profitable readership.
People wanting to get more clicks for their posts often will produce "Man bites Dog" headlines to gain additional profitable readership.
Plenty of vehicles in real-world range tests are coming very close to or even exceeding their rated EPA range, Porsche to the extreme in the latter case, and I don't think many people care about EV range for city commuting so it begs asking what value is derived from combined numbers.
We're getting closer to understanding all of these are marketing and cost decisions, with clear incentive to build in smaller batteries and portray optimistic range to consumers to scoop up $$$ while allaying range anxiety particularly at the front end of this transition
Going on 9 years and 2 teslas I’m convinced other then going down long mountain passes regen does almost nothing for range. As soon as I put my winter tires on in early October I switch regen to low and leave it that way until I take them off the end of May. Around town I’ve run regen normal and low for 2 week intervals and got a 1-2% difference in wh/mi.
I find it to be the most efficient if I drive (conservatively) in a way that I use the least amount of regen as possible. That said accelerate -> regen -> accelerate is much less efficient then accelerate -> coast
I think this is informative.
Basically the CT required 12 stops for 1,340 miles which is an average of 111 between SCs and averaged 33.5 min of SC time.
Using ABRP and my MYLR (because it's linked), it says it would take 7 SC stops an average of 191 miles between SCs and an average of 25.7 min of SC time. (I'm not saying ABRP is completely accurate here)
Similar threads
