Cybertruck Trip Consumption using ABRP (A Better Route Planner)

[Watts_Up]

I noticed that the phone App of ABRP (A Better Route Planner) already provide trip consumption for the five Cybertruck versions.

ABRP uses the following 'Reference Consumption' values (See also Battery and range comparison chart #21)

	Reference Consumption
Cybertruck Rear Wheel Drive	431 Wh/mile @65 mph
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive	439
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive Range Extender	439
Cybertruck Cyberbeast	462
Cybertruck Cyberbeast Range Extender	462

I wonder how much those numbers are meaningful.
In Particular, the Range Extender should certainly affect the consumption
because of the added weight, but this doesn't seem to be the case?

However, I used the ABRP App on a trip between Seattle and San Diego (1265 miles or 2,000 km) and found the following results

	Average Consumption	Energy Used
Cybertruck Rear Wheel Drive	456 Wh/mile	608 kWh
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive	470	625
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive Range Extender	471	650
Cybertruck Cyberbeast	492	654
Cybertruck Cyberbeast Range Extender	492	654

And the trip duration for this 1265 miles / 2,000 km trip were as follow

	Total Time Driving Only	Total Time Charging	Number of Charges
Cybertruck Rear Wheel Drive	19H 54	5H 7	16
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive	19H 35	3H 44	12
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive Range Extender	19H 45	3H 9	10
Cybertruck Cyberbeast	19H 35	3H 58	12
Cybertruck Cyberbeast Range Extender	19H 47	3H 21	10

Note: Except for the longer charging time for the RWD with 250 miles range (5 hour),
there is nothing really magisterial between the different versions.
Still the Range Extender saves 37 minutes over the almost 4 hours of charging otherwise.

To get more realistic results, I think that the 'Reference Consumption' values need to be adjusted,
in particular because the impact of the Range Extender on the consumption is still unknown.

"Tesla Cybertruck unveiling" by u/Kruzat, modified by Smnt is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbnail

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

In Particular, the Range Extender should certainly affect the consumption
because of the added weight, this doesn't seem to be the case?

To some extent, but it's only an increase of about 7-10% in weight. And if you inflate the tires a bit more you might offset that by reducing Crr slightly. And rolling resistance is just one component of road load force. So might be just a couple percent.

I wonder how much those numbers are meaningful.

They don't seem that far off, but they don't show which tires are being used. Looks like an all-season assumption to me. Add 30Wh/mi or so for A/T tires.

As is the norm for ABRP, they are assuming ~123kWh is available from 100%-0%. If the pack ends up being 123kWh, that assumption is going to be high by 4.5%. (So it will be too optimistic.)

Anyway their assumption is 123kWh from 100% to 0%, so if that's supposed to be corresponding to the UI rather than true SOC, they are actually assuming a pack of 123kWh/0.955 = 129kWh

 

[Watts_Up]

To some extent, but it's only an increase of about 7-10% in weight.
And if you inflate the tires a bit more you might offset that by reducing Crr slightly.
And rolling resistance is just one component of road load force. So might be just a couple percent.

There is no information regarding the Range Extender additional weight,
but from the additional 130 miles of range, or about 40% increase,
the additional battery capacity should be around 50 kWh.

The 48V battery that I build for my solar system weight about 180 lbs for 16 kWh.
So I estimate that the additional battery and casting frame would weight around 650 to 700 lbs.
The AWD two motors weight is 6600 lbs, so the Range Extender would add about 10%, as you mentioned.

Regarding the Seattle to San Diego itinerary, there are two major hills
(Mount Shasta Siskiyou Pass 4,300 feet and Grapevine Tejon pass 1360 feet).
so the additional weight of the Range Extender would affect the overall consumption.

ABRP estimates an additional 20 Wh/mile @ 65 miles/hour for the tri-motor additional weight of 240 lbs.
so an additional 600 lbs could increase the consumption by about 50 Wh/mile ?

But when using the ABRP App, the Range Extender's Average Consumption or Energy Used
doesn't seem to be affected by the additional 10% weight, while the tri-motor does.

 

[SSCustoms]

Intere

I noticed that the phone App of ABRP (A Better Route Planner) already provide trip consumption for the five Cybertruck versions.

ABRP uses the following 'Reference Consumption' values (See also Battery and range comparison chart #21)

	Reference Consumption
Cybertruck Rear Wheel Drive	431 Wh/mile @65 mph
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive	439
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive Range Extender	439
Cybertruck Cyberbeast	462
Cybertruck Cyberbeast Range Extender	462

I wonder how much those numbers are meaningful.
In Particular, the Range Extender should certainly affect the consumption
because of the added weight, but this doesn't seem to be the case?

However, I used the ABRP App on a trip between Seattle and San Diego (1265 miles or 2,000 km) and found the following results

	Average Consumption	Energy Used
Cybertruck Rear Wheel Drive	456 Wh/mile	608 kWh
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive	470	625
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive Range Extender	471	650
Cybertruck Cyberbeast	492	654
Cybertruck Cyberbeast Range Extender	492	654

And the trip duration for this 1265 miles / 2,000 km trip were as follow

	Total Time Driving Only	Total Time Charging	Number of Charges
Cybertruck Rear Wheel Drive	19H 54	5H 7	16
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive	19H 35	3H 44	12
Cybertruck All Wheel Drive Range Extender	19H 45	3H 9	10
Cybertruck Cyberbeast	19H 35	3H 58	12
Cybertruck Cyberbeast Range Extender	19H 47	3H 21	10

Note: Except for the longer charging time for the RWD with 250 miles range (5 hour),
there is nothing really magisterial between the different versions.
Still the Range Extender saves 37 minutes over the almost 4 hours of charging otherwise.

To get more realistic results, I think that the 'Reference Consumption' values need to be adjusted,
in particular because the impact of the Range Extender on the consumption is still unknown.

View attachment 997691
"Tesla Cybertruck unveiling" by u/Kruzat, modified by Smnt is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
Admin note: Image added for Blog Feed thumbn

Interesting how it is faster to charge a Cybertruck with the range extender.