Cybertruck will be 800V

[GregD60]

That’s the big sticking point. Certainly seems like this pack should have no problem supporting 350kW, and hopefully 4680s don’t cause unexpected problems.

But the big sticking point is those chargers. At the current glacial rate of expansion, it could be years before practical high speed charging is available everywhere. It’s already bad enough getting stuck with V2 in a Model 3 (absolutely awful having to shuffle stalls and avoid other people, and wait for charging to start for 30 seconds, etc.). Why do v2 still exist???

Now we have Superchargers that don’t easily fit Cybertrucks (does the cable always reach if you’re not perfectly parked or blocked from getting the right position?), and they’re all really slow (250kW no good).

So things have to change really quickly! Hopefully Tesla can step it up! They have to, with this small pack size. It seems V4 should probably roll out widely to more remote locations FIRST.

It's a massive job to build and install the Superchargers that will be needed in coming years, and there are going to be some serious problems along the way. A lot of the difficulty is also related to finding places to install the Superchargers, meeting all government requirements to install them, and getting an adequate amount of power from the local electrical utility. A lot of this just takes time. Tesla has been doing a pretty good job, on the whole, of keeping up with Tesla charging demand, but that demand is going to increase dramatically in the next couple of years. Even if Tesla is ready for it, I think the odds of the power grid being ready are slim.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It's a massive job to build and install the Superchargers that will be needed in coming years, and there are going to be some serious problems along the way. A lot of the difficulty is also related to finding places to install the Superchargers, meet all government requirements to install them, and getting an adequate amount of power from the local electrical utility. A lot of this just takes time. Tesla has been doing a pretty good job, on the whole, of keeping up with Tesla charging demand, but that demand is going to increase dramatically in the next couple of years. Even if Tesla is ready for it, I think the odds of the power grid being ready are slim.

Yeah, it is really hard, and a great massive truck makes it even harder. Early adopters will need to be very patient. I am not.

It actually helps to have much much more availability of 14-50 outlets (though that will take 15 hours to charge a CT). But that also seems to be too much to ask for. The 6kW Chargepoint (etc.) stuff is wholly inadequate, so hopefully we’ll see a LOT more 11.5kW NACS Level 2 in future. But it seems like it is going to be at least five years and even then infrastructure will lag (and sag!), as you say.

 

[gtg465x]

Sorry, where?

View attachment 995560

12 days ago actually. Not quite as recent as I thought.

 

[GregD60]

Yeah, it is really hard, and a great massive truck makes it even harder. Early adopters will need to be very patient. I am not.

It actually helps to have much much more availability of 14-50 outlets (though that will take 15 hours to charge a CT). But that also seems to be too much to ask for. The 6kW Chargepoint (etc.) stuff is wholly inadequate, so hopefully we’ll see a LOT more 11.5kW NACS Level 2 in future. But it seems like it is going to be at least five years and even then infrastructure will lag (and sag!), as you say.

For probably 90%+ of all EV owners, being able to fast charge is only something that they do on long road trips. The rest of the time they charge at home. Also, most people only drive maybe 30 or 40 miles a day. Even people with a long commute rarely drive more than a couple of hundred miles a day. A couple of hundred miles would apparently require about 80kW of energy for the Cybertruck. A Tesla Wall Charger can charge at a rate of 11.5kW per hour, so it would take about 7 hours to fully recharge the Cybertruck's batter even in the heavy use case of 200 miles per day. If you're only driving 40 miles per day like most people, the Cybertruck would charge up in just a little over an hour. If you really had to charge from 0% to 100%, it would take a little less than 11 hours, although running the battery down to 0 and then charging it up to 100 is a bad idea on any EV.

For fast charging on road trips, assuming that the Cybertruck can take the full 250kW charge for virtually the entire charging session from 15% to 85%, as Tesla's VP of Engineering indicated, it would gain about 220 miles of range in 20 minutes. That is better than any other EV truck available by a significant margin.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

That is better than any other EV truck available by a significant margin.

But still too slow. Need to move to 800V infrastructure in place ASAP. Which sounds like there is no argument about.

I’m not making the argument that CT is inferior to other EV trucks in this regard. We’ll see, once there is information on range and efficiency - but it looks like it might actually be the most efficient truck on the road. But we have no official information yet.

being able to fast charge is only something that they do on long road trips.

But with trucks it is considerably more likely to need this. On average: bigger people movers, more remote places being visited, less likely to have a place to stop overnight to charge, etc.

Larger vehicles are strongly over represented at trailheads, campsites, etc.

 

[momo3605]

it looks like it might actually be the most efficient truck on the road

…if you believe teslas epa numbers. I think it’s fair to say Tesla applies a liberal adjustment to their epa results. Once you account for 15-20% overestimating, it looks like it will be on par with the R1T. It’s a little lighter but has a worse CoD so I expect it will very close overall efficiency wise.

 

[Mrbrock]

Y’all… 136 miles out of 340 is 40%. Adding 40% in 15 minutes is not indicative of a great charging curve or c-rate. Pretty much every other battery type Tesla offers adds 50% in 15 minutes. Heck, even my Model 3 RWD standard range adds 50% or 136 miles in 15 minutes, and it’s one of the slowest charging Tesla models.

When calculating gas savings, the Tesla website uses 42.9 kWh / 100 miles for the Cybertruck AWD, meaning that’s how much power it pulls from the wall to go 100 miles. Multiply by ~88.8% to account for charging losses (that’s the factor used for Model 3 on their website), and then by 340 rated miles, and we can guess that the Cybertruck AWD has a roughly 129.5 kWh battery. Multiply by 95.5% to get a usable capacity of 123.7 kWh. Multiply that by 40% and we can estimate that the Cybertruck added 49.5 kWh in 15 minutes, meaning average charging power was 198 kW. If peak is 250 kW, that means it might have already slowed down to around 146 kW after only 15 minutes, assuming a fairly linear drop. Ain’t no flat 250 kW charging curve happening here.

I believe Model S can add about the same kWh in 15 minutes as Cybertruck despite having a much smaller battery, which means the c-rate of the Cybertruck battery is disappointing. A bigger battery usually means you can add more kWh in the same amount of time, but not here.

800v architecture doesn’t mean a whole lot in terms of charging speed if your battery is limited by c-rate. Bjorn talks about that in detail in his latest rant on YouTube if anyone is interested.

You can’t just use percent. You have to use kw. 40% of the Hummer EV battery is 80kw. That would be like an entire MY charge session in 15 minutes. 50% of your model 3 is about 30 kWh so 30x4=120kw average charging speed. For the hummer that would be 320kw average.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

…if you believe teslas epa numbers. I think it’s fair to say Tesla applies a liberal adjustment to their epa results. Once you account for 15-20% overestimating,

I think I made that very clear in my post!

It’s more like 10% from the scale factor (worst case). We don’t know what it is yet. We also don’t know what tires correspond to the rates ranges (though a reasonable interpretation is definitely ATs).

We’ll see. In the end no one cheats the EPA test (they just use the legal “randomized” scalar). You just have to know the scale factor, correct the rating, and then compare apples to apples.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

…if you believe teslas epa numbers. I think it’s fair to say Tesla applies a liberal adjustment to their epa results. Once you account for 15-20% overestimating, it looks like it will be on par with the R1T. It’s a little lighter but has a worse CoD so I expect it will very close overall efficiency wise.

Just to put numbers to this (but it's all subject to the numbers Tesla has provided not being nonsense):
1) 42.9kWh/100 miles
2) With all terrain tires (claimed)
3) Assume 88.5% charging efficiency (could be different, but has been fairly invariant with Tesla, but this is a new pack, so could be different). I found Model S 2023 appeared to be as low as 86% (but lower charging efficiency numbers make on road efficiency better...). (114kWh to charge a 98.3kWh pack for that Model S)

The most liberal scale factor I have seen from Tesla is 0.77 (Model Y). I'll assume that for Cybertruck. Will normalize that to 0.7.

Cybertruck:
78.6MPGe, 340 miles, 42.9kWh/100mi wall to wheels, 0.885 efficiency, 0.77 scale factor =>
42.9kWh/100mi*340miles*0.885 = 129kWh pack (aka 123kWh (95.5%) usable, but 129kWh is used)
Correct to 0.7 from 0.77: (This gets rid of a significant portion of the Tesla optimism.)
47.2kWh/100mi, 309 miles, 0.885 efficiency
=> 417Wh/mi (472Wh/mi wall to wheels)

Compare to Rivian R1T Dual Large 21" (the most efficient Rivian I think):
78MPGe, 352 miles, 135kWh pack, 43kWh/100mi, 0.707 scale factor (from EPA datafile), street tires.
Street tires => AT tires:
49.5kWh/100mi, 68MPGe, 135kWh pack, 307 miles (Rivian website says this for AT tires)
Correct to 0.7 from 0.707:
50kWh/100mi, 67MPGe, 135kWh pack, 304 miles
=> 444Wh/mi. (500Wh/mi wall to wheels)

So the above suggests Cybertruck is about 6% more efficient than the best Rivian
So we'll have to revisit this once there are real numbers from Tesla and we confirm it is done with AT tires. AND we have to (easily; simple division of adjusted by unadjusted results) derive the scale factor from the EPA datafile (critical). You can just plug into the formulas above.

You can see for the low-end single-motor Rivian the impact of All-Terrain, in the attached. It's similar for the Dual Motor. 307 miles is directly from Rivian.

 

[momo3605]

Just to put numbers to this (but it's all subject to the numbers Tesla has provided not being nonsense):
1) 42.9kWh/100 miles
2) With all terrain tires (claimed)
3) Assume 88.5% charging efficiency (could be different, but has been fairly invariant with Tesla, but this is a new pack, so could be different). I found Model S 2023 appeared to be as low as 86% (but lower charging efficiency numbers make on road efficiency better...). (114kWh to charge a 98.3kWh pack for that Model S)

The most liberal scale factor I have seen from Tesla is 0.77 (Model Y). I'll assume that for Cybertruck. Will normalize that to 0.7.

Cybertruck:
78.6MPGe, 340 miles, 42.9kWh/100mi wall to wheels, 0.885 efficiency, 0.77 scale factor =>
42.9kWh/100mi*340miles*0.885 = 129kWh pack (aka 123kWh (95.5%) usable, but 129kWh is used)
Correct to 0.7 from 0.77: (This gets rid of a significant portion of the Tesla optimism.)
47.2kWh/100mi, 309 miles, 0.885 efficiency
=> 417Wh/mi (472Wh/mi wall to wheels)

Compare to Rivian R1T Dual Large 21" (the most efficient Rivian I think):
78MPGe, 352 miles, 135kWh pack, 43kWh/100mi, 0.707 scale factor (from EPA datafile), street tires.
Street tires => AT tires:
49.5kWh/100mi, 68MPGe, 135kWh pack, 307 miles (Rivian website says this for AT tires)
Correct to 0.7 from 0.707:
50kWh/100mi, 67MPGe, 135kWh pack, 304 miles
=> 444Wh/mi. (500Wh/mi wall to wheels)

So the above suggests Cybertruck is about 6% more efficient than the best Rivian
So we'll have to revisit this once there are real numbers from Tesla and we confirm it is done with AT tires. AND we have to (easily; simple division of adjusted by unadjusted results) derive the scale factor from the EPA datafile (critical). You can just plug into the formulas above.

You can see for the low-end single-motor Rivian the impact of All-Terrain, in the attached. It's similar for the Dual Motor. 307 miles is directly from Rivian.

View attachment 995701

I don’t think rivian does the 5 cycle test. Most reviews show the rivian matches closer to its range than teslas do. It’s anecdotal, but I get very close to EPA in normal driving in my quad R1T with AT, and get at least 10% below EPA in my model 3. My real world range in the R1T is longer than my model 3 which claims 310.

Here you can see rivian beat their epa range in Edmund’s range test. No tesla does that.

EV RANGE TEST: 2022 Rivian R1S Beats EPA Estimate on All-Terrain Tires | Edmunds

How good can a 3.5-ton SUV really be? If it's an electric SUV with a Rivian badge, the answer is very good indeed. We range-tested a quad-motor R1S with all-terrain tires and it blew the EPA estimate out of the water. Oh yeah, and it sprinted to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds. Read on for all the details.

www.edmunds.com

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I don’t think rivian does the 5 cycle test.

Perhaps. But that is why I corrected to 0.7. This means UDDS and HWYFET results are used directly. No funny business.

Rivian uses factors other than 0.7 so they do five-cycle testing. You can look up the results in two minutes at “iaspub lookup.”

For example, R1T Dual Max 21” goes from 404 to 411.

We’ll see what they use for Cybertruck. Since other sources of drain are smaller relative to the pack I expect things will generally be a little better. There is still the issue of 4.5% of the pack remaining when hitting 0% (so Tesla will always miss EPA by a few percent).

 

[gtg465x]

You can’t just use percent. You have to use kw. 40% of the Hummer EV battery is 80kw. That would be like an entire MY charge session in 15 minutes. 50% of your model 3 is about 30 kWh so 30x4=120kw average charging speed. For the hummer that would be 320kw average.

You can. c-rate… look it up.

If you use the same cells in two batteries, it doesn’t matter whether it’s 50 kWh or 100 kWh… they will add the same percentage per charge time assuming the charger can provide the requested power. Your time to charge is limited by how long it takes to charge each cell, and all cells charge together at the same time in parallel, so whether you’re charging 2 cells or 100, the time to charge them will be the same.

Even though Cybertruck is adding a lot of kWh in 15 minutes compared to say a Model 3 RWD, its battery still has worse charging performance relative to its size. A larger battery should be able to add more kWh in the same amount of time if the cells have the same charging performance (can accept the same c-rate), but in the case of the Cybertruck, it’s adding about the same kWh in 15 minutes as a Model S, which has a much smaller battery, meaning the Cybertruck cells have poor charging performance relative to the Model S cells.

I hope the rumors of better charging performance on V4 Superchargers are true, because Cybertruck doesn’t have very good charging performance relative to its battery size right now.

Another way to look at it is by range added per time. When comparing Cybertruck to other Teslas in miles added per 15 minutes:

• Model S LR: 200 miles (+49%)
• Model S P: 196 miles (+49%)
• Model X LR: 175 miles (+50%)
• Model 3 LR: 175 miles (+49%)
• Model X P: 167 miles (+50%)
• Model Y LR : 162 miles (+49%)
• Model 3 P: 154 miles (+49%)
• Model Y P: 149 miles (+49%)
• Model 3 RWD: 136 miles (+50%)
• Cybertruck AWD: 136 miles (+40%)
• Cybertruck Cyberbeast: 128 miles (+40%)
• Model Y AWD 4680: 109 miles (+39%)
• Cybertruck RWD: 100 miles (+40%) (estimate)

The common theme you see here is that the Teslas with 4680 batteries have slower charging than other battery types Tesla uses. Even though Cybertruck and Model Y AWD have vastly different battery sizes, since they use the same 4680 cells, they add roughly the same percentage in the same amount of time.

 

[gtg465x]

Also, keep in mind that my list is showing EPA rated miles added in 15 minutes, which are only achievable at lower speeds. At highway speeds, less efficient vehicles take a much bigger hit than more efficient vehicles, and Cybertruck is going to be the least efficient Tesla, so I’m scared to think how bad it’s going to perform when driving on the highway. Here’s a similar chart, but showing how many miles they can go at 80 mph from 15 minutes of charging. Results are from Out of Spec 10% challenge tests on YouTube. Cybertruck values are my estimates.

• Lucid Air GT: 144 miles (best EV tested)
• Model 3 RWD: 106 miles (22% below EPA)
• Model Y LR 20”: 98 miles (37% below EPA)
• Cybertruck AWD: 75? miles (est 45% below EPA)
• Model Y 4680: 71 miles (35% below EPA)
• Cybertruck RWD: 55? miles (est 45% below EPA)
• Toyota BZ4X: 42 miles (worst EV tested)

As you can see, even though Model 3 RWD didn’t look so hot in my previous post when looking at EPA rated range, its efficiency and smaller frontal area helped it pull ahead of the Model Y LR at 80 mph. The opposite is going to happen for the Cybertruck… it’s going to look even worse in this kind of real world highway range test, even though it was already at the bottom in my previous post.

 

[GregD60]

You can. c-rate… look it up.

If you use the same cells in two batteries, it doesn’t matter whether it’s 50 kWh or 100 kWh… they will add the same percentage per charge time assuming the charger can provide the requested power. Your time to charge is limited by how long it takes to charge each cell, and all cells charge together at the same time in parallel, so whether you’re charging 2 cells or 100, the time to charge them will be the same.

Even though Cybertruck is adding a lot of kWh in 15 minutes compared to say a Model 3 RWD, its battery still has worse charging performance relative to its size. A larger battery should be able to add more kWh in the same amount of time if the cells have the same charging performance (can accept the same c-rate), but in the case of the Cybertruck, it’s adding about the same kWh in 15 minutes as a Model S, which has a much smaller battery, meaning the Cybertruck cells have poor charging performance relative to the Model S cells.

I hope the rumors of better charging performance on V4 Superchargers are true, because Cybertruck doesn’t have very good charging performance relative to its battery size right now.

Another way to look at it is by range added per time. When comparing Cybertruck to other Teslas in miles added per 15 minutes:

• Model S LR: 200 miles (+49%)
• Model S P: 196 miles (+49%)
• Model X LR: 175 miles (+50%)
• Model 3 LR: 175 miles (+49%)
• Model X P: 167 miles (+50%)
• Model Y LR : 162 miles (+49%)
• Model 3 P: 154 miles (+49%)
• Model Y P: 149 miles (+49%)
• Model 3 RWD: 136 miles (+50%)
• Cybertruck AWD: 136 miles (+40%)
• Cybertruck Cyberbeast: 128 miles (+40%)
• Model Y AWD 4680: 109 miles (+39%)
• Cybertruck RWD: 100 miles (+40%) (estimate)

The common theme you see here is that the Teslas with 4680 batteries have slower charging than other battery types Tesla uses. Even though Cybertruck and Model Y AWD have vastly different battery sizes, since they use the same 4680 cells, they add roughly the same percentage in the same amount of time.

When it comes to the Cybertruck, what is your source for the +40% figure?

The only information I've seen on the Cybertruck's charging rate from any kind of real source is from Tesla's VP of Engineering who said that the Cybertruck would charge from 15% to 85% in 18 to 20 minutes on a V4 Supercharger that supports 350kW charging. Trying to figure out what that means on a V3 Supercharger would require making a lot of assumptions. Hopefully someone like Kyle Conner gets ahold of a Cybertruck pretty soon, runs it through its paces, and can give us real world numbers.

 

[GregD60]

But still too slow. Need to move to 800V infrastructure in place ASAP. Which sounds like there is no argument about.

I’m not making the argument that CT is inferior to other EV trucks in this regard. We’ll see, once there is information on range and efficiency - but it looks like it might actually be the most efficient truck on the road. But we have no official information yet.

But with trucks it is considerably more likely to need this. On average: bigger people movers, more remote places being visited, less likely to have a place to stop overnight to charge, etc.

Larger vehicles are strongly over represented at trailheads, campsites, etc.

I've done a couple of roadtrips where I've gotten away from the interstates and used 14-50 outlets at RV campsites to charge the car. It works well, kind of like charging at home. Unless you go to the wilds of Alaska or Northern Canada, or something similar, you really shouldn't have a problem finding 14-50 outlets. In other "remote" areas, campsites with 14-50 outlets are usually pretty easy to find.

In any case, building out the charging network with more locations, more chargers, and a higher rate of charging is the answer. If you regard the current infrastructure as inadequate, and aren't willing to deal with the shortcomings until it is more built out, then you should be looking at an ICE vehicle, not an EV.

 

[gtg465x]

When it comes to the Cybertruck, what is your source for the +40% figure?

The only information I've seen on the Cybertruck's charging rate from any kind of real source is from Tesla's VP of Engineering who said that the Cybertruck would charge from 15% to 85% in 18 to 20 minutes on a V4 Supercharger that supports 350kW charging. Trying to figure out what that means on a V3 Supercharger would require making a lot of assumptions. Hopefully someone like Kyle Conner gets ahold of a Cybertruck pretty soon, runs it through its paces, and can give us real world numbers.

No assumptions needed. Tesla’s website says 15 minutes of charging adds up to 128 or 136 miles (out of 320 or 340 total rated miles for Cyberbeast or AWD). Presumably these are with V3 superchargers.

15-85% in 18-20 minutes on V4 would be excellent, but those numbers aren’t officially posted to Tesla’s website, so I would be very skeptical of them for now.

 

[GregD60]

No assumptions needed. Tesla’s website says 15 minutes of charging adds up to 128 or 136 miles (out of 320 or 340 total rated miles for Cyberbeast or AWD). Presumably these are with V3 superchargers.

15-85% in 18-20 minutes on V4 would be excellent, but those numbers aren’t officially posted to Tesla’s website, so I would be very skeptical of them for now.

Fair enough, although I think Lars Moravy has generally been pretty reliable when talking about vehicles already in production. He's not a marketing guy, or a cockeyed optimist like Elon.

It would be interesting to know what Tesla's planned timeline is for V4 Superchargers operating at 350kW. Are they looking at 6 months, a year, two years, three? Hopefully, they switched production of all new V3 superchargers to V4 a while ago, and the only reason we still see V3s going in, in some locations, is because they are working down their stock.

Actually, I was hoping that the V4 superchargers would have a max charge rate of 500kW or better. After all, if the voltage is doubled from 400 to 800, they should be able to deliver twice as much power as the V3s. From Lars's statement, it sounds like they're going to be 350kW, at least at first. Or maybe with the Cybertruck's 123kW battery pack, the max rate that the pack will be able to charge at is 350kW. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I don’t think rivian does the 5 cycle test. Most reviews show the rivian matches closer to its range than teslas do. It’s anecdotal, but I get very close to EPA in normal driving in my quad R1T with AT, and get at least 10% below EPA in my model 3. My real world range in the R1T is longer than my model 3 which claims 310.

Here you can see rivian beat their epa range in Edmund’s range test. No tesla does that.

EV RANGE TEST: 2022 Rivian R1S Beats EPA Estimate on All-Terrain Tires | Edmunds

How good can a 3.5-ton SUV really be? If it's an electric SUV with a Rivian badge, the answer is very good indeed. We range-tested a quad-motor R1S with all-terrain tires and it blew the EPA estimate out of the water. Oh yeah, and it sprinted to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds. Read on for all the details.

www.edmunds.com

Actually Rivian has 131kWh pack, not 135kWh. So that puts it within 3% of the Cybertruck (not 6% per my post above, you can just adjust all the numbers in my post above by using 131kWh rather than 135kWh). Still need actual CT numbers before any true comparison can be made.

Rivian uses 5-cycle testing; here is an example (see "Adj" column for the result).

 

[JulienW]

......It would be interesting to know what Tesla's planned timeline is for V4 Superchargers operating at 350kW. Are they looking at 6 months, a year, two years, three? Hopefully, they switched production of all new V3 superchargers to V4 a while ago, and the only reason we still see V3s going in, in some locations, is because they are working down their stock.

Actually, I was hoping that the V4 superchargers would have a max charge rate of 500kW or better. After all, if the voltage is doubled from 400 to 800, they should be able to deliver twice as much power as the V3s. From Lars's statement, it sounds like they're going to be 350kW, at least at first. Or maybe with the Cybertruck's 123kW battery pack, the max rate that the pack will be able to charge at is 350kW. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

What I would love to know is why they are installing V4 chargers with V3 cabinets. Are the V4 cabinets that far behind and will they go back and change the V4 charger/V3 cabinets already installed (sounds expensive)?

[conjecture] The 350kW is a C-rating limitation of the V2 4680's and hopefully we will see that increased to 500kW in V3. This could also increase the power of the CT closer to Plaid and most importantly V3 needs to increase the energy density and range. Almost embarrassing that V2 is at best only on par with 2170's. If the original expectations were released the CT would have closer to >375 mile range.

 

[TessP100D]

What I would love to know is why they are installing V4 chargers with V3 cabinets. Are the V4 cabinets that far behind and will they go back and change the V4 charger/V3 cabinets already installed (sounds expensive)?

[conjecture] The 350kW is a C-rating limitation of the V2 4680's and hopefully we will see that increased to 500kW in V3. This could also increase the power of the CT closer to Plaid and most importantly V3 needs to increase the energy density and range. Almost embarrassing that V2 is at best only on par with 2170's. If the original expectations were released the CT would have closer to >375 mile range.

View attachment 995975

Ahhh. All those promises on Battery Day…. What happened?