Cybertruck Will Feel Dated By the Time it Comes Out?

[brainhouston]

in my opinion, CT won't look dated cause its look is already 20+yrs ahead of others (spaceship looking, sharp edges, no paint...)
there's no other car/truck currently looking this way...
time will tell.

 

[jebinc]

T3LAROD explained himself. Are you in the same boat? Tesla meeting EPA miles is failing to deliver on real range?

I have had a 3, and MYP (both now sold) and currently have a MS Plaid. They rarely (and briefly) achieve EPA range (per Tesla's own energy graph and TeslaMate) in the hotter summer months. 9-12 months are less than EPA and in the coldest months, it's 60-70 percent of EPA (on a good day). Now my Rivian R1T has been achieving EPA all winter, for the most part - and not that's not on "conserve mode". It is as it appears to be..... Tesla is overly optimistic and quotes the most ideal result, and Rivian conservative.

 

[ewoodrick]

in my opinion, CT won't look dated cause its look is already 20+yrs ahead of others (spaceship looking, sharp edges, no paint...)
there's no other car/truck currently looking this way...
time will tell.

Absolutely,

It may look dated to someone who has a picture of it from 5 years ago posted above their bed.

But nothing else tends to look even close to it today.

Remember how stupid it was for Tesla to put that oversized iPad on the dash? Well, it seems that everyone else has now copied it.
Full glass roof, Mustang copied it.

 

[ewoodrick]

I have had a 3, and MYP (both now sold) and currently have a MS Plaid. They rarely (and briefly) achieve EPA range (per Tesla's own energy graph and TeslaMate) in the hotter summer months. 9-12 months are less than EPA and in the coldest months, it's 60-70 percent of EPA (on a good day). Now my Rivian R1T has been achieving EPA all winter, for the most part - and not that's not on "conserve mode". It is as it appears to be..... Tesla is overly optimistic and quotes the most ideal result, and Rivian conservative.

At what speeds are you driving?

I know that if I'm going 70 mph, I'm not going to meet the EPA numbers, but if I'm going 60 mph, then I'll beat them.

For about ever 5 mph above 60, you lose about 10% range.

In most cases, it really doesn't matter, as you rarely tend to run the battery low enough to make a difference. A 200-mile commute will still charge overnight on a 48A circuit if you are driving 50 or 75mph.


All of this wraps back to range anxiety. The sooner you get over it the better.

 

[coleAK]

The 1.7kwh/mi was at 81,000lbs and around 55mph, neither of which are indicative of "normal driving". Are you thinking just like Mercedes' engineers and reasoning by analogy and concluding that "the physics doesn't allow it", which actually it does?

Remember that there are more to driving losses than just aerodynamics, so a 60% greater aero loss doesn't translate to 60% greater overall losses. The model X has the same frontal area as the CT and can get 333wh/mi on 19" whiles, and 370wh/mi on 22" performance wheels, so there's still room for the CT to get < 400wh/mi. But again, this is reasoning by analogy, so doesn't count.

For something more concrete, "has Tesla EVER failed to deliver on their range specs"?

EVs are really efficient. Much of the energy used is to overcome air drag. Doing some rough math ~30-40% of the Wh/mi of a model 3 traveling at 55mph is from air drag. At 75 mph it is like 60-70+%. And from what I can tell the frontal area of a CT is 18-20% larger than an x. So at 60% larger looking at a 45-50% increase in Wh/mi @55 mph, given rough math.

Weight dosn’t matter all that much. At a constant speed on flat ground weight is a small fraction of consumption. Real world example. I have a 25’ 7k lb camper, my brother has a 4K lbs 16’ camper both have very similar frontal profile, I get almost the exact same mpg pulling either one with my truck.

Not sure I could fit all the times Tesla hasn’t fulfilled on promises. Where is FSD, robotaxis, new roadster, CT,…. ?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

EVs are really efficient. Much of the energy used is to overcome air drag. Doing some rough math ~30-40% of the Wh/mi of a model 3 traveling at 55mph is from air drag. At 75 mph it is like 60-70+%. And from what I can tell the frontal area of a CT is 18-20% larger than an x. So at 60% larger looking at a 45-50% increase in Wh/mi @55 mph, given rough math.

Weight dosn’t matter all that much. At a constant speed on flat ground weight is a small fraction of consumption. Real world example. I have a 25’ 7k lb camper, my brother has a 4K lbs 16’ camper both have very similar frontal profile, I get almost the exact same mpg pulling either one with my truck.

Not sure I could fit all the times Tesla hasn’t fulfilled on promises. Where is FSD, robotaxis, new roadster, CT,…. ?

Okay, you've written it yourself, at 75mph (not EPA speed), aero drag is only 2/3rd of overall losses.

I just want to establish this baseline here. I like driving my 3, and I get FAR LESS than the EPA range on my road trips, but I know that's mostly due to my driving style. Since everyone's driving styles are different, that can NOT be used as a criteria for determining if Tesla fulfilled their range promises.

FSD, robotaxis, production start dates are NOT range estimates, those are ALL timeline failures. So again, to justify your belief that Tesla won't deliver a CT with 500-miles of EPA range, has Tesla NOT delivered on their range specs in the past - which is a specification failure?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I have had a 3, and MYP (both now sold) and currently have a MS Plaid. They rarely (and briefly) achieve EPA range (per Tesla's own energy graph and TeslaMate) in the hotter summer months. 9-12 months are less than EPA and in the coldest months, it's 60-70 percent of EPA (on a good day). Now my Rivian R1T has been achieving EPA all winter, for the most part - and not that's not on "conserve mode". It is as it appears to be..... Tesla is overly optimistic and quotes the most ideal result, and Rivian conservative.

Okay, I can see where you're coming from for that. So you think Tesla's EPA results are due to gaming the testing procedure, so their EPA numbers "meeting" their targeted specs isn't reliable. Fair enough.

So your expectation is that the CT can get 500 EPA rated miles, just nowhere near that for real world miles? In which case, since the testing procedure is the same for all Tesla vehicles, and extrapolating from your experience with the MS plaid, your CT range expectations would be "rarely (and briefly) achieve EPA range in the summer months ... and ~300-350 miles in the coldest months"?

 

[coleAK]

Okay, you've written it yourself, at 75mph (not EPA speed), aero drag is only 2/3rd of overall losses.

I just want to establish this baseline here. I like driving my 3, and I get FAR LESS than the EPA range on my road trips, but I know that's mostly due to my driving style. Since everyone's driving styles are different, that can NOT be used as a criteria for determining if Tesla fulfilled their range promises.

FSD, robotaxis, production start dates are NOT range estimates, those are ALL timeline failures. So again, to justify your belief that Tesla won't deliver a CT with 500-miles of EPA range, has Tesla NOT delivered on their range specs in the past - which is a specification failure?

That isn’t 2/3 of loss over rated that is air drag is 2/3 of the total energy usage. So running the same speed in a vacuum in theory would use ~100-140 Wh/mi.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

That isn’t 2/3 of loss over rated that is air drag is 2/3 of the total energy usage. So running the same speed in a vacuum in theory would use ~100-140 Wh/mi.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this, but it doesn't seem to be a direct response to what I wrote.

 

[ewoodrick]

That isn’t 2/3 of loss over rated that is air drag is 2/3 of the total energy usage. So running the same speed in a vacuum in theory would use ~100-140 Wh/mi.

Rember that air drag isn't linear, it's exponential.

 

[jebinc]

At what speeds are you driving?

I know that if I'm going 70 mph, I'm not going to meet the EPA numbers, but if I'm going 60 mph, then I'll beat them.

For about ever 5 mph above 60, you lose about 10% range.

In most cases, it really doesn't matter, as you rarely tend to run the battery low enough to make a difference. A 200-mile commute will still charge overnight on a 48A circuit if you are driving 50 or 75mph.


All of this wraps back to range anxiety. The sooner you get over it the better.

Mostly rural roads; 50 mph or less.

 

[jebinc]

Okay, I can see where you're coming from for that. So you think Tesla's EPA results are due to gaming the testing procedure, so their EPA numbers "meeting" their targeted specs isn't reliable. Fair enough.

So your expectation is that the CT can get 500 EPA rated miles, just nowhere near that for real world miles? In which case, since the testing procedure is the same for all Tesla vehicles, and extrapolating from your experience with the MS plaid, your CT range expectations would be "rarely (and briefly) achieve EPA range in the summer months ... and ~300-350 miles in the coldest months"?

Correct, but keep in mind my experience fact base is from a 3, MYP and now Plaid. A 500 mile “real world” range on the CT is a pipe dream, reserved solely for fanboy summer drives (downhill).

 

[ewoodrick]

Mostly rural roads; 50 mph or less.

Then it sounds as if you might using the "Plaid" a little too much. Could be a number of other things. Lots of folks find it easy to hit EPA and 60mph and below.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Correct, but keep in mind my experience fact base is from a 3, MYP and now Plaid. A 500 mile “real world” range on the CT is a pipe dream, reserved solely for fanboy summer drives (downhill).

I know that you're basing it off your experience, which is why I was showing that however much Tesla's other vehicles were off the EPA estimates, that you would get the same percentage OFF for the CT for YOUR driving style, since the testing methodology would be the same across ALL of Tesla's vehicles (they shouldn't be testing the model S using one drive cycle and testing the model 3, Y, X, and CT using completely DIFFERENT drive cycles).

Edit: In other words, someone who is getting EPA ranges with their S, X, 3, or Y, should also get 500-miles from their CT, factoring out hills and weather of course.

 

[jebinc]

Then it sounds as if you might using the "Plaid" a little too much. Could be a number of other things. Lots of folks find it easy to hit EPA and 60mph and below.

A swing and a miss. See prior posts. I’ve had 3’s and Y’s as well…

 

[jebinc]

I know that you're basing it off your experience, which is why I was showing that however much Tesla's other vehicles were off the EPA estimates, that you would get the same percentage OFF for the CT for YOUR driving style, since the testing methodology would be the same across ALL of Tesla's vehicles (they shouldn't be testing the model S using one drive cycle and testing the model 3, Y, X, and CT using completely DIFFERENT drive cycles).

Edit: In other words, someone who is getting EPA ranges with their S, X, 3, or Y, should also get 500-miles from their CT, factoring out hills and weather of course.

Agreed, but even the most ginger driving habits on short or long freeway trips results in the same result, most of the time, below EPA.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Agreed, but even the most ginger driving habits on short or long freeway trips results in the same result, most of the time, below EPA.

Not sure what your definition of "ginger driving habits" are. I can and have gotten EPA efficiency, but that just ruins the fun out of driving a Tesla, so never bothered with it ever again.

 

[jebinc]

Not sure what your definition of "ginger driving habits" are. I can and have gotten EPA efficiency, but that just ruins the fun out of driving a Tesla, so never bothered with it ever again.

Gingerly means even when I drive 2x gramma, no EPA - unless its hot/summer.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Gingerly means even when I drive 2x gramma, no EPA - unless its hot/summer.

Isn't the Seattle area full of hilly terrain (aka lots of elevation changes)? Do you check your tire pressure often (tires are usually under inflated in cold weather)? Are you driving in chill mode?

Anyway, the point isn't to say that you "should" be able to get EPA range all the time, only that there are a number of potential environmental factors at play that should apply to ALL your vehicles. If your R1T meets EPA range during the winter, then it's probably exceeding EPA range during the summer.

 

[jebinc]

Isn't the Seattle area full of hilly terrain (aka lots of elevation changes)? Do you check your tire pressure often (tires are usually under inflated in cold weather)? Are you driving in chill mode?

Anyway, the point isn't to say that you "should" be able to get EPA range all the time, only that there are a number of potential environmental factors at play that should apply to ALL your vehicles. If your R1T meets EPA range during the winter, then it's probably exceeding EPA range during the summer.

My point again; Tesla overstates and Rivian understates EPA range. Plain and simple, and very obvious when you own both. Terrain, etc. are irrelevant when you own and drive both daily - it’s an Apples to Apples comparison. End of story.