Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Launch is Imminent

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
They said it’s a 6’ bed…. Until you hit that ledge where the cover rolls up and it becomes a 5’5” bed…

But don’t pay attention to that, that post was about the bed Lighting smh
I think the breakdown on Twitter after the specs leak showed it to be a 5'6" bed floor after the ledge. Still larger than the F150 (slightly), but seems like an odd waste of space.

I'm hoping and betting that the aero is benefited greatly from the sail design, because otherwise it's bad for truck usage.
 
Yes easily fits. They are using a tailgate bike protector. You don’t have to worry about installing a bike rack in the bed and the bike won’t flop around. Seen these on tons of trucks at the trail heads.

 
Yes easily fits. They are using a tailgate bike protector. You don’t have to worry about installing a bike rack in the bed and the bike won’t flop around. Seen these on tons of trucks at the trail heads.

Similar Bike in an F-Series with 6'5" bed.
1699983175854.png


That fits easily. 0% chance the bike will fit in the CT the same way, maybe diagonally.

Edit: How can you say it fits easily in the CT?

1699983418958.png


The back tire is almost touching the window as is, there's no room to get the entire bike in there.

I'm not saying it's important to do so, but I am saying it's not possible.
 
Similar Bike in an F-Series with 6'5" bed.
View attachment 990666

That fits easily. 0% chance the bike will fit in the CT the same way, maybe diagonally.

Edit: How can you say it fits easily in the CT?

View attachment 990672

The back tire is almost touching the window as is, there's no room to get the entire bike in there.

I'm not saying it's important to do so, but I am saying it's not possible.
unless this is a mountain bike for a giant... that bed looks also very narrow. who knows. but in that picture there isn't much space behind the bike and the entire front hangs over the tailgate...
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: STUtoday
Yes easily fits. They are using a tailgate bike protector. You don’t have to worry about installing a bike rack in the bed and the bike won’t flop around. Seen these on tons of trucks at the trail heads.


That product is absolutely not in the picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscbucsfan
As was partially pointed out in that thread, the truck was doing this segment:


[EDIT: Fixed the link...]
This is a 300-foot descent, starting at 900 feet and ending at 600 feet. (This will regen about 0.8kWh given the truck's weight alone; so the resulting efficiency will be 50Wh/mi lower (better) than it would get on the level.)

It makes it 16 miles, in 26 minutes, average speed of 37mph (though it probably is a quite a lot of slow with some fast so the average is not the best way to look at it). This uses between 5.5% and 6.5% of the pack (says 6% with rounding error).

So that's a range of 246 to 290 miles in those downhill conditions. That doesn't include the buffer of course.

If we generously say 0.8kWh is just 0.5% of the pack, say a level trip would take between 6% and 7%. So 228-267 miles for a level trip.

Probably around a 300-mile pack I would guess. Can't see any way to figure out capacity or rated efficiency from displayed information though. Probably 120kWh or so, wild guess without even considering possible cell arrangements (I assume it'll be a parallel scaled-up version of the S pack but who knows, maybe it'll be higher voltage). No information to support any of this paragraph.

Of course this all assumes the trip planner has any idea of how to calculate arrival charge for a Cybertruck, which seems questionable since it can't even do it properly for a Model 3 half the time.

Can't make sense of the charging rate & the mi/hr added - as mentioned in the thread it doesn't make much sense. 77kW/75mi/hr = 1026Wh/mi and I doubt it is that bad, so probably a bug or just displaying average rates or something (don't know how these screens work these days). Or I'm thinking about that wrong.
 
Last edited:
Can't make sense of the charging rate & the mi/hr added - as mentioned in the thread it doesn't make much sense. 77kW/75mi/hr = 1026Wh/mi and I doubt it is that bad, so probably a bug or just displaying average rates or something (don't know how these screens work these days). Or I'm thinking about that wrong.
Yeah, seems like a 1kWh/mile placeholder plus efficiency/ HVAC loss. Or they had high recent consumption.
 
Of course this all assumes the trip planner has any idea of how to calculate arrival charge for a Cybertruck, which seems questionable since it can't even do it properly for a Model 3 half the time.

Not my experience at all in our 2022 M3LR. Driving near or just over the speed limit, I find the estimation of charge remaining at next Supercharger/destination to be accurate to within just a few percent. And that accuracy has incrementally improved over time and system updates.