Yes, over twice the range of a standard Model 3If we assume that 610 was a full charge then maybe 550 miles at 90% charge?
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, over twice the range of a standard Model 3If we assume that 610 was a full charge then maybe 550 miles at 90% charge?
You are correct that they are related but your conclusion is backwards. The Plaid+ was cancelled because the 4680 cells were/are not ready. The 4680s are absolutely critical to the CT delivering the range and pricing that Tesla has advertised. They are going to start with MY in Austin as it uses 2170s and the 4680s are delayed. The hope is that the 4680s will be ready by the time the CT line is built a year from now.here is my question about range. the Plaid + was canceled because I guess we didn't need it or something. It was also supposed to have the new batteries The CT is also supposed to have the new batteries which is going to give the CT its range. It almost makes me think those new cells wont be happening now given the cancelation of the plaid + and that lame reason. I dunno, could be grasping at straws but it seems weird.
You are correct that they are related but your conclusion is backwards. The Plaid+ was cancelled because the 4680 cells were/are not ready. The 4680s are absolutely critical to the CT delivering the range and pricing that Tesla has advertised. They are going to start with MY in Austin as it uses 2170s and the 4680s are delayed. The hope is that the 4680s will be ready by the time the CT line is built a year from now.
I saw the 610 range in the patent application for the interface. Were there any other (confirmed) locations/sources for that number?Where did you get this from?
I saw the 610 range in the patent application for the interface. Were there any other (confirmed) locations/sources for that number?
Why do you think the CT will need more charging time per mile? Seems to me like the new batteries and chargers may speed up charging, but I don’t understand the technical details. Thanks.I'm not planning on towing further than the local garden store or land fill. So range isn't that important. I'll use a far more efficient car, like a Model 3 or Y for road trips. Having just finished a 5000 mile road trip in a Model 3, charging speed is very important. The CT will need more charging time per mile. My plan is a CT for a second car for when I need to haul things or when my other car is in use. My main driving car will likely be a Model Y when it has 4680s.
Getting a vehicle to home, for the CT is more important than range. This may drive me to a Ford.
While it will be true that the CT uses more energy than the other Tesla models, it shouldn't take longer to charge it. Although we haven't seen a production vehicle that is using the 4680 cells, the tab-less design of the 4680 indicates that charging should be much faster (lower resistance for better heat management). Take a look at the chart presented during battery day in the attached for more information. Tesla 4680 Cell: Thermal Analysis Suggests Unique Cooling System Design^ he's likely inferring that the CT will require more energy to travel 100mi vs. the M3 or MY so it will take longer to charge the CT after driving said 100mi vs the more efficient designs.
Why do you think the CT will need more charging time per mile? Seems to me like the new batteries and chargers may speed up charging, but I don’t understand the technical details. Thanks
Thanks, I will be watching the key assumption of “500Wh/mile”. I have an old S that I plan to keep for certain trips, but I’d also add that the CT will have more than twice the utility of a 3 to me.My M3 can charge at 250 kW, though most SCs I use are limited to 150 kW. It gets about 270 Wh/mile. I expect the CT to get about 500 Wh/mile. This is about half as efficient as the M3. Even if the CT can charge at 350 kW, something no supercharger can do or is likely to do soon, the CT will still be 50% slower. Towards the top end of SOC, there should be more parity. It's possible that the tri-motor will be a faster road tripper. But it will cost close to twice as much as the M3 per mile.
You will be miserable charging a CT at a crowded V2 supercharger.
Reviewers are super generous with the Ford. I saw a guy comparing the Cybertruck to the Ford and he arbitrarily assigned base—230 mile range—Lightning an effective range of 350 miles "because Ford is super conservative with their numbers".I'm hoping Ford's range prediction pushes Tesla to boost CT range. Very skeptical about Ford's prediction though, as F150 aerodynamics are questionable (CT has the retractable cover which will help alot. I can tell you aerodynamics are significant for range - a bike rack on the back of my model 3 reduces my range by 20-30% at high speed
I guess they are trying to encourage Ford to "do the right thing" and put the majority of their R&D into EVs and other low/zero emission alternatives to ICE vehicles. I agree though, traditional ICE manufacturers are getting a light touch in critical reviews. VW acting altruistic is truly a laugh-riot. They are doing their damndest to bury Diesel-gate as deep as they can. The commercials where they tout how green they are makes me a bit queasy.Reviewers are super generous with the Ford. I saw a guy comparing the Cybertruck to the Ford and he arbitrarily assigned base—230 mile range—Lightning an effective range of 350 miles "because Ford is super conservative with their numbers".
If people want to gift companies with bonus range after the car/ truck is on the market and has a track record of crushing it's range numbers, then I can understand. But nobody has actually driven the Ford to 400 miles the early reviewers claim to have seen, it was literally just a number on the console. Its about as effective a prediction as the 600 mile range seen on the UI patents Tesla has out there.