The truck comes in 250, 300 & 500 mile ranges. Any guesses about the pack sizes necessary to make that happen? I'm thinking 85, 100, 175 kWh without any real calculations behind it....
Your math is sound (percentage wise). If correct, it says a lot about aero and tire INefficiency if there MS gets 370 miles from the same pack size as only gets 250 miles on truck...
MS still doesn't have the newer cell structure either, does it? Id imagine wh/mi is even higher than 400. I'd venture to say it'll push 430-450.
I’m just not seeing how the consumption can be that low. Maybe in the fantasy land of WLTP testing, but not EPA. I’m prepared to eat crow two years from now. We’ll see!
Honestly, I agree. I would also have guessed around 100/120/200 kWh. Possibly something like 90/115/200 kWh because the RWD drive version is probably more efficient and needs less than half of the battery capacity to go half as far as the trimotor truck. 250 miles of range with the Model 3 LR pack would be insanely efficient for a truck. So I doubt it. Keep in mind the Model X 75D gets 238 miles of EPA-rated range...Sure, the 75D did not have the more efficient Model 3 motor, like the current 100D does and the Cybertruck might have, but still I would assume the Model X to be more efficient than the truck due to better aerodynamics, less weight and tires with less rolling resistance.
A model 3 LR pack would work I believe. Here are the advantages a RWD Cybertruck would have over an X 75D: One efficient motor instead of two motors. Actual useable kWh of an X 75D is 72.6 kWh vs. 74-75 kWh in an LR model 3. Assuming it lowers automatically at higher speeds, it will be slightly taller, slightly wider but 2 feet longer than an X. The longer profile helps aerodynamics. The sloping rear will significantly help lower the Cd. The RWD Cybertruck will hopefully weigh less than a model X 75D. Disadvantages: Larger frontal area. Tires. A Dodge Ram and a Dodge Charger have the same combined EPA rated mileage with the same engine in RWD form. It is true for both the 6 cylinder and the 8 cylinder. I know it isn’t apples to apples comparison. But it seems surprising.
Another data point for comparison: Cybertruck 500 miles with 200 kWh (assumed) Roadster 620 miles with 200 kWh
Historically, the MX showed better efficiency with AWD vs RWD, but the Raven platform may break this trend. I can't believe that the truck will weigh less than the MX, nor do I think it will have better aerodynamics. Just IMO.
To estimate the ratio between Model 3 and Cybertruck energy use, we can compare Ford F150 vs Ford Fusion energy use. The most efficient conventional powertrain Fusion gets 27 MPG combined. The most efficient F150 gets 22 MPG, meaning that the F150 uses 22% more energy per mile than the Fusion. If the ratio for Teslas is similar, the estimates of 75, 100, and 200kWh battery sizes is reasonable.
Ok. More math to help support the model 3 pack in the Cybertruck. I am going to compare a medium size sedan and 5,500 pound full size SUV with similar drivetrains. Then I am going to use the actual EPA test range on the RWD model 3 with aero wheels to estimate the range of a 5,500 pound SUV with the exact same drive unit. Keep in mind Tesla intentionally published a lower range for the RWD model 3 to keep it from competing with the pre raven Model S and to simplify the expectations for the AWD model 3’s. MPGe from fuel economy dot gov Model X LR 96 Model 3 LR AWD 116 Model 3 actual EPA testing range 334 miles. So (334miles)96MPGe/116MPGe would give you 276 miles. This would be for an aerodynamic SUV with 20” wheels and wide tires. I am hoping that with the exoskeleton, smaller battery pack, single drive unit, no falcon wing doors, smaller interior with a single screen the Cybertruck will weigh less than the Model X. I would guess closer to 75-80/100/180 kWh.
KWh as a measurement of energy content doesn't care about form factor. Gravimetric density between the two cell types is pretty close.
Turn this around: Do we want the base version to be 75 kWh or 100 kWh? 100 would mean Tesla have maybe halved the battery cost as well as reducing the cost of manufacture through stainless steel. 75 would require Tesla to have reduced the weight of batteries significantly. Battery cost and weight reductions probably go hand in hand however. No bad outcomes here.