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....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Speculation of pack sizes (kWh)
- Thread starter insaneoctane
- Start date
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...
The truck is a monster. I’m figuring 400 Wh/mi empty.
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.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
From main thread:
Oh yes, this is the obvious move to leverage existing tech. Let's flesh out the Cybertruck Lineup:
See how nicely the announced ranges for the three different Cybertruck variants align with these existing powertrains? Let's spell it out more compactly:
- $40K CT RWD (CTR): late 2021 - Est'd 17% of Production
- Model 3 powertrain from LR: (avail now)
- single SRPM rear drive - GF1
- 75 KWh bty pack - GF1
- 325/250 mile range M3LR/CTR =
- Est'd 1.30x energy consumption for CTR
- $50K CT AWD (CTA): late 2021 - Est'd 42% of Production
- Raven powertrain from Model S/X: (avail now)
- Performance AC induction rear drive - Fremont
- Model 3 SRPM front drive - GF1
- 100 KWh pack built with 18650s - Fremont+Japan
- 375/300 mile range RS/CTA =
- Est'd 1.25x energy consumption for CTA
- $70K CT Tri-Motor (CT3): late 2022- Est'd 41% of Production
- PLAID powertrain from Model S/X/R2: (avail Summer 2020)
- 2x Model 3 SRPMs w. dual drive rear - GF1
- Model 3 SRPM front drive - GF1
- 200 KWh pack built with 'Maxcells' - t.b.d. (Summer 2020)
- 620/500 mile range R2/CT3 =
- Est'd 1.24x energy consumption for CT3
Now, making these assumptions, we can estimate Cybertruck energy consumption per variant:
- Model LR RWD 1.3x range of Cybertruck RWD
- Model S RAVEN 1.25x range of Cybertruck AWD
- Roadster 2 PLAID: 1.24x range of Cybertruck TRI
Note that CT/Tri-motor consumption rating is slightly high. I think its likely CT/Tri has either 600 miles of range (assume empty, same eff. as CT/AWD) or that it only needs a 150 KWh bty to achieve 500 miles range. Or perhaps Telsa wants to give you 500 real world miles of range while towing, or off-road racing, or rolling a big damn MegaAmp (pumpin' out the jams like @SpaceCash)
- Cybertruck RWD:300 Wh/mi <= Ed. Note: That's 100 MPGe in a TRUCK!
- Cybertruck AWD: 333 Wh/mi
- Cybertruck TRI: 400 Wh/mi
So I think this is close to Tesla's plan for their 3 Cybertruck variants:
In summary, I think this is the way Tesla doubles their TAM (total addressable market) esp. within the U.S. with virtually ZERO NEW CapEx. Their major remaining engineering expense will be learning how to mass produce vehicles bodies in Stainless Steel.
- it leverages existing technogy and production facilities to speed product launch
- it minimizes R&D expense by reusing existing powertrains
- it minimize CapEx by spreading major components across existing production lines
- it defers the most complicated variant by 1 year to allow completion of already in-progress R&D efforts (Plaid powertrain), again minimizing new CapEx
Now if only there was some friendly company will aligned goals with which Tesla could partner to share those expenses and accumulated engineering know how...
If only... /S
Cheers!
P.S. Who wants to estimate the weight of the 3 Cybertruck variants, given their target 0-60 times from the reveal, and the known values for acceleration and weight achieved by the existing Tesla models on which those Cybertrucks variants are based?
Bonus Points: How quick will Cybertruck be on Mars (0-60 mph)?
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Another data point for comparison:
Cybertruck 500 miles with 200 kWh (assumed)
Roadster 620 miles with 200 kWh
Cybertruck 500 miles with 200 kWh (assumed)
Roadster 620 miles with 200 kWh
RobDickinson
Active Member
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.
RobDickinson
Active Member
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.
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.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Similar threads
