Agreed, if I was in the market for a truck (I'm not) and living in the US (I'm not), I would be doing everything I could to get a CT ASAP
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
It’s about the towing. That will cut range by quite a bit. 500 would maybe give you 250 if pulling a 11k trailer.
500 miles quickly turns into 200 or less while towing and driving from 80-20% and then you would have to drop the trailer to tow. That's why it's such a big deal. People wanted it to replace ICE trucks.
A common thing, even among Tesla supporters ok social media, was "If you really want to tow, stick with ICE, but if you want a fast.....etc". IMO that's the worst thing that happened yesterday. The Ram Charger had a ton of mentions.
And the "people rarely tow/haul" argument is terrible. People buy trucks at such a high rate for the capability to do these things.
Even if the owner could technically remove it, they would need an engine hoist to do so.
Won't range matter less in the future. As the supercharger network and other charging infrastructure increases across the globe, it will be a simple matter of stopping and charging.
Also charging technology will become much faster so charging we'll just be more like stopping for a cup of coffee or going to the bathroom this will negate the importance of 500 miles or better on a battery.
Here's an example. We just got back from a 3-day ski trip. We used about 150 mi of range to get to the ski area, both areas that we skied at had level two chargers. So all we did was pull our car into a level two charger spot, plug in, ski for the day and leave with a full charge again. This is becoming more and more common.
Also charging technology will become much faster so charging we'll just be more like stopping for a cup of coffee or going to the bathroom this will negate the importance of 500 miles or better on a battery.
Here's an example. We just got back from a 3-day ski trip. We used about 150 mi of range to get to the ski area, both areas that we skied at had level two chargers. So all we did was pull our car into a level two charger spot, plug in, ski for the day and leave with a full charge again. This is becoming more and more common.
It's not even about weight as much as it's about aero.
Sorry, but I often have people in the back seat. I'm still waiting to see a full sized person enter the back seat without bending over.
My thought is that the NACS Powershare is a bidirectional charger.
1. It already needs 11.5kW aka 48A aka 90% of 60 Amps aka a maxed out UWC of AC to DC. It's fairly simple to make that run in the AC-DC direction. Instead of paralleling a separate inverter and using contactors to mode switch
2. If it only had one inverter, why not 48A (or 50A) at the 14-50 outlet?
3. Separate units keep charging functionality isolated from the infinite universe of user loads
4. Separate units let the interior and exterior outlets function while charging (without a lot of extra complexity)
5. Running HVDC out the NACS to an external inverter carries a lot of system level issues compared to an internal inverter
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
The reality, I think, is that Tesla (more likely Elon) was just overly optimistic on how quickly their battery day tech would be ready. It’s not ready yet.
Yes, it was probably not a good idea for Tesla to mention anything about 500 mi at the initial reveal.
However:
The tech is coming. And when it does, it will be owned by Tesla, which will keep cost minimized. It will take a while for CT to ramp, and as new chemistries are available, they will integrate the range increases into the Cybertruck pack.
The current pack will not likely satisfy the needs of people who tow frequently or are not willing to stop and charge every 200 miles while towing. But they should sell enough to everyone else until it’s ready.
And when it’s ready, nobody else will be able to provide those specs at Tesla’s prices and with Tesla’s margin.
The comparison is not Tesla vs. a Powerpoint from 4 years ago.
The comparison is Tesla vs. everyone else. And Tesla is competetive (and profitable) there until the new battery tech is ready.
Remember, Rivian and Ford are not yet making a profit on their electric trucks—much less 15%+ margins, so they may even need to slim down features or increase prices to hit that metric.
Tesla is ahead of everyone else here. They are only behind the 2019 vision of themselves, which is not a new thing.
Yes, it was probably not a good idea for Tesla to mention anything about 500 mi at the initial reveal.
However:
The tech is coming. And when it does, it will be owned by Tesla, which will keep cost minimized. It will take a while for CT to ramp, and as new chemistries are available, they will integrate the range increases into the Cybertruck pack.
The current pack will not likely satisfy the needs of people who tow frequently or are not willing to stop and charge every 200 miles while towing. But they should sell enough to everyone else until it’s ready.
And when it’s ready, nobody else will be able to provide those specs at Tesla’s prices and with Tesla’s margin.
The comparison is not Tesla vs. a Powerpoint from 4 years ago.
The comparison is Tesla vs. everyone else. And Tesla is competetive (and profitable) there until the new battery tech is ready.
Remember, Rivian and Ford are not yet making a profit on their electric trucks—much less 15%+ margins, so they may even need to slim down features or increase prices to hit that metric.
Tesla is ahead of everyone else here. They are only behind the 2019 vision of themselves, which is not a new thing.
Ethernet between modules and 48V are just changes in wired architecture. It doesn't eliminate the need for harnesses in the separate body section. Main impact is the size of the harness and the connectors.
Tesla has filed for patents on wiring configurations that shift the connections around, but I don't understand how this would be so critical to the unboxed process.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
I do go "off road" but mostly gravel forest service roads. Frankly I'm not taking an $80k pickup into some of the places that would beat it up. But that's me, plenty do. I'd be happy with a standard, 4x4 package with "open" differentials-good enough for most snow conditions or steep gravel roads (not "off-roading").And people without kids are the ones wanting 500 miles range too. Try driving non-stop for 500 miles with kids
Most CT buyers - just like me - will never use it off-road. Just normal kid hauling duties in the suburbs
Just like I will never haul a large plywood sheet ...
I will be picking up a load of sheet rock with my pickup today! The bed gets used all the time for building materials, lawn care materials, hauling trash to the dump and firewood.
I could take such arguments so much more serious, if you wouldn't intentionally take the worst possible comparison to make Teslas prediction look extra bad.
You could have wrote this:
but you you chose not to.
Crazy that the bed un the CT and F150 both have 66" of usable floor space.
No more Tesla at rental company Sixt. Apparently too low demand and too high repair costs. Sixt schmeißt Tesla-Modelle raus - das sind die Gründe
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Could it be that some people are not concerned about having the car bullet proof or beating a Porsche in a race.
I think this Cybertruck looks great and provides what I am looking for. The price seems a little higher than it should be even counting inflation. To each their own! They will still sell every Cybertruck they make over the next 3-4 years.
Of the three , this is the best CT video I watched. It even included lots of best-of-Tesla historical facts that I did not know, such as the S broke the safety scoring system by getting a 5.4 out of 5.
Very entertaining and informative. They even executed the sledgehammer test to prove Tesla’s claim, vs a stainless steel fridge.
Then they ran a 1400kg sled running at 33.5 km/hr against the side panel to show that the steel skin did not need bracing for safety, and commented that whereas other cars would be a write off, the CT looked like it just needed two new doors and airbags to get back on the road.
1 hour ago.
Lots of impressive facts presented. E.g.
Very entertaining and informative. They even executed the sledgehammer test to prove Tesla’s claim, vs a stainless steel fridge.
Then they ran a 1400kg sled running at 33.5 km/hr against the side panel to show that the steel skin did not need bracing for safety, and commented that whereas other cars would be a write off, the CT looked like it just needed two new doors and airbags to get back on the road.
1 hour ago.
Lots of impressive facts presented. E.g.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
