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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
For all the people upset at no 500mile range, you do realize your need to go 500miles WITHOUT STOPPING is a niche thing yes?
Sure, there may be 5% of potential buyers who for some reason genuinely need a 500 mile range pikcup truck. Thats fine, but I'd rather Tesla make a decent, affordable truck for the other 95%.
You do realize that those who say they NEED 500 miles range for the most part really do need that range, don't you? I would argue that 95% of your 95% who don't need that range also don't really need a Cybertruck, they could easily accomplish what they want to do with a Model X/Y with a utility trailer the handful of times they'd actually use the bed.

On the otherhand, the 5% (your numbers) who are let down by the absence of 500 miles range are the ones who really don't have an electric alternative to an ICE vehicle. We're let down by the lack of 500 miles range.

You can look at my profile pic to see why I'm disappointed. Towing an RV drops your range by 50%. Then add rain, gravel roads and no electrical hookups for 100+ miles from where you're camping and the equation changes quickly.

Second reason I want 500+ miles range, look at a map of Superchargers. See all the empty space in BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan that's north of Edmonton, AB? Well that's my playground, not a Supercharger in sight. The canoeing, fishing, etc. up there is amazing. It's challenging to do with the current ranges offered. More range would definately open up more of this territory. Contrary to what some may think, it's not a wasteland, there are ICE vehicles driving around there. Not as many as south of the northernmost line of Superchargers, but that's why it's still such an amazing place. Running out of gas in a remote area can reasonably easily be dealt with via a jerry can of gas. A BEV out of charge in a remote area is a much bigger problem.

Related to the point above is off-roading and winter driving in areas poorly served by charging infrastructure. Much as I love my Model X, I don't take it off-road because it's too expensive for me to accept the damage to the finish that off-roading would subject it to. A Cybertruck though would be a dream vehicle for that given it's lack of paint to scrape off and the difficulty in denting it's exterior. Off-roading will deplete the battery quickly though and is often done in areas far from Superchargers and in areas where running out of charge can be very problematic.

Certainly more Superchargers would help. They would also have to be built as pull-throughs. It's not much fun showing up to a Supercharger at a mall with no available parking spaces to ditch the trailer, circling around for a long time trying to find a spot, carefully backing in to unhitch the RV while blocking traffic, heading off to wait in line to charge, finally getting a charge (soon to be less than 100% or face congestion fees) then having to go block traffic again while hitching up to carry on (yes, I'm looking at you Cross Iron Mills - Calgary 😡). BTW, once they're built, how much you want to bet that the pull-throughs will always be in use by someone not towing whenever someone pulls up with a trailer looking to charge?

For now, I'm not upset at Tesla. Maybe in time as their battery chemistry improves and they ramp up battery production they'll have a 500 mile range version. I could also be happy with the Range Extender, but only if it's an affordable rental. I don't want it permanently taking up bed space, nor do I want to insert/remove and store the thing. Time will tell.

What I am upset with is those who are dismissive of those upset with the lack of 500 miles range. To be told by someone who wants a the Cybertruck as a status symbol (not saying that's you Cliff, speaking in general terms now) what we don't need, when we clearly do know what we want a truck for is very annoying, to say the least.
 
That is just V4 posts. The actual chargers are still the same old V3 ones.

Yup. article even stated such:

the V4 dispenser can be seen, which states a rating of 1,000 volts and 615 amps, indicating the possibility of 615 kW theoretical capability on the dispenser level in the future (the same as in Europe). But for now, they still draw power from V3 cabinets.

...


It pumped out 255 kW, juicing up the Model 3 from 20 to 60 percent in just 10 minutes
 
Different experiences and points of view possibly largely influenced by where someone lives. Here in the USA, I often do road trips. My most common trip is 1830 miles each way. At highway speeds in real world use, I can maybe get 220 miles out of my long range model y that had an epa range of 326 miles at delivery. My 100% yesterday displayed 275 miles with less than 50,000 miles on the odometer.

I desire a 500+ mile rated vehicle from Tesla because then I might actually achieve 300 miles of real world range on road trips.

I've been driving teslas long enough to realize range anxiety and perception often don't match reality but that perception may keep many truck buyers from purchasing. Here in Phoenix, many truck buyers desire to tow campers up to flagstaff in the summer. That's about 130 to 140 miles up a 6,000 feet elevation change with dips and rises along the way. I doubt any of the current cybertruck offerings could make that on a single charge without the range extender. That's a non starter for those truck owners.
There are three superchargers between Phoenix and Flagstaff, shouldn't be much of a problem!
 
It may be a scant few years before the blistering pace of Supercharger expansion addresses the issues described by @bpjod above.

Further battery development may net some relief with more efficient technologies as well.

They say that patience is a virtue. Even though it is disappointing to see the status symbol crowd being catered to, they likely are the largest sub-set of buyers in all honesty.
 
I'm surprise they didn't decide to put the range extender instead of the backseat. I bet in reality most CT buyers, at least the ones without kids, will never or very seldom have anyone in the backseat.

I wonder what the range could have been if they had opted to use that storage space under the bed for cells.

Kinda like the 2 "stacked" modules on the front of the original S packs...
 
Agree, great video

One small error is that he says there are 1366 4680 cells.

1366 only factors into 2 and 683, a prime number which doesn't support the parallel x series groupings needed.

1376 would yeild 2 packs of 86 * 8 which is similar to the 4680 Y 69x12 config (less parallel is needed when you have more series).
Why 2 packs? Drew B says the pack splits in half for Supercharging at 400V.
Only you Mongo would have spotted that, only you! Tell me, did you think the number was 1376 before, or did you do the math on 1366 to realize it wouldn’t work?
 
…well now we know why the event was scheduled in the middle of a “workday”. A large part of me thinks they would of been better off not holding an event.

Anyhow, on to more important things. CENSORSHIP.

Part of evaluating data is evaluating the source of that data, and to examine for any bias. As we know, Elon tweets are not allowed in this thread, despite how they can heavily influence stock price. Hence, I started a thread to discuss Elon’s tweets or news about Elon and how those things might potentially impact TSLA.

That thread was DELETED PREEMPTIVELY as “ these threads always go off the rails”. A lot of people actually think these things are part of the rails. To not openly discuss them is akin to plugging your ears while screaming I can’t hear you.

It is important to know when evaluating TMC as a source of data for your investments that there is not only censorship of inappropriate discussion, but
preemptive censorship of what is ALLOWED to be discussed. Obviously this introduces massive bias, which is not only unfortunate but a disservice to all who try to make this place and have made this place what it is.


Before those of you who are semantically inclined chime in, yes I realize it is a private owned entity, and any topics can be censored. But most of you here get my point.

@Doug_G
@danny
From someone who participated quite a bit in the biggest recent thread on the topic. I gained zero useful knowledge that I wouldn’t have been getting elsewhere naturally.
Yes it bears on the stock. No question. And yes in an ideal world it could be discussed civilly here, and in a thoughtful way. But as has been proven time after time with Elon threads we do not live in an ideal world. I wasn’t happy when they shut down that forum, but have come to the conclusion that, like the entirely of Twitter, and things like Mr. Beast, it was a near criminal waste of human lifespan.
At this point I'm convinced the mods are right and it’s just impossible to tackle the topic without the forum joining the cesspool of tribal hogwash that makes up so much of the internet.
 
I'm 99% positive that the Powershare Mobile Connector does not have an inverter in it. We know they have AC coming out of the NACS port for Powershare to your house at 11.5kW. And can likely charge at 11.5kW as well. And I would think that the outlets in the vehicle can be active while charging, so the outlet have their own 9.6kW inverter.

I do wonder why the limited the Powershare Mobile Connector to 32A, when there should be much more power available.
I doubt they have two inverters internal, one of which is far more seldom used. I guess we have to take a peak at the CT owner manual to figure this one out. Anyone have a copy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hobbes
I wonder what the range could have been if they had opted to use that storage space under the bed for cells.

Kinda like the 2 "stacked" modules on the front of the original S packs...
Or, if they had built the range extender to fit in that storage space. It would offer less battery capacity, but would have left the bed clear.

On a related note, while walking the production line where the bed was displayed I asked the Tesla employee if there were plans to put an outlet in the storage space and mentioned the fridge a third party is selling for that space in the Y. He knew about that fridge and thought it was probably a good idea for the CT as well, but no accommodation for power there was planned as far as he was aware.

FWIW, there are drain holes in the bottom of the middle storage compartment so it can be used as an ice chest.
 
I suspect the didn't do the 500 mile version because it required 2 layers of batteries... so a different body/chassis design. We may see it some day, but releasing everything they can make with one body makes sense. I just wish they'd said that.
Elon was very careful to not even hint at future capabilities. This Is It was the message. Very smart as it gives no reservation holder any reason to delay their purchase.
 
All 3 major reviews today are excellent. Lars Moravy is one smart SOB. Marques should not talk too much about engineering unscripted.

Tesla has the best driving stats on the planet. They know how much range is really needed based on real data.

This thing has changed humanity forever. Let's see the stats in a year or two.

Great job Tesla, awesome thing this is.
 
Only you Mongo would have spotted that, only you! Tell me, did you think the number was 1376 before, or did you do the math on 1366 to realize it wouldn’t work?

Did the math, quickly couldn't find any reasonable factors, check online calculator, then did minimal search for close number that makes more sense. 1376 is still low in the voltage department, but that may be for future expansion.

I doubt they have two inverters internal, one of which is far more seldom used. I guess we have to take a peak at the CT owner manual to figure this one out. Anyone have a copy?

Not two inverters, one inverter and one bidirectional charger.

Edit: Tesla has the rest of the service manuals online, hopefully they will for Cybertruck also
 
Last edited:
Actually no (so much for not posting here anymore)

The biggest change that happened is that they went from a double layer pack to a single layer one. Why? A few reasons

1 - They wanted to make the truck smaller, making it smaller and keeping the height you either mess up with the proportions with a higher roof angle, or you lose a lot of interior space and head room

2 - With the truck being smaller, there is less drag and weight, to the point that now a single layer 4680 gen 2 pack can achieve and surpass the 300+ miles target by quite a margin


So they went with a solution that is better to the vast majority of people but no higher range option without a somewhat janky extra battery on the bed

This also means that while we will probably see the range increase over time with latter 4680 versions, not 340 miles to 500 miles

By the way, it also chargers from 15 to 85% in 20 minutes or less, this is huge and a massive improvement compared to other EV trucks and even other Tesla vehicles, so the gen 2 4680s are finally showing what they can do

I agree with their decision to go with a single layer pack. However, I'm sure that decision was made quite a while ago and predicated largely on the assumptions the 4680 pack would simply be more energy dense than it is. The "range extender" strikes me as the equivalent to Gigatexas' "plan b" for Model Y 2170 cells. Again, I don't think the range extender will exist for long (or maybe ever), and I assume Tesla will get there...the 4680 road has just been a lot more challenging than I think anyone (especially Tesla) anticipated.
 
Lots of good opinions on the Cybertruck reveal, and lots of noise too, no surprise there. And I agree the Hagerty video is really informative.

I didn't see anyone mention this:

Yes, the Cybertruck will divide the market.
Yes, Tesla will sell every Cybertruck they make for the next several years.
Yes, Elon said they're aiming for 250,000 / year.

But after what we've learned about the technology inside, there's way too much innovation in the Cybertruck for Tesla to keep as a niche vehicle, like the Plaids.

I predict either Tesla eventually adds more Gigapresses and lines to double or treble Cybertruck capacity beyond 250,000, and/or they leverage the innovation and development CapEx towards Gen 3 (or variations on the platform like a van or smaller pickup). Point being, as shareholders, the future is very bright from an automotive standpoint alone, besides all the other unaddressed markets that others have listed and I won't repeat.

This view isn't news, I know, but lost in the arguing about range is what a big step change in production sophistication and cost reduction Cybertruck brings to Tesla's automotive business (and drop the SS and 4W-steering and reduce costs by - what - 20% more?).
 
Last edited: