Why has Rivian R1T a Cd of 0.30 compared to 0.335 for the Cybertruck?
-
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
I don't understand it myself, but some people don't like the EXISTENCE of an option they don't personally like or want.
In this case: production is just starting and is very slow and expensive...so, you can get an optioned-up expensive one now, or wait until production is up and the version and price you want are available. It is a fair choice. But some people imagine that they *could* get a cheap version today if it wasn't for that darned expensive version hogging space in the queue.
In reality, the result of cheaper versions now and strict delivery in accordance with reservation number would probably be: Tesla loses huge sums on every delivery...and those deliveries mostly go to a bunch of savvy fellows that made 100's of very early reservations. Those savvy scalpers get to buy up all the cheap Cybertrucks Tesla can deliver, and then sell them for $120K for their own profit.
In a related complaint: There are also critics of Tesla who still claim that they are "toys for the rich," and they use the optoins to "prove" it. They'll start out with: "Sure, you COULD get the cheapest $35K Model 3 version, but you really want the bigger battery for $XXXX more. And you'll want fancy paint and wheels, so tack on another $XXXX. And you need the white interior. And FSD. And an extra warranty. And you just must upgrade your home wiring for 48A charging. Now you're approaching $80,000 and only rich people can afford that! " In this silly line of thinking, having options that (gasp) cost money, like every other manufacturer, is somehow the equivalent of being "forced" to purchase those options...
Finally: my personal pet peeve is when manufacturers anticipate that SOME people might not like an option, so they try to avoid the backlash by just not offering that option at all in some markets. For example -- the Honda CR-Z was a 4 seater in Europe and Japan, with two small seats in the rear. Since Americans "wouldn't like those seats," they didn't offer them in the U.S. Instead, we got a plastic "shelf" that looked a lot like seats, minus the cushions and seatbelts. Similarly, the Prius-V could be optioned as a 7-seater in Japan and Europe -- again, 2 small seats making the 3rd row. But "Americans are bigger and wouldn't like those seats" so we just got a 5-seat version. I can't fathom why anybody too big to fit in those tiny extra seats would need to throw a fit about their existence, just because some people might be smaller or have young kids and CHOOSE that OPTION. But, because that fit-throwing is so scary to manufacturers, that option just wasn't available in the US. As a result, I couldn't justify a Prius-V many years ago, and instead had to wait for my 7-seat Y to hold my 6-person family
. So, now you know my motivations on this point...Personally, I am GLAD that Tesla offers options that SOME people won't like. I am GLAD they offer OPTIONS that I don't like if it makes better business sense for them. Eventually, this means their business will expand faster, appeal to more people, and as total production goes up and more high-profit options are sold, the profits can be put toward driving down prices. The Master Plan stated this on a big scale and long timeline, and it also works on a smaller scale for each model...
cliff harris
Member
Others follow this more closely than me, but from what I've read here, I thought that the pepsi and first few tesla-internal semis were basically just hand built proof of concept vehicles, and that a whole dedicated new production line for the semi was being built in the nevada gigafactory?
Which would explain the long delay.
I do think wall st, and even most retail investors underestimate the potential of the semi. It really should be a question on the next earnings call, but I bet it gets outvoted in favor of a dozen CT ones
.
DFibRL8R
Active Member
Haven’t you ever seen a truckallelagram?
that is a good question ... but not my point Rivian looks just as dumb as F150
CT and Rivian look closer to airfoil ....
Aero force = (bunch of gas factors) * Cd * crossectional area * velocity²
Since area gets backed out, larger items may have an easier time achieving a low Cd. Semi has a Cd of 0.36
There's also the charging infrastructure, with the Semi requiring the big boi chargers -- Tesla was seeking $100million in federal funding to build a charging corridor between Texas and California
And then mass production of the Semi was supposed to happen at a massive $3.6billion Giga Nevada expansion, which Tesla in July had hired Michael Hildebrand to lead
Haven't kept up with Nevada enough to know if ground has broken on that expansion
Darkfox021
Member
Love it! Just as far for me as driving to Mt. Kisco, but this is a creative middle finger to the dealerships.
An interesting point, possibly of relevance. But if a baby warthog is beautiful only to its mom, then where are we?
At any rate, I will apply your test to Gus tonight and apprise.
navguy12
Active Member
Some anti-FUD talking points:
spectrum.ieee.org
Extinguishing the EV Battery Fire Hype
The numbers don’t support persistent fears of lithium-ion conflagrations
spectrum.ieee.org
Convenient image from your linked article, for those who want to share it to fight the FUD:Some anti-FUD talking points:
Extinguishing the EV Battery Fire Hype
The numbers don’t support persistent fears of lithium-ion conflagrations
Ganesh always struck me as waaay too laid back for Tesla. And Dojo really hasn't been implemented at Tesla speed.
They also don't have a manufacturing line, just a hand built prototype line. So until that line gets built, we're not going to see semi.
But let's see, CT will be low volume throughout 2024 (although some think otherwise).
Semi needs a manufacturing line, and Tesla could easily get that built and operational by early 2025.
gen3 has a building already built (giga texas), and Elon is reviewing manufacturing line plans weekly. They could start product by end of 2024.
FSD will take another year (because, of course it will, latest non V12 build is still *sugar*, and initial V12 builds will also be *sugar*).
So first quarter of 2025 appears to be the Tesla singularity.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
This news story made me chuckle at the chuckleheads and their idea of how the transition will come.
The mere fact that EVs out perform, outlast, and cost less (over a few years of operation) when compared to ICE will be the driving factor in the steepness of the ramp of the transition. (and EVs are getting better and less expensive as time passes)
It just makes sense to anyone not blinded by rhetoric. This is why Elon has always said that Tesla doesn't need help from the government to make this happen.
Allowing the ICE OEMs to keep selling their tired, old, expensive and inefficient technology for longer isn't going to make any more difference than did deep discounts on horses, tack, and buggies made for that transition a hundred years ago.
www.teslarati.com
The mere fact that EVs out perform, outlast, and cost less (over a few years of operation) when compared to ICE will be the driving factor in the steepness of the ramp of the transition. (and EVs are getting better and less expensive as time passes)
It just makes sense to anyone not blinded by rhetoric. This is why Elon has always said that Tesla doesn't need help from the government to make this happen.
Allowing the ICE OEMs to keep selling their tired, old, expensive and inefficient technology for longer isn't going to make any more difference than did deep discounts on horses, tack, and buggies made for that transition a hundred years ago.
Plans for a major EV transition in the U.S. in the next decade take a drastic hit
Plans for a major shift in the U.S. automotive market over the next decade have taken a drastic hit as today.
www.teslarati.com
Last edited:
This is a great video about the 48V architecture, hinting about the reason Elon send the document to all OEM’s about how to design a 48V architecture that it might have to do in licensing the technology.
Rashomon
Member
Hmmm. The angular design has something to do with it. The Cybertruck was designed to look cool first, but with some thought applied to typical pickup aero problems (the tonneau cover eliminates the huge vortex behind the cabin and drag from the tailgate that exists for most pickups). And they clearly optimized like hell from the first proto shown to the final version. But the inital design constrained them more than typical for Tesla, and they only got Cd down to 0.335 and with A large as well. It's a little lower (good) but substantially wider than the Rivian (bad), and the cross-sectional area, because of sharp edges, is likely closer to width x height than a typical truck shape, without the rounded corners on the frontal area projection. Rivian, in contrast, chose to do more aero optimization than Tesla, and you see a lot more tapered, rounded profiles on it (the rear of the cab, the rear of the bed, both in top view.) Also, the very short bed of the Rivian and careful shaping of the cab probably helps with the pickup rear vortex issue. For Tesla to get the mileage/kWh that they do get with a substantially worse CdA means there's a lot of efficiency coming from the Cybertruck driveline. A non-angular, aero-optimized Tesla truck shape (see Semi) with a similar tonneau cover design might offer 10 percent better highway range than the current Cybertruck. But it might well sell a lot worse.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
