Tesla Cybertruck owners who drove 10k miles say range is 164 to 206 miles | Hacker News Reader

Tesla Cybertruck owners who drove 10k miles say range is 164 to 206 miles

insideevs.com

67 pointshnuser0000146 comments

These range discussions are always a bit ridiculous to me, as it's an average/guess. It's just energy so many things play a factor. How fast was the driver going? How much wind was there? How often did they use AC and stereo? Was it hilly?

People have proven time and time again if you drive a Tesla quite slow on flat ground it exceeds the driving range, and if you drive it quite fast it's below it. Congratulations.

Whats annoying is Tesla internally knows the real range. On a trip, it picks a charging stop 180 miles away and says I will be at 5% charge when I arrive. But the mileage still says "310". If they actually adjusted the mileage display to be the real number, it would be SO much more helpful.

That is because the "range" and the "energy use for this route" are two different things. Really you -always- want the latter but people seem to think that it can be simplified to the former, it just can't.

Spherical cows in a vacuum and all of that.

Telsa puts a bunch of work into estimating energy use for a given route using elevation data etc, it's why they have their own route planner (that you can also tweak the behavior of).

From memory the only thing that goes into the "range" calc is current temperature, it otherwise just has to assume averages for everything else without knowing the route a priori.

This would be easier to believe if their display numbers weren't always larger than the real numbers

I drove 3000 miles in my first Time ever in a Tesla in a week and found the numbers to be incredibly accurate.

In city driving I routinely get better range than the top number.

Ok but it knows the route you are on and the mileage.

Yes, and you can view that in both the nav (on screen all the time) and the energy screen.

Of course they are different things. But the choice to define "range" as the highest possible number is misleading: people ask the range so that they can know how many stops are required at a highway speed trip.

Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. It certainly doesn't help the Windows computer hoi polloi feel as if they have gotten what they paid for.

I think they should just delete that number and just show energy and energy remaining at destination. It will annoy some luddites but it's the only reasonable way to display the actually important information, i.e will I make it and how much juice will I have when I get there.

Yup. There's a preference to show percentage rather than theoretical range. The latter is much more useful IMO, but percentage should probably be the default because theoretical range is misleading until you understand it.

There’s really 3 distinct numbers that are all useful today.

“Charge” = total energy which is useful for charging but not specific route planning.

“Range” = charge * temperature which is a useful benchmark for known trips and drivers. The specific number isn’t as important vs knowing you can do regular trips between known locations in X units. ie you can commute 4 more days without charging.

“Remaining charge at destination” = most accurate route planning but requires a specific route and external temperature.

> Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best.

Strong disagree here. When doing a trip we always use the nav computer so we always have the real number. (If only so the kids can look at the computer to see the number rather than asking "how much longer" continuously).

OTOH, in town we generally don't, so the top number being accurate for in town driving is very helpful.

This was reported on a few months ago.

This was a quote from an unnamed employee in the article “...when the battery fell below 50% of its maximum charge, the algorithm would show drivers more realistic projections for their remaining driving range...”

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...

Why would it be more helpful? You already explained that the nav computer is displaying the real number. It's not more helpful to have the real number in two places rather than one. It's more helpful to have two different numbers because there really are two different numbers. The nav computer is displaying the real number for that specific route. If your plans change and you take a detour, the computer can't give you an exact number for that since it doesn't know that route and it could be vastly different. For example, if you add an extra 50 miles city driving to explore a city on your trip you will get much different milage than the highway driving your trip computer is showing you.

If it bothers you so much, go into your app and change the settings to show percentage on the top rather than range. Myself I find it much easier to mentally convert theoretical range than battery percentage (heuristics like subtract 20% for cold, etc).

Think of it like 310 is your general mileage and the estimated is the real estimate for your specific trip.

Except that there is no trip where 310 would be the real estimate for that trip. So how is it in any way useful? Tesla just takes the real range, multiplies by some made up factor and pretends that's your range.

Except it would be if you just drove it around a city. So which number should they use

> How fast was the driver going? How much wind was there? How often did they use AC and stereo? Was it hilly?

Most of which the driver did report, in the linked post at https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/10-000-mi...

> if you drive a Tesla quite slow on flat ground

I don't imagine many people looking for 320 miles between charges are planning to do it anywhere except a highway?

Unless this is a specialist product for wilderness loggers who take regular 12 hour journeys down unpaved tracks?

FWIW the top reason I'd buy a truck is so I could take it camping, but here in Colorado though it's exactly as you say. Trucks are giant, gas-guzzling status symbols that people use to get to and from work. Most aren't used to haul anything (not even an additional passenger), but that set of testicles dangling from the chrome hitch sure looks cool.

But TESLAs have so many sensors that they know all this information... Yet still choose to be misleading (and charge you a ridiculous price if you use superchargers)

IIRC superchargers are the cheapest fast chargers..?

Not sure but either way it cost about the same as gas which makes no sense... Just a money grab

You’re ignorant of energy markets and the cost of fast charging but make confident statements. Fix one or both of those

Please. We have been estimating mpg just fine for a long time and people have come to expect accurate range estimations.

Electric has far higher variance, due to negative car per mile to go downhill.

More efficient vehicles have higher variance, period.

We once had a truck that would get the same mileage empty vs towing a few thousand pounds. Suffice it to say, that mileage was dreadful.

That's clearly not the problem here. Most EV makers can estimate range just fine, it's almost only Tesla that lies so much about it.

That’s because fuel has far more energy density than batteries. Yet ICE cars still underestimate mileage.

On YouTube some guys did the experiment: driving and measuring mileage after fuel gauge dropped to empty and computer started to complain about fuel. They got about 40 miles.

This is because most vehicles have a “reserve” of 1.5 gallons. So even when the gauge hits E you still have about 1.5 gallons at current MPG to make it gas station. This is get drivers to refuel sooner and not run the fuel pump dry which can cause major damage and be expensive to repair.

Yes. Many things lie to us because we can't handle the truth. Maybe they are right? I would hope for a different world.

Isn't that by design? Some law requiring that computer needs to warn you about low fuel level while you still have enough of it to get to the nearest gas station?

this.

With all this being said, however, there are quite a few positives, the biggest of which is the “beyond great” sound system.

Brutal.

Well, that wasn't the end of the sentence. They also mentioned "the car is 'a dream to drive.'” Seems relevant and quite a bit less brutal.

Well, actually, that was the end of the sentence. In fact the “dream” sentence you quote occurs two paragraphs later!

Dreaming of going farther than 200mi? Seems like a sensible dream.

400-500mi I can understand. My gas truck goes about that far. But <200mi is a joke…

The real joke is choosing a 3-ton pickup truck for a road trip.

Surely this is a mistake, as no one is road tripping in a 3-ton truck. That is pretty much a box van or dump truck. The vast, vast majority of trucks are light duty 1/2 ton or smaller.

I think he meant the literal weight of the vehicle, which is ~6,500lb IIRC. It isn't exactly a standard usage, as it is a 1/2 ton truck by normal truck standards.

That weight puts it closer to a 1 ton truck. 1/2 tons seem to weigh approximately from 4700 to 5500.

IMO, the old tonnage scheme is pretty weird and outdated at this point. It was originally meant to be based on payload, but those days have long passed. CT is in a weird in between. Payloads are similar to modern half tons, but GVWR is closer to 1 ton.

In the market, it really competes with 1/2 ton vehicles, so I'm going with that, but there are good arguments that it doesn't really fit that class well.

You are kidding right? There are tons of needs for trucks over long distances.

Case in point: I know of a Minnesotan business with South Dakotan vendors. A trip is only needed once a month.

That’s a “road trip”? The real joke is people who have never used or needed a truck passing judgement on truck owners.

Basing your justification on the exceptional case instead of the general rule does not make for a good argument.

Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips.

The exceptional case is the whole reason those vehicles exist. Indeed, I have no idea why 3-ton trucks specifically were called out, as they are incredibly rare outside of heavy commercial operations.

> The exceptional case is the whole reason those vehicles exist.

Trucks are outselling sedans and lighter cars in North America because of poor regulations and lobbying from the car industry. SUVs and light trucks do not have to have to meet the same emission standards as lighter vehicles, so manufacturers have basically abandoned that market segment and selling nothing but trucks.

There is a video from "Not Just Bikes" [0] which goes deep into this. The title could be a little less clickbaity, but it's worth to watch it in full.

[0]: https://nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-these-stupid-trucks-ar...

My bad, didn't know that would be confusing. I meant the Cybertruck weighs 3 tons, which makes it very inefficient as an individual/family transport (which is what 95% of them will be used for).

It is a good argument when that exceptional case is literally the reason people buy trucks. You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it?

It’s the same reason people buy insurance. I’m sure you won’t tell me, “99% of people buying health insurance at 25 years old don’t file claims, so it’s a complete waste of money. A stupid first world luxury, even.”

> Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips.

At that kind of wear and tear? Not necessarily, especially with tax advantages for depreciation. Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy.”

> You’re telling me a truck buyer won’t have, even once, a case where he actually needs it?

No, that's not what I am saying at all. What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need.

> It’s the same reason people buy insurance.

Not at all. People buy insurance as hedge against catastrophic losses. They are totally rational, and the cost of insurance is correlated with actual risk, i.e, a 25 yo will pay less health insurance than a 50yo, so it is not like there is a opportunity cost curve here.

> especially with tax advantages for depreciation.

You can also rent and deduct it as a business expense.

> Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy.

On the contrary, this is the same advice that really wealthy people will give you, because they know that there are better uses for their capital than buying things they don't need.

> people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need.

I don't know, it is hard to square the depreciation on cars. I bought both a car and a truck around a decade ago. The car is now worthless. The truck is still worth about what I paid for it. The deprecation cost alone on that car has exceeded the cost of operating the truck over its lifetime thus far. Trucks are the most popular type of vehicle around these parts because they are, frankly, cheaper to operate in most cases.

Certainly you can buy junkers that have already had their depreciation fully realized, but that is not a free lunch, it's just a different trade. Depreciation isn't some magical force. You're trading something for the lower initial cost, such as your time. If you have the money, money is no doubt what you will be most willing to part with. The other things you could trade are quite likely more valuable.

The value you are "keeping" on the truck could also be seen as value that you are not investing somewhere else.

Of course. Who has a vehicle without considering the opportunity cost?

There is no reliably chosen investment I know of that provides ROI anywhere close to what my vehicles facilitate, though. It is possible you could win the lottery investing elsewhere, but that is pretty high risk. The vehicles provide decent, steady returns.

But it is clear that trucks are cheaper than cars.

> What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need.

What gave you the authority and moral credibility, over the perspective of people voting with their wallets, to make that assertion? I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not.

It would be like if I made the unfounded assertion that almost all programmers would be better off on Mac. And most that think a Mac is unsuitable are in denial.

> What gave you the authority and moral credibility

I lived in an US suburb (Natick, West Mass). I lived in the city center of two American cities (Boston, NYC) for almost 5 years. I'm living in a large European city (Berlin) for 10+ years.

Aside from the suburbs, I never had the "need" to have my own car to do anything. Public transportation and biking were the main modes of transportation, but I never restrained myself for getting a taxi or a ZipCar for the occasional longer trip.

It's not about being "anti-car". The thing is that I have actual data and I can tell you from actual experience: the majority of people living in large urban centers will be better off if they don't have a car, let alone a truck.

> over the perspective of people voting with their wallets.

People "voting" with their wallets is not a reliable measure when the ballot does not have all the actual viable candidates.

People started buying SUVs and trucks in North America not because they are the obvious superior alternative, but because car makers started removing the other alternatives from the market for not being as profitable.

> I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not.

In the US, trucks were almost 80% of all auto sales in 2023 [0]. Are you really willing to defend the position that the majority of people bought them because of "need"?

[0]: https://finmasters.com/car-sales-statistics/

> There are tons of needs for trucks over long distances.

Is there? Logistics aside, it is more sensible to put the load that 3-ton is carrying on a highway tractor/train/boat along with other things going over the same long haul. If your only load is people, you most certainly don't need a 3-ton truck. A car, hell even a light truck, will carry them just as well, if not better.

Where logistical problem aren't solved, other 3-ton trucks are actually designed for hauling, not just glorified pickup trucks. If you truly have a niche need for a 3-ton for long-haul transport, the Cybertruck isn't going to be your choice anyway, regardless of range.

Most pickup trucks are not 3 tons. They're generally 1 ton or less. Weight has a cost in the power required to get it going.

That's what the parent is calling out (IMO).

Almost every vehicle available today is over 1 ton by weight. Most trucks are at least 2 tons by weight. The 1/4, 1/2, and 1 ton in reference to trucks is cargo capacity.

Shame you're being downvoted. The fact that this is getting around 200mi without a trailer attached is abysmal. Imagine the range, or lack thereof, if they had been towing. To be fair, I'd expect other electric trucks to get a range like this as well. It's very clear that at this point first adopters are taking one for the team.

I know, it's ok, I knew it was part flamebait / part joke. The sad part is, without a trailer or anything other than one's self and belongings, only able to go <200mi on a charge and having to wait an hour to charge is not a future I want to be in. Imagine if you attached a trailer, even at 6,000lb GVW, you aren't going very far.

200 miles would be a very useful real world range, if chargers were ubiquitous and I can recharge in the time that it takes me to bathroom and buy a coffee.

Those conditions aren't true yet, but hopefully will be.

> Well, that wasn't the end of the sentence. They also mentioned "the car is 'a dream to drive.'” Seems relevant and quite a bit less brutal.

Many Tesla owners are coming from Toyota or BMW 3 series.

So Tesla owners’ bar for “dream to drive” is very low.

The reviews of the Cybertruck on release said that it feels like driving a car, not like a truck. I think that is meant with it.

Why don’t you like BMW 3?

The 3 series may not be what it used to be, but it is still a great car. I'd take one over most of the commuters that I see on the road.

> The cooled seats, passenger visibility, handling characteristics, acceleration, speed, and steer-by-wire system were also appreciated ... All in all, the Cybertruck is “a dream to drive”

I feel like the claim that the sound was the best thing about it is slightly negative editorialising. It sounds pretty cool, except for range, charging time, bay needs better waterproofing, and road noise. Those all seem improvable.

I'm not sure you can improve the range without an aerodynamic redesign and/or bigger batteries which would cost a lot.

The batteries being used really aren't the best in terms of energy density. It wouldn't surprise me if they get 5-10% improvement by the same time early next year, without adding additional cells or significant cost.

I'm sure there are some incremental improvements which could be made, but as you said this thing overall is a flying heavy brick and so overall there's only so much you could do.

The aero is actually quite good

Range and road noise both seem like major aerodynamic limitations

Mhm i wonder why Tesla wants false advertising to be considered free speech.

(No onion article) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38626078

This was a cool video: No, Tesla Cybertruck Is Not Faster Than Porsche (While Towing)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRYS5VWXZts

I was disappointed they didn't try the drag race again.

They didn't have access to the cyber truck?

They don't. American's general education is so poor that just chanting certain phrases garners support. They want _their_ advertising to be considered "free speech" because it invokes a strong response of support in many Americans. This wasn't and isn't about free speech.

Freedom of speech is _not_ an individual right. It is a principle of restriction on the U.S. government; namely, that the government cannot preemptively prevent you from even speaking about a subject. It was never about you being free from responsibility for what you say. The majority of Amendments came out of the abuses of the English monarchy where the King:

  * Prosecutes you for not following (real or imagined) his particular vision of religion (1st) 
  * Tells you are forbidden to even talk about something you know (2nd)
  * Tells you that you're obligated to station and feed his troops (3rd)
  * Sends enforcers to look through your stuff because "reasons" (4th)
  * Commands you to provide evidence of your guilt, so you're guilty if provide it or guilty for violating the king's command to do so if you don't (5th)
  * Locks you in jail and forgets about you (6th)
  * Stacks the judicial system with his people (7th)
  * Finds "creative" ways to punish you (8th)
  * Is the sole authority over the people (9th)
  * Is the sole authority of law (10th)

This is fascism. Like, not mocking, "oh, I'm going to call you a dirty word 'cause I don't like your position" fascism, but what a real fascism system is. It's where those in power are free to exercise any actions without any responsibilities, while anyone who attempts act in the same way to those in power are suppressed. [Anyone](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-threaten...) who [says](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jan/9/elon-musk-pu...) anything about [them](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-04/spacex-su...) isn't.

</rantmode>

> The vehicle in question is an all-wheel drive unit that had 72 miles on the odometer when it was delivered.

I've bought eight brand new cars in my lifetime (some co-bought with a partner). I don't think any of them had more than 20 miles on them. Some were as low as single digits. I would be mad if I were paying a premium for a brand new car and it arrived with 72 miles on it.

At least with an electric car I'm not worried about how the engine/drivetrain might have been abused, but there is still wear and tear on the surfaces (interior and exterior).

What do you do in the first 100 miles in your new car, or fear others would be doing, that makes it worth the premium?

I take excellent care of it, mechanically and cosmetically. A scratch in the first 100 miles is there forever... I even demand the dealer NOT wash the car as they are likely to put micro-scratches in the paint. Go look at the cars in carmax. The cheap cars tend to have very good paint, the high end European brands tend to have massive amounts of microscratches all over (presumably from their previous owners frequently taking it to a non-touchless car wash).

I sold a high performance sports car with 10,000 miles on it to Carmax a few years ago and the mechanic review said the car "looked and ran like it was brand new" and I was very happy with the price they offered.

For ICE cars, especially high performance sports cars, there is a lot to be concerned about non-owners doing in the first 100 miles.

You're probably not in the market for a work truck.

Most truck drivers aren't, to judge from the trucks I see on the road :)

Drive it like it's new. Baby the engine, baby the transmission, baby the entire system. Avoid problems when you run it like it's stolen when everything is brand new.

It USED to be the break-in period was super important. I've been told that it's not anymore, but that comes from salesmen. So. Who knows if it's accurate or not. I also do not know how that applies to the electric motors on a new electric vehicle.

But I'm betting that's the reason.

Every time I read anything about a "break in" on cars it always felt like people were just repeating old wives tales because I could never get an answer on what the result would be if I ignored it.

Will the transmission last 5000 extra kms or the engine will make it from 500,000 to 501,000 km? No one seems to know.

Makes it feel like poeple telling me I have to discharge a battery all the way because it has "memory" long after most batteries were lithium ion with a charge controller.

There is no hard and fast rule about how many "extra"miles you get. But every seal, moving part, and wearable component will wear out faster.

The reason you don't get a scientific answer is because that's just not possible.

Wear out HOW much faster, are we talking 1% faster? 10% faster... etc.

The difference between replacing a wearable component at 100,000 km or 101,000 doesn't make a huge difference (ignoring the fact that it could just fail earlier due to one of a hundred different environmental reasons)

Break-in is still relevant. The reason is to 1) let all the moving parts wear down evenly to a stable state and 2) let chemistry changes take place in lubricants and fluids. Things like belted teeth, gear teeth, sleeves, bearings, wheel grease, bearing grease, and more have metal-on-metal action where micro-burrs and such will get shaved down. Fluids will gas-off micro-pockets of air and so on.

Anyone that has done car work knows that if you run a magnet through used oil or look closely at used grease that it will be full of tiny tiny metal shavings from this action. It is just more intense during the first hundred or so miles.

EVs should greatly reduce the need, but there are still moving parts in wheels and sometimes gears.

https://www.bmw.com/en/automotive-life/break-in-a-new-car.ht....

Stay under 90mph for the first 1300miles (lol that's 2000km), and for tires and breaks, it's good to let someone else drive for you and take the risk of not yet fully functional components.

> I've been told that it's not anymore, but that comes from salesmen.

The owner's manuals still recommend a break in period. Modern synthetic oils and manufacturing tolerances reduce the need to be sure, but there's still a whole bunch of parts built at different plants that have never really worked together before. A bit of controlled wear still makes sense to me.

I’ve always questioned this assumption. Doesn’t the factory do a burn-in test for the engine and drivetrain? I’d be shocked if they really were delivered without any basic bathtub-curve test performed.

Yeah, if you've ever seen them loaded onto the trucks, it isn't necessarily done in the most careful manner. They don't get babied before delivery in a lot of cases.

Having said that, once production is in full-swing, they are unlikely to get full "burn-in" tests.

Early production may get a little more for various reasons.

> What do you do in the first 100 miles in your new car...

Drive it. Because it's MINE. New cars should only have a few miles on it for on/offloading it, etc.

Questions like this have the same stink as victim blaming questions.

It's less than 0.1% of the vehicle lifetime. The car doesn't even work properly for the first few hundred miles.

It's not YOURS until you buy it. And it's a vehicle, not a figurine in a vaccuum glass case.

Your experience is typical, but there are many exceptions.

If you buy a constrained car, or if there are fulfillment issues, sometimes cars will get traded between dealerships and be driven by a guy vs. transporting. I needed a very specific configuration of a work truck a few years ago that ended up being brought in from another city - it was new with 150 miles for that reason.

With Tesla, there's no dealers, but it seems to be a... chaotic company, so I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes shifting.

Yeah, I've bought a vehicle with ~200 miles on it. But it was near the end of a model run and there were very few left. IIRC, it had been transferred, and also had been on the lot for a while.

It definitely shouldn't be the norm, but there are cases where it makes sense.

These are extremely early production units. Hopefully this means a higher than usual amount of testing on the test track before delivery.

I wouldn't personally want to buy one either, but mostly because of the potential issues with such early production. The actual miles don't bother me as much as that.

The frustrating thing is when you buy it at 13 miles, and pick it up at 53 miles. They prefer to show that car rather than put miles on their own vehicles.

The range seems unclear - the title of this post takes the lower range, but they also did a test at a steady 70mph, probably the worst case for a boxy vehicle due to wind resistance, and got 254 miles. I'd expect going slower to yield much better range.

Maybe there's variance in the trucks themselves?

> That test was done at a relatively constant speed of 70 miles per hour while the outside temperature was about 45 degrees.

It's winter so the battery is not going to be at peak performance. 20% less range is pretty much what you should expect with temperatures like this. It's actually pretty good.

The Rivian R1T does better, although it is also significantly smaller.

A steady 70mph cruise is approximately the best case for virtually all vehicles

The most efficient speed for virtually all vehicles is about 50-55 mph, and that’s probably going to be a more pronounced difference on something that’s less aerodynamic. 65-70 doesn’t tend to be too bad though, no.

Absolutely not for electric, which is far more efficient at lower speeds, unlike gas which has a minimum burn even at idle and downhill.

You're thinking of ICE vehicles, which have efficient torque at certain RPMs, and don't recover energy when they brake, so traffic is even more inefficient. Electric vehicles have all the torque, all the time, and do recover energy, so for them it's more about wind resistance, which increases with speed.

FWIW the Ford F-150 promises 300 miles but gets around 278 — and 210 if it is loaded with 1,400 lbs

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/6/23749844/ford-f150-lightni...

But in the winter?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8gH52gKejE

> The average energy consumption after 9,944 miles was 599 watt-hours/mile. When driving conservatively around town, the efficiency number on the screen went as low as 290 Wh/mi, while driving on the highway made the number jump to 900 Wh/mi occasionally.

Quite a large range!

Exactly. This illustrates why people are asking for the impossible. There is no single accurate range number.

That reported 599 watt-hours/mile is hard for me to understand. That's 374 wH/km or nearly double the average for the EVs in this table: https://ev-database.org/cheatsheet/energy-consumption-electr...

A F150 Lightning is about 500wH/mi. https://insideevs.com/news/584918/ford-f150-lightning-epa-ra...

Other Tesla cars are way way better, under that 374 number. I get the Cybertruck is heavy and not very aerodynamic. But this bad?

There are a lot of interesting comments here, but I think the one that is getting overlooked is the batteries on these.

Tesla announced their own battery production back in September of 2020. Now, well over 3 years later, their 4680 production is still struggling to scale and their energy density is barely competitive with the 2170 cells they were using before.

On top of that, the charging performance is significantly worse. All of this is clearly impacting their ability to deliver CT at the competitive level that they intended.

4680 is their biggest business failure in the past 10 years.

That’s “164 miles with 80% charge” not a full battery. Still curious what the difference is here. Heavy acceleration, extremely cold temperatures, or some defect could make the difference, but 206 miles on a full charge is a lot worse than the 320 claimed.

“When InsideEVs alum Kyle Conner from Out of Spec Motoring drove a dual-motor Cybertruck through the night to see how far the EV would go on a full charge, he got a total of 254 miles, 20% less than the advertised 320 miles (on all-terrain tires).”

I searched for the words "winter" and "cold" in this article and found no results. Doesn't that affect the range quite significantly?

The majority of the miles were highway miles, so for a big boxy vehicle this is expected IMO.

Typically, the fuel source, be it a gas tank or battery, would be sized appropriately based on the car/truck it’s in to get fairly consistent range with typical vehicles in the same class.

If the Cybertruck is big and boxy, I would expect the battery to be large enough to compensate for that, so range is compatible to other vehicles (300+ miles per charge).

It also weighs 3 tons which is probably the main factor. A Model 3 towing 1 ton will barely get 100 miles range.

That said, despite the boxy look, the Cybertruck has a respectable 0.34 aerodynamic coefficient, not far from 90s sedans.

That 0.34 is applied to a huge frontal area though. Ends up having lot more drag then a sedan because the truck needs to move a lot more air molecules out of the way.

(FTR, I jumped the gun on my answer and I was wrong - the actual relevant performance figure is the product of the coefficient times the frontal area, so the parent is correct, it might perform much worse in practice than a smaller car with the same CD)

That's not how it works. A car's drag coefficient is calculated in a wind tunnel, and takes into account the entire body shape.

The frontal area can also be very deceiving, a new VW ID Buzz for example has a CD of 0.285 despite a massive front.

Weight has very little impact on range

Afaik most car manufacturers determine their advertised mileage based on highway drives at an average speed, because stop and go driving consumes more fuel. I would think this would literally be the ideal case for their car, even if it is boxy.

Can't speak for everyone, but my expectation was bigger car = bigger battery = longer range. If aerodynamics are that much of a factor, then electric pickup trucks are doomed to be rich people toys until we get better batteries.

If you do the math for power to maintain a given speed, you'll see an exponential curve. Air drag starts to dominate the energy budget very quickly. Anything you can do to minimize drag (don't carry aftermarket accessories, follow cars) will help tremendously.

Highway miles are generally the most efficient miles for a vehicle because there's less energy wasted in slowing and speed changes, at least for gasoline cars though I imagine the same factors are present in electric vehicles minus maybe the braking losses since they can use regenerative braking. Is that alone enough to make city more efficient for electric vehicles?

edit: Just judging from my own observations (and the EPA estimated differences) I get way better mpg when I take long drives on the highway cruising at 65-70 than I do on periods with mostly city driving. I keep track when I fill up as a check against the car's slightly wonky mpg calculation and it's a difference of 5ish mpg more for highway like the EPA estimates suggest.

For EV cars(1), air drag is the highest range killer. There's a huge difference in range depending if you go 65, 70 or 80. And if you follow cars or push the air by yourself.

Stop and go doesn't really impact range that much, and the low overall speed is a better regime. Although these cars accelerate like crazy so it's hard to resist the pedal when doing stop-and-go.

(1) in fact for all cars, but ICE cars are so inefficient in other regimes that air drag is not a prominent problem until much higher speeds.

Not the case for electric. Batteries are heavy, and it takes more current to maintain a faster speed than a slower speed. Plus as you point out you don't get as much regenerative breaking.

You can see this in regular gas hybrids that get better city mileage than highway mileage. The effect is even more pronounced in full electric vehicles.

The weight of the battery won’t affect the energy needed to keep a car at a steady highway speed. The energy needed is just whatever losses come from friction, air resistance, etc

At 70mph most energy is lost to wind resistance.

EVs are also heavier, which increases rolling resistance on the tires. This lead to the formulation of stiffer tires for EVs to counteract that effect.

The weight of the battery is related to the amount of friction.

> Plus as you point out you don't get as much regenerative breaking

Regenerative breaking is not a benefit compared to steady driving, it's a waste of energy due to the second law of thermodynamics.

It's only a benefit when you compare it to non-regenerative breaking.

Yes. When I had a Nissan Leaf for a couple of months, I couldn't make it to the office and back without a partial recharge on the way home. But I discovered if I got off at an exit fifteen miles earlier than normal and took surface streets, I could make it home with a bit of capacity to spare. That's not something that would have been good for the battery if I did it every day but at the time I was going into the office about once a week so it worked out fine. Plus I was using the 110V charger at home, which would take more than the next morning to charge the battery fully.

The biggest loss at highway speeds is actually wind. I think wind resistance goes up with the cube of speed.

As a result, electric cars are more efficient in typical city driving. You can see it in the MPG stickers , which are higher in city than highway for EVs

For gas cars, their most efficient speed is typically a steady 35-40 mph. For an electric, it’s 15-20. If there were no wind resistance both these numbers would be substantially higher.

No, the best MPG is at 30-40 mph with ICE vehicles due to auxiliary loads and losses at lower speeds and wind at higher.

I would guess BEVs have their breaking point at even lower due to lower idle power losses.

If you can maintain constant speeds it would be but the only places I drive in that range is in cities where I'm stopping and starting a lot so the wasted energy there dominates. I keep rough track of my mpg each time I fill up (as a sanity check to the calculated MPG my car gives me) and when I take long trips home I easily hit 33-34 mpg while weeks where its mostly short trips in the city I usually get more around 28 or lower. And those long trips sit at 60-70 for an hour or more at a time in good traffic.

Ye that is correct.

My commute is about 10 miles of which 8 is 40 mph two lane country road. So I think I got about the lowest mpg my car can have.

Once you hit 65mph and above your gas mileage and electric wh/mi drop like a rock due to air resistance scaling non-linearly.

I get way better mpg when I take long drives on the highway cruising at 65-70 than I do on periods with mostly city driving. I keep track when I fill up as a check against the car's slightly wonky mpg calculation and it's a difference of 5ish mpg more for highway like the EPA estimates suggest.

(mi/wh drops. wh/mi increases.)

Rocks slow down due to air resistance :-)

Drops like a meteor?

Swim was at heavenly last weekend. I saw 3-4 rivians on the road in and saw one cybertruck pull into california lodge.

Curious how these would operate in a place like that since cold weather is hell on the batteries?

10k miles... When you love round numbers but somehow still can't stomach the metric system.

Real Tesla Range = Advertised Range * 0.80

Real ICE mpg = Advertised mpg * 0.80

They should just change the testing to be 70mph in the cold for all cars. Then everyone can be pleasantly surprised when it does more in other conditions.

spoiled gaslighters

It's Musk's new prototype junk that everyone adored and was excited about and then he bought Twitter (got himself into the sh!t show that's politics). That made him lots more enemies who now highlight through their media friends & their money how much of used car salesman he really is. Also, media is pounding away this year suddenly on the big downfalls of EV ownership compared to the 100 year old gas car with 100 year old infrastructure.

When the experience of owning an EV is the same as owning a gas car Im excited about being able to charge my car overnight and super quickly on my many road trips. I do a few a month near, far and sometimes in remote areas ... yet hopefully not in super cold areas..the EV could freeze & in a remote area YIKES.

The first Cybertruck deliveries were apparently on 11/30, 46 days before the odometers hit 10,000 on 1/15 (per the article). Assuming a day 1 delivery, that's over 217 miles every single day.

Sounds like the real world for a non-trivial percentage of the population.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com