Tesla Cybertruck Owners Who Drove 10,000 Miles Say Range Is 164 To 206 Miles::Also, the charging speeds are below par, but on the flip side, the sound system is awesome and the car is “a dream to drive.”
Sigh. Not this again. Look, I personally really don’t like the Cybertruck. I think it’s ugly and pointless. But as someone who likes EVs in general I have to call out the usual “the range is so bad lol” BS.
The two drivers who are using the EV said that the maximum range with a full battery was 206 miles and 164 miles with an 80% state of charge.
The range you get when not fully charging the battery is meaningless. It’s like partially fueling an ICE and complaining it doesn’t deliver the maximum range. Good for a clickbait headline though.
That test was done at a relatively constant speed of 70 miles per hour while the outside temperature was about 45 degrees. The truck was driven fairly aggressively most of the time
Driving aggressively, at high speed, in relatively cold weather is the perfect trifecta to make any EV underdeliver in range. Those are real downsides of EVs (and weather and speed are factors with ICE cars, just more so for EVs) but it’s nothing new or specific to this vehicle. And it is not the scenario the EPA uses to come up with range numbers. Perhaps they should, but they don’t.
80% is a full standard charge. You only actually full charge immediately before a road trip, because it wears the battery faster to charge to 100%, and wears even more of you hold the charge before using it.
Do for someone charging their car over night for normal operations, 80% is a functionally full charge.
You only actually full charge immediately before a road trip
So…probably the only time a consumer might actually legitimately be concerned about maximum range?
Yes and no. When you first hit the road, yes, you’ll charge to 100%. However, along the way you’ll charge up at a DC fast charge station. Those have what’s called a charge curve, where it doesn’t charge as fast as the battery charges. Think of it like filling a bike tire with a hand pump - the first few pumps are easy and the gauge jumps fast, but the last few are a lot harder and the needle barely moves. Much like air trying to resist higher pressure, more electrons repel each other as you charge the battery.
Ok, so charging. Charging from 10% to 80% takes roughly as long as charging from 80% to 100%. Rather than going to 100% at each charge, it’s often beneficial to get just enough to get to the next charger with a little buffer room. Often you’ll come out ahead if you just go to 80%ish (of course, if it’s a long stretch to the next charger or you can skip a charge with more you may have reason to go beyond 80%)
Bigger range has its obvious advantages, but a bigger battery means you can take advantage of the charge curve a little more.
I take it you don’t own an EV?
Range is always relevant. For me, my max normal range (without the very time sensitive full charge) is a day to day factor.
While that is true, it’s not fair to say “see they lied! In completely different circumstances you only get a fraction of the range!” Even for ICE vehicles they use ideal conditions to measure their MPG/range even though most people aren’t driving in ideal conditions.
Have you not noticed the same exact comments being made about ICE vehicles, particularly when their mileage estimates are highly advertised?
You all seem to act like this is particularly unfair to Tesla, when it’s literally the same exact discussion we’ve had for decades.
It’s a truck that’s meant to tow and haul loads. Using it for that purpose is a much larger drain on the battery than aggressive driving, and significantly reduces its useful range. If it’s getting these numbers just being driven, you can expect a sub-100 mile range per charge when towing. Imagine having to stop to recharge for 30+ minutes for every hour and half of towing you do. Woof.
t’s a truck that’s meant to tow and haul loads.
A pickup truck towing and hauling loads? What a bizarre idea. I’m pretty sure it’s only meant to go to the office, and maybe to the maul on weekends, once in a while.
If they marketed it as such, but they heavily marketed it as capable as, if not better, at doing truck things than other trucks. And to be fair, most of us knew it was bullshit, but it’s impressive how absolutely wrong they were. I mean, Elon said it’d tow a Porsche 911 faster in the quarter than the 911 could run the 1/4 mile itself, and they released a video to prove it…except keen eyed folks quickly noticed that the “finish line” they show is actually the 1/8th mile marker on that drag strip, and the 911 is clearly about to pass the CT at that point. Engineering Explained on YT made a great video detailing how it couldn’t beat even the slowest modern 911.
Now that is a good point. It’s been repeatedly shown how towing drains EV batteries. Then again I’m not sure most buyers of EV trucks plan actually use it as a useful truck… Another reason why I don’t like this whole segment.
I use my F-150 fairly often to haul and tow. If I didn’t need to tow ~5000lbs I’d have just kept my old 97 Tacoma. I was all in on getting a Lightning a few months ago, especially with $15,000 in rebates and tax credits. Then I did the math and realized going from my brother’s shop to my place while towing 5000lbs means I’d have to stop and charge for 30 minutes SIX times on that trip. And sadly, it seems that’s as good as it gets for EV trucks right now. I’m 100% onboard with an EV truck, especially a Lightning with the ability to use it as a generator for your home in an outage, but towing/hauling range has to improve astronomically before they’re practical.
The great news is we have Zac (JerryRigEverything) to test exactly that:
Towing at around its maximum rating in the cold, the range was indeed below 100 miles.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/yk_u9fbkoKM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
According to my Tesla driving neighbor most people do not charge their Tesla to 100% in order to extend the battery lifespan. I don’t understand it but apparently Tesla recommends it.
That’s common for lots of batteries. My laptop has a setting to not charge between 50-70% because it lives on a dock and doesn’t need max life in travel. Batteries are stored between 40 and 80% usually. So it makes sense that a car with the same battery chemistry recommends the same thing. It’s only different in regards to a car being important in an emergency, but realistically, an emergency is unlikely to be both sudden and require long distance driving. So 100 miles of range is probably as good as 400 in common usage.
As mentioned, lithium batteries are happiest charged around 20-80%. No shame in going higher if you need it, but typical day to day I drive less than 50 miles in a day. If I’m using 20% of my battery capacity, I don’t care if that means I go from 100% down to 80% or 80% down to 60%. I’ll plug it in at the end of the day and charge back up to whatever I want by the next morning.
Put another way, how many times have you woken up thinking you need to stop at a gas station because you only have 3/4 of a tank?
70 is aggressive? In California ppl will be passing you on both sides at that speed.
The word aggressive is from the article, so I don’t know. Anyways driving 70mph consistently is going to deliver you less than the advertised range with EVs, which I believe is a blend of driving types not just constant highway speed. Consider while ICE cars have awful efficiency in city driving (stop/start) so highway driving is preferred, with EVs it’s actually the other way around thanks to fewer mechanical losses and battery regen braking.
Didn’t they just get obligated to report a lower range for many models because they were reporting unrealistic figures?
My understanding of this article is that Tesla’s range estimates were based on assuming they were being driven in it’s range-maximizing, low-performance “chill mode”, while the new EPA rules require reporting the range in the car’s default mode.
I love how everyone who agrees with a corporation is an “apologist”, regardless of whether said corporation is actually correct. Like just throw any and all sense of logic and reason out the window and assume whatever they’re accused of is correct.
Why does it look like a car from a PS1 game?
Because we live in the version of reality where the worst idea is the best idea and we don’t actually care about anyone’s wellbeing and safety. The car is shaped the way it is to inflict the most fatalities on pedestrians.
And the us traffic safety board is refusing to test it’s crash rating because they don’t have to. It’s so fishy that this is a new stupid design and they don’t want to test it. Either Elon paid them off or they refuse to give or sell one to test. I have a feeling it would get a 2 out of 5 stars.
Because Musk wanted to make a vehicle out of stainless steel and straight panels are the easiest/cheapest to form.
Straight panels are much harder to make as every bend and minor imperfection show up. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/13/why-the-cybertruck-is-so-hard-to-manufacture.html
Why do you think cars are never made with straight panels?
Are you genuinely asking? Because I thought all these jokes were made when it was first unveiled 5 years ago?
I mostly see the N64 Rush 2049 car called Venom I think. It was mostly a Lamborghini Diablo. Maybe it just stood out in the sea of rounded futuristic cars.
Side note, I think the one called Euro LX was really just the BMW 6-series concept from the Bengal era. Funny how it landed in a mix of futurism that included a rocket car
And why, after we ridiculed this thing 10 years ago for being a low-poly abomination and then it disappeared from view for two decades, did they suddenly decide to release the thing with apparently zero changes in 2023?
This is a terrible, ridiculed, 10 year old atrocity. How is it being taken seriously? I feel like I’m on crazy pills.
e: number typos
I don’t disagree, except it was 4 years ago that they unveiled the abomination.
It was definitely previewed at least ten years ago. In my old job as UX designer, we were laughing at it around the office, and I haven’t worked there for 12 years. It may have been a limited preview in design circles, not a public announcement, but the design hasn’t changed.
263 - 331 kilometers for the rest of the world
FFS, everyone know a mile is 1.6 kilometers. You’re just insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this to make some sort of dig against the yanks.
Not everyone (me among them) knows or is willing/able to do the math in their heads
Ignore this guy. I’ve now seen them trolling on consecutive days in different threads. Just another unloved cunt.
Yeah i guess there are some absolute idiots about. “For that that don’t know, 2 plus 2 is 4”
But this is just him making it convenient to not even have to convert. The things that rile people up…
Not everyone! I’m one of those. From time to time some American reminds me but my brain filters out as a completely useless information and I forget it.
Quick check what you know "And what’s the difference exactly? As a Czech dating an Ukrainian woman, let me tell you that the difference is that “European” women are spoiled and lazy. My girlfriend is working two jobs (14 to 16 hours a day), she’s facing a lot of discrimination and racism and yet she’s always in a good mood. Everyone is her community is like that.
Maybe you are from a non-Slavic country? To you they might seem different because you don’t understand/know? They are listening to the same music as you, they are watching the same shows on Netflix as you. Their stuff is arguably better than “ours” cough Lions on the jeep cough. Learn the language and you’ll see. For a nation that went through so many tragedies I don’t think it’s fair to look down upon them. Even if they primarily want a protection. So what? Why should you have it and they don’t?" yeah get fucked
My Chevy Bolt gets more range at a fraction of the cost and I love it. I charge it at work for free and it has been an extremely reliable car for a couple years now.
I mean yes but not really comparable to what’s supposed to be a pick up truck. It’s no different than saying your Prius is more efficient than an F150 lol
Calling the cybertruck a Pickup is hularious, you cant fit jack shit in there. So it is more comparable to the bolt than a f150 IMO
There are a lot of pictures on Facebook of people carrying decent sized loads - I saw a stack of drywall, a significant pile of lumber, and some motorbikes. I think it’s smallness is exaggerated
i had a geo metro that had greater range.
so confusing why this exists.
Could you convey that you were both rich AND stupid just by driving your metro?
This is a frankly baffling comparison. I don’t think I could think of 2 more different vehicles if I tried. Believe it or not, range is not the only thing people consider when purchasing a vehicle.
It’s a truck, meant to tow and haul loads. If this is its range unladen then it’s hauling range is 50% or less of this range. Meaning a full charge gets you 82-103 miles, which makes it nearly useless as the thing it’s supposed to be: a truck.
Believe it or not, some people tow short distances, and some people use trucks as trucks without ever towing at all.
i had a hitch on my 96 metro. so, yeah. and a geo metro totin a tiny trailer looks a hell of a lot less silly than that silver monstrosity
i do see your point. but i think it misses main the issue here; that this isnt a good vehicle let a lone truck.
Yeah, but how long did it take you to refuel your metro? Surely it wasn’t faster than a few hours.
Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s. Geo metro was only 3 cyl and sipped gas. my lil 92 eclipse for over 45mpg highway, i don’t even think it was rated that high.
The early 90s was mostly a perfect storm for fuel economy.
You had the computing power available to make use of CAD and develop more aerodynamic designs with less significant overhead (i.e., doing it by hand).
EFI technology had matured and carburetors were broadly defunct, allowing more efficient operation in a broader range of environments.
The US had updated its archaic lighting regulations to allow for more aerodynamic headlight shapes.
A lot of the safety technology that adds weight to modern cars either hadn’t been developed yet or hadn’t trickled down to the average vehicle.
So you had a confluence of more efficient engines, more aerodynamic vehicles, and cars that were still small and relatively lightweight.
well, i actually had both a '92 3ycl (suzuki engine) and then later had a 4cyl monster metro. i think that was like a 96?
just dont turn on the ac
I regularly get 43-46mpg highway with my 4 cylinder TLX, drops off like crazy atoms town though.
I agree that economy peaked In the 80’s-early 90’s, but if you take into account how much bigger, and heavier cars are today, we’re not that bad. Also, a lot of weight and size goes towards the superior crash safety in modern cars.
