Tesla Cybertruck Owners Who Drove 10,000 Miles Say Range Is 164 To 206 Miles
Tesla Cybertruck Owners Who Drove 10,000 Miles Say Range Is 164 To 206 Miles
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.”
Why does it look like a car from a PS1 game?
StarFox on the SNES has more polygons than that.
Probably the same reason everything he has named sounds like a 12yo came up with it
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.
I think the artist behind Mad Max might have some ideas worth exploring. When in doubt, add more spikes.
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?
Hey Elon stole my plans where I drew this exact thing the very first time I ever tried to draw a car. I think I was 4.
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
The Lara Crofts boobs comparison is still the most accurate IMO.
263 - 331 kilometers for the rest of the world
Fun fact: the conversion factor from mi to km is ≈ ln(5).
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
Let’s dial the aggression back. We don’t have to be rude to each other.
I don't.
No not everyone knows.
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.
No need for this.
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
You can't even fit a bicycle in a cyber truck. You're not gonna be hauling anything.
F150s and the like often have a bigger tank to counteract the lower efficiency. The headline at least is about range, which is made of a combination of battery capacity and efficiency.
Yeah, but an F150 is useful. The Tesla Truck isn't.
My electric bike gets more range than a Chevy Bolt and I love it. I charge it at work for free and it has been an extremely reliable bike for a couple years now.
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?
Just the one.
Yeah, but how long did it take you to refuel your metro? Surely it wasn’t faster than a few hours.
Or never if it gets to cold for a while.
Ego
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.
What's the advertised range?
On Tesla website they said about 340 miles*. Tesla cybertruck
How long is this in world units?
263km to 331km
about the same distance from the bed to the light switch
I want an EV offroader so bad, but I currently live in Australia. Some of my trips I'm packing 130L of fuel and this is after getting to the last planned station before hitting the wild. That can get consumed over as little as 200km depending on conditions the car has to tackle.
<200 miles of aggressive highway driving is a death sentence for a 4×4 in Australia. Outside of recreational trips near cities or big towns, mileage like this would put you at high risk.
I also live in Australia and I think you're forgetting what 99% of vehicles are used for. I can't even remember the last time I was more than 50km from a fuel station.
I think you're forgetting what 99% of vehicles are used for.
Nope. It's unusual that your brain would think that.
I can't even remember the last time I was more than 50km from a fuel station.
If you think that's nothing to be concerned about, I wouldn't worry. Maybe check in with a GP if it keeps happening.
So, anyway, back to the practicality of EV range—especially a Cybertruck—in common off-road conditions. Or was that your input? Sharing what your brain does? Yeesh.
He didn't forget. You just couldn't resist doing that superior aussie bullshit, even when it's your countryman.
65 l/100km... Holy shit, a Bugatti Veyron running at top speed over 400km/h is consuming 122 l/100km.
That's insane
Yup. Terrain is much different to a road, speed is slow, revs are high. The engine has to do a lot more work over much less distance.
A decent mileage to cross the Simpson Desert is around 20-25l/100km for vehicles that do around 10-12 on road. And that's mostly still using established tracks where speed stays up fairly well and revs stay moderately low overall.
Sounds like they have a loaded up landcruiser or similar, and maybe are towing?
I have a loaded up (and I mean fully loaded) Nissan, towing, and i get about 400km to every 60ltrs. Not good.
Hybrid Land Cruiser?
My 2008 city golf has gotten 600kms on 55L(typical fill for me is about 52 litres)
Thats all highway driving and not being an idiot.
Im lucky to get 400 kms on a tank in the middle of winter just driving to work and back. Think the worst i got is 385 kms.
I dont understand why people are so upset at not getting the listed mileage when literally every car is only as good as the driver.
Ive delivered auto parts in a 2014/2015 prius V hybrid (not plugin) doing about 1500 kms a week.
Depending entirely on how i drove i could get 735 kms to a 35 litre tank or about 490 kms. Same route. Just how you drive. Idling and acceleration are the most important factors in real world driving that effect your fuel efficiency aside from how much extra weight is being hauled around
Electric cars don't idle
You misunderstand why i mentioned that it seems. Allow me to clarify.
The point is not how ICE and EV differ, it was brought up to support the real world issues that cause a listed range to be untrustworthy because how you operate a thing effects its perfmance.
I do not drive an EV and did not spend 8 hours a day often 6 days a week driving one around the city i live in so i cant say i have relevent experience to say how much idling effects the EV, but if a device is on, its using energy to stay on, so idling at lights will have some kind of drain on the battery that will give you less range.
How can it not? It wont be the same i totally agree but I cant imagine it wont make some kind of difference
Lights will be on, typically you will be listening to something on the entertainment system, passengers will also using whatever features exist but just multiple screens on while the vehicle is "running"
Again i dont use an EV so i admit i dont know all you might be doing in one that will be used, but i think im more ignorant of what can drain it while on and not overstating anything
Thank you for the response
The cooled seats, passenger visibility, handling characteristics, acceleration, speed, and steer-by-wire system were also appreciated. The fact that the truck gets a lot of attention, including from people who want to touch the pickup and take photos, not so much.
So they bought the attention seeker pickup truck, but got more attention than they bargained for? lol
Super shitty. I have an antique car and when people want to check it out and take pictures with it they sometimes ask if that's okay. I always say "if I didn't want people to look at it and enjoy it I shouldn't drive it around."
That’s about the range of the current fiat 500e to Chevy Bolt. Both of which cost half of what this does.
This is irrelevant if you need a truck. Neither one of those is picking up plywood from home depot for example.
Neither is the cybertruck
Okay. The F150 Lighting has a range of 240-300 miles per charge, and an MSRP starting at $50k, compared to the cyber truck starting at $81k.
As someone how yesterday got home 3 pallets and 4 pallet collar's in a Twingo. I disagree.
You don't want to do that every day for work, but in a pinch small cars fit enough. Need more room for a project at home? Get a cart. My Twingo can tow a light cart. That's 99% of all use cases for me.
Need even more rent a van. We did that with moving houses and it fits so much more then a pickup.
I really think 99% of people will be fine with a small car and a hinge. You get pretty good mileage and a small car that is not a dead trap for everybody outside. Even small ev's are great for that.
It’s not irrelevant. The two cars I compared it to are smaller, yet they go further at much less cost. To me that sounds like the Cybertruck is way too heavy.
The vehicle isn't even a month old, how have people already hor drove 10K miles?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The great news is we have Zac (JerryRigEverything) to test exactly that:
https://youtu.be/yk_u9fbkoKM
Towing at around its maximum rating in the cold, the range was indeed below 100 miles.
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.
Yeah Lithium batteries stay healthy for much longer if you keep them roughly between 20%-80% charge. Many laptops and phones now use similar management strategies to avoid wearing out the battery.
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.
Your phone does the same thing just without communicating it. Samsung phones let you change the percentage of the battery is "100%" charged.
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.
Aggressive doesn’t mean fast. It means more abrupt changes, more acceleration/deceleration
For example, with the frigid weather I notice I use a lot of brake when regen isn’t effective
I read aggressive as in accelerating aggressively. Possibly to get around people?
It's below the recommended average on German roads (stands at 130kph / ~81mph).
Didn't they just get obligated to report a lower range for many models because they were reporting unrealistic figures?
They probably did. However it doesn't make these articles less annoying. Someone posting on a forum isn't a newsworthy testing result. Did everyone suddenly forget "Your Mileage May Vary" was always true even for ICE cars?
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.
Tesla apologist