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 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?
Straight stainless is easier.
I mean, if you read the article that’s just not accurate. And musk has said as much many times over.
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.
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.
Are you genuinely asking? Because I thought all these jokes were made when it was first unveiled 5 years ago?
And it still looks stupid today
Lemmy is 99% karmabots at this point
Is karma tracked on Lemmy?
Not after 0.19
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 is.
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.
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.
Well, no. I don’t ever recall a comparable stream of articles and discussion pointing out that, say, the new Jaguar XF has really poor fuel economy in suboptimal conditions. I agree it’s the same thing, so why is this news?
Maybe because the real world conditions is being reported by owners at roughly 50% of Teslas advertised range. When for ICE, real vs advertised is typically around 80%.
Also, there has been reasonable skepticism on the range of heavier EVs, like trucks. And Tesla being the self made premium brand, and the Tesla truck being such a weird style, is in a spotlight of its own making.
Maybe because the real world conditions is being reported by owners at roughly 50% of Teslas advertised range. When for ICE, real vs advertised is typically around 80%.
Sure if that were really the case in general it would be notable. However I’m not sure it’s true. Independent tests with data done by journalists, or various countries, do not reproduce this 50% number. At worst the range was 10-20% off which is comparable to ICEs. At least for Tesla’s previous vehicles. We’ll see if the Cybertruck is different.
Good point with your second paragraph though, yeah it does draw a lot of negative attention. It’s just the unsourced / poor methodology EV range testing which frequently shows which up annoys me…
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.
And I’m an outlier in the other direction: charge to 80% and usually go a week before plugging in
For what it’s worth, general consensus is that staying plugged in, even with just a normal outlet, is best practice. That has the battery conditioning run more aggressively, which is better for battery longevity. This isn’t like the NiCd batteries with a big memory effect if you recharge too early.
I take it you don’t own an EV?
You take it wrong.
my max normal range…is a day to day factor.
Then you’re an extreme outlier.
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.
Where do they add the oil to let out giant smoke clouds?
There’s a coal rolling monthly subscription you can sign up for.
Create photo realistic clouds of billowing smoke for just $17.76 a month!
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.
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.
It’s not just Tesla, that’s just general good practice for lithium batteries in general. Including your phone, laptop, Bluetooth devices, power tools etc. etc.
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.
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.
It’s below the recommended average on German roads (stands at 130kph / ~81mph).
I read aggressive as in accelerating aggressively. Possibly to get around people?
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
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.
Elon “last second autopilot disengage” Musk gonna make chill mode the default then throw up a “would you like to use normal mode for better performance?” screen that autoaccepts in three seconds
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?
Tesla apologist
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.
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.
But Tesla specifically marketed this as a fully capable truck, which it is not. The F-150 Lightning gets the same range towing as the Cybertruck gets with no cargo.
Of course it is. Once again, range is not the only factor people consider when choosing a vehicle.
Ok, now try to do the things that trucks are typically used for in your geo metro. Towing, transporting construction tools and materials, etc.
I’m not defending Elon because I think the truck looks dumb and is over priced, but you gotta compare apples to apples.
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.
You’re still not comparing apples to apples. The people who actually need something like this (not this specifically because we both agree it’s bad) would not be using it to tow just a small trailer. I agree the cyber truck is bad but the comparison still makes no sense.
If you believe them, Tesla says the cyber truck can have a 2500lb payload and tow 11000 lbs. That’s a whole different ballgame than your geo metro which officially doesn’t even have a towing capacity.
Some people actually use trucks for their intended purposes instead of a status symbol.
Can we stop pretending people buying this monstrosity are going to use it like a farm implement. Lmao! Best chance of seeing one of these in the wild will be at a golf course clubhouse.
Ego
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.
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.
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
just dont turn on the ac
Haha! Same. My eclipse was only rated 90hp from the factory, and i bought it with 150k miles. Good thing it was a stick
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.
Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s.
Probably in the early '00s but I mean that’s completely unsurprising considering the strides we’ve made in safety, comfort, and most importantly emissions since then.
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
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 just wish they had made a modular bed design like every other pickup ever. Cyber truck would be an ideal platform for a professional welder, if he could only flat deck it. Dudes carry a high output generator anyways, in theory they could run their welder off the tesla battery, run their welding genny as needed, and never be stuck out on a pipeline somewhere with a dead electric truck.
Yeah, but an F150 is useful. The Tesla Truck isn’t.
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.
How long is this in world units?
Here, try this.
Fuck yes, finally I can apply my knowledge of first 10” numbers of the fibonacci series
Now I just need to memorize the Fibonacci sequence and I’ll be set!
Is that ratio pure coincidence?
Yes it is a complete friggin coincidence! The meter is 1/10millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the equator (but just so slightly shorter than that due to measurement errors in 18th century France relating to difficulty in measuring how the earth is not-quite-a-sphere), but I’m still not sure why they landed on that ratio or that particular distance. I assume they were looking for a base unit of a size that would be really easy for everyone to estimate: if I asked you to demonstrate a meter, you could approximate it probably within 15% with your hands.
deleted by creator
No, it’s because of the conversion being close to 1.6.
Holy shit
Holy shit, that’s awesome
263km to 331km
about the same distance from the bed to the light switch
Do people know there is more than 1 cybertruck?
Also it’s winter in the Northern hemisphere, which is going to dramatically impact range.
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.
Yeah, not saying I even like the cybertruck (I don’t), just that those other evs as re not comparable in any way other than fuel source.
Give me a break. Aint no roofing contractor or excavating company using these things as a work vehicle. If you want to see one visit the parking lot outside forever21. But thats kinda the point right? So mortgage brokers can cosplay as blue collar but also look cool for the valet. As a remodeling contractor my truck is an ugly shitbox with a solid drivetrain I maintain myself. Why a shitbox? Because its covered in thinset mortar, paint, dryall mud, and is scratched all to shit from hauling materials to the job and construction debris from the job. The type of person driving these things wouldnt piss on a working man if he was on fire.
Who said anything about contractors? I’m currently watching the ev truck market because I diy a lot of shit and hate having to rent a truck to buy plywood. These aren’t for contractors.
It’s cheaper to rent the truck and plan your trips well. Hell even better, rent a work van since they can fit more in general.
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.
My God the comments in this thread are fucking ridiculous. It’s completely irrelevant because they’re 2 completely different use-cases and if you legitimately can’t see that, you’re literally delusional. But I’m fairly confident you can and are simply being deliberately disingenuous.
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.
65 l/100km… Holy shit, a Bugatti Veyron running at top speed over 400km/h is consuming 122 l/100km.
That’s insane
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.
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
I’m gay
263 - 331 kilometers for the rest of the world
Fun fact: the conversion factor from mi to km is ≈ ln(5).
FFS, everyone knows 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
man, if you can’t figure out roughly 60 percent more, well…
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.”
