Their site went live today: https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck

3 models, with the tl;dr:

  • RWD at $60,990 w/ 250mi range
  • AWD at $79,990 w/ 340mi range
  • “Cyberbeast” at $99,990 w/ 320mi range
  • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    How the f does the AWD version with multiple motors get an extra 100 miles of range? Typically, it’s the other way around.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        But that means they already have quite a bit more space for more batteries that isn’t being utilized for anything on the lower range models, which seems like a huge waste. If they can power more motors and get 100 miles of additional range in the same vehicle, they’re really leaving a lot on the table.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They need to make a cheaper version for people, hence the rwd as well.

          You don’t just magically fill the whole battery pack for free

          They have dummy cells in other Teslas as well, or have in the past anyway

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I saw that mentioned on a few reviews, but it can’t be right. I think there’s been some misinterpretation

          There’s no way adding a 2nd motor and awd adds that much range. It could add some with some fancy tricks, but 90 miles is unbelievable.

          • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Teslas own page says it’s the same. There’s zero chance the AWD gets better efficiency than rwd, so they’re either locking capacity which is scummy or they’re bsing customers about range numbers still.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Or you know, it’s a mistake?

              Also teala did something on one of the early cars where it got a boost with awd because they were able to do something fancy with it. (Edit: I think that was when the front and rear motors were the same, but now ones induction and ones permemant magnet, or something is different with them anyway)

              And the semi gets better range because they can detach one motor or something which let’s them get the power to pull from a stop, but then not waste it at high speeds. Just using one motor to do both things would be more inefficient.

              Edit: it’d be a terrible design if true, but maybe a single motor can’t properly move the truck because it’s so heavy and it is a massive drain. Again I think the difference is way too high, so it’s not that, but just another reason why it might be more efficient with 2 than 1 vs being entirely out of the question had it been a smaller amount.

              • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                The fact you brought up the semi sort of shows you aren’t being serious about this.

                • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  You’re the one being stubborn and not acknowledging that it’s possible, even if not on this vehicle.

                  https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102834_all-wheel-drive-tesla-electric-cars-rated-more-efficient-but-how

                  Again, I think something changed and they took some different trade offs (edit: different front/rear motor type bringing cost down I think) making this not the case anymore, but it was a thing.

                  Edit: And the part below about real world driving is irrelevant, those were EPA tested numbers, and the EPA test is very specific. Go outside the bounds of the test and things obviously change.

                  Edit: Also your best argument is to attack my argument in a non related way to dismiss my claim which is almost definitely a logical fallacy and shows YOU aren’t the one taking this seriously.

                  • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I have some terrible news for you. The manufacturers run the tests to produce the EPA numbers, not the EPA. and they’re allowed a “scaling factor” at the end.

                    With my AWD Model 3 you could gain efficiency by sleeping the front motor while driving on the rear motor. The motor that would be put to sleep was an induction motor so that there were no losses from the field generated by spinning the rotor inside the stator. In my Rivian you can gain efficiency by mechanically decoupling the motor from the rear driveline. In the case of the RWD Model 3, it did NOT lose this much efficiency from having only one, more powerful, rear motor. In the case of the ClusterTruck, the RWD version loses 100 miles, or about 1 third the range compared to AWD. That’s the difference between SR and LR of all the other products they make.

                    So, either they’re locking battery capacity from owners like they’ve done several times in the past, or their own specs page is complete BS. Since Tesla is the one making both claims here, it’s a bad look in both cases.

    • Boinkage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      The wheels are geared towards different optimal speeds. So one set is more efficient at slow speeds and the other more efficient at high speeds. So it relies on one or the other depending on driving conditions meaning it’s more efficient at different speeds. Single wheel drive EVs have to have a more one size fits all gearing that is less efficient overall.

    • cosmic_slate@dmv.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is the case with their other cars too. With the 3/Y they use a higher capacity battery pack in AWD models vs. RWD. Maybe that’s what is going on here?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        For the 3/y they even use different batteries. The LFP batteries in the standard range are less energy-dense but more forgiving of many charges

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Weird I guess they don’t mind sacrificing range even though they apparently have the space available for more batteries. I’ve primarily been eyeballing Hyundai EVs and they seemingly just use a single size pack and range suffers with more motors/drive wheels.

        • snowe@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          I have an Ioniq 5 limited awd and the range is great. I don’t know what people are doing that they need 300+ miles of range every day, but it charges in minutes, overnight with a 120, and I haven’t once felt any range anxiety.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            A long commute is why I need the range. I could deplete the AWD range in just a couple of days, and I don’t really need AWD to begin with.

            • snowe@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              but how long is your commute? If I was to commute into my office it’d be around 42-50 miles round trip depending on which way I go. I’d plug in when I get home, and I’d literally never need to stop at a charging station. If I needed to travel more, I could simply charge while working at the office (plenty of L2 chargers in downtown denver parking garages). I think you’d have to have a round trip commute of over a hundred miles for it to be a problem, even then, you’d visit the charging station, sit there for 10 minutes, maybe less, and be ready to go for the next week.

              • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                It is over a hundred miles round trip and the times of day and my shift length aren’t really conducive to popping into a public charging station in either direction. Home charging is an option, but regardless I don’t want <300 miles of range nor a less efficient AWD drive train if I’m paying full price for a brand new vehicle.

                The 260-mile range of the Limited AWD will mean if I don’t start my week at 100% or miss a charge after any one day of commuting, I run the risk of not being able to make it back home the next day especially after a few years of usage on the battery and accounting for running the AC or heater in cold weather. I’m not going to spend $60k to put myself into that position. 300 miles of range is really the bare minimum I’d be comfortable with.