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.”

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months 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

    • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because Musk wanted to make a vehicle out of stainless steel and straight panels are the easiest/cheapest to form.

  • farcaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Balex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • farcaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            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?

            • Wrench@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              • farcaster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                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…

    • Enk1@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Enk1@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • farcaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Enk1@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I feel like the towing issues won’t be easily resolved without aerodynamic towing covers. That’s really what’s hurting the range when towing in an EV. Small differences in efficiency make a much bigger impact with EVs. Like let’s say an EV needs 100 watts to maintain speed. Adding 100 watts of aerodynamic drag doubles the energy drain. But since ICEs are less efficient overall, they would say require 500 watts to maintain speed. The extra 100 watts from towing makes less of a difference.

            I predict there will be aerodynamic fairings for towing in the future as more EVs hit the road.

    • SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • farcaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • Redonkulation@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Your phone does the same thing just without communicating it. Samsung phones let you change the percentage of the battery is “100%” charged.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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?

        • Enk1@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?

          I mean, fairly often. But I imagine for neurotypical people it might be way less.😂

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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

      • Balex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        I read aggressive as in accelerating aggressively. Possibly to get around people?

      • farcaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

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

      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.

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

    • fat_stig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      65 l/100km… Holy shit, a Bugatti Veyron running at top speed over 400km/h is consuming 122 l/100km.

      That’s insane

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

          • mhague@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            You’re in a thread about an offroad capable vehicle, where people might share their experiences with offroading. They’re sharing their experiences because it’s relevant, not because most people go offroading.

      • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    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

    • Subverb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.”

  • Jarix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    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

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s about the range of the current fiat 500e to Chevy Bolt. Both of which cost half of what this does.

    • legion02@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is irrelevant if you need a truck. Neither one of those is picking up plywood from home depot for example.

      • ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • legion02@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • J4g2F@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • legion02@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          There’s unfortunately no trick to bringing home full 4x8 sheets which is generally what I need. And the rental is too much hassle, especially for small quantities. You need somewhere to park a 4x8 trailer, they’re not small.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

  • Dog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The vehicle isn’t even a month old, how have people already hor drove 10K miles?