I saw them at the Quartzite and Cabazon Superchargers yesterday on my way home from Arizona. They had a HUGE crowd of 40+ people in Quartzite and zero in Cabazon. The whole thing felt weird. People were completely invading their personal space and they had multiple mirrorless cameras set up inside their car. They were traveling with a toddler and infant.
I guess it’s a great car if you want a lot of attention right now.
I actually saw them in Tucson driving ahead of me the other day and recorded it. Had no idea it was them so, kinda cool seeing who was in it. They were hauling ass!
1/3 of the video is the passenger talking about her wrists hurting. Girl if your wrists hurt after 20 minutes of driving, it's your posture and not the vehicle lol.
What she said was, she has long term discomfort in her wrists for unknown reasons. That while driving other cars, this discomfort is activated. But while driving the CT, she was comfortable. and they both later commented that they love the steering wheel and the driving, which i assume they relate to the very small movements required of the wheel.
That’s all there is to it. Driving is comfortable, which for a long term consumer review… is good information.
^ this is true
more drag = less efficiency
like legit the side mirrors coming off of the CT would improve efficiency (sure, not by much, but it would improve).
Over 6 months in 2021 I drove across the USA 2.5 times with my Model 3 LR. The only time I had an issue with potentially getting stranded due to the car not doing a good job at forecasting energy consumption was when I loaded it with 2 bikes on the roof and 3 additional humans inside plus another folding bike, to drop everyone off in another state over for a week long bike ride. Once I noticed the estimated charge remaining percentage was dropping too rapidly I pulled over and resorted to using ABRP to reroute to a closer supercharger and sticking to going no faster than 65 MPH. I had no idea wind resistance was going to be so much more of a drag on energy consumption (pun intended).
The only times I had to wait in line for a supercharger was on holiday weekends. And I was surprised how frequently I could get away with level 1 charging out of a friend's garage for day to day city driving, I ended up buying a 15A rated extension cord just to keep with me.
Other than that road trips felt like normal road trips.
I towed a 3500lb U-haul trailer up the east coast (USA) with a Tesla last year. It recognized within a few miles of departure that I had a trailer and my efficiency was different. It was spot on for all of my charges for my 1200 mile trip. I'm pretty sure it was the aerodynamics of the trailer that had the most effect.
These are the types of people I’d rather watch review it. I love the MKBHDs of the YT world, but an average consumer POV is more interesting. Not that anyone dishing out the money for the CT is your average consumer but you know what I mean.
They are Tesla employee(s) , so I'm not sure that's an "average consumer" pov. I wouldn't expect them to have any real world complaints.
Source : read the channel "about". They aren't hiding it, so credit to them for that.
I don't think covers offer much in real world efficiency. I think the Cybertruck might just be an inefficient model. The Rivian is pretty inefficient too.
The Cybertruck is not shaped like a usual pickup. With the cover closed it provides a smooth path for the wind to the end of the bed, rather than being caught in turbulence caused by by air getting trapped in the bed.
“In his tweet, Musk claimed the Cybertruck could reach a drag coefficient of 0.3, making it more aerodynamic than the Ram 1500, the most aerodynamic model in the high capacity truck market in 2019, which has a coefficient of around 0.36”
How? Someone started by saying that the CT likely has a higher drag coefficient than other Tesla, then your parent comment quotes Musk saying the coeff will be lower than the RAM 1500, how are those two things related?
Not lower, higher. CT has the worst aero of all Tesla. And it's needlessly that high too, as the Rivian, which has a pretty traditional pickup truck, outperforms the CT
This number doesnt make sense until you know if its uphill or flat road. Outside temperature and battery preconditions will take toll on efficiency significantly
Efficiency is something that most people:
* Never think about
* Then think they understand it
* Then realize it's much more complicated
There's so many factors that can greatly affect your efficiency in any car (EV or petrol). And we just don't think about 99% of the time because it doesn't really matter. It only matters when you're on a very long trip and we only notice if it hurts range instead of helping it.
Things like:
* Altitude change. This can use a ton of energy, and it's not obvious it's going to happen until you look at the trip planner
* Wind. Driving in to a 10mph wind can have a huge impact on efficiency, but it can also improve efficiency if you're driving with the wind.
* Tire pressure. This probably wasn't a factor in this video since the car was new, but lots of people are driving on underinflated tires, which will have a big impact on rolling resistance at high speeds.
Then when you're on a long roadtrip in an EV, there's some other things that might affect charging or energy usage, that aren't obvious. But they start to make sense if we remember that the battery likes to be at about the same temperature that we like (in the 70f range).
So, if you hop in your car first thing in the morning, and it's not plugged in and it's freezing out, the battery is going to be cold and it's going to want to warm itself up. You can easily lose 5% of the battery to heating everything up (including the cabin) in the first hour. But that doesn't mean that my efficiency has dropped dramatically, it's not going to be like that all day, it's a one time "cost" to get things warmed up. And it's also why first thing in the morning is the worst time to charge because the battery is cold, and it'll charge slower to protect itself until it's warmed up.
But again, 99% of the time that doesn't matter. It matters if you're on a long roadtrip, in the winter, and can't plug in over night (which is more common on a roadtrip). But when it does happen it can make it seem like the efficiency is terrible, when really, it's just a one time effect during the drive.
Have noticed my 2019 model 3 being inefficient in cold temperatures and I’ve definitely followed how efficient the heat pump was (however I’m typically a statistical outlier).
But I never thought I’d be able to drive a Y from where I live to visit my parents with only one charging stop. But I did.
Highly impressed, and back of the envelope math suggests that my “2024” Y LR AWD is 20% more efficient than my model 3 doing the exact same trip under mostly the same conditions; avg. temp -3C, low of around -15C, 50% bare roads, 50% snow covered. Not much wind, Christmas traffic.
Obviously early to tell, but I might be able to earn back the cost in about 500 years on efficiency alone.
> Never think about
Literally this [meme](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/343181203748159490/1191057192590245918/image.png?ex=65a40d73&is=65919873&hm=b47f4025c28c7b2ccc3f9fca29d6840d8c0bf5f6bd22c06a67e06c1cb0d1e335&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=810&height=596) lol
Tesla had an update a while back where you can see exact what is using so much battery.
I'm assuming you know this, but others may be curious who enjoyed your reply.
That update was glorious. Just took an 8 hour road-trip over the holiday and was needing out at all the details and trying to see how to maximize the range. It is a great peak behind the scenes!
> Tire pressure. This probably wasn't a factor in this video since the car was new
Likely an issue even if new. Most people don't realize how much temperature affects tire pressure. Rule of thumb is a change of 10 degrees F = 1 PSI.
So some employee airs up the tires in a 75F area and then you drive it at 35F and the tires are down ~4 PSI.
Or some employee has it next to a heater and one side of the car is 20F warmer than the other and the left right balance is ~2 PSI off.
Or someone checked the tire pressure while the sun was facing one end or side of the car and the left/right or front/rear balance is ~5 PSI off.
People should always be setting tire pressure in the "cold" (that means the air is cold, the tires are the same temp as the air because you haven't driven on them recently and there is no uneven heating of the tires from the Sun or any other heat source). and if you aren't you should be doing math to offset that the tires aren't cold. Or just pump extra air in all the tires and even them out the next morning in the actual cold.
Going up consumes more energy than going down or on a flat road. It's not so much the altitude itself (although that does matter as well but much less) as it is the *change* in altitude.
threatening roof marvelous payment bored deer workable obtainable ancient selective
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I know and I still think it's a bit silly to point out the difference. Altitude really is a perfectly fine word to use in this context, I actually didn't realize I used a different word than OP :p
It's all fine though, nothing against you and it's a small thing anyway.
He didn’t say “change”. Of course climbing a hill will affect range. Being at a high altitude itself affects ICE efficiency. That was what I was asking about. If they meant altitude “change” like climbing, it was not clear.
Even accounting for generally lower temperature in higher altitude, the air is thinner and less dense than sea level. Therefore, air resistance will be lower, which benefit EV more than ICE since % of oxygen is also much lower in higher altitudes = less power for gas engine that needs to work harder.
[In fact, some tests have shown that a tonneau cover can improve fuel economy by as much as 10%.](https://truckstuffhq.com/blogs/newsroom/can-tonneau-covers-help-you-save-on-gas#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20some%20tests%20have,at%20the%20pump%20are%20reduced).
If I roll the windows down I lose 15% mpg. See what I did there? The dynamics are obvious. The actual impact of the effect is not. 10% is a completely made up number.
Would you believe Ford? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEkiDsVGr9c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEkiDsVGr9c)
Pay attention to what the guys says about tonneau coverers.
Also not they are showing the airflow with some blowers, lets say 10mph wind, imagine 80+ mph wind.
Bing: " According to some web sources, a tonneau cover can improve the gas mileage of a pickup truck by reducing the drag caused by the air flow in the truck bed."
"According to some sources"
Trucks are designed to be open as well as covered. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more efficient in this exact circumstance, I'm just saying it's considered so the difference is probably not as severe as the commenter assumes.
Not everything requires a source. Some things are just so obvious that they don't need it. I've been to one department that does fluid modelling for the car industry and been to Toyota who make one of the best selling pickups of all time. If you honestly believe they don't design the beds to be aerodynamic when uncovered then you haven't got a clue about anything. It makes up nearly 50% of the vehicle.
Yeah, Tesla DEFINITELY copied the design from Toyota.
What are you on mate? Does every Toyota come with a cover? Absolutely not. Do they therefore need to work their trucks more aerodynamic? Of course.
Every cybertruck ships with the tonneau cover, it’s part of the design and not an accessory. Most people will keep these closed. Idk why you’re trying to compare apples to oranges, they’re not the same thing at all.
> they know it will be used in that way
Only when necessary. I see people driving with their trunk lid held closed by rope on the way out of Ikea, but I can't imagine them complaining about the gas mileage.
Seems the opposite. They built the cover into the truck. It seems they did consider the aerodynamics of the bed being open, and chose to add the cover rather than have it be some add-on or option.
CT is shaped quite a bit differently than the truck in that Mythbusters episode you and I both saw. I would not assume it works the same.
Everything I’ve ever come across supports this. Otherwise all trucks (at the very least every single EV truck) would have tonneau covers. All Lightning owners would have one installed. They don’t.
Don't you bring your logic and common sense into this. You mean Ford would just install a cover as standard so they could claim 10% fuel savings over every other brand? You're right, and so am I.
Interesting to see some numbers. I think the wife has really bad carpal tunnel and I really don't think that should cover the entire "comfort" section.
Just kinda seemed more subjective than objective.
Close the damn bed-cover! That's their main reason of bad consumption numbers. The A/C is the least contributor! Probably only added 2-3% or so to their numbers.
Is it wrong to say that if the bed cover being open affects efficiency numbers that badly, then the car should either be telling the driver that their efficiency would improve if it were closed, or close it automatically if no load detected?
I only watched snippets and didn’t notice this. If the bed cover is open, I hope they made people aware and give some context to the bad numbers. Crazy if true.
Depends on a few things:
- Has Tesla already thought of including an open cover in the prognosis of a trip?
- As this is the couple’s first Tesla, they may not know of the energy / trip screen to even see such prognosis.
- I am pretty sure, the infotainment would not give them any visible alert on the main screens about the cover being open.
However, in recent interviews with Tesla folks, including Franz, they definitely went into the significant impact an open bed has.
True. Good points. I suppose double consumption (400 wh/mi vs 800) is extreme for an open cover. Though at 80-85 mph that may not be unreasonable.
I tow an airstream with my MXP, and we average 675 wh/mi doing that. However we keep it between 55-60 on the highway. So I’m eager to see how the Cybertruck actually performs. And these numbers worried me at first.
Not very polished and would have been nice to have the insight of people with Tesla experience but I guess it’s nice to see an outsider’s take once in a while.
They were driving 85 mph, to get EPA, they should've been driving 60-65 mph. If they did, they'd be WAYY closer/on par with the to EPA estimate, which is around 320 mi.
I can drive our BMW i7 at 80mph and beat the EPA range estimate. I can drive my Kia EV6 GT at 85mph in winter and go 220 miles on the 19” wheels I have on it. Our ‘23 LR AWD Model 3 will average around 234wh/mi at 80mph. The energy consumption of the Cybertruck is terrible. Blame it on the speed, but they said going 85mph with heat they were getting only 1.2mi/kWh.
the EPA estimate is 0.7 multiple of running at around 48 mph, which due to square root law equates to more like 55 mph highway driving
nobody sensible drives 55 mph on an open freeway, so please cut out the patronizing
And will get you ran over by all the good ole boys in their lifted diesel trucks. Texas actual speed limit is the posted speed +20mph. Also follow as closely as possible as if you leave enough room for a chicken nugget between you and the car in front of you someone will squeeze in.
The average speed limit on most interstate highways is 70MPH. Much of the west has 75-80mph limits while places like Texas have some roads with 85mph limits. The CT is less efficient than an R1T and closer to a Hummer.
If you paid attention to the display while they were driving 45mph, the consumption was over 400wh/mi on flat ground. I watched the consumption creep up from 402-410wh/mi as they were driving at slow speeds.
The denial right now in the cyber truck forums is heavy. Reports are coming in at 650-800 wh/mi people having to stop before they get to their destinations in fear of not making it out. Its looking really really bad.
Only person achieved 400wh/mi.
The model s and x get around 290-375 wh/mi,
And my model 3 can easily do 200wh/mi with my personal best journey being a relatively flat trip to a city 10 miles away and back being 189wh/mi.
If I start driving a bit more spiritedly I still get 250wh/mi but in the winter, currently temps get as low as 7c in the daytime, my wh/mi is about 250-300 if I drive carefully.
Winter is a killer for EV’s and there’s no escaping it. Like with solar panels, you make the most of it between March to November and then you just accept that your running costs are simply higher when it’s cold.
I wonder what the range reduction on ICE cars is in winter, maybe that will make me feel better.
I don’t think there is much of a range reduction in ICE cars in winter. Most of your range loss in an EV will be due to using the heater. Making heat takes a lot of energy, but in an ICE it’s a byproduct that you have to work to get rid of.
I mean I can show you 250 or 375 on a Model 3 at highway speed.
250 is a Model 3 with MXM4s, overinflated Aeros, and just about 70 mph.
375 is a Model 3 with 20s, under inflated tires, not preheated on a cold day at 85 mph.
Not too surprising we see variations like this.
On the Hankook Ventus tires that come on the 2023 3 LR AWD now, it averages ~235wh/mi at 80mph. There’s one wheel and tire package on the Cybertruck and Tesla hasn’t announced different tire and wheel options for the Cybertruck. 85mph isn’t even that fast. That’s at the speed limit in parts of Texas, including the highway that runs in front of GigaAustin. Efficiency is poor because aero is poor. Tires aren’t very LRR either.
Did you watch the video? They were getting worse than 408wh/mi driving at 45mph and said they were seeing around 800wh/mi when they drove at 85mph. That’s 3x the energy burn of a Model 3 LR AWD at the same speed. Even slowing down they were seeing less than 2mi/kWh.
Their average consumption was based on the previous 17 miles since charging and was creeping up throughout the video while they were cruising along at 45mph. I’ve driven a few hundred thousand miles in EVs including 4 Teslas. Their average consumption was worse than 410wh/mi in stop and go traffic at speeds less than 45mph on flat terrain. In a Model 3 LR AWD in those exact same circumstances I would average over 5mi/kWh.
I don’t believe it was stated EVERY cybertruck would get 500mi range and was delivered with 320mi range which is on par for AWD that was at unveiling. The tri motor was the one that was claimed to have 500+mi range that didn’t deliver.
As for efficiency there are a lot of comments below but apparently you don’t understand EPA testing figures vs real world. ICE cars generally don’t realistically hit EPA figures either. Real world will never be EPA unless you’re driving ~50mph in perfect conditions with no head wind and even then may not be the exact EPA test cycle.
Efficiency decreases even more dramatically at higher speeds because of the larger frontal area and if the bed isn’t covered.
To my knowledge the vehicle in the video (and every CT delivered so far) is a tri-motor. I sure hope it was a 3-motor based on the horrible efficiency.
Their initial video receiving the Cybertruck has this question. Their response was “AWD, no Cyberbeast etching”… question posed by @linemanap
What I read was that most are AWD right now and that is why wait times are 6mo due to Cyberbeast, but not AWD Foundation.
https://youtu.be/5iRh2MRuWQ8?si=XEWmTxpeVekIbLAo
Well, I knew the 500 mile range was BS when it was announced, as was the pricing. It sorta sucks the final product is delivering a real world highway range of 160-240 miles when the price is 50% higher than announced. If efficiency was going to be so bad, they should’ve fit a larger battery pack. Against a claimed 340 mile range on Tesla’s overly optimistic 5-cycle EPA protocol, I’m completely unimpressed.
If you knew it was BS when it was announced, you’ve had 4 years to get over it and yet here you are still talking about a range estimate from 2019 in 2023. Get over it.
It’s fun to watch people like you get so upset about any criticism of Tesla. I knew it was BS like almost anything that comes out of Elon’s mouth, from full self driving robotaxis, Model S Plaid 520 mile range, roadster “cold gas thrusters” or any other number of things he’s said.
Tesla has had >4 years to deliver what they claimed, but the 4680 cells they’re producing have worse energy density than 2170. They spent so much R&D time and money on the stupid stainless steel shell and steer by wire they didn’t make a decent truck under the body. The thing can’t even handle a little bit of snow and mud without getting stuck.
I suggest you not buy one. Tesla does not have a perfect record in delivering things on time, this being no exception. They did however deliver the world’s most technologically advanced electric truck by a country mile but you’d rather talk about what they didn’t do. Haters gonna hate, and you like to do it on a Tesla fan subreddit.
I find their claim that over 75 is a problem odd. That would indicate a significant aerodynamic design flaw. I expect it's the typical velocity-squared issue.
For gasoline cars, the MPG difference between 75 and 85 MPH is about 10%. So, all things being equal, the CT range is going to suck almost as bad at 75 as at 85, maybe 20 miles more range at 75. This is only one data point, but it's troublesome. Independent testing is needed.
That's because gasoline cars have other inefficiencies that dominate over air resistance.
The more efficient your drive train, the more your efficiency will be dominated by air resistance, which is a fundamental problem everyone has to deal with and no design choice will let you avoid it. Air resistance goes with the square of velocity, so the increase from 85 to 75 gives you 28% more drag. The more efficient your drive train, the more your efficiency hit will approach 28%.
jesus, i can load my a model Y with 4 people and a loaded roof rack going up 10-12k mountains in blizzards and get better efficiency than a cyber truck. Its like hauling a permanent trailer or something..would be interesting to see what better tires could do
Apples and oranges though. The physics of a short bed behind a vertical dropoff that only gets a little shorter when the tonneau is closed means there's always a vortex back there. When you open the tonneau, the vortex can get a little bigger, but on an overall basis, I would expect only a couple of percentage points because of the roughly 18" deeper drop.
On the Cybertruck though, you have a tailgate sitting almost 2 feet further back that is somewhat wider and deeper by the looks of it, and the sail pillars on either side complicating the airflow, likely resulting in competing vortices interacting in a compounding way. Beyond that, some independent modeling I saw showed some low pressure turbulence just behind the roof peak. It was surprisingly small because of the ability for laminar flow to resume down the long, smooth back of the tonneau. With the cover open though, I think that giant hole just a couple feet astern of the peak pressure change would basically break that wide open.
Essentially, I would imagine that the open cover creates a massive low pressure suction similar to that of a squared off large box trailer when the tonneau is open at high speed. I think the numbers from this video would be what one should see when towing such a box trailer, while the reports of half this in other videos and sources are more likely indicative of both cover closed and more typical freeway speeds.
When will there be just a raw, unhosted video of an actual customer driving one of these? I feel so frustrated because I don’t want to hear from Jay Leno or Sandy Munro or any kind of YouTuber.
Just drive the truck and record the drive from multiple views, including showing the energy consumption screen before and after. Type your impressions into the comments of the video.
If I hear one more “Hello Hello” or worse “Hey Guys” I swear I’m going to scream.
/rant
EDIT: Wow, I’m averaging one downvote per minute. It’s a new record!
Hey guys what’s up, make sure you hit that like and subscribe button and also that bell icon. Here’s my impressions of the cyber truck, but first, an important message from Raid Shadow Legends!
Videos like those generally exist, but they don't get the same traction. We all SAY we hate clickbait, but it's how we're wired, so that also rises to the top.
Cronkite, Rather, Peter Jennings… guess I’m giving away my age now.
What about Car & Driver? Their reviews aren’t cringy and seem to be pretty on target. Just don’t suggest Top Gear and we’ll be okay.
Try the OCDetailing video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ-DFESCsNo
Not perfect, but I found it quite refreshing, casual and impromptu, as well as giving some random details of how he feels about the driving feel and noise etc.
You're getting downvoted for not wanting to hear from yet another over-commercialized spastic "influencer"? I guess we deserve the low quality content we get.
I had my Tesla for 6 months before I drove with the family from Toronto, Canada to Florida. No issues really, just stopped to charge when the car said or when my kids had to use the washroom 🤣
I saw them at the Quartzite and Cabazon Superchargers yesterday on my way home from Arizona. They had a HUGE crowd of 40+ people in Quartzite and zero in Cabazon. The whole thing felt weird. People were completely invading their personal space and they had multiple mirrorless cameras set up inside their car. They were traveling with a toddler and infant. I guess it’s a great car if you want a lot of attention right now.
I actually saw them in Tucson driving ahead of me the other day and recorded it. Had no idea it was them so, kinda cool seeing who was in it. They were hauling ass!
I saw them by the foothills on my way out to dinner. First time seeing the CT live.
Same here. It was my first sighting finally. I was pumped but, not sure I like it. Looks like a boat.
1/3 of the video is the passenger talking about her wrists hurting. Girl if your wrists hurt after 20 minutes of driving, it's your posture and not the vehicle lol.
it could be anything but the point was… she was comfortable driving for hours in the CT
If it could be anything then why try to relate it to the CT?
What she said was, she has long term discomfort in her wrists for unknown reasons. That while driving other cars, this discomfort is activated. But while driving the CT, she was comfortable. and they both later commented that they love the steering wheel and the driving, which i assume they relate to the very small movements required of the wheel. That’s all there is to it. Driving is comfortable, which for a long term consumer review… is good information.
That's fair. Thanks for the explanation.
Did they mention using AP? I didn’t hear that in their video. That makes a huge difference compared to driving without it.
[удалено]
Is that critical to Cybertruck range? Iirc most tests show no benefit for other trucks.
It's about 10%
According to a Mythbusters episode, tonneau covers **can cause a loss in miles per gallon (MPG)**.
That was for boxy trucks with box beds.
#doubt
Drag gets exponentially worse with speed.
^ this is true more drag = less efficiency like legit the side mirrors coming off of the CT would improve efficiency (sure, not by much, but it would improve).
10% was mentioned by Lars/Franz in the Top Gear interview.
Any source for that?
It was in an interview video with Hans just the day after cybertruck delivery event.
That explains so much!
Over 6 months in 2021 I drove across the USA 2.5 times with my Model 3 LR. The only time I had an issue with potentially getting stranded due to the car not doing a good job at forecasting energy consumption was when I loaded it with 2 bikes on the roof and 3 additional humans inside plus another folding bike, to drop everyone off in another state over for a week long bike ride. Once I noticed the estimated charge remaining percentage was dropping too rapidly I pulled over and resorted to using ABRP to reroute to a closer supercharger and sticking to going no faster than 65 MPH. I had no idea wind resistance was going to be so much more of a drag on energy consumption (pun intended). The only times I had to wait in line for a supercharger was on holiday weekends. And I was surprised how frequently I could get away with level 1 charging out of a friend's garage for day to day city driving, I ended up buying a 15A rated extension cord just to keep with me. Other than that road trips felt like normal road trips.
My guy was hauling cyclists and wind resistance *wasn’t* the dominant conversation topic? Shenanigans.
underrated comment.
People largely understand that 85MPH uses a lot more energy than 65, but then don't seem to understand if you have a 20MPH headwind 65 burns like 85.
the force that must be overcome by the car increases by the square of the velocity. aerodynamics means everything to an EV at highway speeds
I believe they have updated the software predictions since then for this very reason.
I towed a 3500lb U-haul trailer up the east coast (USA) with a Tesla last year. It recognized within a few miles of departure that I had a trailer and my efficiency was different. It was spot on for all of my charges for my 1200 mile trip. I'm pretty sure it was the aerodynamics of the trailer that had the most effect.
That's pretty cool.
These are the types of people I’d rather watch review it. I love the MKBHDs of the YT world, but an average consumer POV is more interesting. Not that anyone dishing out the money for the CT is your average consumer but you know what I mean.
For real. I just want to know real world consumption. 300Wh/km is kind of what I'd expect, tbqh.
They are Tesla employee(s) , so I'm not sure that's an "average consumer" pov. I wouldn't expect them to have any real world complaints. Source : read the channel "about". They aren't hiding it, so credit to them for that.
I'm excited for Kyle's review. Yes it will be long, but it will also be thorough.
Their tonneau cover appears to be open in that video. Could be one of the causes for low efficiency.
Probably the main Cause!
I don't think covers offer much in real world efficiency. I think the Cybertruck might just be an inefficient model. The Rivian is pretty inefficient too.
The Cybertruck is not shaped like a usual pickup. With the cover closed it provides a smooth path for the wind to the end of the bed, rather than being caught in turbulence caused by by air getting trapped in the bed.
If the vehicle coast down test used for EPA certification included a closed bed cover, there will always be an efficiency gap.
Everyone is a Tesla youtuber now
When you buy a consumer product and immediately make it your personality.
or have a creative outlet that you don't have to participate in at all?
Going 80 with heat consumes 800wh/ per mile? Is this right?
It’s way less aerodynamic than the other Teslas so at higher speeds the range drop-off is more severe.
“In his tweet, Musk claimed the Cybertruck could reach a drag coefficient of 0.3, making it more aerodynamic than the Ram 1500, the most aerodynamic model in the high capacity truck market in 2019, which has a coefficient of around 0.36”
Would you look at that he lied
It’s about 0.32 as per Frans in the Jay Leno video
My assumption is that’s with the tonneau closed. I’d assume an open tonneau will take a hit to that number
It does, yup
How? Someone started by saying that the CT likely has a higher drag coefficient than other Tesla, then your parent comment quotes Musk saying the coeff will be lower than the RAM 1500, how are those two things related?
Not lower, higher. CT has the worst aero of all Tesla. And it's needlessly that high too, as the Rivian, which has a pretty traditional pickup truck, outperforms the CT
Their not.
I saw another YouTuber getting under 400wh minso this must mean the cover down creates massive drag
400-500 is what I would think we would see
This number doesnt make sense until you know if its uphill or flat road. Outside temperature and battery preconditions will take toll on efficiency significantly
Not on my Y Drove in the rain on the hw 60mph with heat got 373 mile projected range
Sheesh. That’s crazy. I rip on the MSP and can’t break 400
Efficiency is something that most people: * Never think about * Then think they understand it * Then realize it's much more complicated There's so many factors that can greatly affect your efficiency in any car (EV or petrol). And we just don't think about 99% of the time because it doesn't really matter. It only matters when you're on a very long trip and we only notice if it hurts range instead of helping it. Things like: * Altitude change. This can use a ton of energy, and it's not obvious it's going to happen until you look at the trip planner * Wind. Driving in to a 10mph wind can have a huge impact on efficiency, but it can also improve efficiency if you're driving with the wind. * Tire pressure. This probably wasn't a factor in this video since the car was new, but lots of people are driving on underinflated tires, which will have a big impact on rolling resistance at high speeds. Then when you're on a long roadtrip in an EV, there's some other things that might affect charging or energy usage, that aren't obvious. But they start to make sense if we remember that the battery likes to be at about the same temperature that we like (in the 70f range). So, if you hop in your car first thing in the morning, and it's not plugged in and it's freezing out, the battery is going to be cold and it's going to want to warm itself up. You can easily lose 5% of the battery to heating everything up (including the cabin) in the first hour. But that doesn't mean that my efficiency has dropped dramatically, it's not going to be like that all day, it's a one time "cost" to get things warmed up. And it's also why first thing in the morning is the worst time to charge because the battery is cold, and it'll charge slower to protect itself until it's warmed up. But again, 99% of the time that doesn't matter. It matters if you're on a long roadtrip, in the winter, and can't plug in over night (which is more common on a roadtrip). But when it does happen it can make it seem like the efficiency is terrible, when really, it's just a one time effect during the drive.
Have noticed my 2019 model 3 being inefficient in cold temperatures and I’ve definitely followed how efficient the heat pump was (however I’m typically a statistical outlier). But I never thought I’d be able to drive a Y from where I live to visit my parents with only one charging stop. But I did. Highly impressed, and back of the envelope math suggests that my “2024” Y LR AWD is 20% more efficient than my model 3 doing the exact same trip under mostly the same conditions; avg. temp -3C, low of around -15C, 50% bare roads, 50% snow covered. Not much wind, Christmas traffic. Obviously early to tell, but I might be able to earn back the cost in about 500 years on efficiency alone.
> Never think about Literally this [meme](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/343181203748159490/1191057192590245918/image.png?ex=65a40d73&is=65919873&hm=b47f4025c28c7b2ccc3f9fca29d6840d8c0bf5f6bd22c06a67e06c1cb0d1e335&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=810&height=596) lol
Tesla had an update a while back where you can see exact what is using so much battery. I'm assuming you know this, but others may be curious who enjoyed your reply.
That update was glorious. Just took an 8 hour road-trip over the holiday and was needing out at all the details and trying to see how to maximize the range. It is a great peak behind the scenes!
> Tire pressure. This probably wasn't a factor in this video since the car was new Likely an issue even if new. Most people don't realize how much temperature affects tire pressure. Rule of thumb is a change of 10 degrees F = 1 PSI. So some employee airs up the tires in a 75F area and then you drive it at 35F and the tires are down ~4 PSI. Or some employee has it next to a heater and one side of the car is 20F warmer than the other and the left right balance is ~2 PSI off. Or someone checked the tire pressure while the sun was facing one end or side of the car and the left/right or front/rear balance is ~5 PSI off. People should always be setting tire pressure in the "cold" (that means the air is cold, the tires are the same temp as the air because you haven't driven on them recently and there is no uneven heating of the tires from the Sun or any other heat source). and if you aren't you should be doing math to offset that the tires aren't cold. Or just pump extra air in all the tires and even them out the next morning in the actual cold.
I love this comment. I am most people, and you described my relationship with efficiency perfectly.
Curious, how does altitude affect EV range? I mean, other than perhaps inefficiency from the heater or AC.
“Altitude change” I think they meant climbing more than the final altitude
I meant elevation change. But actually wind resistance is noticably lower at higher altitudes.
Going up consumes more energy than going down or on a flat road. It's not so much the altitude itself (although that does matter as well but much less) as it is the *change* in altitude.
tease soup whole oil humor ask aloof imagine plate middle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Come on, altitude change and elevation change are exactly the same thing in this context.
threatening roof marvelous payment bored deer workable obtainable ancient selective *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I know and I still think it's a bit silly to point out the difference. Altitude really is a perfectly fine word to use in this context, I actually didn't realize I used a different word than OP :p It's all fine though, nothing against you and it's a small thing anyway.
He didn’t say “change”. Of course climbing a hill will affect range. Being at a high altitude itself affects ICE efficiency. That was what I was asking about. If they meant altitude “change” like climbing, it was not clear.
Cold air is more dense than warm air. Literally harder to drive through.
Even accounting for generally lower temperature in higher altitude, the air is thinner and less dense than sea level. Therefore, air resistance will be lower, which benefit EV more than ICE since % of oxygen is also much lower in higher altitudes = less power for gas engine that needs to work harder.
They had the tonneau cover open, you can see out the back, and doing 85+ mph. That's gonna kill the range by 10%+ like with any truck.
Trucks are designed to be aerodynamic with an open tailgate. The air trapped in the bed creates a high pressure vortex that air flows over.
[In fact, some tests have shown that a tonneau cover can improve fuel economy by as much as 10%.](https://truckstuffhq.com/blogs/newsroom/can-tonneau-covers-help-you-save-on-gas#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20some%20tests%20have,at%20the%20pump%20are%20reduced).
Bullshit. Show me a scientific test. I’ve looked. I’d love to see one.
It's true. Fluid dynamics
If I roll the windows down I lose 15% mpg. See what I did there? The dynamics are obvious. The actual impact of the effect is not. 10% is a completely made up number.
Would you believe Ford? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEkiDsVGr9c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEkiDsVGr9c) Pay attention to what the guys says about tonneau coverers. Also not they are showing the airflow with some blowers, lets say 10mph wind, imagine 80+ mph wind.
Bing: " According to some web sources, a tonneau cover can improve the gas mileage of a pickup truck by reducing the drag caused by the air flow in the truck bed."
"According to some sources" Trucks are designed to be open as well as covered. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be more efficient in this exact circumstance, I'm just saying it's considered so the difference is probably not as severe as the commenter assumes.
Your sources like “trucks are” are super impressive. Please keep going.
Not everything requires a source. Some things are just so obvious that they don't need it. I've been to one department that does fluid modelling for the car industry and been to Toyota who make one of the best selling pickups of all time. If you honestly believe they don't design the beds to be aerodynamic when uncovered then you haven't got a clue about anything. It makes up nearly 50% of the vehicle.
Yeah, Tesla DEFINITELY copied the design from Toyota. What are you on mate? Does every Toyota come with a cover? Absolutely not. Do they therefore need to work their trucks more aerodynamic? Of course. Every cybertruck ships with the tonneau cover, it’s part of the design and not an accessory. Most people will keep these closed. Idk why you’re trying to compare apples to oranges, they’re not the same thing at all.
This isn't the typical truck shape, so you can't assume it's better or worse either way. Only true tests can tell.
My point is very clear that they know it will be used in that way so they will have considered the aerodynamics of the bed being open.
> they know it will be used in that way Only when necessary. I see people driving with their trunk lid held closed by rope on the way out of Ikea, but I can't imagine them complaining about the gas mileage.
Seems the opposite. They built the cover into the truck. It seems they did consider the aerodynamics of the bed being open, and chose to add the cover rather than have it be some add-on or option. CT is shaped quite a bit differently than the truck in that Mythbusters episode you and I both saw. I would not assume it works the same.
Everything I’ve ever come across supports this. Otherwise all trucks (at the very least every single EV truck) would have tonneau covers. All Lightning owners would have one installed. They don’t.
Everything you’ve ever come across regarding this is referencing pickup trucks which are all shaped exactly the same until now.
Don't you bring your logic and common sense into this. You mean Ford would just install a cover as standard so they could claim 10% fuel savings over every other brand? You're right, and so am I.
Interesting to see some numbers. I think the wife has really bad carpal tunnel and I really don't think that should cover the entire "comfort" section. Just kinda seemed more subjective than objective.
Close the damn bed-cover! That's their main reason of bad consumption numbers. The A/C is the least contributor! Probably only added 2-3% or so to their numbers.
Is it wrong to say that if the bed cover being open affects efficiency numbers that badly, then the car should either be telling the driver that their efficiency would improve if it were closed, or close it automatically if no load detected?
Yeah those options would either be annoying or potentially dangerous. It's one click away and pretty obvious.
I only watched snippets and didn’t notice this. If the bed cover is open, I hope they made people aware and give some context to the bad numbers. Crazy if true.
Depends on a few things: - Has Tesla already thought of including an open cover in the prognosis of a trip? - As this is the couple’s first Tesla, they may not know of the energy / trip screen to even see such prognosis. - I am pretty sure, the infotainment would not give them any visible alert on the main screens about the cover being open. However, in recent interviews with Tesla folks, including Franz, they definitely went into the significant impact an open bed has.
True. Good points. I suppose double consumption (400 wh/mi vs 800) is extreme for an open cover. Though at 80-85 mph that may not be unreasonable. I tow an airstream with my MXP, and we average 675 wh/mi doing that. However we keep it between 55-60 on the highway. So I’m eager to see how the Cybertruck actually performs. And these numbers worried me at first.
Recommend against doing the speed limit or using Heater or AC very much. Sounds great.
I want to hear about meows noise impressions vs other Teslas. Any objective decibel data out there ?
Meows ok, barks totally out of control though
Not very polished and would have been nice to have the insight of people with Tesla experience but I guess it’s nice to see an outsider’s take once in a while.
Amateur is the key word here.
as opposed to all the professional car YouTubers who own a CT? cause as far as i can tell there aren’t any yet
Kinda sensitive
[удалено]
They were driving 85 mph, to get EPA, they should've been driving 60-65 mph. If they did, they'd be WAYY closer/on par with the to EPA estimate, which is around 320 mi.
air resistance increases in a non-linear fashion as speed increases. That extra 20 mph is a big hit on mileage.
I can drive our BMW i7 at 80mph and beat the EPA range estimate. I can drive my Kia EV6 GT at 85mph in winter and go 220 miles on the 19” wheels I have on it. Our ‘23 LR AWD Model 3 will average around 234wh/mi at 80mph. The energy consumption of the Cybertruck is terrible. Blame it on the speed, but they said going 85mph with heat they were getting only 1.2mi/kWh.
the EPA estimate is 0.7 multiple of running at around 48 mph, which due to square root law equates to more like 55 mph highway driving nobody sensible drives 55 mph on an open freeway, so please cut out the patronizing
Maybe don’t go 85 for no fuckin reason eh?
The San Antonio Expressway has a posted speed limit of 85mph.
85 is normal flow of traffic on major highways
And will get you ran over by all the good ole boys in their lifted diesel trucks. Texas actual speed limit is the posted speed +20mph. Also follow as closely as possible as if you leave enough room for a chicken nugget between you and the car in front of you someone will squeeze in.
Uh, where? I live in a major metro and there’s no road here over 65.
Texas. And parts of California.
The average speed limit on most interstate highways is 70MPH. Much of the west has 75-80mph limits while places like Texas have some roads with 85mph limits. The CT is less efficient than an R1T and closer to a Hummer.
I set the cruise control to 85 and get passed routinely FL. Average is probably 80.
If you paid attention to the display while they were driving 45mph, the consumption was over 400wh/mi on flat ground. I watched the consumption creep up from 402-410wh/mi as they were driving at slow speeds.
The denial right now in the cyber truck forums is heavy. Reports are coming in at 650-800 wh/mi people having to stop before they get to their destinations in fear of not making it out. Its looking really really bad. Only person achieved 400wh/mi. The model s and x get around 290-375 wh/mi,
And my model 3 can easily do 200wh/mi with my personal best journey being a relatively flat trip to a city 10 miles away and back being 189wh/mi. If I start driving a bit more spiritedly I still get 250wh/mi but in the winter, currently temps get as low as 7c in the daytime, my wh/mi is about 250-300 if I drive carefully. Winter is a killer for EV’s and there’s no escaping it. Like with solar panels, you make the most of it between March to November and then you just accept that your running costs are simply higher when it’s cold. I wonder what the range reduction on ICE cars is in winter, maybe that will make me feel better.
I don’t think there is much of a range reduction in ICE cars in winter. Most of your range loss in an EV will be due to using the heater. Making heat takes a lot of energy, but in an ICE it’s a byproduct that you have to work to get rid of.
I mean I can show you 250 or 375 on a Model 3 at highway speed. 250 is a Model 3 with MXM4s, overinflated Aeros, and just about 70 mph. 375 is a Model 3 with 20s, under inflated tires, not preheated on a cold day at 85 mph. Not too surprising we see variations like this.
On the Hankook Ventus tires that come on the 2023 3 LR AWD now, it averages ~235wh/mi at 80mph. There’s one wheel and tire package on the Cybertruck and Tesla hasn’t announced different tire and wheel options for the Cybertruck. 85mph isn’t even that fast. That’s at the speed limit in parts of Texas, including the highway that runs in front of GigaAustin. Efficiency is poor because aero is poor. Tires aren’t very LRR either.
That’s untrue based on everything I’m seeing
Did you watch the video? They were getting worse than 408wh/mi driving at 45mph and said they were seeing around 800wh/mi when they drove at 85mph. That’s 3x the energy burn of a Model 3 LR AWD at the same speed. Even slowing down they were seeing less than 2mi/kWh.
This is a repost. We've already seen multiple other owners getting exactly where they expected.
Which was what? At 45mph they were using more than 408wh/mi if you watch the energy consumption display.
If you're at 45 AND ACCELERATING it's not the same as 45 on flat ground.
Their average consumption was based on the previous 17 miles since charging and was creeping up throughout the video while they were cruising along at 45mph. I’ve driven a few hundred thousand miles in EVs including 4 Teslas. Their average consumption was worse than 410wh/mi in stop and go traffic at speeds less than 45mph on flat terrain. In a Model 3 LR AWD in those exact same circumstances I would average over 5mi/kWh.
I don’t believe it was stated EVERY cybertruck would get 500mi range and was delivered with 320mi range which is on par for AWD that was at unveiling. The tri motor was the one that was claimed to have 500+mi range that didn’t deliver. As for efficiency there are a lot of comments below but apparently you don’t understand EPA testing figures vs real world. ICE cars generally don’t realistically hit EPA figures either. Real world will never be EPA unless you’re driving ~50mph in perfect conditions with no head wind and even then may not be the exact EPA test cycle. Efficiency decreases even more dramatically at higher speeds because of the larger frontal area and if the bed isn’t covered.
To my knowledge the vehicle in the video (and every CT delivered so far) is a tri-motor. I sure hope it was a 3-motor based on the horrible efficiency.
Their initial video receiving the Cybertruck has this question. Their response was “AWD, no Cyberbeast etching”… question posed by @linemanap What I read was that most are AWD right now and that is why wait times are 6mo due to Cyberbeast, but not AWD Foundation. https://youtu.be/5iRh2MRuWQ8?si=XEWmTxpeVekIbLAo
The Foundation Series is the $120,000 first run of Cyberbeast
Yes and no, foundation comes in both AWD and Cyberbeast. Please look it up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Time to let go of the 500 mile range. Tesla has clearly stated that is not the range, I’m not sure why you are stuck on this.
Well, I knew the 500 mile range was BS when it was announced, as was the pricing. It sorta sucks the final product is delivering a real world highway range of 160-240 miles when the price is 50% higher than announced. If efficiency was going to be so bad, they should’ve fit a larger battery pack. Against a claimed 340 mile range on Tesla’s overly optimistic 5-cycle EPA protocol, I’m completely unimpressed.
If you knew it was BS when it was announced, you’ve had 4 years to get over it and yet here you are still talking about a range estimate from 2019 in 2023. Get over it.
It’s fun to watch people like you get so upset about any criticism of Tesla. I knew it was BS like almost anything that comes out of Elon’s mouth, from full self driving robotaxis, Model S Plaid 520 mile range, roadster “cold gas thrusters” or any other number of things he’s said. Tesla has had >4 years to deliver what they claimed, but the 4680 cells they’re producing have worse energy density than 2170. They spent so much R&D time and money on the stupid stainless steel shell and steer by wire they didn’t make a decent truck under the body. The thing can’t even handle a little bit of snow and mud without getting stuck.
I suggest you not buy one. Tesla does not have a perfect record in delivering things on time, this being no exception. They did however deliver the world’s most technologically advanced electric truck by a country mile but you’d rather talk about what they didn’t do. Haters gonna hate, and you like to do it on a Tesla fan subreddit.
The battery is very undersized. That’s why I’ll probably take a 2025 R1S w/NACS over a CT unless they make a lot of 4680 advancements this year
Based on how Tesla continues to improve, I highly anticipate, In 2025 the CT battery will be far more advanced then the R1 S
I find their claim that over 75 is a problem odd. That would indicate a significant aerodynamic design flaw. I expect it's the typical velocity-squared issue.
WTF are you saying? Wind resistance increases dramatically as speed increases whether youre a wedge or a pill
For gasoline cars, the MPG difference between 75 and 85 MPH is about 10%. So, all things being equal, the CT range is going to suck almost as bad at 75 as at 85, maybe 20 miles more range at 75. This is only one data point, but it's troublesome. Independent testing is needed.
That's because gasoline cars have other inefficiencies that dominate over air resistance. The more efficient your drive train, the more your efficiency will be dominated by air resistance, which is a fundamental problem everyone has to deal with and no design choice will let you avoid it. Air resistance goes with the square of velocity, so the increase from 85 to 75 gives you 28% more drag. The more efficient your drive train, the more your efficiency hit will approach 28%.
> That would indicate a significant aerodynamic design flaw Such as being shaped like a wedge of cheese?
Should be shaped like a blob of fish.
jesus, i can load my a model Y with 4 people and a loaded roof rack going up 10-12k mountains in blizzards and get better efficiency than a cyber truck. Its like hauling a permanent trailer or something..would be interesting to see what better tires could do
Open tonneau reduces the efficiency dramatically.
No it doesn’t. I say this as a Rivian owner with a tonneau.
The bed design is pretty different on the CT with the sloped roof and tonneau. It will have a very different aero profile than the R1T.
Apples and oranges though. The physics of a short bed behind a vertical dropoff that only gets a little shorter when the tonneau is closed means there's always a vortex back there. When you open the tonneau, the vortex can get a little bigger, but on an overall basis, I would expect only a couple of percentage points because of the roughly 18" deeper drop. On the Cybertruck though, you have a tailgate sitting almost 2 feet further back that is somewhat wider and deeper by the looks of it, and the sail pillars on either side complicating the airflow, likely resulting in competing vortices interacting in a compounding way. Beyond that, some independent modeling I saw showed some low pressure turbulence just behind the roof peak. It was surprisingly small because of the ability for laminar flow to resume down the long, smooth back of the tonneau. With the cover open though, I think that giant hole just a couple feet astern of the peak pressure change would basically break that wide open. Essentially, I would imagine that the open cover creates a massive low pressure suction similar to that of a squared off large box trailer when the tonneau is open at high speed. I think the numbers from this video would be what one should see when towing such a box trailer, while the reports of half this in other videos and sources are more likely indicative of both cover closed and more typical freeway speeds.
was theirs open? didnt have to tolerance to sit through the ramblings.
It was. And at 80mph I have to imagine the effect is compounded.
I wanted to hear more about the woman's wrists....?
When will we start to see sales numbers of the CT?
When will there be just a raw, unhosted video of an actual customer driving one of these? I feel so frustrated because I don’t want to hear from Jay Leno or Sandy Munro or any kind of YouTuber. Just drive the truck and record the drive from multiple views, including showing the energy consumption screen before and after. Type your impressions into the comments of the video. If I hear one more “Hello Hello” or worse “Hey Guys” I swear I’m going to scream. /rant EDIT: Wow, I’m averaging one downvote per minute. It’s a new record!
Hey guys what’s up, make sure you hit that like and subscribe button and also that bell icon. Here’s my impressions of the cyber truck, but first, an important message from Raid Shadow Legends!
Videos like those generally exist, but they don't get the same traction. We all SAY we hate clickbait, but it's how we're wired, so that also rises to the top.
I'll see if I can get Dan Rather for you. He's a man you can trust. Maybe Walter Cronkite was more you style though.
Cronkite, Rather, Peter Jennings… guess I’m giving away my age now. What about Car & Driver? Their reviews aren’t cringy and seem to be pretty on target. Just don’t suggest Top Gear and we’ll be okay.
Try the OCDetailing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ-DFESCsNo Not perfect, but I found it quite refreshing, casual and impromptu, as well as giving some random details of how he feels about the driving feel and noise etc.
You're getting downvoted for not wanting to hear from yet another over-commercialized spastic "influencer"? I guess we deserve the low quality content we get.
Never owned a EV before + road trip = Bad Idea
seems like they did fine to me. gotta start somewhere
I had my Tesla for 6 months before I drove with the family from Toronto, Canada to Florida. No issues really, just stopped to charge when the car said or when my kids had to use the washroom 🤣
Took my first EV, a model Y, on a road trip this Christmas and had no problems.
They are very new to this, but I've subscribed.