this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
399 points (93.1% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
3806 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 94 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

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 48 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 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 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

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 31 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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 12 points 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.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Where do they add the oil to let out giant smoke clouds?

[–] Threeme2189@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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!

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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 2 points 9 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.

[–] TheIllustrativeMan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Supposedly the Silverado EV does have astronomically better towing range, but GM seems to be slow-rolling that one.

[–] qupada42@lemmy.nz 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The great news is we have Zac (JerryRigEverything) to test exactly that:

https://youtu.be/yk_u9fbkoKM

Towing at around its maximum rating in the cold, the range was indeed below 100 miles.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/yk_u9fbkoKM

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (5 children)

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 30 points 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 14 points 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 12 points 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 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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 2 points 9 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.😂

[–] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

70 is aggressive? In California ppl will be passing you on both sides at that speed.

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 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 6 points 10 months ago

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

[–] viking@infosec.pub 2 points 10 months ago

It's below the recommended average on German roads (stands at 130kph / ~81mph).

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Didn't they just get obligated to report a lower range for many models because they were reporting unrealistic figures?

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

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

[–] farcaster@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

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?

[–] Filthmontane@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)