Cybertruck Highway Range Test by Out Of Spec

[COdogman]

He does live streams for these because people watch. There will be a summary video released probably today or tomorrow.

It's not that I dislike Kyle or fault him for making a living. My disappointment is in society generally...That people will watch a 5 hour livestream of what should be a 30 minute video hurts my brain.

Sponsored

 

[zefram47]

One interesting thing about this route is the Nav often thinks it can't do the journey without having to charge along the way, but once I get going eventually it will concede that it indeed can and displays a more accurate arrival estimate. Haha

I just did a 2200 mile trip. My truck was convinced the first leg of my return trip was impossible and kept trying to reroute to an out of the way charger or taking side roads to get to the next charger. Made me nervous, even though I knew there was no way I wouldn't make it...though I did roll in with around 12%. Not sure if it had an issue with forecast winds or temperature or what, but after that it had no issues even on longer legs. That said, it was consistently bringing me into chargers at 25% SoC, which was too high because it then tried forcing charges that were way deeper than necessary (read much slower).

 

[Supratachophobia]

Tesla didn't deliver what they promised, you don't say.

"I do declare!"

<Fans Self>

 

[SANZC02]

I just did a 2200 mile trip. My truck was convinced the first leg of my return trip was impossible and kept trying to reroute to an out of the way charger or taking side roads to get to the next charger. Made me nervous, even though I knew there was no way I wouldn't make it...though I did roll in with around 12%. Not sure if it had an issue with forecast winds or temperature or what, but after that it had no issues even on longer legs. That said, it was consistently bringing me into chargers at 25% SoC, which was too high because it then tried forcing charges that were way deeper than necessary (read much slower).

It is a bit obscure but the setting for arrival percentage is adjustable, by trip or by default.

 

[Runamok]

Thread takeaways. CT range is lower than advertised, but not atrocious. That test had it averaging around 2.0 miles / kw. This is the same as Rivian's own efficiency benchmark.

So it has similar efficiency and worse range. We can debate how much aero drag, motor engineering, and wheel size influence that figure, but that discussion may be moot if both trucks have similar efficiency.

I agree that the worse range figure is likely due to 122 vs 135kw battery. In a range test where both vehicles have the same constant efficiency, the CT should have 26 less miles due to it's smaller battery. Would love to see someone prove this out with a range test of both vehicles, side-by-side! Where is Kyle?

From an engineering perspective, I am happy that the Rivian team was able to produce a truck that equals or beats the CT at a lower price. Congrats! I think the R1 owners have the better product.

But, I'd wager economies of scale mean that Tesla can produce those CTs much cheaper.

 

[zefram47]

It is a bit obscure but the setting for arrival percentage is adjustable, by trip or by default.

I was aware of this and it did work for the final destination. But with the added multi-point trip planning, it's unclear what they're using for the SoC planned for each charging stop. I was just surprised that for all 9 stops it really wanted me to roll in with such high charge. Then again, on many of the legs it was showing only around 30 miles (~15%) when I left, but because efficiency was better than planned I ended up getting there with more like 60-70 miles of 20-25% most of the time. I'm sure they'll refine the process again at some point.

The best thing about the new multi-point trip planning is that even though the plan shows charging in minutes, when you actually do stop it shows you the SoC to charge to for departure for the next leg. Also, the estimated minutes charging was pretty damn accurate...assuming the charger delivered everything the truck asked for. One thing I do want to see is like ABRP has, the ability to adjust your travel speed. ABRP was pretty much bang on for arrival times when I set for 107% of the speed limit and I used it to validate or tweak my departure SoC on each leg.

 

[Zorg]

R1T gets 2.1-2.2 miles per KWh at 70 on AT tires.

 

[beyond]

Just got done doing a 2500 mile round trip, large portion in 20-40f range and going up / down the Appalachian mountains. Averaged 2.5, was very impressed. For the trip I did get it as aero as possible by removing crossbars and putting the aero covers on the 21's.

 

[RWerksman]

R1T gets 2.1-2.2 miles per KWh at 70 on AT tires.

My R1T QM AT averaged just over 2.10 miles per KWh during my trip over the holidays.

That was over the Allegheny mountains from one side of PA to the other, in colder weather, and with Yoko AT tires on it which are ~.04 miles per KWh less efficient than the Pirelli tires that came on it.

35's are less efficent, but Tesla chose to roll that way. (heh)


I would have expected more, but at the same time, I'm not surprised having owned two Teslas in the past.

 

[Zorg]

What's really funny is that folks on Twitter were expecting 2.7+ 2 months ago...

 

[dleepnw]

It is a bit obscure but the setting for arrival percentage is adjustable, by trip or by default.

you can do the same on the Rivian app as well.

 

[DuoRivians]

A lot of grumbling, arguing and name calling over on the cybertruck forum over this video. Fun but sad at the same time.

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...til-battery-empty-by-out-of-spec.11144/page-3

 

[computertom]

One thing I really like about our Ioniq 5 is the guess-o-meter is pretty darn accurate and lets you know what’s using the juice. Tesla has amazing infrastructure, but the range claims are laughable. Our 20AT wearing R1T was pretty darn accurate too. Would assume they are even better now that many moons of SW updates have arrived.

 

[usofrob]

I've heard it said that with Teslas cruising at 70 mph, you should take off 20% from the EPA range. If you also take off another 7% (referenced above) for the AT tires, because the 340 mile range is based on the unreleased AS tires (I believe), then you would lose 91.8 miles aka 250 miles. So, that sounds about right.

 

[waitingonanr1s]

I was aware of this and it did work for the final destination. But with the added multi-point trip planning, it's unclear what they're using for the SoC planned for each charging stop. I was just surprised that for all 9 stops it really wanted me to roll in with such high charge. Then again, on many of the legs it was showing only around 30 miles (~15%) when I left, but because efficiency was better than planned I ended up getting there with more like 60-70 miles of 20-25% most of the time. I'm sure they'll refine the process again at some point.

The best thing about the new multi-point trip planning is that even though the plan shows charging in minutes, when you actually do stop it shows you the SoC to charge to for departure for the next leg. Also, the estimated minutes charging was pretty damn accurate...assuming the charger delivered everything the truck asked for. One thing I do want to see is like ABRP has, the ability to adjust your travel speed. ABRP was pretty much bang on for arrival times when I set for 107% of the speed limit and I used it to validate or tweak my departure SoC on each leg.

You should be able to select any charging stop on a multi stop plan - which will show you the anticipated arrival SOC % and planned departure SOC %.

Sponsored