Range Math- Cybertruck sub 300miles?

[SSteveEV]

Can anyone point me towards the 320/340 mile range other than the initial spec on the website? Everything I'm seeing with any backup is sub 300.

Per configurator, 2.33mi/kWh (in fine print) * 123kWh pack = 286.7 total range. vs quoted 340est for the AWD
View attachment 76135

MKBHD video showed him clicking on the range to percentage on the screen.
223miles/76% = 293.4 total range.
Even if 75.5% that's 295.4 miles vs claimed 320est for the beast (admittedly he said this was a slightly pre-production version)
View attachment 76139 View attachment 76147



So is "Est" really "less 8 to 15%, if you check our math"?

This other thread had a wider range of guesses based off the nav but the MKBHD is straight guess-o-meter programming.
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/cybertruck-has-a-usable-range-of-266-miles-🤔.21217/

Sponsored

 

[DuoRivians]

Can anyone point me towards the 320/340 mile range other than the initial spec on the website? Everything I'm seeing with any backup is sub 300.

Per configurator, 2.33mi/kWh (in fine print) * 123kWh pack = 286.7 total range. vs quoted 340est for the AWD
View attachment 76135

MKBHD video showed him clicking on the range to percentage on the screen.
223miles/76% = 293.4 total range.
Even if 75.5% that's 295.4 miles vs claimed 320est for the beast (admittedly he said this was a slightly pre-production version)
View attachment 76139 View attachment 76147



So is "Est" really "less 8 to 15%, if you check our math"?

This other thread had a wider range of guesses based off the nav but the MKBHD is straight guess-o-meter programming.
https://www.rivianforums.com/forum/threads/cybertruck-has-a-usable-range-of-266-miles-?.21217/

There isn’t anything out there other than what’s listed on the Tesla site

 

[SSteveEV]

There isn’t anything out there other than what’s listed on the Tesla site

hmmm, I don't get how their website can have such a conflict in data after so long to get ready for the event.

(funny, I just replied to your other post)

 

[SANZC02]

hmmm, I don't get how their website can have such a conflict in data after so long to get ready for the event.

(funny, I just replied to your other post)

The websites just report max values, Rivian does the same thing. For instance it says for the quad motor R1T has 328 mile range and 0-60 in 3.0 seconds.

We know the range is only with 21 inch tires and the 3.0 is with the 22s, we also know the ATs drop both of those numbers significantly.

Really need to wait for Tesla to get the configurator up for those vehicles like Rivian does to see how the configurations change the numbers.

 

[DuoRivians]

The websites just report max values, Rivian does the same thing. For instance it says for the quad motor R1T has 328 mile range and 0-60 in 3.0 seconds.

We know the range is only with 21 inch tires and the 3.0 is with the 22s, we also know the ATs drop both of those numbers significantly.

Really need to wait for Tesla to get the configurator up for those vehicles like Rivian does to see how the configurations change the numbers.

Rivian reports the EPA test numbers on the website. Presumably, Tesla does the same. But it is my understanding that OEMs run their own tests and the EPA (or agency) certifies them

 

[SSteveEV]

The websites just report max values, Rivian does the same thing. For instance it says for the quad motor R1T has 328 mile range and 0-60 in 3.0 seconds.

We know the range is only with 21 inch tires and the 3.0 is with the 22s, we also know the ATs drop both of those numbers significantly.

Really need to wait for Tesla to get the configurator up for those vehicles like Rivian does to see how the configurations change the numbers.

The fine print called out the AWD model, which doesn't match the numbers they claimed for the same spec AWD on the same page.

I get your point but my truck still says 280ish when full as does the Rivian configurator for AT Quad (274mi). Sure all our ranges may vary but Rivian uses the same numbers in two official places. Tesla's just don't line up for either model.

 

[SANZC02]

The fine print called out the AWD model, which doesn't match the numbers they claimed for the same spec AWD on the same page.

I get your point but my truck still says 280ish when full as does the Rivian configurator for AT Quad (274mi). Sure all our ranges may vary but Rivian uses the same numbers in two official places. Tesla's just don't line up for either model.

That is my point, these are pre configuration numbers, the CT configurator is not up yet.

Go to the Tesla site and look at other models like the Model S, it has all max numbers, when you go in and start configuring it the numbers change based on selection. That is how Rivian’s website works as well. Tesla just is not at a point where they have the configurator open for the CT.

They are done shipping for this year, that launch event was only so they can say in the 4th quarter earnings call that they started deliveries of the CT.

 

[SSteveEV]

Go to the Tesla site and look at other models like the Model S, it has all max numbers, when you go in and start configuring it the numbers change based on selection. That is how Rivian’s website works as well. Tesla just is not at a point where they have the configurator open for the CT.

Good point, I looked at the same numbers for the X in the configurator.
Depending on wheels (one two options and only thing that changes the EPA rating) of the X Dual Motor, it lists 330 or 348 miles.

The gas savings fine print there shows 3.03mi/kWh and a 100kWh (95 usable) battery pack.
3.03x100=303 miles range (288 usable)
So there's the same big mismatch in both the X and the cybertruck math using their own efficiency values.
Model S, same deal: 375 vs 357 (339 usable)

 

[Dark-Fx]

Per configurator, 2.33mi/kWh (in fine print) * 123kWh pack = 286.7 total range. vs quoted 340est for the AWD
View attachment 76135

EPA consumption numbers typically include charging losses.

 

[COdogman]

Seems like everything with this truck needs an asterisk and a "see details" popup.

 

[SSteveEV]

EPA consumption numbers typically include charging losses.

Ahhh thank you thank you Brian! That makes sense for the Tesla website mismatch I couldn't wrap my head around.
And tracks with how Rivian's EPA numbers shake out with a delta between the stated range and capacity x efficiency just like Tesla.

Though that still doesn't explain the MKBHD walk through showing a lower range from the battery pack, but I'll chalk that one up to a pre-production truck and move on. ?‍

 

[NY_Rob]

It will be really fun to see the bitching on the CT forums when the real world range numbers start coming in

 

[Golfer04]

Ahhh thank you thank you Brian! That makes sense for the Tesla website mismatch I couldn't wrap my head around.
And tracks with how Rivian's EPA numbers shake out with a delta between the stated range and capacity x efficiency just like Tesla.

Though that still doesn't explain the MKBHD walk through showing a lower range from the battery pack, but I'll chalk that one up to a pre-production truck and move on. ?‍

I think I'm finally over my EV range obsession. They all go far enough for daily driving. On trips the availability and speed of DCFC is much more important. The range we can go has too many variables to argue over.

 

[VSG]

New logo: c*y*b*e*r*t*r*u*c*k*

 

[usofrob]

Maybe the sub 300 mile range is for the AT tires, but they'll also have some AS tires that are rated higher?

Also, these are likely the 5 cycle EPA estimates which usually works out to 20% less for real miles.

(I think that's what Rivian did with the Max Pack as well. I think they might be sandbagging the DM Large Pack. I'm still waiting on some good comparisons. OOS is really letting us down!)

Sponsored