Comment on Tesla confirms it has given up on its Cybertruck range extender to achieve promised range

acockworkorange@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• endeavor@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  One runs front wheels, one runs rear wheels and third one powers the mental gymnastics it takes to be a tesla owner in 2025.

  source

  • acockworkorange@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    LOL Monkey banging cymbals

    source
• DoubleSpace@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Two in the back, one in the front. There’s also a two and four motor version.

  source

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Two in the back, one in the front.

    The Shocker

    source

    • Tja@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That’s the other way around.

      source
  • acockworkorange@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    That makes even less sense. Distributing mechanical power on non steering wheels is easy, but for steering wheels requires a more complex and expensive coupling, as well as power losses. Just… why?

    source

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I believe the three motor versions is to add extra power under load to the rear wheels.

      The motors are essentially in line with the wheels (they have gearing but it’s minimal and internal to the motor housing, not attached like an automatic transmission would be, if that makes sense.)

      The “three motor” design is just the single motor design up front and the dual motor design in the back.

      I’m not sure if they ever actually released the single motor version though.

      source

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        extra power under load to the rear wheels

        Lol like there’s enough room back there to add a load.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        More power to the rear makes sense because you get more traction at the rear under normal acceleration, not just when carrying a load. It’s pretty typical of electric cars to do this, just like it’s typical to have bigger brakes on the front of all cars, because there’s more traction at the front under braking.

        There’s also the issue of torque vectoring. Without a differential, torque vectoring is essential, but under acceleration torque vectoring to the rear wheels is much more effective than to the front wheels, so that’s another reason to split the rear power but not the front.

        source
    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Why? More power……

      source
    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      How do you figure dual front motors would alleviate any of what you said a front diff would need? Dual front motors will still be rigidly mounted to the chassis, requiring flexible couplings. The rear is also independent, requiring the same flexible couplings whether it’s a diff or motors. CV axles all around.

      source

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        You wouldn’t need a front differential, for one. But you’re right, unless they somehow made a directly wheel coupled motor that turned with the wheel, it l still needs CV couplings.

        As for rear, they don’t need CV axles. Two simple cross couplings are enough. The speed variability happens significantly when the wheels turn, going up and down is a negligible issue. Cars have been using the much chapter and simple cross couplings in the rear for decades.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Ledericas@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  the 3rd one is a reality disortion field motor for MUSKRATS musk supporters.

  source