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.”
Why does it look like a car from a PS1 game?
Tesla Cybertruck Owners Who Drove 10,000 Miles Say Range Is 164 To 206 Miles
Submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world [bot] to technology@lemmy.world
https://insideevs.com/news/705279/tesla-cybertruck-10k-mile-owner-review-range-problems/
Comments
Jackthelad@lemmy.world 10 months ago
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 10 months ago
StarFox on the SNES has more polygons than that.
the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Probably the same reason everything he has named sounds like a 12yo came up with it
QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Because Musk wanted to make a vehicle out of stainless steel and straight panels are the easiest/cheapest to form.
tyler@programming.dev 10 months ago
Straight panels are much harder to make as every bend and minor imperfection show up. cnbc.com/…/why-the-cybertruck-is-so-hard-to-manuf…
Why do you think cars are never made with straight panels?
PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Because we live in the version of reality where the worst idea is the best idea and we don’t actually care about anyone’s wellbeing and safety. The car is shaped the way it is to inflict the most fatalities on pedestrians.
ThePantser@lemmy.world 10 months ago
And the us traffic safety board is refusing to test it’s crash rating because they don’t have to. It’s so fishy that this is a new stupid design and they don’t want to test it. Either Elon paid them off or they refuse to give it sell one to test. I have a feeling it would get a 2 out of 5 stars.
Steve@communick.news 10 months ago
Are you genuinely asking? Because I thought all these jokes were made when it was first unveiled 5 years ago?
otp@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
And it still looks stupid today
nonailsleft@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Lemmy is 99% karmabots at this point
tyrefyre@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Hey Elon stole my plans where I drew this exact thing the very first time I ever tried to draw a car. I think I was 4.
XeroxCool@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I mostly see the N64 Rush 2049 car called Venom I think. It was mostly a Lamborghini Diablo. Maybe it just stood out in the sea of rounded futuristic cars.
Side note, I think the one called Euro LX was really just the BMW 6-series concept from the Bengal era. Funny how it landed in a mix of futurism that included a rocket car
LillyPip@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
And why, after we ridiculed this thing 20 years ago for being a low-poly abomination and then it disappeared from view for two decades did they suddenly decide to release the thing with apparently zero changes in 2023?
This is a terrible, ridiculed 20 year old abomination. How is it being taken seriously? I feel like I’m on crazy pills.
spongebue@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I don’t disagree, except it was 4 years ago that they unveiled the abomination.
indigomirage@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
It is.
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 10 months ago
i had a geo metro that had greater range.
so confusing why this exists.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Could you convey that you were both rich AND stupid just by driving your metro?
smokin_shinobi@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Just the one.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 months ago
This is a frankly baffling comparison. I don’t think I could think 2 more different vehicles if I tried. Believe it or not, range is not the only thing people consider when purchasing a vehicle.
Enk1@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s a truck, meant to tow and haul loads. If this is its range unladen then it’s hauling range is 50% or less of this range. Meaning a full charge gets you 82-103 miles, which makes it nearly useless as the thing it’s supposed to be: a truck.
joemo@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
Ok, now try to do the things that trucks are typically used for in your geo metro. Towing, transporting construction tools and materials, etc.
I’m not defending Elon because I think the truck looks dumb and is over priced, but you gotta compare apples to apples.
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 10 months ago
i had a hitch on my 96 metro. so, yeah. and a geo metro totin a tiny trailer looks a hell of a lot less silly than that silver monstrosity
i do see your point. but i think it misses main the issue here; that this isnt a good vehicle let a lone truck.
tyrefyre@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Yeah, but how long did it take you to refuel your metro? Surely it wasn’t faster than a few hours.
SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Or never if it gets to cold for a while.
gregorum@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Ego
the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s. Geo metro was only 3 cyl and sipped gas. my lil 92 eclipse for over 45mpg highway, i don’t even think it was rated that high.
Sovereign_13@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The early 90s was mostly a perfect storm for fuel economy.
You had the computing power available to make use of CAD and develop more aerodynamic designs with less significant overhead (i.e., doing it by hand).
EFI technology had matured and carburetors were broadly defunct, allowing more efficient operation in a broader range of environments.
The US had updated its archaic lighting regulations to allow for more aerodynamic headlight shapes.
A lot of the safety technology that adds weight to modern cars either hadn’t been developed yet or hadn’t trickled down to the average vehicle.
So you had a confluence of more efficient engines, more aerodynamic vehicles, and cars that were still small and relatively lightweight.
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 10 months ago
well, i actually had both a '92 3ycl (suzuki engine) and then later had a 4cyl monster metro. i think that was like a 96?
just dont turn on the ac
thejml@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I regularly get 43-46mpg highway with my 4 cylinder TLX, drops off like crazy atoms town though.
I agree that economy peaked In the 80’s-early 90’s, but if you take into account how much bigger, and heavier cars are today, we’re not that bad. Also, a lot of weight and size goes towards the superior crash safety in modern cars.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 months ago
Feels like gas mileage peaked in the early 90s.
Probably in the early '00s but I mean that’s completely unsurprising considering the strides we’ve made in safety, comfort, and most importantly emissions since then.
someguy3@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What’s the advertised range?
overat8@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
On Tesla website they said about 340 miles*. Tesla cybertruck
reddig33@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That’s about the range of the current fiat 500e to Chevy Bolt. Both of which cost half of what this does.
legion02@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is irrelevant if you need a truck. Neither one of those is picking up plywood from home depot for example.
argarath@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Neither is the cybertruck
ZapBeebz_@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Okay. The F150 Lighting has a range of 240-300 miles per charge, and an MSRP starting at $50k, compared to the cyber truck starting at $81k.
Gonkulator@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Give me a break. Aint no roofing contractor or excavating company using these things as a work vehicle. If you want to see one visit the parking lot outside 21forever
reddig33@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It’s not irrelevant. The two cars I compared it to are smaller, yet they go further at much less cost. To me that sounds like the Cybertruck is way too heavy.
Poiar@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
How long is this in world units?
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 10 months ago
tourist@lemmy.world 10 months ago
263km to 331km
about the same distance from the bed to the light switch
Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
My Chevy Bolt gets more range at a fraction of the cost and I love it. I charge it at work for free and it has been an extremely reliable car for a couple years now.
JustUseMint@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I mean yes but not really comparable to what’s supposed to be a pick up truck. It’s no different than saying your Prius is more efficient than an F150 lol
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m gay
Jarix@lemmy.world 10 months ago
My 2008 city golf has gotten 600kms on 55L(typical fill for me is about 52 litres)
Thats all highway driving and not being an idiot.
Im lucky to get 400 kms on a tank in the middle of winter just driving to work and back. Think the worst i got is 385 kms.
I dont understand why people are so upset at not getting the listed mileage when literally every car is only as good as the driver.
Ive delivered auto parts in a 2014/2015 prius V hybrid (not plugin) doing about 1500 kms a week.
Depending entirely on how i drove i could get 735 kms to a 35 litre tank or about 490 kms. Same route. Just how you drive. Idling and acceleration are the most important factors in real world driving that effect your fuel efficiency aside from how much extra weight is being hauled around
saltesc@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I want an EV offroader so bad, but I currently live in Australia. Some of my trips I’m packing 130L of fuel and this is after getting to the last planned station before hitting the wild. That can get consumed over as little as 200km depending on conditions the car has to tackle.
<200 miles of aggressive highway driving is a death sentence for a 4×4 in Australia. Outside of recreational trips near cities or big towns, mileage like this would put you at high risk.
fat_stig@lemmy.world 10 months ago
65 l/100km… Holy shit, a Bugatti Veyron running at top speed over 400km/h is consuming 122 l/100km.
That’s insane
helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 months ago
Do people know there is more than 1 cybertruck?
Slovene@feddit.nl 10 months ago
farcaster@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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 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.
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 EV, 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 10 months ago
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 10 months ago
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.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 months ago
So…probably the only time a consumer might actually legitimately be concerned about maximum range?
SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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 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 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 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 10 months ago
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.
Enk1@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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 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 10 months ago
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.
farcaster@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.
iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 10 months ago
70 is aggressive? In California ppl will be passing you on both sides at that speed.
farcaster@lemmy.world 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 not a 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 breaking.
Balex@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I read aggressive as in accelerating aggressively. Possibly to get around people?
viking@infosec.pub 10 months ago
It’s below the recommended average on German roads (stands at 130kph / ~81mph).
AA5B@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Aggressive doesn’t mean fast. It means more abrupt changes, more acceleration/deceleration
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Didn’t they just get obligated to report a lower range for many models because they were over reporting them?
rsuri@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.
farcaster@lemmy.world 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 10 months ago
Tesla apologist