We all know that Cybertrucks have had a less-thank-lackluster release. Not many of these trucks could have been made yet.
Nonetheless, video-after-video of these beasts keep getting stuck in the mud snow in this case, now with snowy weather blanketing part of the north-east. Jalopnik is blaming tires, which sounds like a possibly valid issue.
But given the failures in the mud last month, I’m now wondering how much of this is perhaps a bad traction-control algorithm, or other feature of the cybertruck? Maybe its just the shear mass alone that is wrecking the traction.
In either case: the Cybertruck has no staying power in mud or snow. I can’t imagine this going well in any offroading event or other similar trucking duty. If the cybertruck loses traction in these simple snow cases, there’s no way it could be used as a plow for example.
There’s literally footage of a Toyota Tundra towing the Cybertruck in the snow here. Toyota Tundra. Nothing special or crazy here.
Cybertruck (possibly due to the tires) is failing here. Now hopefully we can see some news and get to the bottom of this bad performance, but its not looking good right now. I recognize that snow can be complex and a bunch of little decisions mess things up. But as other commenters put out, extra-hard tires are better for efficiency (which is horrifying, as Cybertruck’s range has turned out to be awful as well). So it looks like this thing is a piece of shit all around.
Upgrade the tires to something with more snow-traction, and bam, there goes your “efficiency”. Cybertruck will likely lose another dozen miles or more from its already abysmal 250ish mile range.
Cybertruck just has awful specs all around, any changes now to be more practical or pragmatic (ex: with better snow tires) are going to hamper its specs.
Right that tundra had the right equipment so they didn’t get stuck, the Tesla didn’t and got stuck. Plenty of videos of Tundras getting stuck in the snow too, so it’s really not a valid point to begin with, but argue it all you want, it’s not important at all.
Not a hard concept to get a head around.
Put the right equipment on the Tesla and it wouldn’t get stuck either.
What’s so hard to understand here? Yeah bash Tesla, but it’s the owners fault for not putting the right gear on in the end.
Edit, snow tires lose mileage on ICE trucks too… so what’s your point with that one too?
But then it won’t have 254 mile range anymore either, as the right snow equipment is less efficient.
There’s no free lunch. Snow traction somewhat contradicts efficiency when it comes to tires.
EDIT: 254 mile Cybertruck was the RWD version IIRC, you need to spend $100,000+ to get 4WD. This thing’s a pretty hilarious joke by truck standards.
It sounds like you dont get we have to figure out electric trucks. If the elecrrix F150 handles this better, then great! I hope that’s what you’re saying here, but it doesnt sound lije it. I also have my doubt that Ford is better on kwh/kg and in the end that’s what matters, but havent looked closely enough to say for sure and will be happy to be wrong.
Humanity has the choice of figuring out how to get off fossil fuels or death.
Accepting that death is the better option because it gets better snow performance at this early foray into electric trucks is the opinion of a fool.
That’s cool and all but there’s snow that needs to be plowed. Its winter season where I live.
F150 Lightning and Rivian have demonstrated all-terrain features. Cybertruck is failing because of poor traction-control software, crappy OEM tires, and absurdly overweight design.
Tesla just buys cells from China or Panasonic like everyone else. No one is doing chemical work on this in USA. Its all Korean (LG Chem), Japanese (Panasonic), or Chinese (BYD).
From a car-manufacturer perspective, the only attribute that determines kwh-per-mile is weight and aerodynamics, both of which utterly suck on the Cybertruck. Chemical advancements are being pushed by Toyota for Silicon-batteries and a few other manufacturers for Sodium batteries… and BYD / China for LiFePo4 batteries.
But Tesla’s chemical tech is non-existent. Its all overseas commodities these days. Heck, it always was non-existent, even in the early days of 2012-era Tesla it was just Panasonic (who still owns the Nevada Gigafactory battery portion of the plant: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/panasonic-boost-battery-output-teslas-nevada-gigafactory-nikkei-2023-06-05/). That NEVER was Tesla tech, never ever. And Panasonic has closer ties with Toyota or other Japanese firms in the long-run anyway.
Note: Tesla “batteries” are manufactured in the USA. But these are just assembling the cells together with PCBs and Safety Circuits. Its important yes, but its not the chemical knowledge or expertise that you’re suggesting. Tesla made investments to buy some companies to advance chemistry in theory, but none of those seem to have borne fruit yet.
Note that F150 Lightning has AWD standard even on the lowest cost $49,995 model. Its absolutely going to kick-ass compared to a Rear-wheel only drive Cybertruck, and is under half the price of the $100,000 AWD Cybertruck.
Its a complete curbstomp, its not even close to comparable. F150 Lightning has better tech, better handling, better off-road / snow performance and lower costs and came out 2 years ago.
Isn’t 250 miles pretty good range? That’s just a little less than a mid-sized gasoline truck gets on a tank of gas.
F150 ICE gets 16MPG and 23-gallon tank or 368 miles of range. I know people who even opt for after-market 40-gallon tanks for 600 or 700+ miles of range in practice (not for “really” 700 miles, but because towing is so inefficient you need the extra fuel). But yeah, when you remove the RV trailer or boat or whatever you’re towing, the truck can go hundreds of extra miles without filling up which is convenient for road-trips.
F150 Lightning has…
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2022-ford-f-150-lightning-platinum-ev-range-test.html
So that 254 miles Cybertruck test is kind of dogshit actually.
The F150 is a full-sized truck. A mid-sized truck would be a Ford Ranger, Chevy Colorado, or Toyota Tacoma. They don’t typically have 23 gallon tanks. The Colorado has a 19 gallon tank and gets around 12-14mpg city and 18-20mpg on the highway. Split the difference (16mpg) and that’s 304 miles on a tank, or just a little better than the Tesla.
A 20% difference in range is ‘just a little better’ to you?
We all know that 45F test for Cybertruck barely holds in snow, as Li-ion degenerates quickly below freezing. That 254mi test is going to be 220mi or less as the temperature drops to 30F, 20F or below… As expected for these snowy or snow-plow conditions.
In any case, Cybertruck range is awful even in the best of conditions.
Cybertruck also ain’t comparing itself to an lol Ford Ranger.
I wouldn’t LOL the Ranger. That’s a pretty awesome truck. The Colorado is awesome too, as is the Tacoma. The Tacoma is best for off-road, and the Colorado is best all around, including hauling and towing.
I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I’m not defending the cyber truck overall. Its inability to traverse anything beyond roads should be a deal killer. The bed is designed terribly and should also be a deal killer. The price alone is a deal killer for most people. I just didn’t think 50 miles less was a huge difference. But the point you made about the cold is valid. I’d lose up to half of my range in my Volt when it got below freezing. If the Tesla loses even 30% of its already lower range, then that’s too low of a range for a truck.
You said the Cybertruck isn’t comparing itself to a Ranger, but every picture I’ve seen of it makes it look like a small mid-sized truck. Are you saying it’s supposed to be a full-sized truck?
Fair enough. I’ve followed enough marketing that I know that Tesla fans are comparing it to the F150. Lets put it that way.
The stupid Cybertruck angles are inefficient with space (both cab-space and bed-space), so yeah, it ends up being closer to a Ranger with regards to bed size and cab space.