Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Musk Says Tesla's Cybertruck Will Have Four-motor Variant (reuters.com) 105

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
Tesla boss Elon Musk said on Friday the electric-car maker's much-anticipated Cybertruck would come with a high- end four-motor variant. From a report: "Initial production will be 4 motor variant, with independent, ultra fast response torque control of each wheel," Musk said in a tweet. Calling the electric pick-up truck "insane technology bandwagon," Musk said the Cybertruck would have both front and rear-wheel steer that would "not just (turn) like a tank -- it can drive diagonally like a crab." The vehicle would compete with pickup trucks such as GMC's Hummer EV, Ford's F-150 Lightning and Rivian's R1T. Of those, R1T is driven by four individual motors powering all four wheels and GMC's Hummer can drive diagonally.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Musk Says Tesla's Cybertruck Will Have Four-motor Variant More

Musk Says Tesla's Cybertruck Will Have Four-motor Variant

Comments Filter:

  • Rivian's R1T? (Score:3)

    by slazzy ( 864185 ) on Friday December 03, 2021 @03:25PM (#62044514) Homepage Journal
    Compete with Rivian's R1T? You mean Tesla is going to have a vaporware model too?

    • It is mindspace competition.

      I am not holding my breath on either company actually producing them in any numbers.

      Basically scaling up any manufacturing is hard, but Tesla has done such now already a few times so there is hope they will get there are some point not too many years after the original plan, But Rivian, has not yet manufactured anything at large scale, so they are much more a question mark.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        November, the plant in Normal was producing just under 4 trucks a day.
        Most of the initial batch went to employee pre-orders.
        I've been by the plant. They're not just moving the same trucks around the production lot.

      • I am not holding my breath on either company actually producing them in any numbers.

        You haven't been paying attention to how Elon does things: there'll be economy-of-scale or there'll be no Cybertruck at all.

    • A very light weight truck indeed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Chas ( 5144 )

      Head down to Normal, IL, where Rivian is in production.
      They're rolling off the production line there.
      The reason you're not seeing tons of independent review thus far is that much of the November batch were reserved by Rivian STAFF.

      It's not vaporware anymore...

      Now, the Cybertruck...

    • Re: Rivian's R1T? (Score:4, Informative)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday December 03, 2021 @05:51PM (#62044865)
      Rivan has delivered a few hundred R1T's and is supposed to finish 1000 by the end of this month.

      Those numbers do sound like kind of a joke, but delivering hundreds of trucks is also quite different from zero.

  • Is the trade-off worth it? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Buying and maintaining a system that can turn all the wheels like that has to be significantly more expensive. In exchange you get to use your trucks in a few scenarios that are currently off-limits, such as parallel parking in very tight spots. Maybe it would be helpful for getting out of some tough spots when off-road, but how often?

    I'd love to have an electric truck, but would rather it follow the KISS philosophy. Unless you're the type whose truck never gets dirty, there doesn't seem to be much poin

    • The majority of trucks never leave pavement or haul more than 6 grocery bags. Now for all the people to comment about needing to haul a 1/32 scale Titanic uphill both ways every weekend.

      • The majority of trucks never leave pavement or haul more than 6 grocery bags.

        But they are spacious, luxurious, have great visibility, and can handle any weather. They are the logical progression of the big cars North Americans used to drive.

      • Now for all the people to comment about needing to haul a 1/32 scale Titanic uphill both ways every weekend.

        Ever pulled a measly 20' pontoon at 65 MPH? It doesn't weigh much by itself but the way it catches the wind makes my Suburban think I have a parachute deployed. Add 6-8 people plus the gear to stay somewhere for the weekend and I can easily exceed 10,000 lbs. Two of the most popular locations have a long and steep hill to climb, but an electric truck would be _great_ for that part. It's the range while pulling that kind of weight and I've never seen a charger at a boat ramp or it's parking lot.

        4x4 or AW

    • The AC beat me to it - this feels like complexity for the sake of complexity, not because it's the minimally complex solution to a problem.

      • The base model is 2wd, what's the problem?

        People who want AWD/4WD know who they are and why.

        • Not AWD vs 2WD; the 4 motors and steer-by-wire.

          Four motors require additional motor controller hardware, additional materials, and additional wiring compared to two.

          Steer by wire requires, instead of just some solid metal tubes, two dual-wound motors (more if you are articulating each wheel independently!), at least three torque sensors, at least two electronic controllers with associated software, and additional wiring. Not to mention you can't steer if there is no electrical power.

          Steer by wire is neces

    • From at least one perspective, 4-wheel steering *is* the simple option. Or at least can be.

      Consider - for a normal car you have to build four different wheel assemblies: front and rear are very different because of the steering, and each comes in both a left- and right-handed version, which is conceptually the same, but requires production of a whole bunch of mirror-image parts and assemblies, with all the dies, production lines, etc. that goes with that.

      Contrast that to a 4-wheel steering system where yo

      • Keeping it simple would be not driving, and taking the train instead. The total complexity of the system for moving hundreds of people is much less when you don't put each of them in their own box.

        What I'd like to see is an analysis of the relative [in]efficiency of using skid steer instead of having steering linkages, racks etc. If you have motors separated to each side of the vehicle, you can physically steer without any of that stuff, as in a tank or a bobcat or obviously any other skid steer vehicle. If

        • Bah, just lost my wall-o-text. Condensed version:

          Trains are great for medium to long journeys, but get prohibitively expensive to effectively handle short trips of a few miles or less, which are most of the trips most people make. Can couple beautifully with bikes, etc... but that's a huge cultural shift. Technological changes are usually a lot easier to deploy.

          The problem with skid-steering is in the name - in order to turn the wheels *must* skid sideways across the ground. Which means a dramatic reduct

          • I'm not convinced that any of that has to be true with four wheel skid steering, though, except that all driving on rubber tires converts them into "health-damaging airborne particulates". That's one reason I'm pro-rail. I'm pro-bike too, but they still have rubber tires too. They've got much less tire, so there's much less impact, but it's not none. Then again, shoes...

            • It's called skid-steering for a darn good reason. It's impossible to turn without making some lateral movement (after all, to turn your acceleration must be at right angles to your direction of motion), and if your wheels can't turn into that movement, they *must* skid.

              And *any* skidding, no matter how minor, moves your traction from the domain of static friction to that of much weaker dynamic friction.

              Likewise, any skidding moves wear from just what you get from flexing and surface adhesion, to basically

    • The details really do matter.

      Sometimes we can add features and still maintain the KISS philosophy. Independent motors and all wheel steering may be cheaper to produce, as the production line may just need to make Left and Right wheel assemblies, Motor steering, suspension, which could be used for both the front and back, with minor changes. So they could save money by having a lot more similar products vs building a rear suspension system that is different than the front suspension system.

      The traditional

  • Fuck everything (Score:5, Funny)

    by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Friday December 03, 2021 @04:05PM (#62044630)

    We're doing five motors! [theonion.com]

  • Bet this is the first that engineering has heard of this.

    • Even if that's true, so what? These are EVs. Adding more motors and speed controllers is trivial. The motors are literally smaller than a differential! And eliminating the differential makes the system more efficient. The only significant drawback is that you need more hardware, and it's not free; and each motor has to be somewhere between powerful enough to move half the vehicle, and the entire vehicle, so it's not like you get to skimp on the motors.

  • Sooner or later ... (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday December 03, 2021 @05:27PM (#62044811)

    Cybertruck would come with a high- end four-motor variant.

    This will end up like razor blades... The vehicles will be nothing but motors stacked upon motors.

    • You could make stackable motors where each one has its own attached control unit. Then it would actually make sense to do that.

  • Four wheel drive is "high end" now. Wonderful.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      What we call 4 wheel drive is actually 2 axle drive. We cant give individual inputs to the wheels on one axle using current 4 wheel drive. 4 motors one on each wheel means the front left tire can go backwards while the front right tire is going forward. This allows you to turn within the radius of the vehicle aka tank turn. Add on another 2 independent wheels and you can point them all at 45 degrees and drive diagonal. You cant do that with traditional 4 wheel drive.

      • What we call 4 wheel drive is actually 2 axle drive. We cant give individual inputs to the wheels on one axle using current 4 wheel drive.

        I'm pretty sure that we've had the ability to control power to individual wheels for some time.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        4 motors one on each wheel means the front left tire can go backwards while the front right tire is going forward. This allows you to turn within the radius of the vehicle aka tank turn.

        Sure, that's a trick that would be unique to individual motors on each wheel. We don't need battery power for this, just the motors. The biggest problems with most EVs is that they don't have the energy density and fast fuel up that hydrocarbons offer.

        Add on another 2 independent wheels and you can point them all at 45 degrees and drive diagonal. You cant do that with traditional 4 wheel drive.

        Um, I believe you can do that with a traditional 4 wheel drive. I recall seeing this on agricultural tractors, tractors from the

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ghoul ( 157158 )
          Sending equal force to both wheels and then selectively braking one is not the same as being able to send different force to each wheel. Once again we see the traditional ICE mentality. Since ICE power is so difficult to control (its basically a series of explosions) we see unnecessary mechanical complexity to use it intelligently. ICE engines are complicated and have huge number of parts that can break driving up maintenance and training costs. Electrical motors are simple and elegant. They already produce

          • Once again we see the traditional ICE mentality.

            No, you are not seeing "the traditional ICE mentality". I'm not defending the traditional ICE. I'm just pointing out the errors on these given capabilities being unique to EVs.

            ICE engines are complicated and have huge number of parts that can break driving up maintenance and training costs.

            That's true but irrelevant. We can't produce batteries with sufficient energy density to replace the ICE. That means we will keep using them in spite of their shortcomings.

            Electrical motors are simple and elegant. They already produce rotation. No need for complexity.

            Yes, electrical motors are great for propelling our cars and trucks down the road. That's why I expect electric drive to replace the traditional ICE transmissi

            • No, you are not seeing "the traditional ICE mentality". I'm not defending the traditional ICE. I'm just pointing out the errors on these given capabilities being unique to EVs.

              Electric motors react at least an order of magnitude faster to control input than brakes do, because brakes have to be pumped. And no matter what, you can't use the brakes to reverse the direction of rotation, all they can do is stop movement or slow it down. And the latter case generates a lot of heat, which is the enemy of all things automotive including brakes (unless you operate a steam car, I suppose.) The whole idea that you can do the same stuff with an ICE that you can do with electric motors is fun

              • And no matter what, you can't use the brakes to reverse the direction of rotation, all they can do is stop movement or slow it down.

                I made no claim otherwise.

                The whole idea that you can do the same stuff with an ICE that you can do with electric motors is fundamentally, laughably wrong.

                Then you are not understanding my argument. I'm making the distinction between battery power to electric wheels and ICE-generator power to electric wheels. People can have the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels with an ICE and the performance of the electric drive. We don't need batteries for this. Tesla and Rivian aren't going to have crab drive and tank turns all to themselves.

                Why wouldn't it have done that already if it was going to do it?

                Because until BEVs came along and demonstrated this as possible there wasn't a market for it.

                The reason that doesn't make sense is that once you've done that you're already 50% of the way to an EV, and the EV is dramatically more efficient.

                I bel

                • I believe I see the problem. You are not getting that "EV" includes both battery-electric and ICE-electric.

                  No, it does not. Partial electrification does not make an EV. If primary motive power comes from an ICE, then it's an ICEV or maybe a hybrid, but it's not an EV. So you do see the problem, but you don't see that you're the origin of the problem. Or you do realize that you're trying to muddy the waters, and are engaging in more of the same. Stop it.

                  If batteries had the energy density of diesel fuel then it would not make sense to keep the ICE.

                  It doesn't make sense to keep doing long haul transport with automobiles. It should be done using trains. e.g. You ship your travel trailer to/near the destinatio

                  • No, it does not. Partial electrification does not make an EV. If primary motive power comes from an ICE, then it's an ICEV or maybe a hybrid, but it's not an EV.

                    Wait, stop right there. A "hybrid"? A "hybrid" what? Would that be a "hybrid electric vehicle"? Yes it is.

                    Or you do realize that you're trying to muddy the waters, and are engaging in more of the same. Stop it.

                    I'm trying to be as clear as I can be. I'm defining my terms for you so we both know what I'm talking about. You are trying to redefine my terms. If I'm saying "cat" is to include all mammals of the feline type and you keep coming back that a lion is not a cat because cats don't get that big then we are not going to get anywhere. The heat pump that heats my house is fully electric, but there's n

                    • Wait, stop right there. A "hybrid"? A "hybrid" what? Would that be a "hybrid electric vehicle"? Yes it is.

                      Yeah, that's right. My point was that you can't just call it an EV, you need to call it a HEV in order to be honest. Equally, it is a type of electric vehicle, but it's always going to have certain drawbacks due to the ICE. It would be more honest to call such a vehicle a HICEV, but that is just unwieldy and I wouldn't be petty (or unrealistic) enough to demand that.

  • The YouTube channel Real Engineering had a video on the battery supply problems with battery electric vehicles.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Engineering Explained shows how poor batteries are in energy density by both volume and mass.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    These problems cannot be solved any time soon. The supply of materials for batteries is going to take a long process of opening up mines and building factories. With the problems of charge times, and range reduction with the large and heavy

  • I understand the business model of making a flagship product with high margin, to fund the development of lower cost models, but they've done that already. We need affordable EVs, yesterday.

    • Why do we need EVs? To lower CO2 emissions? We can do that with synthesized hydrocarbon fuels, a very old technology that we can power with "zero carbon energy" (in scare quotes because nothing is zero carbon) and using carbon pulled from the air, water, biomass, or whatever source that closes that carbon loop. We could use fuel cells. We could use liquid air motors. There's a lot of ways to get CO2 emissions from transportation to near zero, and battery power is a way that has many obstacles to it.

      Syn

    • We need affordable EVs, yesterday.

      Have you considered Tesla? I mean the total cost of ownership of a Model 3 already matches that of a Toyota Camry which is the most popular non-monster-truck in the USA, it's also cheaper than the average new car price.

      You have affordable EVs. Find another excuse.

    • Citroën is going in the complete opposite direction with its eletric Ami (a revival of an old model name).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      While everyone is sizing up (bigger, heavier, faster, etc) Citroën are going against the tide, I very much like that. I hope it sells well. (Even though I wish more people rode a bike or took transit, this type of car is a step towards "less")

  • Everybody north of Arkansas with a truck has a plow. I guess if Cybertruck ever actually shipped this would be a concern but they promised deliveries by now, not new announcements.

    Seemingly it's just for people who need a second truck. Fine, but don't also pretend to save the planet from gas guzzlers when it's an accessory to an ICE truck.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

      Cybertruck don't need no stinkin' plow. It's heavy and powerful enough to just drive through.

      I'm waiting for the 6 wheel driver version (Mike's new car, monsters inc) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      I'm sure you could bolt up a plow to one of those. I'm not sure if it would compete against a real truck like a F350 or Chevy 3500 truck.

  • Name it ... Cybertruck Omicron!
  • The Cybertruck is ugly, both inside and out. I'm looking at the Chevy ZR-2 for my next truck. That thing is sweet, and the dashboard isn't just a flat shelf with a tablet bolted on.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close