Tesla's New Cybertruck Includes a 'Powershare' Bidirectional Charging Feature (theverge.com) 153
Tesla's new Cybertruck is more than their first new model since 2020, reports the Verge:
Tesla announced a new "Powershare" vehicle-to-load charging capability, only available on the new Cybertruck. The feature will allow Cybertruck owners to power their camping equipment, power tools, or even their entire home during a blackout, just by using their electric truck as a mobile generator.
The truck also features a 240-volt outlet in the rear bed that can be used to charge other EVs. An image on Tesla's website shows the Cybertruck charging a Model Y.
The Cybertruck can put out as much as 11.5kW, which is more than the Ford F-150 Lightning's 9.6kW of onboard power or the GMC Sierra Denali EV's 10.2kW. Tesla has been talking about manufacturing vehicles with bidirectional charging capabilities for several years now, first teasing the feature at its Battery Day event in 2020. Since then, many of its competitors have adopted the feature for their EVs, including Ford, GM, Hyundai, Kia, and others...
In essence, it treats high-capacity lithium-ion batteries not only as tools to power EVs but also as backup storage cells to charge other electric devices, an entire home, or even to send power to the electrical grid for possible energy savings... Customers who want to take advantage of the Powershare feature in their homes will need a Tesla Powerwall (of course) and a Wall Connector for the most seamless connection.
Tesla held a launch event for the vehicle on Thursday, and demand appears to be high. Jalopnik reports Tesla is now offering people who'd reserved a Cybertruck a $1,000 discount if they'll instead order another Tesla model.
The truck also features a 240-volt outlet in the rear bed that can be used to charge other EVs. An image on Tesla's website shows the Cybertruck charging a Model Y.
The Cybertruck can put out as much as 11.5kW, which is more than the Ford F-150 Lightning's 9.6kW of onboard power or the GMC Sierra Denali EV's 10.2kW. Tesla has been talking about manufacturing vehicles with bidirectional charging capabilities for several years now, first teasing the feature at its Battery Day event in 2020. Since then, many of its competitors have adopted the feature for their EVs, including Ford, GM, Hyundai, Kia, and others...
In essence, it treats high-capacity lithium-ion batteries not only as tools to power EVs but also as backup storage cells to charge other electric devices, an entire home, or even to send power to the electrical grid for possible energy savings... Customers who want to take advantage of the Powershare feature in their homes will need a Tesla Powerwall (of course) and a Wall Connector for the most seamless connection.
Tesla held a launch event for the vehicle on Thursday, and demand appears to be high. Jalopnik reports Tesla is now offering people who'd reserved a Cybertruck a $1,000 discount if they'll instead order another Tesla model.
You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has had for years?
Re:You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has had for years?
In the future, this will be a standard feature of EVs.
EVs will work as load levelers, sucking power from the grid when there is a surplus and feeding it back when there is a deficit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to just shut the fuck up. Talking sense in America is outlawed, and men in black trucks are going to show up and take you away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"EVs will work as load levelers, sucking power from the grid when there is a surplus and feeding it back when there is a deficit."
I don't agree. That's a feature no one wants, no one understands and solves no long-term problem. For that matter, I doubt bidirectional charging will be standard on EVs either, although it could be considered a "standard feature" since that has no objective meaning. No one has been suggesting it as a standard feature until now, of course, because Tesla has finally gotten arou
Re: (Score:3)
That's a feature no one wants
I want it.
no one understands
What? 3-year-olds understand that iPads stop working if you don't juice the battery. Batteries aren't a deep concept.
and solves no long-term problem.
Load balancing of intermittent renewables is the single biggest problem of the green power transition.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you demonstrate that you, yourself, don't even understand it. The claim is "load leveling", not "batteries".
"Load balancing of intermittent renewables is the single biggest problem of the green power transition."
Citation please. Also, you seem to have overlooked the "long-term" part. It absolutely isn't a long-term problem. Keep on believing you're the smartest person in the room, though.
Re: (Score:2)
https://smartlifestyleaustrali... [smartlifes...lia.com.au]
Here is a little quote from the article in case you do not think load balancing is a serious issue for renewables:
load balancing becomes critical for maintaining grid stability
Crikey, they even mention EVs feeding back to the grid - imagine that!
A vehicle-to-grid system can utilise storage from electric vehicles during peak hours and restore it during off-peak periods
Re:You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:5, Interesting)
This sentence is borderline incoherent.
1) Nobody ever claimed "5x density". Did you mean "5x larger"?
2) 800V has nothing to do with the cells. Li-ion cells are all in the ballpark of a few volts. 400V vs. 800V is the pack / charging voltage, related to how many cells are in series. Where for a given charge rate, 400V uses double the amps (and either double the cross section, or greater cooling) with half as many cells in series, while 800V uses half the amps and twice as many cells in series.
The choice of voltages is a mixed bag. Obviously, the advantages of narrow conductors for 800V are obvious. But a number of things go against this.
1) Obviously greater insulation, though this isn't a big deal
2) Drive units run at pack voltage, and it's easier to make an efficient 400V drive unit than 800V.
3) If you want to charge at a 400V charging station (aka, most charging stations), you have to either be able to reconfigure your pack in realtime to half the voltage (e.g. switching modules from series to parallel), or a high-power DC-DC converter. Aka, adding complexity and cost.
4) If you design your wiring for 250kW at 400V then you're using 625A wiring, while if you design for 250kW at 800V, then you're using 312,5A wiring. But then what happens when you do #3 and charge at a 400V charging station designed for delivering 625A? You can only accept half of that, so you charge at half the rate of a vehicle designed for 400A.
The net result is that there's a range of pros and cons, rather than one single "well, this is the obvious choice!" solution. Now, the more charging stations that start supporting 800V, the more the balance of factors shifts in favour of 800V.
(Honestly, the 800V part isn't even the most interesting aspect of CT with respect to voltage - the switch to 48V accessory power is far more interesting)
Note that this is on current V3 Superchargers, which are at 400V. V4 will support 800V, so one can expect up to a doubling of charge rates (up to 500kW), depending on what the cells take (cells are always the *real* ultimate limit) (this is vs. Rivian at 220kW and F150 Lightning at 155kW). Which they should be able to take, because even previous-generations of Model 3 and Model Y, with their far smaller packs, could take 250kW, and have been able to for half a decade.
This exact situation happened before. When the Model 3 was released, it was rated for 120kW charging. But then the V3 Superchargers came out, able to deliver up to 250kW, and all the previously-released Model 3s suddenly found themselves able to charge at 250kW, because Tesla had already designed sufficiently-high-gauge wiring into them, knowing that they planned to release the V3 Supercharger soon. Exact same situation with V4 here.
One addendum to the article:
While Tesla and Rivian aren't "nickel-and-dime-you-for-a-million-options" companies, Ford and GM very much are with their trucks. With respect to charge rates, if you want 9,6kW rather than 2,4kW, that's an added option on the Lightning. Note that Rivian only offers 120V outlets, at 1,4kW.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot to add one more to the above:
5) Higher pack voltage - aka, more cells in series - means fewer in parallel, which means less redundancy against cell failures.
Re: (Score:3)
There very much is, and always has been, from the original Roadster days - cells linked in parallel in bricks, bricks in series to modules. If a cell fails in a brick, current still flows through the other cells. It's to the degree that (at least in the Model 3 days, not still if they still do this), if certain cells in a pack didn't pass QA in an assembled module, they'd just snip the wire bonds (so the cell remains, but isn't connected to anything). Has a tiny impact to overall performance. Cells cont
Re: (Score:3)
Addendum: reports [topgear.com] are saying [torquenews.com] that the V4 speed is 350kW.
This would presumably be the speed without the range extender pack, which should enable even faster speeds (more cells to distribute the power across)
Re: (Score:2)
"...which should enable even faster speeds (more cells to distribute the power across)"
Onto your next imaginary advantage now that your last one is snuffed out? LOL
Whatever happened to charging be deigned for currents like 625A or 312A? How does the extender pack change that? We're to believe that the extender pack increases charge rates for the Cybertruck? Because you can explain how it could plausibly be true? Does the pack come with a new RC charger? New high current conductors? It's nearly 50% mor
Re: (Score:2)
What is "snuffed out"? I talked about how they'd charge faster on V4 than 250kW. Shock of all shock, they can charge faster on V4 than 250kW. Stupid me predicting something that was correct!
Did you perhaps miss this part? " depending on what the cells take (cells are always the *real* ultimate limit) ". Which is why - ahem - the more cells you add, the more power you can take, unless there are e.g. wiring limitations or whatnot
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium ion chemistry has nominal voltage of ~3.7 volts.
All battery chemistries have their own nominal voltage. For example another chemistry commonly used in automotive before breakthrough of lithium ion (usually of NMC or LiFePo variety) was NiMH, which has a nominal voltage of 1.2 volts. You can find this in early Toyota hybrids for example.
System voltage for the entire battery unit full of individual cells is simply a function of how many cells are connected in series in the battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I said "several volts" because there's a notable difference between NMC/NCA and LFP. But in all cases, just several volts, not hundreds.
Re: (Score:2)
If memory serves me right, it's 3,3V for lifepo vs 3,7 for NMC. But NMC is what Tesla puts in their batteries in the West, since it's about 20% more energy dense per unit of weight than lifepo.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a general approximation anyway, since cells charge over a range from (in the case of NMC/NCA) ~4,2V down to "wherever the manufacturer decides to put their cutoff" (usually ~3V-ish).
That said, it's inaccurate that western Teslas only use NMC (actually assume you mean NCA, that's been Tesla's preference since the early Model 3 days). The short-range Telsas now use LFP.
Re: (Score:2)
Current hybrids use NiMH batteries, including ones from Toyota.
Only Rei thinks that series/parallel pack configurations are some secret sauce that no one knows about.
Re: (Score:2)
This is technically true standalone, but incorrect in context. Toyota has partially shifted to lithium ion about 5-6 years ago, but kept size and weight tolerances of the hybrid battery bay ready to accept NiMH variant of the battery in most of its hybrids.
This results in hybrids that are designed with two different battery types, and will accept either one. Only the oldest toyota hybrids are NiMH-only. And their plug-in hybrids are pretty much all lithium-ion to my knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
The current Toyota Crown uses a NiMH battery.
I suspect PHEVs all use LiIon because of capacity requirements. When your battery is only 1KW, chemistry doesn't matter so much.
Re: (Score:2)
"This sentence is borderline incoherent."
That sounds like an Rei problem, and not a new one either.
"1) Nobody ever claimed "5x density". Did you mean "5x larger"?"
Literally everyone promoting 4680 when it was announced was claiming 5x density improvement. Why, because Elon Musk encouraged it.
"2) 800V has nothing to do with the cells."
Nor did I claim otherwise. Nevertheless, Tesla is promoting the CT as having an 800V architecture, as that were innovative. Notice that I said "leading to", somethin
Re: You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:3)
extender - which they'd be sheer morons to not have done - that would add another 50% to the max charge power. Try multiplying 350 by 1.5 and tell me what number you get.
(V4 Superchargers are capable of up to 615A and 1000V, e.g. 615kW).
My level of trust that you actually ow
Re: (Score:3)
ED: Ugh, first part of that got cut off. Something weird is going on with Slashdot tonight.
I'll take "Things That Never Happened" for $1000.
It's ***Five Times The Size***. Which has been what was said since day 1. Watch the presentation yourself [youtube.com]. My god are you dense.
And even if you got it from some journalist who misreported it - like, you're incapab
Re: (Score:3)
Ugh, once again Slashdot, behave:
cutting off the rest of that sentence, where I talk about cell limits that can lower that figure. Also, "nowhere had Tesla said" anything about Model 3 having 250kW capability, which is exactly the point.
Not "future" - present, from a V4 Supercharger (there already are a few, though not many). This is for the vehicle without the range extender, which increases the number of cells by
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with ShanghaiBill on this one.
It wouldn't be a listed feature if "no one" actually wanted it. Instead, it seems quite a few people want it, with news articles of people using the generation system on their Lightnings and hybrids to power their homes during the big texas power outage.
No one understands it: The concept is quite simple. Hell, I'd argue that wireless networking is harder to explain. "You buy electricity when it's cheap and sell it when it's expensive using your car battery as storage" i
Re: (Score:2)
"It wouldn't be a listed feature if "no one" actually wanted it. Instead, it seems quite a few people want it, with news articles of people using the generation system on their Lightnings and hybrids to power their homes during the big texas power outage."
Two things: (1) 3D TVs, and (2) "load leveling". The comment was on load leveling, not V2H. We were talking about V2G, not V2H or V2L. Particularly regarding V2L, there is no doubt people like it and understand it.
"You buy electricity when it's cheap and
Re: (Score:2)
I should have noticed your link to 1GW charging was a year old. That was when Elon Musk was lying to generate new interest for the CT back when the Semi was in the news. The CT announced now doesn't use 1000V and there's no mention of it supporting the Semi's 1000V charging, nor would 8C charging make any sense for the CT's relatively anemic battery and the well known slow charging limitations of the 4680 format.
Re: (Score:2)
Vehicle 2 Load will be popular because it saves the owner money. Right now in the UK, Octopus Energy (one of the major suppliers) is paying people to reduce their energy consumption at peak times. People can make a few quid a day by reducing their consumption for an hour and a half.
One way to do that is to rely on home batteries, or Vehicle 2 Load, during the peak period.
It will become the norm to have variable pricing based on grid load and energy availability, and using a small portion of your vehicle's s
Re: (Score:2)
The truck is a better 4x4 than any Jeep, even customized ones. Mainly because EV motors get their torque at 0 RPM, which is where you need it for rock crawling.
True but you really don't want to go rock crawling in the vehicle where much of vehicle's cost is sitting right at the bottom of the vehicle, and where even a single ding that gets past the armoring means pack replacement or unacceptable risk of random thermal runaway later on. Notably this threat is starting to be recognised, with nations like Germa
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need Vehicle to Grid (V2G), but Vehicle to Home (V2H) would act as a battery backup, allowing my solar panels to supply power to my home during a daytime power outage, or to save money on electricity during peak hours on my Time of Use plan.
Re:You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:4, Interesting)
They want me to buy a very expensive car with a battery so they can use it to load balance the grid ...?
I have no idea who you think "they" are, but if you don't want your EV to participate, then don't turn on the "sell back" feature.
I pay 7 cents/kwh to charge my EV from 2 to 4 AM. My electricity rate is 30 cents/kwh from 2 to 7 PM.
I'm happy to buy power for 7 cents and sell it back at 30.
Batteries are damaged by running them down to zero and overcharging them. Cycling them between 20% and 80% causes very little wear.
Re:You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like a reason to fit solar panels facing primarily west to me.
But from what I remember of the Texas fun, you can sell power for a lot more than 30 cents/kWh at the right times.
Note: 20-80% very little wear is true, but 60-80% is even less than that.
So I could easily see you having a schedule like this:
< 0.07/kWh: Charge to 80% (probably reads as 90-95% on car systems, because they hide capacity to increase longevity too)
> 0.30/kWh: Sell to 60%. Assuming a 100kWh battery, 20kWh@0.23 profit = $4.60 made. If you can do it daily, reliably, that's $138/month, or probably around 25-30% of your car's monthly payment.
> 0.40/kWh (they're getting desperate): Sell to 40%: $13.20.
> 1.00/kWh (Holy toledo they're desperate): Sell to 20%: $60, and the weather is probably bad enough that you don't want to go anywhere anyways. Oh, and at this price you fire up the gasoline generator to sell them even more power.
Re: (Score:3)
But from what I remember of the Texas fun, you can sell power for a lot more than 30 cents/kWh at the right times.
This right here is what people are missing. Just because many normal consumers pay a fixed price for electricity doesn't mean there isn't a market for load balancing that is potentially far more lucrative than just using electricity.
There are countless stories emerging of people who have switched over to becoming their own de-facto energy traders all over the world, the most recent article I read was someone in Australia who said he paid off the cost of his batteries in just 3 months, and is currently makin
Re: You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:2)
When do you drive?
Re: You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Overall automobiles are great... if you are rich, but for everyone else, this is the biggest front in class warfare in history, since literacy and access to the printed word, because automobiles are so expensive to purchase and require an expensive infrastructure to be viable (24/7 gasoline availability is not trivial.) - some guy in 1906
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has had for years?
As have the F-150 Lightning and the Denali EV, both of which are mentioned in TFS. Tesla knows they need to adopt these sorts of popular features if they want their much-delayed Cybertruck to be competitive.
Re: You mean like the Hyundai Ioniq already has? (Score:2)
So?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, this post sure was a surprise! The only surprise is it wasn't Rei who posted it first.
If Elon Musk didn't introduce, the least he can do is claim he invented it first. Meanwhile, the Cybertruck is filled with ideas stolen from competitors, bidirectional charging isn't even one worth talking about.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They neither introduced nor invented it. They popularized it. They're basically Apple of car makers, in that they sell status generating items that have practical use at a premium cost.
This is why they tend to be trend setters in how cars look. Have you seen how after reveal of the cybertruck, all modern cars are getting facelifts with more angles like it? For example, the upcoming Toyota CH-R couldn't be further from cybertruck in terms of target audience. And yet, it's 2024 facelift makes it look way more
Re: (Score:3)
They neither introduced nor invented it. They popularized it.
Oh that's totally garbage. This has been a feature Ford and GM (and others) have been trumpeting since day one.
They Cybertruck has hardly been on the market - it hasn't "popularized" anything.
Re: (Score:2)
the story saying the feature was "only available on the new Cybertruck" does make it sound like they're first to the market with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that was more along the lines of "so stop pestering us about this feature in the S, 3, X, Y, and Roadster".
Wow, only 60K (Score:4, Funny)
What a steal at only sixty thousand dollars. That's like, only 900 a month for 7 years! And the excise tax (where I live) is only like another 3k a year! This thing's practically free. Think of all the dozens of dollars I will save in gas! And if the power goes out, I can power my house for like 3 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Ypu forgot about driving a medicore actual truck. It is heavy unbalanced and easily gets stuck.
Re: (Score:2)
What? $60,000 isn't even high for a truck. An F150 raptor will cost you more than than.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But think of all the fuel costs you'll save by getting a whopping 2.2 miles/kw! (which is what Tesla's superlative efficiency has accomplished here)
This thing will not manage 200 miles of range at freeway speeds, or even 100 miles while towing. It's got enough to go a quarter mile pulling a 911 on a trailer through!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean 2.76 miles per kilowatt *hour* (AWD version). Which is a weird way to express energy consumption. Most people would write 361Wh/kWh. Which is excellent for a pickup truck.
Re: (Score:2)
OOOh you got me, I left off a letter. You're so smart. Also, would most people really write "361Wh/KWh"? That is, after all, a unitless number, why not just write ".361" then? I guess your paychecks don't pay for proofreading, only condescension.
But no, I meant 2.2. Tesla claims that charging 15 minutes at 250 kW yields 128 miles of added range. That's 2.05 miles / kW-HOUR, or 485 watts/mile if that helps you masturbate better.
It has also been reported that a fully charged Cybertruck reports 267 miles
Re: (Score:2)
361 Wh/mi :P Yeah, bad timing for a typo on my part, but to be fair, nobody is actually confusing miles and kWh, while people are constantly confusing watts and watt hours.
Then you meant wrong.
You fail to understand charge taper. You don't charge at the max power continuously all the way to 100%. Charge rates are highest near 0% and lowest near 100%.
The way you actually calculate consumption is usable-Wh s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The price / stats actually compares quite favourably [fosstodon.org] to other electric trucks. I think it's pretty clear that Tesla realized that they were leaving money on the table, given how production limited they're going to be for the next year and a half and what competitors are charging.
Try dividing 123 kWh (the minimum pack size, not including the range extender pack, which itself is about the size of a Model 3's pack) by 11,5kW (the maximum power o
Re: (Score:2)
The extender pack is 50 kWh
"11,5kW (the maximum power output, vastly more than a house averages)"
If only a house would operate correctly on "average" power. The cyber truck is rated to provide about 50A at 220V, for how long who knows, but that would not even allow cooking a meal or doing laundry in many homes. It seems that your argument is that it would power a home for more than 3 hours because it can't actually power a home at all.
It's hard to imagine how you think that anyone respects what you have t
Re: (Score:3)
Aka, about the size of a Model 3 SR pack (~55kWh usable)
What on Earth are you talking about? US washer and dryer cycles only allow for a MAX surge current of 30A, and a max of 24A sustained. Range outlets have a max of 50A surge current, but sustained only 40A, and m
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I admit, if I spent over 130K on a new electric truck. powerwall, and solar panels I could replace the 1500 dollar generator setup I have but that doesn't make much sense does it now?
Does it also work on wind? Because if there's no fuel to put in, it's 1500 bucks of junk.
Just pointing out the fact you conveniently left out. If you want to compare X to Y, then compare everything, not just the bits you pick.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about a direct comparison between solar/wind power + batteries versus a gas-based generator.
Sure, the former are way more expensive, however on the upside they don't depend on a substance that you can't produce yourself.
We could go on and analyze all the nitty-gritty details, but whatever.
Re:Wow, only 60K (Score:4, Insightful)
> Using you BEV as backup power for your home is stupid
Really isn't though. The ability to cover basic power needs - refrigeration and home heating - for a few days to over a week is bordering on essential.
During power outages, residential areas are usually last to be reconnected. During Sandy my office never lost power, but I didn't get back up and running at home until a week after me neighbors across the street did. I had access to electricity long before gasoline or diesel was readily available for generators, too, so if I had an EV at the time I'd have been making a run every two or three days to recharge the car and bring home the juice to keep some essentials running instead of driving 30+ miles hoping to find a gas station that had both full tanks AND power to run the pumps.
Every EV really ought to have at least some ability to offboard 120/240V power, at least 2-3 kw. Not just good for emergency use at home, but generally quite handy.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Going by the vehicles I see on the roads, there are lots of rich idiots running around able to buy these.
As for solar with a powerwall vs a generator (and I have a generator): With the solar panels and powerwall, you're generating power all the time effectively for the capital cost of the system, not just when there's a power outage, and your generator probably costs you a couple bucks of fuel per hour of operation. It sits around uselessly most of the time, and if the power goes out you'll have no electr
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Cybertruck reservation, and I agree with you. I would cancel my reservation in a heartbeat if I could buy a new Kia K-2700 [kia.com] here in the US instead. It has a 2.7L diesel engine, a larger bed than an F-150, better gas mileage than a Tacoma or Ranger, the bed folds flat to make a flatbed, and a new one in BVI costs less than a 3-year-old Honda Civic does here in the US.
If our government got out of the way I could buy 6 k-2
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that the government mandates that you choose between a Cybertruck and a vehicle you can't buy. If only you could consider other options that were available. I get it though, the closest comparison for the Cybertruck is a Japanese Kei truck. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mean to imply that there weren't other options, by no means. I do imply and will state overtly that the cost of functional work trucks in the United States is outrageously high and our current government policies incentivize the creation of land yachts over small practical vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some really interesting videos on various youtube car channels about a year ago in US, where people would go to the dealer lots and just film what was there.
Basically in the wake of the end of covid supply chain problems, everything automakers could make was getting sold and production was booked for half a year to a year. So manufacturers moved to high price trims over basic versions that usually formed majority of sales. And then covid ended, those who needed a car got one, and sales cratered. S
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Tesla is an upper class brand. For the kind of people who live and die by status they can demonstrate to their peers. For those people, 100k for a very visible and obvious status symbol that lasts many years is completely acceptable, and they will recoup this investment in a few years easily in additional status-derived income.
This is why Tesla always sells the high end model for a while before lower end trims are offered. And that halo model sells out for at least a year or two. Whatever they c
Cybertruck is also bulletproof (Score:2)
https://concealednation.org/20... [concealednation.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How about this then [youtube.com]?
Yes, 3mm full-hard stainless is bulletproof to small arms. This isn't some radical concept.
The windows of course are not, and I worry that some nutter is going to shoot at someone driving a cybertruck thinking that they're not going to kill them.
Not that the point is "being bulletproof", but rather being dentproof; one of the main marketing points of pickup trucks is that they're supposed to be "tough", even though most are made out of 0,8mm mild steel, or even alumium. Cybertruck shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and further, what is the value of this? If someone is shooting at you, they're going to make sure they aim only at the places that can stop bullets?
I think the important takeaway is that Elon Musk thinks the important thing to say is "Tommy gun". He believes his audience will be turned on by the idea that they can defend themselves from Al Capone for a mere $100k. Tech bros can drive around slaughtering libtards with impunity, that's the feature. Thing is, do libtards use Tommy guns?
Re: (Score:3)
Showing its resistance to bullets is a show-off. But the actual point is "it's tough" - not specifically to bullets, just in general. Which is something people actually do care about with regards to their trucks, their ability to take a whallop without breaking. There's already a lot of mockery of people who buy expensive new trucks but are afraid to take
Re: (Score:2)
It stops, from short range:
9mm FMJ 115 grain
9mm hollow point 135 grain
300 blackout 200 grain subsonic
5.7 x 28 SS198 26 grain
5.7 x 28 SS190 28 grain
Aka, the four fired from hanguns, and one from an assault rifle.
Does not stop:
0.223 75 grain BTHP
300 blackout 125 grain supersonic
Both supersonic rounds fired from assault rifles.
Now, I'm not a gun person, but stopping "short-range shots from handguns and even one fired from an assault rifle" is what I was calling stopping small arms. Would be interesting to see
Re: (Score:2)
3mm full-hard stainless is bulletproof to small arms
is a bit overselling it. Instead just say it’s resistant to most handguns using regular ammunition.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take your word on appropriate gun terminology - thanks :)
Re: (Score:3)
The bigger question here is pedestrian safety. "Dent proof" means "skull and other bone breaker". Many regions already mandate certain level of pedestrian safety, which is why vehicles have things like thinner hoods more prone to bending. So that when a human skull hits it, hood fails before the skull.
How do you get cybertruck certified in such regions? Is this thick steel only in some places?
Re: (Score:2)
It has crumple zones, as can be seen in the crash test videos. You score it / hinge it to give in certain places in proscribed manners.
Other Teslas have great pedestrian impact scores from EuroNCAP (which rates pedestrian safety in its public ratings (unlike NHTSA and IIHS). I doubt this will score as well as other Teslas, but I don't expect it to be bad, given their track record.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand. Crumple zones are about absorbing damage on impact, and are primarily about internal structure, not external panels. Those crumple regardless in high energy impacts, provided internal structure does. And goal of these is protecting the occupant(s) of the vehicle.
I'm talking about pedestrian-specific protection. Those are usually focused on things like structurally weakened hood panel (which is going to be incompatible with thick panels advertised on cybertruck) and avoidance of sharp edge
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you need quite a lot of power on the go and do not want a noisy generator (that is the by far superior option in most cases), the dual motor version of the tesla cybertruck is not actully a bad deal strangly enough..
The tryck is estimated to have something between 100 and 150kw battey capacity based on the ones doing the estimate. And the thing costs $80000-$7500 credit=$82500
Compare that to something like Jackery. Their Jackery Explorer 2000 Plus Portable Power Station with tweo extra batteries for total of 6kwh is $5299.
So for the cybetruck price you would get 13.7 of the jackery stations.. 14 such would give you 84kwh.. so definitely less that the cybertruck and you would need still a vehicle to haul them around.
No, i am not saying that it is a good solution for most(see above about generators), but the fact is, you get a lot of battery capacity for the price comparatively.
Re: (Score:2)
Carry the F150 Lightning's charger on board and you can do the same thing.
Even without it, it's got a pretty decent outlet onboard.
I mean fuck Ford, but then, fuck Tesla too
Re:The funny thing is.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
so, are the ERs across the country ready for the inevitable and exotic injuries rising from this new deviant behavior?
I trust that the delivery rooms, though, won't end up with any new business. But if so, will they be subject to AI regulation?
hmm.
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wow.
you'd think I'd be over getting shocked by the lower bounds of human behavior after practicing law this long, but . . .
*shudder*
I don't even want to *know* the mechanics, and am currently protected by an apparently insufficient imagination!
Re: (Score:3)
Why was this posted (Score:3)
This isn't news.
Filter out marketing material instead of posting press release fake innovation as news.
What's old is new again (Score:3)
My 1975 GMC Motorhome has a generator that is fed from the engine fuel tanks but the feed tube leaves about 10 gallons in the tank so that you always have enough to get to a gas station. I wonder if Tesla was smart enough to shut off power sharing so it still has enough to get to the nearest charging station.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the "nearest charging station" could be as close as "where it's parked right now once they fix the power" to ~100 miles away, I'd probably give you an option to set it in the app. If you're not worried about going anywhere with it (like having a 2nd vehicle or a generator), you could set the reserve quite low.
That said, everything is still basically rumor at this point.
The important bit people don't know: (Score:5, Informative)
This is being done using the ISO 15118 standard [wikipedia.org] which is what underlies the CCS [wikipedia.org] and NACS [wikipedia.org] charging standards which means it doesn't need to be a Tesla specific interface, just one that fits the NACS socket.
The reason this is important is because it means you aren't locked into using Tesla specific gear which is a huge plus since "everyone" (Ford, GM, Hyundai, Kia, and others) have all switched to NACS. No walled garden means lower prices and companies that make CCS gear will absolutely make NACS gear because the difference is negligible.
Re: (Score:2)
ISO 15118 is "Plug and Go", which allows the vehicle to identify itself to the charger in order to do automatic billing.
When charging another vehicle with a Cybertruck, it's done via the 240V outlet at the rear, over AC. Several vehicles have had that capability for some years now, and any vehicle can potentially add it with an inverter. The Tesla one is a bit more efficient, but it's not new.
Cybertruck also supports Vehicle To Grid, but again that's been available on other vehicles for a long time. In fact
Re: (Score:2)
ISO 15118 is "Plug and Go", which allows the vehicle to identify itself to the charger in order to do automatic billing.
ISO 15118-2 and ISO 15118-20 are the two versions of the higher level communications protocol (yes, there is a SLAC which is the lower level PWM-based protocol). Only ISO 15118-20 supports "Plug & Charge" and bidirectional vehicle-to-grid power transference. https://www.switch-ev.com/blog... [switch-ev.com]
When charging another vehicle with a Cybertruck, it's done via the 240V outlet at the rear, over AC.
In theory, a direct DC car-to-car power transfer could be done with ISO 15118-20 but you would either have to have a hefty DC-DC power transformer or use two cars with the same voltage.
I think it may be new to the US, but Europeans have been using it for a while now.
CHAdeMO has limited distributi
More importantly (Score:2)
This video gives a good rundown of the features: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
has steer by wire (YES, STEER by wire)
Well how else are you going to take the balls off?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> So how do you move it when it's dead (for whatever reason) since you can't steer with no power?
Answer: Science?
Approximate weight is 80lbs for a 3kWh "48 volt" LiFePO4 battery pack at today's 2023 technology. It ain't a lot of fun but you can certainly carry that around; Bluetti B300 (or B300S) consumer product is such an item, for your reference. The quoted 5hp steering motor rating equates (on paper anyway) to 3.7285kW times four is a little under ~15kW. If we de-rate to 80% battery capacity as is cu
Re:More importantly (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even stupider to assume you know every scenario. I wasn't even talking about loading it onto a flatbed I was talking about just moving it out of the way off of a busy highway.
-'Sorry it's bricked, we can't steer it to safety either.'
Re: (Score:2)
As if "entirely 48 volt" is a feature that anyone should care about or is even a good idea. The "entirely" part is also added because there are MANY cars with 48 volt, it's needed for air suspension and it also common in hybrids. This, like everything Tesla does, is carefully crafted to make it seem like Tesla is a technology innovator. How does 48V make LED lighting work better? How does 48V make 12V outlets work better?
How is STEER by wire a benefit to drivers? How is not not merely copying other ven
Ford F-150 Lightning has this too (Score:3)
only available on the new Cybertruck
Not quite. https://www.ford.com/trucks/f1... [ford.com]
Re: (Score:3)
only available on the new Cybertruck
Not quite. https://www.ford.com/trucks/f1... [ford.com]
There is some confusion between the 120/240VAC inverter power outlet added-feature and a Vehicle-To-Grid bi-directional power interface from the EVSE plug-in.
I don't have answers for you, however, it does appear that none of the attempts in N. America market have really gained adoption for Vehicle-To-Grid. It is not as simple as to slap an inverter on the high voltage system and call it Vehicle-To-Grid. Certainly Ford has zero products on the N. America market that implement this, and I'm hesitant to accept
Could be handy if ... (Score:2)
The Cybertruck does come with an optional winch mounting bumper/frame, doesn't it? Or what good is it?