this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024

127 points (95.7% liked)

RealTesla

441 readers

2 users here now

Posts must be about Tesla, EV, or AV
Meta Posts must be pre-approved.
Shitposts are limited
No Elon Worship
All Links must include the original title of the Content
Sites behind Paywalls must have text included.
Don't be an asshole
No Image Posts

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

dragontamer

[email protected]

127

Tesla Cybertrucks Keep Getting Stuck In Snow (jalopnik.com)

submitted 5 months ago by dragontamer to c/realtesla

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] givesomefucks 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Article says the tires are probably optimized for efficiency...

Which makes it even worse their range is so bad.

Put actual truck tires on so you can use it as a truck, and range is going to plummet

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Actual truck tires won’t fix the low polygon wank tank disaster that is known as the cybertruck. Sorry.

[–] givesomefucks 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It won't, there's lots of other issues.

But those tires means it literally can't function off pavement.

I have zero idea why you're acting like I was defending it tho

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Classic Lemmy, just forget them

[–] n3m37h 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hahahahaha, fucking idiot that Muskrat is, so is anyone who bought this POS

[–] Stanwich -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People want new things and New ideas and they habr the money to risk it. I'm sure those people know just about as much of trucks as you do

[–] n3m37h 2 points 5 months ago

Dont need to know jack shit about vehicles if you really know about Musk. His ideas are dogshit and he is a pathological liar. Or as people say "Over promose and under deliver"

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago

Hold on, I thought the truck was a joke, a publicity stunt like the robot... Did people actually pay real money for one? PS1 nostalgia?

[–] ChicoSuave 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Elon's Folly sure doesn't seem to have any specific niche it performa in a except drawing attention.

[–] Anticorp 2 points 5 months ago

And yet he is financially rewarded for all of it. Disgusting, ain't it?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

It’s too heavy. Tires don’t matter much if it’s just sinking like a lead brick.

[–] Etterra 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Probably because they're pieces of trash that way a bajillion tons.

[–] Anticorp 5 points 5 months ago

weigh

[–] Sirico 4 points 5 months ago

[–] hakunawazo 3 points 5 months ago

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I wonder why Ford never designed a cyber truck...

[–] n3m37h 2 points 5 months ago

They ughhh didn't ughh have the ugh ugh mental ughh fortitude ught that ugh the ugh Musk ugh has ughh.. Right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

i think it has too much staying power in snow or mud, and not enough going power

[+] themeatbridge -12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

That's a stupid truck, and it probably has a billion flaws in addition to poor traction control.

But that's more snow than anyone should be trying to drive through. It's at least 18 inches of uncompressed powder, judging from the tire tracks which are probably compacted ice.

Snow tires might help, but that should be plowed or shoveled before you drive over it.

Edit: Jesus fucking Christ, I don't give a shit if you go rally racing in the Himalayas in a Ford Pinto. Congratulations, you win the Golden Shut the Fuck Up. This is a 5 second clip of a cybertruck spinning out because they pulled into an unplowed driveway. My point was just that you shouldn't do that. Shovel your fucking driveway. Would a proper 4wd vehicle handle that? Probably. But ice is ice, and you shouldn't expect a car that's still loading polygons to have magical friction powers.

[–] dragontamer 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

but that should be plowed

Pickup Trucks are traditionally the vehicle you hook up snowplows to.

Cybertruck fails at one of the most basic, and assumed, pickup-truck duties. Driving through the snow reliably. Now yes, bigger trucks (F250 or F350) are used, but F150 class (roughly where Cybertruck competes in) can handle light-duty plowing. But it has to be able to drive in the snow reliably first.

[+] schmidtster -10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Unless you plow the snow in front of the truck a snow plow would also get stuck in the snow.

Snows plows work by removing large deposits of snow so the vehicles don’t bottom out and have less snow to get through to get traction.

You don’t seriously think trucks are magically immune from getting stuck do you? They require the right gear and equipment first, like anything else.

[–] dragontamer 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] schmidtster 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] dragontamer 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Put the right equipment on the Tesla and it wouldn’t get stuck either.

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dragontamer 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

I also have my doubt that Ford is better on kwh/kg and in the end that’s what matters

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.

If the elecrrix F150 handles this better

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.

[–] Anticorp -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dragontamer 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

mid-sized gasoline truck

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

We spent many hours at the helm our 2022 Lightning with a slightly sweaty upper lip thanks to an average ambient temperature of 81 degrees (that's hot for us), and in the end we'd logged a total of 332 GPS-verified miles, about 10 miles more than what we saw on the Lightning's onboard trip meter. That's a whopping 32 miles more than the EPA estimate, netting out to a 10.7% improvement.

So that 254 miles Cybertruck test is kind of dogshit actually.

[–] Anticorp 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] dragontamer 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Anticorp 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] dragontamer 2 points 5 months ago

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.

[–] TenderfootGungi 10 points 5 months ago

Welcome to rural America.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

What? I used to go skiing in worse conditions with my peogeot 106. I never got stuck, the worst that happened is that someone had to sit on the hood to get going when we had to stop on a hill.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They were dumb enough to buy a cyber truck and you think they would drive through snow responsibly? They're lucky it got stuck when it did or they would have frozen to death in the thing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

18 inches? 12 at most and I would be laughing my ass off going through that in my XC60.

[–] assembly 6 points 5 months ago

I would probably put on 4wd in my Jeep but that kind of snow doesn’t even merit 4lo.

[–] themeatbridge 0 points 5 months ago

The ground clearance on the cybertruck is about 17 inches and change, and it appears to be brushing against the snow even with an inch or so of compacted snow under the tires. I could be wrong, though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

I used to drive my 2004 Xterra through 2 feet of powder. A good SUV should be able to handle some snow if it has decent clearance under the body.

[–] Dkiscoo 2 points 5 months ago

LMAO I've driven through that with all season tires on my Ford Fiesta.