It seems like the CT doesn't have the equivalent of a locking diff, and had essentially no articulation. It'll be fine for the target demo (on-road usage).
Both the Lightning and the CT clearly suffer from their weight, and their optimization for on-road performance. (in the lightnings case, it even seems to be on stock tires).
I wonder if the tri-motor CT models will be able to simulate a locked rear diff, much like the quad motor rivian models can simulate a locked diff front and rear thanks to being able to adjust torque to all four wheels individually. Only the rear axle of the CT would presumably be able to do this due to the tri-motor layout, unless they resort to the individual wheel braking like they've done on their road cars to simulate diff features. A rear only lock is still a useful offroading feature.
From what I've read, it doesn't sound like the quad motor "virtual" locked diff feature on the Rivian trucks works as well as a proper locking diff - its close but still slips occasionally. If I recall correctly their cheaper dual motor models don't have the feature either.
I imagine eventually the quad motor "virtual" locking diff solutions will probably get reasonably good, if Tesla decide to do a quad motor CT later.
I posted below but you cannot fully simulate a locker with independent motors. The quad motor Rivian is actually inferior to the dual motor for rock crawling due to this.
The quad motor Rivian produces 908 lbs/ft of torque which means each motor produces 908/4 = 227 lbs/ft. It has a single speed gear ratio of 12.6:1 meaning each wheel can get a maximum of 227 * 12.6 = 2860.2 lbs/ft wheel torque.
The dual motor Rivian produces 829 lbs/ft of torque which means each motor produces 829/2 = 414.5 lbs/ft. It has has a single speed gear ratio of 13.7:1 (11:1 front) in the rear meaning each rear wheel can get a maximum of 414.5 * 13.7 = 5678.65 lbs/ft wheel torque (4559.5 front) with brake locking diff.
Contrast this with a Jeep Wrangler which can put out 20,000 to 30,000 lbs/ft of torque to any single wheel through its torque converter, transmission, transfer case and axle gearing which can be over 100:1 in gear ratio and single ICE.
There are videos of Rivian's stalling rock crawling that are no issue for an old Jeep with weak engine due to lack of torque to the wheels. EV's will need lockers and probably at least two speed transmission to compete here, or they will need way oversized quad motors to make enough low speed torque without the gearing and lockers.
Quad motor is even better than a locking diff if all the motors are modulated right.
I dunno what Rivian does, but I saw that Rimac does 1 motor per wheel, and each motor madly modulates itself during launch control to stop its wheel from slipping... Perfect, maximum torque, all the time.
There's still some slip though in all these virtual solutions - a wheel has to start slipping for the software to notice and modulation to kick in. With a real locking diff, it's physically impossible for one wheel to spin faster than the other. For sure they can likely modulate the wheel torque quickly though to get the wheels back to the same rotation speed.
In theory, the system can just monitor rotation and "lock" the wheels together with torque as a goal of the system, instead of trying to detect when the tires are slipping.
As a bonus, a computer is smart enough to spin the tires at slightly different rates when turning, instead of dragging them along like a locked diff.
I believe that Rivian offers a quad-motor option, and a standard dual-motor with an open-diff that uses the brakes to try to compensate (similar to a typical AWD system).
It's fine for the buyers who will be collectors, posers and social media tools - but still worth giggling about because Musk has consistently bragged that it'll be a better truck than any other truck while also being a 'better car'...and yet it does worse than a truck designed to not really see anything more off-road than a jobsite or country dirt road because Ford can
I'm guessing a P1 Touareg/Cayenne, or even a first-gen Audi Allroad wouldn't have a problem.
Yes, it's clearly the weight; every time the tires have to climb they slip. Both EVs have this problem because they're both very heavy; the CT was just the worse of the two. The ICE trucks climb with next to no slip because their missing the extra 1500 lbs. The Tundra has a live rear axle.
To my untrained (WRT off-roading) eye, I didn't see that much difference between the two. I also wonder how much difference there would be due to driver skill. And as mentioned in TFA, Ford has been making trucks a lot longer than Tesla.
The Tesla has like no suspension travel. The suspension is barely compressing, and you can see the body bounce over the terrain as the wheels lift or almost lift. If you covered the top of the truck from view, I'd say it looks like a cheap crossover.
And the base F-150 is not really a long travel truck, its just... you know, sprung like a truck. A little side by side UTV could run over this hill without even letting off the gas.
Lack of suspension travel under compression is a common issue off-road for air suspension vehicles like the Grand Cherokee and to a lesser extent Range Rovers. Maybe same for the Cybertruck.
To me it looked like the CT primarily used its rear motors here, and perhaps also didn't have a "crawl" mode (it'd be XDrive in Subaru speak, I guess) as it was kind of all or nothing. Traction control systems can be upgraded; it'll be interesting to see Tesla return serve on this one.
FWIW I reckon 99.9% of these monster trucks will never see conditions like in this video. And that's being generous. Australia has some perverse tax incentives that are making them extremely popular, and they're a scourge on the public roads of Melbourne.
The FBT exemption incentivises the common crop of dual cab utes. Those are Hilux, Ranger, etc.
The much larger F150 shown here can only be had by first importing from the US and then converting locally to right hand drive. The associated engineering certificates and approvals are non-trivia. By that point they’ve picked up the luxury car tax due to the costs involved. They also attract a higher registration/CTP fee due to weight and risk.
So, they’re actually heavily disincentivised by taxes and policy. That’s before you even look at the cost to comprehensively insure. Very steep due to the substantial repair costs driven by parts availability.
The Rangers/Raptors etc I'm seeing that threaten to outnumber your regular sedans on the roads are the ones I'm referring to. They massively outsize your regular cars, even SUVs such as the Mazda CX-5, Tesla Model Y, or the Subaru Outback.
The lawmaking that allowed for instant asset write-off for dual cab vehicles up to $150k made zero consideration for the environment, neither pollution nor space wise. I see that it's now capped at $20k, but the damage has already been done.
> Australia has some perverse tax incentives that are making them extremely popular
Yet another way Texas is kinda like a mini Australia. I suspect "mega pickup truck" prevalence is probably ahead of Australia. You almost have to see it to believe it.
...And yeah, I wonder what kind of TCS the Cybertruck does. It does have front/back differentials, right, or is it one motor per wheel?
Depends on where you're at. In my area while you're not going up this type of hill, terrain very similar to this is common when you're out in the sticks looking for a newborn calf to get it inside and out of the cold.
Not everywhere a truck needs to do this stuff, but also not everywhere is it all just towing capabilities.
Some built up wranglers are not as impressive as they look. They can wade through a lake, but the suspension won't actually flex that much over rough terrain.
Looks like the Tesla has an open diff with poor brake lock diff control, I think the lighting has an option for a locking rear diff wonder if they were using it, looks like it.
Interesting thing about the Rivian quad motor version is while it has full software control due to a motor per wheel, this can be a downside for crawling like this because it has no way to send torque from one side to the other, so if say only two wheels have traction its torque is cut in half and can actually struggle to move forward as its also a fixed gear ratio.
Contrast this with say a Jeep wrangler that can have a locking transfer case with low range and locking diffs can send a lot of torque to a single wheel through torque multiplication in both the transmission and transfer case and everything locked up. Jeeps also have a decent brake lock diff even if you don't have lockers.
>this can be a downside for crawling like this because it has no way to send torque from one side to the other
I'm pretty sure that there'll eventually be some sort of LSD/locking programming for electric motors. Take the existing F-150 Tremor for example. It comes with a locking rear diff and a Torsen diff in the front axle. If you have a quad motor vehicle, someone could easily write a "locking rear diff" mode that simply has the rear motors turn at the same pace, and then have a "Torsen diff" mode for the front that will modulate the front motors just like a Torsen diff would.
It's not about turning at the same pace, the side that has no traction cannot send its torque to the side that does without a mechanical connection. Each wheel is limited to the maximum torque of a single motor vs torque being sent to all wheels in a traditional single ICE engine with transfer case and lockers.
You can see a quad motor Rivian performing worse than the new dual motor due this issue, the dual motor can use brake locking to send full torque from one side to the other, the quad motor cannot:
Yeah just need larger motors that can put out more torque which adds more cost and weight. Or you can have a way to connect each side with a locker or a single larger motor with brake locker control like dual motor vs quad motor Rivian's. Again the quad motor Rivian can be stalled on rock crawling due to lack of torque when multiple wheels lose traction.
Electric motors have a lot of torque but EV drive trains are usually single speed so it must not have too much gear reduction for highway speed. A modern ICE offroad vehicle has a multispeed transmission with torque converter that greatly amplifies stall torque along with a transfer case that has a low range that multiplies even further. I would imagine when jeep does an electric production Wrangler it will probably have dual motors with lockers and may even have a 2 speed transmission for low range. Maybe they will even do like their Magento prototype and run a single large electric motor through a traditional transfer case and driveline.
I am no expert at this but I think the Rivian should perform comparably.
The Rivian can do 908 lb-ft of torque. Like you say, that's divided up amongst the 4 wheels, so that's 227 lb-ft per wheel.
The Jeep can do 260 lb-ft total.
The Rivian weighs ~7200 lbs and the Jeep weighs ~5300 lbs.
So, with only one wheel of traction you're right. If you can transfer all of that torque on the jeep with less than ~14% loss (which, I dunno, might be reasonable) then the Jeep has more "oomph".
With two wheels, the Jeep is still figuring out how to distribute 260 lb-ft and the Rivian has 454. It's not close at that point.
A Jeep can have over 100:1 gear ratio in low range with torque converter and transmission and axles, its can put 20,000 to 30,000 lbs/ft to the wheels a quad motor Rivian is a fixed 12.6:1 gear ratio so 11440.8 lbs/ft to the wheels max.
Now have two wheels lose traction and you cut that down to 5720.4 lbs/ft at the wheels while a Jeep with lockers put the full 20k+ torque to any one wheel as needed.
All these comments about a lack of locking diff on the CT could be the reason but it seems that this capability can be achieved in software with motors on all 4 wheels. - you don't allow the motor/wheel to move at a different speed to another on the same axle.
Therefore this, to me at least, seems like an easy pathway for improvement for the CT.
And we have already seen, telsa has the best software team with companies like Ford with some of the worst. I know which vehicle I'd more likely expect to see updates for that actually improve the experience.
It's not yet clear virtual locking diffs on quad motor cars will be as effective as a fully locked diff.
A software system will likely have to detect some small degree of slip before intervening to sync the wheel speed again - that slip just wouldn't occur in the first place on a fully locked setup given its impossible for one wheel to spin faster than the other. This seems to be the experience of Rivian owners who have quad motor cars with virtual locking diffs.
That's a solvable software problem. The electric motors know how much they are spinning, they just need to be modulated quickly enough and intelligently enough.
Motors know nothing. The encoders know how much current is being input to the motor, but do not know the rotational output of the motor or the friction coefficient between the tires and the ground. All three are things you'd need to emulate a locking differential in software. You could fake the last two by having a reliable way to measure the travel of the vehicle from a source other than the wheels (GPS, downward camera, etc).
Err, sorry but the encoders don't measure current. An absolute position encoder knows the exact speed/position of the motor. By that you can extrapolate the wheel speed position which you can just match 1:1 with the one on the other side. It won't be perfect as the reaction time of the system if wheel A breaks away and starts spinning but you don't need GPS or a downward camera to mimic a locking diff.
Sorry I was trying to rewrite for clarity and said encoder instead of controller.
If you naively emulate (as Telsa surely would) a 1:1 fully locking diff in software it will suck to drive. Electronic limited slip diffs already exist, like the Jeep FD/AD systems, which will use tire rotation sensors to determine forward momentum.
Now that I think about it, the Ford is probably already doing this.
Technically, you can sometimes measure the motor position without a position sensor by measuring the back EMF (although I doubt Tesla is doing this, IIRC it's hard to get good starting torque out of this setup)
I was with you until you said Tesla has a killer software team.
This is going to be a test for them. They’re always on, digital, networked, touchscreen-powered ethos is going to fall apart with the truck and off road. Stuff is physical in a truck because you’re often wearing gloves and operating in rough environments.
But seriously - we need to all ack here that this is not a truck. It looks like a truck, yes, but it does not walk or quack like one. Do a lot of current truck owners use them as a fashion statement? Yes. But on the flip side a lot of truck owners do truck things and the cyber truck won’t compete there. As a fashion accessory/commuter/bulletproof SF tenderloin machine yes it will and I actually think it looks pretty cool.
Yes, this is a tire test. My Tacoma would skid (scary) on Seattle's steep, wet streets, until I got Michelins. Huge difference and not because of the truck.
I still don't get some drivers that have nice cars but cheap out on the tires.
Like FFS man, those tires are the only thing keeping your car on the road, why would you risk your life and cheap out exactly on the most important safety items?
Disclaimer: I work for Ford but my opinion is of my own. I also got my Ford Escape before I was employed by them.
Me and my family were Japanese brand car drivers for over 2 decades. I got a Ford Escape PHEV, and Ford cars handling is probably one of the best I’ve driven (mind you, we only drive “middle class cars”, below 40K). I recently had to drive a Highlander for a week or two and going back to my Escape was night and day. The suspension and noise was clearly superior on the Highlander but everything else like acceleration and handling was superior on my Escape.
Honestly both are abysmal. Even the F-150 is slipping like crazy in areas where it shouldn't matter. Locking differentials are really required for this sort of thing - or a four wheel motor setup where a motor is dedicated to each wheel and can apply power equally. Afaik none of the EV trucks have a mechanical locker or even a limited slip?
This might be as easy as a software update for both.
Reducing tire pressures and better/correct tires is also important - but lockers are can make up for that and even the best tires will fail if one wheel is slipping and taking all the torque.
No one is gonna be doing this sort of thing with an EV though. There is no charging infrastructure out in the boonies.
> No one is gonna be doing this sort of thing with an EV though. There is no charging infrastructure out in the boonies.
Jeep has built solar supplied charging stations at most of the 56 badge of honor trailheads and continues to expand in partnership with Volkswagen. The Rivian recently did an end-to-end run of the Rubicon trail using the Jeep chargers.
I do things like this from time to time with my Rivian. You're right that charging infrastructure is a challenge, but two things make a big difference:
- Lots of campgrounds have 30 or 50 amp plugs for RVs. Oftentimes off-road trips I go on start by everybody getting together at night so we can get an early start the next day. If you can meet near an RV campground (not always a great option), you can charge
- Most offroad trips are a relatively low number of miles. It can be pretty technical and you're trying to enjoy the time together. You can make it a lot of hours without spending a lot of miles
All that being said, I have been sweating it on the way to the nearest charger after getting off the trails.
The campground RV thing is an a-ha moment for sure. Good to know. Agreed on low and slow and being able to make a full day out of a relatively small actual distance. Depending on where you live though the trailhead might be quite a ways from civilization and so you eat range getting to it.
If I was going to get an EV truck Rivian would def be the way to go. Just don’t let the OTA update brick your infotainment lol.
Confirmed about the RV campgrounds. Almost every private RV campground has 50A service, and most state and national parks have 30A service. Both are sufficient to recharge a Tesla overnight, and the Model Y is big enough to sleep inside. I do it all the time.
it's a truck. throw a honda genny with a 240v output, and a couple of gallons of gas, and charge it overnight. it's not about being perfectly environment pious, but going away from rolling coal.
I thought about this more than I care to admit. Bottom line: I don't think it's worth it for most people to have a generator for camping.
For me:
- Generators are expensive. If you want to charge overnight, you're looking at 6.6kw continuous and for a honda that's at least $3500. Luckily harbor freight exists and maybe you can get away with $900 (srsly harbor freight is amazing)
- I already have a generator and my mostly propane-powered house can easily get by with a 4.3kw peak generator which would not be a great solution on the trail. At 3.5kw continuous... That's getting to be around 24 hours to get from 20% to 80% charging the truck
- Generators are hard to store. Especially if you're not using them regularly and you bought a second one just to take offroading.
- Generators are heavy, especially as you add more power. Sounds like a pain to load that thing up every time.
- I don't want to take the generator when my wife and son might need it at home. Admittedly this has never actually happened (I don't make a habit of leaving when storms are inbound), but it's a risk.
Ah I mean if that's the only thing you'd be buying the generator for, you're right, it's probably not worth it. if you're buying a $70,000 truck, the cost of a big genney shouldn't be out of reach. If you're a construction worker of some sort, which people that own trucks often are, you probably already have a gennie for the job site. Yeah they're heavy and lifting it onto the bed is a pain, but get ramp or a buddy to help. if you've got toys with you (aka an ATV) you'll have a ramp anyway. Imo it's a decent backup plan if you're going to go off-roading with an electric truck because what are you going to do if the campground spots with electricity are already taken?
Often not. On hunting trips where I live, I'm away from all infrastructure on rough terrain for days at a time. I drive a Nissan Frontier and it grinds its way up steep logging roads for hours each day.
There are vast parts of the country where your cell phone won’t even work. Good luck finding a charging station.
Guess ya can bring your dongle and hope to find a wall plug somewhere but I’d imagine it would take quite a long time to charge.
Off roaders carry extra fuel. Or worst case your buddy who is out with you will circle back to get fuel and come save you. Can’t really do that with an EV.
If no power, how would you have a gas station? You can always drop solar and batteries for a charging station. StarLink for remote telemetry and billing.
What are you gonna do at a gas station in buttfuck? Ask to borrow the wall plug? How do you pay for that? How long does it take to recharge without a dedicated wall charger or high power charging station?
Yes, gas stations in the middle of nowhere have let me use their 220V 30amps to charge. Campsites too. Billing can be automated with the current EV charging standard. You get about 5 miles of range per hour off a 120V 20A circuit.
> You get about 5 miles of range per hour off a 120V 20A circuit.
I suppose that technically works but I’d imagine you’d be sleeping in the truck all night while it charges to get just enough juice to get out of dodge. 8 hours is 40 miles. If the weather is bad and you need heat that falls apart though.
To be clear, it looks like there are 40+ DC fast chargers within 50 miles of this location, which seems to be Hollister Hills in CA. Hard to count because it is close to San Jose.
The traction control on the Cybertruck looks pretty bad but to be fair the tires on the Cybertruck look really bad for off-roading. A lot of the comments here are about weight, motor torque, etc. Obviously if the wheels are slipping the torque is adequate. In terms of having adequate traction, tires and inflation pressure are very often a much bigger factor than anything else. Very often, even a 2WD truck can beat a 4WD truck if the 2WD truck has good off-road tires and they're aired down to a reasonably low pressure.
The Tesla Model Y has an "Off-Road Assist" software mode [0], so Tesla certainly knows how to do this. I'd be shocked if the CT doesn't have this mode.
Whether the CT has sufficient suspension travel is another matter, and that cannot be fixed with software.
Some poor engineer in Tesla probably tried to raise this issue and got shut out of meetings. And it was probably the kind of engineer that actually cared about traction control performance. And he also probably wanted to further the Tesla brand.
But Elon is so busy these days managing 3 companies, that he just should quit two of them now.
If I have the choice, today I'm choosing the F-150 lightning.
I'd be interested to see a motorcycle or bicycle go up this hill. It seems like a lot of problems are because these trucks are all so wide, they can't follow the easy line.
Without a mechanical locking mechanism at each axle you’re gonna suffer here. Pseudo “locking” can sometimes work with brakes being applied to the slipping wheel but off road that kinda goes out the window.
Through software. The Vehicle Control Unit can control the torque going to each motor independently, and can view the current speed of each motor. By looking at longitudinal acceleration vs motor speed, you can see if the wheels are slipping or not.
Alternatively, if you have a 2WD vehicle, you can just compare the motor speeds to the speeds of the undriven wheels to see if the wheels are slipping.
It's surprisingly nontrivial to detect how much the wheels are slipping, but once you can you vary the torque command based on the amount of wheelslip.
And here's a Range Rover going up it: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_00ah8lG4yk
It seems like the CT doesn't have the equivalent of a locking diff, and had essentially no articulation. It'll be fine for the target demo (on-road usage).
Both the Lightning and the CT clearly suffer from their weight, and their optimization for on-road performance. (in the lightnings case, it even seems to be on stock tires).