Tesla's Electric Cybercab is Certified as the Most Efficient EV Ever (electrek.co) 119
Tesla's upcoming Cybercab "has been certified at 165 Wh/mi," reports Electrek — which makes it "the most efficient electric vehicle ever produced — by a wide margin."
The next most efficient EV on the market, the Lucid Air Pure, consumes 28% more energy per mile. Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy confirmed the figure, which represents a certified rating — not a marketing claim or internal target.
It's an impressive achievement, but it comes with a massive asterisk: Tesla accomplished this by building a tiny two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel, no pedals, and a sub-50 kWh battery pack... Even Tesla's own Model 3 — one of the most efficient passenger EVs you can buy — needs nearly a third more energy to cover the same distance... Where the 165 Wh/mi figure genuinely matters is in the economics of running a robotaxi fleet. Energy cost per mile is one of the biggest operating expenses for any ride-hailing service, and the Cybercab's efficiency gives Tesla a structural cost advantage over competitors...
The small battery pack also means faster charging times and lower per-vehicle battery costs — both critical for fleet economics. Tesla has said the Cybercab will cost $30,000, and the efficient powertrain is a big part of hitting that price target. Tesla confirmed Cybercab production has started at Giga Texas in April, though the ramp is expected to be slow initially. The company still hasn't solved unsupervised autonomous driving — the first steering wheel-less unit rolled off the line in February, but Tesla's supervised robotaxi fleet currently crashes at roughly four times the rate of human drivers.
The next most efficient EV on the market, the Lucid Air Pure, consumes 28% more energy per mile. Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy confirmed the figure, which represents a certified rating — not a marketing claim or internal target.
It's an impressive achievement, but it comes with a massive asterisk: Tesla accomplished this by building a tiny two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel, no pedals, and a sub-50 kWh battery pack... Even Tesla's own Model 3 — one of the most efficient passenger EVs you can buy — needs nearly a third more energy to cover the same distance... Where the 165 Wh/mi figure genuinely matters is in the economics of running a robotaxi fleet. Energy cost per mile is one of the biggest operating expenses for any ride-hailing service, and the Cybercab's efficiency gives Tesla a structural cost advantage over competitors...
The small battery pack also means faster charging times and lower per-vehicle battery costs — both critical for fleet economics. Tesla has said the Cybercab will cost $30,000, and the efficient powertrain is a big part of hitting that price target. Tesla confirmed Cybercab production has started at Giga Texas in April, though the ramp is expected to be slow initially. The company still hasn't solved unsupervised autonomous driving — the first steering wheel-less unit rolled off the line in February, but Tesla's supervised robotaxi fleet currently crashes at roughly four times the rate of human drivers.
LOL Exodus (Score:4, Insightful)
"Meanwhile, the program has been hit by a leadership exodus, with three senior leaders departing since February."
That's a good thing. If their top engineers were leaving, that would be a bad thing. When management leaves, the engineers become more efficient.
Embrace the Tao [mit.edu].
But when told this, the programmer once more refused, saying, "I exist so that I can program. If I were promoted, I would do nothing but waste everyone's time. Can I go now? I have a program that I am working on."
Dude it's 2026 (Score:3, Insightful)
After that you have accountants you also have to do your HR paperwork.
And finally there are line workers who have been promoted into management in order to give them or
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The managers who are trying to climb the ladder are WORSE than nothing, because they will actively slow their employees down so they can hire more people below them. Ever have a useless meeting that could have been an email? Now you know why, a manager who is worse than nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
The managers who are trying to climb the ladder are WORSE than nothing, because they will actively slow their employees down so they can hire more people below them. Ever have a useless meeting that could have been an email? Now you know why, a manager who is worse than nothing.
I completely agree. These people are a massive negative force. Worst case happens is when one of those makes it to C-level, or even CEO. From observable evidence, this happens quite frequently.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they call that "failing upward". It would certainly explain a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The mechanism is usually that the group directly managed by such a fuckup is desperate to get rid of the person and hence gives them glowing reviews to that they go away.
We really need to stop amateur-hour in all things management. Not that we need to get it to, say, skill levels routinely expected in engineering, but the current pathetic showing has to stop and we need real management liability when they (again) ignore all known approaches and facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Management would be a good application for AI.
AI isn't trying to get promoted and doesn't need four-hour status meetings twice a week.
Re:LOL Exodus (Score:5, Informative)
That's a good thing. If their top engineers were leaving, that would be a bad thing. When management leaves, the engineers become more efficient.
That is an incredibly silly generalisation. Yeah some managers are shit and produce inefficiencies, but some managers are the opposite and contribute heavily to successes of projects. Just for fun I had a look at who left. Google's AI results showed 4 people leaving the vehicle division:
1x Chemical Engineer with a history of manufacturing optimisation.
1x Aerospace engineer with a post grad study related to manufacturing.
1x Mechanical engineer with a masters in manufacturing systems (also this guy, Emmanuel Lamacchia, lead multiple wildly successful programs at Tesla including the Model Y program which is Tesla's best selling product)
1x Electrical Engineer with a masters in electrical design.
So yeah let's celebrate getting rid of those "managers" who were holding back the engineers.
On the flip side we just lost a high profile manager where I work, a veteran accountant, with an MBA, and a history working for nothing but consultants. Yeah we were all very fucking happy he's gone.
Don't generalise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only looked up their names and checked their background on linked in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but some managers are the opposite and contribute heavily to successes of projects.
Absolutely, a good manager is a very valuable asset to a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. This does not bode well for Tesla. Well, as soon as you look carefully, nothing bodes well for Tesla, or any Musk "enterprise" really. I would not be surprised if the story hides some strong caveat or even fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Embrace the Tao [mit.edu].
But when told this, the programmer once more refused, saying, "I exist so that I can program. If I were promoted, I would do nothing but waste everyone's time. Can I go now? I have a program that I am working on."
This is an instance of the "Peter Principle" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle): Promote people until they are incompetent, then keep them there.
Re: (Score:2)
Some CEOs try to align the two, but I've come to realize that other CEOs actually want sycophant employees to say sweet things to them. King Lear is real. I don't know how you can finish adolescence and still want that, but it's a massive goal of a lot of CEOs.
Re: (Score:2)
"When management leaves, the engineers become more efficient."
False, but more importantly Elon Musk isn't leaving. The absolute worst part of management remains in place.
It's a really light car (Score:5, Insightful)
calling the Cybercab the “most efficient EV ever” is technically accurate, but it’s a bit like comparing a motorcycle’s fuel economy to a sedan’s. The Cybercab is a purpose-built, two-seat autonomous pod with no driver controls. No steering column, no pedal assembly — all of that weight and complexity is gone. Tesla designed a teardrop-shaped body that narrows significantly at the rear, optimized purely for aerodynamics rather than rear passenger comfort or cargo space.
Presumably it's aimed at being a Driverless Taxi, not a consumer car.
Re:It's a really light car (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably it's aimed at being a Driverless Taxi, not a consumer car.
It's just completely incorrect for cars without controls to even exist. Cars with controls are easier to manage in breakdowns. Not even being able to steer without the computer means it will be difficult to get disabled vehicles onto rollbacks in some circumstances. The correct infrastructure for vehicles without steering wheels is rail.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think they would hide a joystick under the cupholders for emergencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe not so unforeseeable: I saw in the news where a sinkhole recently appeared on a runway. On the streets, any human could grab the wheel to avoid it and save lives. Kill-me-bot would drive ri
Re: (Score:2)
You just rip the dummy out of the driver's seat and use the mounting pole like a joystick /s
Seriously though, it's probably manually drivable via app or wireless controller.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just completely incorrect for cars without controls to even exist. Cars with controls are easier to manage in breakdowns. Not even being able to steer without the computer means it will be difficult to get disabled vehicles onto rollbacks in some circumstances. The correct infrastructure for vehicles without steering wheels is rail.
We have infrastructure in place to deal with cars that are unable to use any controls, it's a case that occurs with many cars in an accident. Also the existence of controls does not help. In virtually all modern cars the parking brake system is computer controlled, failure of a computer to respond means you can't simply roll the car on a flatbed as well. Also EVs, flat batteries result in the parking brake engaging there so also non-trivial to deal with - none the less we deal with it just fine.
That's not t
Re: (Score:2)
In virtually all modern cars the parking brake system is computer controlled ...
Wow. Is that ever a terrible idea. The parking brake -- also known as the EMERGENCY brake -- should be as simple and reliable as possible. I've used it several times when the main brakes failed.
According to Google AI: "Emergency Override: If your hydraulic brakes fail, holding down the parking brake button will instruct the computer to activate a controlled, emergency stop using the ABS system." One of the failures I experienced was of the ABS module: instead of pumping the brakes, it just disabled them e
My e-bike uses 23Wh/mi unassisted (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If they had to actually specify something beyond it being an "EV", they'd have to find one it's comparable to, and it's hard to compare real world physical vehicles beholden to the reality of things to financial scam vehicles.
Re:My e-bike uses 23Wh/mi unassisted (Score:5, Interesting)
The Aptera is a two seat EV "car" closer to production than this Tesla is. It is infamously low in function yet more functional than the Tesla, yet its target (at a similar stage in development) was 100 Wh/mile. It doesn't deliver that, but it likely delivers what this Tesla will. That's with an off-the-shelf drivetrain.
It might be hard to compare real world vehicles to lies, but this isn't even a good lie. Elon Musk is a fraud and that's been plainly clear for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Weight, size, performance, features matter (Score:4, Informative)
>"Tesla accomplished this by building a tiny two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel, no pedals, and a sub-50 kWh battery pack."
It still HAS steering and brakes/etc. Not having steering wheel/column or a few pedals isn't that significant, it would only matter for weight, which neither has much of. Being small, small battery, low-power motor, and aerodynamic are the primary factors in being so efficient in this case.
My tremendously more powerful, dual-motor, much larger Ariya rarely gets better than 263 Wh/mi (and usually much worse), so at least double the power usage. But it also has all laminated insulated glass, leather seating for 5, double moon roof, much more storage, 4WD, more ground clearance, 87kWh battery, probably more safe, etc.
Anyway, I don't think electricity efficiency is likely the most important factor for a cab vehicle. Charging speed and frequency and vehicle reliability are probably far more paramount, since time is money.
Johnny Cab (Score:3)
The future is now, we have Johnny Cab. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The future is now, we have Johnny Cab.
Nope. Johnny Cab is the upgraded 4 seater. We only have the original 2 seater. Which makes sense since a 4 seater will be underutilized most of the time. :-)
Not including Chinese vehicles (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the Electrek article, the ratings are performed by the EPA, which only tests cars available in the US. So no Chinese EVs, which are the most advanced.
Typical Americans, assuming the world ends at their borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical Americans, assuming the world ends at their borders.
Well, it begins to look that way. Only in the sense that nobody wants to do business with them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I checked a few different analyses and they said that comparisons are challenging because Chinese tests are generally much milder and less "real world" than US test regimes. (Not to mention that the Chinese micro ev is sort of a China only vehicle type).
Generally Tesla are ranked extremely well in Chinese "real world" tests too.
Re: (Score:2)
So no Chinese EVs, which are the most advanced.
Please don't generalise. Chinese EVs are the most advanced in many areas but they are not the most efficient. Quite the opposite actually, they are focusing in other areas including in battery tech that improves safety and charging speed at the expense of weight and charge density. Their designs are not favouring aerodynamics and their push from range is largely the effort of cramming more battery in.
If you look to Europe you'll find plenty of Chinese EVs tested. They barely rank in the top 10 in terms of e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...which means that they are not going to incorporate all the trade-offs that Tesla have put into this vehicle. "
This isn't a vehicle and there are no "trade-offs" put into it. This is an Elon Musk lie, it is a fraud just like everything else Musk does.
"No Chinese EV is at this level of efficiency because no Chinese EV has needed to be. That’s not a matter of disrespecting Chinese OEMs, far from it."
We don't know any of this, because it's just a number without a product. And your post definitely in
Re: (Score:2)
You're a complete dipshit. The Chinese OEM ecosystem is astounding, and incredibly impressive, and you are reading your own weird bitter priors into what I wrote. I will never buy a Tesla and would absolutely buy a Chinese OEM car for my next car. You're just a dingbat making stupid assumptions.
Extra-urban doesn't mean rural, you idiot. It just means "not inside the city", ie it includes suburban and highway driving. And the entire fucking point is that US conurbation driving includes more extra-urban drivi
Comparing to the ICE efficiency spread... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that the spread is much bigger when comparing ICE vehicles.
A BMW M3 xdrive auto gets 18mpg combined. It's faster in the corners and on track than the i4 M50 but slower in day to day driving with that narrow power band. Very comparable cars.
A Prius gets 56mpg, a 3x improvement.
It looks like mainstream EV tech doesn't leave much left on the table for efficiency while also providing amazing performance, and so it takes some questionable choices to make a more efficient EV.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It looks like mainstream EV tech doesn't leave much left on the table for efficiency while also providing amazing performance, and so it takes some questionable choices to make a more efficient EV."
Correct. Motors are already very efficient (80 to 90%) and newer designs can eek out only a few percent more. Weight and areodynamics are all that really remain. Weight is always something you can play with, but the materials start to get extremely expensive when replacing steel (which is cheap and very s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A Prius gets 56mpg, a 3x improvement.
Yeah, but it's also electrified. The most MPG a modern ICEV can get does still seem to be around the 55-60 mark, like a VW Lupo, but that's an extremely compromised vehicle. It's a perfectly adequate car for typical uses, but I wouldn't fit in it even if I weren't fat. Germans are tall people (and trending fatter) but they still seem to make cars quite snug. There's more room in a cheap Nissan than most Audis...
ahem, anyhoo what about a 330e? 30 mpg combined, around 3900lb so it's not exactly svelte but tha
Enough with these stupid backwards unit (Score:5, Interesting)
It is 9.7km/kWh, which is indeed impressive.
My 2025 Equinox EV is 5.1 km/kWh, but is a much bigger car. My husband's smaller 2017 Bolt EV is rated at 5.7 km/kWh. In the real world, the Equinox actually uses less than the Bolt because of the heat pump.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how the certification works. If it is similar to normal tests then the interesting part is the Cybercab may actually also reach it being a local transport vehicle. I get no where near the efficiency rating of my car thanks to spending a lot of times on highways.
Lost Battle (Score:2)
It is 9.7km/kWh, which is indeed impressive. My 2025 Equinox EV is 5.1 km/kWh, but is a much bigger car. My husband's smaller 2017 Bolt EV is rated at 5.7 km/kWh. In the real world, the Equinox actually uses less than the Bolt because of the heat pump.
Marketing was NEVER going to allow units like mi/kWh or km/kWh to be used for flashy new EVs, since those (single-digit!) numerical values would be so much smaller than per gallon figures.
Re: Lost Battle (Score:2)
Does 9700 m/kWh work better for you ? It's a much larger number, after all.
Re: Lost Battle (Score:2)
If it was precise to the meter... yah?
Re: Lost Battle (Score:2)
Or for marketing purposes call it 9705 and take the win
Re: (Score:2)
It is 9.7km/kWh, which is indeed impressive. My 2025 Equinox EV is 5.1 km/kWh, but is a much bigger car. My husband's smaller 2017 Bolt EV is rated at 5.7 km/kWh. In the real world, the Equinox actually uses less than the Bolt because of the heat pump.
Marketing was NEVER going to allow units like mi/kWh or km/kWh to be used for flashy new EVs, since those (single-digit!) numerical values would be so much smaller than per gallon figures.
Per gallon when selling EVs?
Guess that’s par for the course for the ignorant automotive audience who still likes to measure their cars in horsepower. Even though 90% of drivers haven’t gotten close enough to even a single-digit horse to know what horseshit smells like.
People will care about three things in EV-land; range, ain’t-got-time-for-this-shit charging time, and price. Sell it however you want.
Re: (Score:2)
So true. Driving a Rivian truck is about as inefficient as there is in the EV world now, yet at MY current gas and electric prices it gets an equivalent of 66 mpg. Of course, gas prices are volatile but even at traditional prices the WORST EVs are economical in many areas of the country.
My sister pays 3.5x the electricity rate I do.
Nobody gives a shit about efficiency numbers, they care about range and charge rate.
Re: Lost Battle (Score:2)
My sister pays 3.5x the electricity rate I do.
Nobody gives a shit about efficiency numbers, they care about range and charge rate.
Kind of goes away for a major use case when it's > commute and charged overnight.
Most of us should probably care about $/mile then or $/100 miles, but since it's a taxi for hire those numbers are shit.
MPGe (Score:2)
Per gallon when selling EVs?
No, I mean as compared to the per gallon figures for ICE cars.
The industry did do as you suggest though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
False, only Tesla uses backwards units, yet Tesla often uses the inverse as well.
And there's nothing preventing scaling those numbers either. Tesla chose to popularize inverse efficiency numbers, another terrible decision from a terrible company.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Marketing was NEVER going to allow units like mi/kWh or km/kWh to be used for flashy new EVs, since those (single-digit!) numerical values would be so much smaller than [ICE] per gallon figures."
I was wondering why they used kWh per distance instead of distance per kWh. The Ariya uses the latter on the dash and manuals, as do most of the postings I see from other EVs. I actually had to convert the article's strange backwards units so I knew what they were talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
It is 9.7km/kWh, which is indeed impressive. My 2025 Equinox EV is 5.1 km/kWh, but is a much bigger car. My husband's smaller 2017 Bolt EV is rated at 5.7 km/kWh. In the real world, the Equinox actually uses less than the Bolt because of the heat pump.
My 2018 Nissan Leaf gets 5 km/kWh in the winter, 8 in the summer. Unlike the cybercab it is driven manually and has room for four in addition to its turnk space.
But.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone have numbers to fact check this? (Score:2)
Energy cost per mile is one of the biggest operating expenses for any ride-hailing service
It seems hard to believe that fuel cost per mile is the biggest operating expense, which would mean higher than all other expenses, like human driver pay, vehicle depreciation and maintenance. Does anyone have any cost breakdowns proving the above claim?
Back of the napkin calculation: even if I assume 3 miles per kWh (more than double this consumption, already achievable by other EVs), and say $0.11 per kWh, and average car speed of 30mph, that would mean one hour or driving the car consumes 10kWh, so $1.
Re: (Score:2)
It does say “one of” rather than “the”, right there in the quote.
The key costs for a fleet operator are capex (purchase & depreciation), pay, and fuel costs. Efficiency helps with both 1 and 3, not just 3. Smaller vehicles, fewer stops for charging, smaller batteries etc, are all enabled by greater efficiency. It’s just like airline economics.
The back of the envelope calculation the other way is this: say the fleet average annual mileage is 80k. Each robotaxi is saving mayb
Re: (Score:2)
"It does say “one of” rather than “the”, right there in the quote."
But it intends that you interpret it the way the OP interpreted it. Also, it is still wrong, it is neither the biggest nor "one of" the biggest.
"The key costs for a fleet operator are capex (purchase & depreciation), pay, and fuel costs."
Citation please. We need data for EV fleet operators, not ICE fleet operators.
"Efficiency helps with both 1 and 3, not just 3. "
False.
"Smaller vehicles, fewer stops for charging
Strategic competitive move (Score:2)
Tesla has made its first strategically clever move in a while, backed by solid engineering. Clearly Wh/mile is a crucial metric to optimise on if you are in the passenger fleet business, just as fuel burn / mile is the dominant metric for airlines. The chalenge Tesla faces is that the Chinese OEMs have built an innovation cycling machine that is extremely fast and effective. So while they aren’t incentivised to optimise for Wh/mile for the same existential reasons as Tesla is for its own use case, it
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, more Tesla shilling.
"Clearly Wh/mile is a crucial metric to optimise on if you are in the passenger fleet business"
Already addressed in your previous shill post, it is clearly not.
"...they aren’t incentivised to optimise for Wh/mile for the same existential reasons as Tesla is..."
Tesla is not "incentivised" to optimize anything, nor is it. And the "existential reasons" at Tesla as all Elon Musk, energy consumption doesn't help that.
"...eg, new sodium-based small cars where range can be drama
Re: (Score:2)
You people are absolutely batshit crazy. You cannot countenance the mere possibility that anyone might say "this is good engineering" if it's about Tesla. i don't like the company, I loathe the owner, I've had four EVs so far and none of them is a Tesla, and in multiple ways, other OEMs have clearly surpassed them, but I'm not completely deranged by my dislike and can recognise when they have built something impressive, a feat that appears entirely beyond you.
Your response here is complete idiocy.
- Your sta
robotaxi crashes 4 times rate of human drivers, NO (Score:3)
1 crash out of 14 crashes (Score:2)
The 14 robotaxi "crashes" have been reported:
1 incident was an actual dynamic driving crash: The vehicle was traveling straight at 17 mph and struck a fixed object.Only property damage.
2 incidents were cases where the Tesla was completely stopped, parked, and stationary, one where a city bus scraped the side of it.
2 incidents were parking mishaps where the car backed into a pole or tree at 1 mph and 2 mph.
2 incidents were ultra-low-speed intersection or turn scrapes (one at 2 mph and one with a truck at 4
Re: (Score:2)
"robotaxi" is Tesla-specific, Tesla is a company operated by a pathological liar and sociopath. Tesla has been caught creating fraudulent accident data.
Also, Tesla themselves report their crash rate is 1.5 times worse than human drivers. https://robotaxi-safety-tracke... [robotaxi-s...racker.com]
No reason to trust that data, though, it's from Tesla and Tesla lies.
Finally, how embarrassing that driverless cars experience all their crashes at LOW speeds where it is completely avoidable? If a Tesla cannot avoid backing into a pole,
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, how embarrassing that driverless cars experience all their crashes at LOW speeds where it is completely avoidable?
OK, now I am convinced that asdfgh is completely clueless. Anyone who has driven a car, or ridden a bicycle even, for any length of time can tell you that most human accidents happen at low speed. Parking, fender-benders, navigating tight spaces. Accidents at speed are more memorable, but far less numerous.
Its remarkable how people of normal intellect can be turned into morons when hatred infects their brains. (And yes, Elon can certainly take a share of the blame for provoking it, but he d
Aptera is more efficient (Score:4, Informative)
Tesla's upcoming Cybercab "has been certified at 165 Wh/mi," reports Electrek — which makes it "the most efficient electric vehicle ever produced — by a wide margin."
Aptera needs only about 110 Wh/mi. It is more efficient than Cybercab by a wide margin :-) :-/
Though Aptera has only 3 wheels
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's a fucking tricycle. Not a car and not a robotaxi.
2. They're going to let a very specific definition of robotaxi do a lot of heavy lifting to make their vehicle number one.
Electrek on /.'s level (Score:2)
'...which makes it "the most efficient electric vehicle ever produced — by a wide margin."'
Every e-bike ever produced is more efficient, and every e-bike is an electric vehicle. Playing games with terms, signifying nothing. The idea here is to exploit lack of function, then ignore that there are other products that do that even better than Tesla. Hell, even the Aptera is better than this, and the Aptera is as near "production" as this is. The Aptera has a steering wheel, and Aptera is likely to at
Re: (Score:2)
Electrek is a steaming pile of shit with an absurd bias pushing it's agenda. I don't know who is behind Electrek, but I do know pure unadulterated propaganda when I see it. From a propaganda perspective, Electrek is worse than Pravda.
I actually followed one of these yesterday... (Score:2)
I actually followed one of these yesterday about 10 miles north of the Gigafactory. No branding, odd shape, weird dull gold. The rear tires are large enough to fit a full size SUV. I almost pulled out in front of it because it was lumbering along below speed limit. But the WTF factor got me and I ended up stuck behind it.
Next time there will be QA testing...
T
most efficient?? (Score:2)
On a good day in summer, my MG4 [3+ year old technology] will do 6 miles/kWh which is within a rounding error of Tesla's claimed figure.
Even in winter getting 4.5+ is readily achievable.
And without sacrificing battery size or passenger accommodation.
Interesting to see how the Tesla performs in real world conditions.
(Or perhaps not, in this post truth world.)
where's my Johnny cab? (Score:2)
I can't quite remember, not having total recall ...
Energy savings can go towards legal liabilities! (Score:2)
yawn (Score:2)
"It’s efficient because it barely does anyth (Score:2)
Quoted from the article. More quotes:
> "Tesla accomplished this by building a tiny two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel, no pedals, and a sub-50 kWh battery pack."
> "That’s a legitimate engineering strategy for a robotaxi fleet vehicle. It’s not a fair comparison to a car you’d actually buy."
Small battery == fast charging, what? (Score:2)
From the summary:
That's not how this works. Charging time is unrelated to battery size, except that in a given amount of time a larger battery can take in more energy. You charge all of the cells in a battery in parallel, so unless your input power is limited by something, charge time is dominated by how long it takes a single cell to go from empty to full. The number of cells (i.e. the size of the battery) is only relevant to how much power your cha
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I hate this in general about EV coverage. Everything fixates on 'time to charge to full' instead of 'miles replenished per time'.
To be useful, miles per minute of charge is a better figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I hate this in general about EV coverage. Everything fixates on 'time to charge to full' instead of 'miles replenished per time'.
To be useful, miles per minute of charge is a better figure.
Indeed. Though, total capacity matters, too. I had a 2014 Tesla that only had ~200 miles of range, and road-tripping with that car was moderately painful. It was especially bad in areas where Superchargers were further apart and when there was a lot of elevation increase from one to the next, because it meant that I often had to charge to full to be able to reach the next. The smaller battery meant a lower miles per minute figure even at the best charge rate, but if you have to charge to full you're als
Re: (Score:2)
"unless your input power is limited by something"
Input power is always limited by something, even if it's only the desire not to melt the cables.
Re: (Score:2)
"unless your input power is limited by something"
Input power is always limited by something, even if it's only the desire not to melt the cables.
Not really. You size the power to what the batteries can take at the fastest phase of charging. 350 kW is the norm for fast charging now. A 50 kWh 1C battery that charges at 4C when low (meaning that if it could sustain that rate for the whole recharge it would charge empty to full in 1/4 hour), would max out at around 200 kW. 3C is a more typical max rate, so 150 kW.
Re: (Score:2)
So a smaller battery charges much faster, as the amount of energy to put into it, is much smaller.
Absolutely wrong. A 1C battery is a 1C battery, regardless of how large it is. Different chemistries and configurations can affect this, but size absolutely does not, assuming the charger is capable of delivering power at the max rate the pack can take it at peak flow -- but 350-400 kW chargers are the norm.
Also, learn how to post. All it takes is trivial HTML markup knowledge.
You morons are not even utterly uneducated how stuff works
Name-calling, especially when coupled with calling me clueless while demonstrating your own complete lack of understanding, ear
Not the most efficient EV (Score:2)
Electric bikes get far better range per watt. I can get 45 miles on a 500Wh battery without pedal assist, putting my consumption at ~12Wh per mile.
Like this is so basic of a thought exercise that anyone with a brain (or anyone that owns an e-bike) can see this story is utter bullshit.
J/m (Score:2)
What is that in joules per meter?
That's 10.25kWh/100km (Score:2)
How does it break (Score:2)
Tesla's marketing is excellent bur they rarely produce cars. so now we hear yet another claim about a car but who trusts them anymore. Do they even ship the car?
Bullshit! Even My ebike Gets's 16-20W/Mile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: hubris to cashless (Score:2)
ironic.
fed a lie
Re: (Score:3)
For sure, buses are more efficient, and trains more efficient still. But obviously a different category. The article clearly meant most efficient small passenger vehicle that is a true car, and rather than being irritated they didn’t spell all that out, it’s worth thinking about what this development actually means and doesn’t mean.
Re: (Score:2)
"The article clearly meant most efficient small passenger vehicle that is a true car..."
Then why didn't it say that? Efficiency is not even defined here, that's the point. Musk wants to claim efficiency is the most important feature, yet none of the terms in this article have reliable meanings. Also, Aptera beats this, and it's a "small passenger vehicle that is a true car".
"...it’s worth thinking about what this development actually means and doesn’t mean."
It means absolutely nothing. Elon M
Re: (Score:2)
The article didn't spell that out because the article is written for typical readers, not idiots who are looking to be pedantic because of their priors.
I've no idea if Musk does or doesn't want to make the claim you said, because I don't follow him. But fleet operators care about charging costs and that means Wh/mile. It's not the only thing they care about, otherwise Western taxi fleet operators would all be using electric three wheeled rickshaws, as is common in so many countries. But they obviously do ca
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Well I also hate taxis. It's a solution to a problem that Elon insists we have. But unlike him l, I have no problem riding a bus with working class people.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been in a taxi and on a bus this very morning. And on a train too, and walked. Mixed mode transport is the best for me and for tens of millions of others.
Re: (Score:2)
No, don't lose the plot. I'm referring to something specific in Tesla's business model:
For the price of a bus ticket, which isn’t always the most pleasant experience, passengers will get a private cabin where they can relax, sleep, work, or entertain themselves. Traveling in comfort and efficiency is at the core of Tesla’s vision for the future of ridesharing.
Re: (Score:2)
... passengers will get a private cabin where they can relax, sleep, work, or entertain themselves.
"Entertain themselves" has some ... connotations.
Re: (Score:2)
Ride in comfort in your own private island oasis. Just like Epstein's
Re: (Score:2)
A swasticab basically.
Re: (Score:2)
"The libtarded fascists attacking and burning ownerless Teslas sitting on new car lots should shut the fuck up until they can grasp the mirror of accountability."
Brought to you by Grok.
"I’m certain Godwin himself is seriously regretting ever defining that vernacular habit that opened the door to mass ignorance."
That created Elon Musk.