@@Wi2Low I'm complimenting Tom for showing that the CT has a great range of 302 mph at 70 mph. There was so much false info out there on it's range. Some even saying it's 70 mph range is 250 miles.
@@BTSflyer Only if you go to a 100% every time. Charging only to 50%-60% battery where the fastest speeds are, then heading to the next Supercharger will change the equation greatly.
@@777Outrigger - to me. doesn't even matter. talking about charging huge as's battery FASTER...then a tiny cell phone battery... thats actually amazing progress in EV battery charging. insane amazing. just months ago i heard EV and non ev owners all shtting themselves about how long it takes sitting and "filling up" in comparison of the 10 minutes to fill a gas tank. but now its actually looking more realistic to fill up an EV just as fast and thats nuts to me. i bet the constant decline of that 300 volt charger is to hurry and get the EV a junk of charge done, partly so that load hurries and gets off the charge station so others don't take an impact on their charging. and partly for safety of the battery. and keep in mind this is what, bran new? or nearly bran new super fast charging stations and that no one knows just how its gonna work out yet, so software updates in the future, im sure will be adjusting charging currents and getting 250 out of it up to 50% and then in future up to 70 or 80%. if or when that happens. thats gonna be like 80% in 30 minutes. thats insane. right now, what he just did is insane. knowing there is now way you could charge your phone "safely" at even 100 watts. ...that fkn TRUCK with like a 2 TON battery in it.... charged to 100%.... literally faster than my Galaxy S20 phone with its super fast charger lmao.. thats fkn funny and crazy to me
Excellent test as always. I wonder if one of the reasons Elon dismissed entire charging department was because they don’t have true V4 800V capability. It is very embarrassing that CT charges faster on non-Tesla DC fast chargers.
Hi Tom, I have a simple suggestion. For the miles added in time I think if you put "time" on the x-axis and "miles added" on the y-axis it would be much easier to follow. You could even use two plot lines, one for EPA and one for your range test. Again, just a suggestion.
I would not assume the Cybertruck charges the same on 400V V3.5 Superchargers. The V4 pedestal cables are rated for 615 amps continuous compared to 350 amps continuous for a V3 cable. This means the V4 cable can sustain 700 amp for much longer before thermal de-rating. So it is possible the V4 pedestal is faster than V3 even when charging at 400V.
If charging a a Tesla takes longer than watching this video, I’m out… However I will watch this video again when I can’t sleep; great nap time material.
A useful metric for charging is 'miles-per-minute'. This negates the issue of varying battery sizes. At the same time, when public EV charging is ubiquitous and reliable these issues well largely disappear.
Need to hold Tesla to account and call them out when products dissapoint. I don't have on, but if I were A CT owner I would be very dissapointed in this. Hopefully they kick it in gear and are soon putting out 500mi range (or more, I think a pickup needs 600 - 700mi) that charge in
@@Wi2Low This is differing personal opinions/expectations, which everyone is entitled to. If I were getting a new vehicle I would only look at a a Tesla. If I needed a pickup and I could afford a CT, I would get a CT (though I prefer to get the 4th year or so after release of an entirely new vehicle. That's in general, not hating on Tesla here). I am all in on investing in Tesla. So it's not like I'm some hater or something. I happily point out all the good things, but I don't shy away from pointing out where they could do better. That's the only way to improve.
That would be interesting. The Lightning seems time based. I would like to a 20 minute charge. See which electric truck add the higher charge in 20 minutes.
That's because this is recorded inside the vehicle without the sun glare to deal with. The outside recordings are very hard to get clear without sharpening.
Thank you for this. Yes they did this with off roading and talked bad. You can't do that anymore because the studies didn't wait 4 weeks. With all new things, we must be patient before concluding "disappointing"
Cybertruck SHOULD charge way faster than that. Remember 1 1/2 years ago when Tesla had the first Semi delivery event. They said it would have fast charging, like they were saying the Semi would do. I trust Tom. Tesla/Elon on the other hand, they are masters at HYPE.
It is fascinating to me that Musk seems to have completely lost his bundle with public DC fast charging now that there are some serious competitors emerging. Instead of doubling down and using their enormous existing site advantages, it appears he is abandoning the field. Can’t wait Tom until you get a chance to run the Chevy Silverado through its charging paces.
I’ll take the results for now as a win! When I road trip, I combine supercharging with a meal. So usually around an hour long stop. With my Model S 75D, I can’t finish a meal without having to run out and move the car otherwise face idle fees. Now with CT increased charging duration I can finish a meal. But also… I don’t charge past 80% so that end time from 80 to 100 doesn’t exist.
I think the bump up from 80 to 85% is because the pack voltage was climbing and the amps stayed constant. Also I think they will refine the charging curve like they have done when they had other new vehicles and batteries.
The issue with CT charging is (in my estimation) the 4680 cells in the battery pack. There are a couple of technical issues with that cell besides the dry electrode manufacturing problems. I'll try not to geek out too bad but that cell has fundamental differences from what we saw at battery day. The folded tabs were a great idea for heat transfer (cooling/heating) but that design was compromised by the addition of what some call "spiders" between the tabs and the case. The heat path through these spiders has a considerably smaller cross section than the spiders themselves, eliminating the thermal advantage of the tabs. End cooling shown on battery day has been replaced by single side cooling like in the original Model S pack. That works fine on 18650s and fine-ish on 2170s but the 4680s are more than twice as thick. That makes cooling channels more than twice as far apart with only a 14% increase in vertical contact.
Tom have they updated this charging curve yet on the CT? I thing the goal should be that 10-80% charge in 30 min or less. I am sure the 800v will change things, but 400v has to be able to meet these minimum goals. Any ideas if any progress has been made?
So I get to 64% SOC in half the time and 74% SOC in a bit less than half the time. I packed in 65kWh in 21 minutes for 81% SOC. The CyberTruck needed an extra minute to get the same 65kWh at 53% SOC😳. I was pulling 189kW at 53% SOC vs 120kW the CyberTruck was pulling. I agree 800V isn’t going cure this 4680 charging curve. 🎯 ~IONIQ 5 AWD Limited
I'd test again in 6 months. I bet there will be a big difference as they learn how they charge. It looks like they are slow rolling the charging to ensure the batteries like it in the wild. Though, you would think they could do better off the bat. But the 800v is very new for them.
Any chance of a V3-only Supercharger chart comparion with the other EV trucks? (Would be nice to see if "benchmarking" on only Tesla V3 Superchargers still put Silverado EV ahead of Cybertruck and how far F150 and Rivian are when using V3) (F150's peak is still below threshold of V3 and ahould be constant with non Tesla Supercharger)* Curious to see if Silverado EV being capable of longer peak V3 Supwrchargers gets the DC station to throttle which would then also explain Cybertruck charging curve being limited to preserve the Supercharger station. (Did see in Kyle's Florida to California trip they were needing to cool the Tesla NACS handle to sustain higher charging curve)
IDC what people say but i used the SC ton and my battery degraded on my MX. Charging at home will preserve the battery. The SC probably was slowed down to not degrade the battery as quickly.
So road tripping if you are needing to go 200 miles for the next stop, it would take less that 40 min. In 40 minutes would add 223 miles if I read the chart right.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney That's better that my 2018 Model 3. At ~97% we were able to drive only about 211 miles at 70 (with some left over charge). But it takes a long time to get to 97%.
I don’t really care about how the Cybertruck charges, but I am hoping that by making their superchargers work better for the Cybertruck, Tesla will also improve the charging of the Ioniq 5 and other Egmp vehicles
16:54 comparing it to the Silverado is not apples to apples, it has a 2x+ bigger battery pack, so of course it can charge faster because the charge curve can stay higher for much longer.
I wonder if this is just the nature of the 4680? Seems like the 4680 would have really good thermal properties with the tabless design. Even with its larger size having a conductor that runs then entire inner surface bonded to the top cap should allow for excellent heat wicking.
Yes it has. I'd love to see your recordings if they are significantly different. Slight differences are always expected but a significant difference would be surprising
Not great for what was said to be the newest and best. I though there were suppose to be V4 chargers all over by the time CT was released and that may have helped. Also I think the cybertruck V2 will be greatly improved this has some good point and some short comings as well, expected for a first attempt. As a note few weeks ago our Ioniq 5 did 4% to 82% in 21 minutes, could have done 90% in 30 minutes if I wanted to wait a little longer and don't forget that's just a mid range EV made by Huyndai / Kia off all people.
Is there a truck that gets more miles per minute charged than the CT? The Silverado is so terribly inefficient it only charges fast because the battery is twice the size, assuming that actually comes to production.
On which chargers and from which levels of charge. I don’t believe that’s true on a V3 equivalent as used in your video. You can’t comparing a Silverado charging at 800V to the CT charging on a 400V V3. 🤷🏼♂️
Tom, would you say Tesla is actually damaging their own chargers by pushing the amps up to 700 with the Cybertruck? I doubt they planned for 700A charging in the first place for v3 chargers.
No, I don't think their engineers would allow the CT to exceed what the stations can safely deliver. Elon may be a little unstable, but the engineers know their stuff
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney long term reliability might be on another page though? Let's hope, there won't be any temp sensor failures... seeing people covering handels with wet towls is quite a statement for a company claiming to be at the innovation forefront.
I would be very interested for you to test the rumoured 2025 Kia EV6 with 84 Kwh battery. I road trip my 2023 EV6 and typically charge from 25% to 80% and use battery preconditioning and max out at times at 245 KWH/Hr on EA 350KW chargers.
We’ve seen this with the 4680 model y and that never got any updates for charging speed. I think the drawback is the 4680s. So far they have been underperforming and I don’t know why Tesla would have rushed them out into the Cybertruck instead of using 21700s for the time being.
You can, but you need a very specific adapter that will allow both AC & DC charging and is a CCS1 to NACS adapter. Most of those only work on DC stations, but a few work on AC also. Also, I assume you're talking about Ford Charge Station Pro. If you're talking about Ford Connected Charge Station, than any J1772 to NACS adapter that's rated for 48-amps will work.
@jackcovington645 I too have the same question. I have the charge station pro but it is not installed. The tesla charger is. I have the tesla supplied adapter but it does not work on a public charging station. Hesitant to install the ford charger not knowing that the adapter will actually charge the tesla.
I wonder if the reduced charging rate is because Tesla charging cables don’t have any cooling in them. My Kia EV9 was able to go from 23% to 88% in 32 min, with a peak of 217kw that it held for most of the charge.
The Tesla V3 cables are liquid cooled. Thats why they are significantly thinner than the lower power non cooled V2 chargers. Doesn't apply to the part in the truck of course.
What was your EV9 charging on? If it was an 800v charger, then your experience should be better as there was no voltage conversion. Part of the problem here is voltage conversion, Tesla SCs operate at 400v at lower amps (V3 is at 400 amps) while the CT is on 800. The voltage needs to be stepped up by the CT. Voltage conversion incurs losses, which impacts total power output. The other part of the problem is likely the 4680 pack- which has demonstrated charging issues in the MY even at 400v.
@@paulo3011 you're half right the CT has an internal switch in the middle of the battery that converts it to a 400 volt pack. But then you need to double the amps.
@@paulo3011 I have the long range EV9 which has a lower pack voltage than the standard range model. I think the peak voltage is around mid-600v when fully charged. I think it’s because when they add the extra cells they don’t want to have to reconfigure the whole pack just for the long range versions compared to the standard range ones.
@@ralanham76On a road trip, most drivers don’t care about a few minutes extra because it takes 20 minutes to eat, use rest room, and stretch. They are not racing to destination. Over 80% of charging is at home where it’s only 30 sec to plug in and same to unplug.
Hmm... I don't think it's the infrastructure. I think it's the vehicle. If it was infrastructure, they'd max out the SCs whilte getting that max power on EA. Something about the CT is downgraded on Tesla SC. ...which is good news. It'll definitely improve over time as data is collected I'm sure.
Is it true that it costs more to tow with the CT than it does a diesel truck? I've heard that after 85 miles of towing it cost $10 more than a diesel would have cost for the same amount of 85 miles. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the costs in all these charging videos? They never break down the prices, just the charging amount. How do we even know if we are being charged correctly at these charging sites? Gas stations are checked by independent oversight, why not all these chargers?
So if you are solely relying on peak pricing from Superchargers, I can see it costing more to tow compared to diesel prices today. If you can rely on your house charging, it would likely be cheaper to charge based on your home electric rates. There should be independent testing, but you will know know how much energy it costs to charge at home from one percentage to the next by looking at your electric bill so then you can compare that to what you see at a station where you charge from the same two percentages to see how much power it gave you to see how close it is.
@@lanceareadbhar California bay area is prime location based example. Ev don't make any sense even you charge at home. Electricity at home ia as expensive as DC fast charging. Still havey ev adoption.
16:07 I don't understand why you say it's not a good fast charging vehicle, when it's BETTER than the other two main electric trucks on the market. I get that you wanted it to be even better, we all do, but to say it's "not great" just isn't true relative to the competition. The fact that both the Lightning and the Rivian have larger packs means they should charge FASTER to 80% since they can hold a higher charge rate longer than the CT.
120 kwh is roughly $34....I'm not waiting 51 minutes of time charging this thing....going to see how much the silverado EV can charge.....till then, sticking with ICE for now
Tom, what other ev are you comparing the charging speed to that has a 123.4 kwh battery pack? 18 minutes x two = 36 minutes, so for the size of the pack, it's not really that bad. I've had the invite to order about a month, but I will wait for a $69,000.00 price or buy the Silverado EV RST with double the pack size. 😊 I enjoyed your video. Thanks for your efforts.
Ridiculous Tesla still hasn't deployed V4 Superchargers, they were first announced two years ago. That said like most EVs you don't want to charge up to 80%, you charge to a lower SOC more frequently.
That doesn't make sense. It's a completely different vehicle. I believe exactly zero people in the history of ever have chosen their vehicle based solely on how fast it charges, regardless of whether that's an SUV or pickup with wildly different styling.
17:10 that's great, but we don't know how long the battery will last. Imagine getting to charge faster, but the battery capacity drops to 80% in 2 years.
Please see if you can get a battery temperature graph overlaid on the charging graph. Most people don't run the capacity down to 0% . Doing this will generate a ton of heat. Depending on ambient conditions, above the fact you drove the battery hot and then fast charged it. A cooling system can only handle x. If you go above x, it SHOULD charge at a lower rate to protect the battery, especially in this scenario. Even if the battery can handle what you did to it, (0 -100% fastcharge), this should be avoided if you want your battery to last and not throttle back your power after charging. 30 - 70% is best for fast charging to extend battery life. Many of us forget that thermal cycling is also a major factor in battery degradation.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney nxu CEO did 327kws peak on his ct using his companies charger getting 80+miles back in 8mins. It just needs the update Lars promised and then widespread v4s or to use the available 350kw 800+v chargers others already use. 🤔 wonder if the v4 slow rollout globally had something to do with the scer team getting sacked. 😀
You guys seem to skip over the fact that it starts off a high rate and then tapers off the amount of heat that the coolant has to dissipate is a huge factor. Not sure why you’re not talking about that…. Seeing that affects the charge rate.
There are plenty of EVs that are able to actively cool the cells enough to hold a higher charge rate for much longer periods of time. Tesla is falling behind
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney Tesla as been behind for awhile when talking about charging speed, their saving grace is reliability and sheer size of the SC network. I think those 4680 batteries are the problem, hence why Tesla is collaborating with CATL on fast charging batteries with some new SC tech. Relatively speaking north america in general is falling behind in charging versus China or Europe DCFC networks.
Now you’re losing credibility when you said you’d like to see the power curve go away across. So how do you expect that thing to dissipate that much heat from the battery charging. How about studying the thermal dynamics of the batteries instead of the charge rates. You’re like an info commercial. Try to say the charge rate is the only thing that matters. You’re proving that point that the people on TH-cam don’t work for Tesla so don’t take their advice on what Tesla makes.
The hallmark of this channel? Integrity!
Especially since Tom smashed the fake range figures for the CT with his 70 mph range test of 302 miles.
@@Wi2Low I'm complimenting Tom for showing that the CT has a great range of 302 mph at 70 mph. There was so much false info out there on it's range. Some even saying it's 70 mph range is 250 miles.
"Charging at a paltry 77kW". My Chevy Bolt left the chat.😂
Patience grasshopper. Mega-Faster charging coming soon.
Still the Bolt will charge faster because of a smaller battery.
@@BTSflyer Only if you go to a 100% every time. Charging only to 50%-60% battery where the fastest speeds are, then heading to the next Supercharger will change the equation greatly.
@@BTSflyer But, no it doesn't even with the smaller battery. The Bolt takes more than an hour and 20 minutes to reach 80% SOC
@@777Outrigger - to me. doesn't even matter. talking about charging huge as's battery FASTER...then a tiny cell phone battery... thats actually amazing progress in EV battery charging. insane amazing. just months ago i heard EV and non ev owners all shtting themselves about how long it takes sitting and "filling up" in comparison of the 10 minutes to fill a gas tank. but now its actually looking more realistic to fill up an EV just as fast and thats nuts to me.
i bet the constant decline of that 300 volt charger is to hurry and get the EV a junk of charge done, partly so that load hurries and gets off the charge station so others don't take an impact on their charging. and partly for safety of the battery. and keep in mind this is what, bran new? or nearly bran new super fast charging stations and that no one knows just how its gonna work out yet, so software updates in the future, im sure will be adjusting charging currents and getting 250 out of it up to 50% and then in future up to 70 or 80%. if or when that happens. thats gonna be like 80% in 30 minutes. thats insane. right now, what he just did is insane. knowing there is now way you could charge your phone "safely" at even 100 watts.
...that fkn TRUCK with like a 2 TON battery in it.... charged to 100%.... literally faster than my Galaxy S20 phone with its super fast charger lmao.. thats fkn funny and crazy to me
Excellent test as always. I wonder if one of the reasons Elon dismissed entire charging department was because they don’t have true V4 800V capability. It is very embarrassing that CT charges faster on non-Tesla DC fast chargers.
Hi Tom, I have a simple suggestion. For the miles added in time I think if you put "time" on the x-axis and "miles added" on the y-axis it would be much easier to follow. You could even use two plot lines, one for EPA and one for your range test. Again, just a suggestion.
Another great review Tom!!
I would not assume the Cybertruck charges the same on 400V V3.5 Superchargers. The V4 pedestal cables are rated for 615 amps continuous compared to 350 amps continuous for a V3 cable. This means the V4 cable can sustain 700 amp for much longer before thermal de-rating. So it is possible the V4 pedestal is faster than V3 even when charging at 400V.
If charging a a Tesla takes longer than watching this video, I’m out… However I will watch this video again when I can’t sleep; great nap time material.
Thanks for keeping it real, Tom.
Hmm, 30,000 miles on my Ford mach-e and I have zero idea what my charging curve is. This is another great analysis.
Great video. Love your channel. Thanks so much, Cal.
A useful metric for charging is 'miles-per-minute'. This negates the issue of varying battery sizes. At the same time, when public EV charging is ubiquitous and reliable these issues well largely disappear.
As always great job. You get it. This is the type of of information we are looking for
Need to hold Tesla to account and call them out when products dissapoint. I don't have on, but if I were A CT owner I would be very dissapointed in this. Hopefully they kick it in gear and are soon putting out 500mi range (or more, I think a pickup needs 600 - 700mi) that charge in
@@Wi2Low This is differing personal opinions/expectations, which everyone is entitled to. If I were getting a new vehicle I would only look at a a Tesla. If I needed a pickup and I could afford a CT, I would get a CT (though I prefer to get the 4th year or so after release of an entirely new vehicle. That's in general, not hating on Tesla here). I am all in on investing in Tesla. So it's not like I'm some hater or something. I happily point out all the good things, but I don't shy away from pointing out where they could do better. That's the only way to improve.
Thanks, Tom. Good info for nerds like me.
It would be interesting to see the F150 Lightning supercharging rates on the same graph. 😊
That would be interesting. The Lightning seems time based. I would like to a 20 minute charge. See which electric truck add the higher charge in 20 minutes.
I was thinking exactly the same thing!
Fun fact: it is still Kempower charger in Eelectrify America's (VW owned) charging station that has the US charging speed record (with a Cybertuck).
Tom, the video looks much better with the sharpening dialed back a bit than other videos. As always, content and delivery is second to none.
That's because this is recorded inside the vehicle without the sun glare to deal with. The outside recordings are very hard to get clear without sharpening.
Thank you for this. Yes they did this with off roading and talked bad. You can't do that anymore because the studies didn't wait 4 weeks. With all new things, we must be patient before concluding "disappointing"
Cybertruck SHOULD charge way faster than that. Remember 1 1/2 years ago when Tesla had the first Semi delivery event. They said it would have fast charging, like they were saying the Semi would do. I trust Tom. Tesla/Elon on the other hand, they are masters at HYPE.
Setting the ground work for the V4 super chargers 😎
It is fascinating to me that Musk seems to have completely lost his bundle with public DC fast charging now that there are some serious competitors emerging. Instead of doubling down and using their enormous existing site advantages, it appears he is abandoning the field. Can’t wait Tom until you get a chance to run the Chevy Silverado through its charging paces.
It seems to have been a long time since you have done a DCFC test. A welcome return Tom.
I’ll take the results for now as a win! When I road trip, I combine supercharging with a meal. So usually around an hour long stop. With my Model S 75D, I can’t finish a meal without having to run out and move the car otherwise face idle fees. Now with CT increased charging duration I can finish a meal. But also… I don’t charge past 80% so that end time from 80 to 100 doesn’t exist.
Thermal limitatiains in the V3 super chargers defines how fast the CT charges.
Tom, was this test conducted after the software update that improved charge rate a little? And I believe the improvement was only incremental.
I'm not 100% sure. I did it in late April. I'll do it again an a few months to see if it's any better
Unfortunately, I think the problem is Tesla’s 4680 batteries.
It’s chemistry, form factor doesn’t really matter. For example Catl 4680 charges at 3c.
I think the bump up from 80 to 85% is because the pack voltage was climbing and the amps stayed constant.
Also I think they will refine the charging curve like they have done when they had other new vehicles and batteries.
I agree that Tesla could safely flatten the charging curve. I think it will happen though.
The issue with CT charging is (in my estimation) the 4680 cells in the battery pack. There are a couple of technical issues with that cell besides the dry electrode manufacturing problems. I'll try not to geek out too bad but that cell has fundamental differences from what we saw at battery day. The folded tabs were a great idea for heat transfer (cooling/heating) but that design was compromised by the addition of what some call "spiders" between the tabs and the case. The heat path through these spiders has a considerably smaller cross section than the spiders themselves, eliminating the thermal advantage of the tabs. End cooling shown on battery day has been replaced by single side cooling like in the original Model S pack. That works fine on 18650s and fine-ish on 2170s but the 4680s are more than twice as thick. That makes cooling channels more than twice as far apart with only a 14% increase in vertical contact.
Can’t wait to see a Cybertruck at an EA station with the fender hanging off! 😂
Ridiculous … peak 250 w should hold for 15-20 minutes
If you want to see the voltage drop during the entire 0-100% charge, I have a video showing the full charging uncut for the most part.
Looking forward to the follow up and the Silverado ev.
Has the adapter for the cyber truck come out yet that you mention in this video?
Tom have they updated this charging curve yet on the CT? I thing the goal should be that 10-80% charge in 30 min or less. I am sure the 800v will change things, but 400v has to be able to meet these minimum goals. Any ideas if any progress has been made?
So I get to 64% SOC in half the time and 74% SOC in a bit less than half the time. I packed in 65kWh in 21 minutes for 81% SOC. The CyberTruck needed an extra minute to get the same 65kWh at 53% SOC😳. I was pulling 189kW at 53% SOC vs 120kW the CyberTruck was pulling. I agree 800V isn’t going cure this 4680 charging curve. 🎯 ~IONIQ 5 AWD Limited
I'd test again in 6 months. I bet there will be a big difference as they learn how they charge. It looks like they are slow rolling the charging to ensure the batteries like it in the wild. Though, you would think they could do better off the bat. But the 800v is very new for them.
Any chance of a V3-only Supercharger chart comparion with the other EV trucks?
(Would be nice to see if "benchmarking" on only Tesla V3 Superchargers still put Silverado EV ahead of Cybertruck and how far F150 and Rivian are when using V3)
(F150's peak is still below threshold of V3 and ahould be constant with non Tesla Supercharger)*
Curious to see if Silverado EV being capable of longer peak V3 Supwrchargers gets the DC station to throttle which would then also explain Cybertruck charging curve being limited to preserve the Supercharger station.
(Did see in Kyle's Florida to California trip they were needing to cool the Tesla NACS handle to sustain higher charging curve)
IDC what people say but i used the SC ton and my battery degraded on my MX. Charging at home will preserve the battery. The SC probably was slowed down to not degrade the battery as quickly.
So road tripping if you are needing to go 200 miles for the next stop, it would take less that 40 min. In 40 minutes would add 223 miles if I read the chart right.
Yeah, that's about right, as long as you stick to about 70 mph and the temperature isn't too cold.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney That's better that my 2018 Model 3. At ~97% we were able to drive only about 211 miles at 70 (with some left over charge). But it takes a long time to get to 97%.
Is it possible to modify the fender flare to allow it to work with the existing adaptor?
Are you going to redo this test after the software uodate?
What do you expect with experimental batteries and obsolete Tesla superchargers?
Tom, if its a few months to retest with the new A2Z adapter, you might want to re-run the 0-100 test as the base line may change.
I don’t really care about how the Cybertruck charges, but I am hoping that by making their superchargers work better for the Cybertruck, Tesla will also improve the charging of the Ioniq 5 and other Egmp vehicles
I think Tesla is keeping the charging safe right now and could change the curve in an update.
16:54 comparing it to the Silverado is not apples to apples, it has a 2x+ bigger battery pack, so of course it can charge faster because the charge curve can stay higher for much longer.
Best Truck Ever. Amazing. Thanks Tom.
I wonder if this is just the nature of the 4680? Seems like the 4680 would have really good thermal properties with the tabless design. Even with its larger size having a conductor that runs then entire inner surface bonded to the top cap should allow for excellent heat wicking.
Not impressive for sure
Has this been reproduced a different charging stations? I have found differences.
Yes it has. I'd love to see your recordings if they are significantly different. Slight differences are always expected but a significant difference would be surprising
Not great for what was said to be the newest and best. I though there were suppose to be V4 chargers all over by the time CT was released and that may have helped. Also I think the cybertruck V2 will be greatly improved this has some good point and some short comings as well, expected for a first attempt. As a note few weeks ago our Ioniq 5 did 4% to 82% in 21 minutes, could have done 90% in 30 minutes if I wanted to wait a little longer and don't forget that's just a mid range EV made by Huyndai / Kia off all people.
I would love to see how software updates has improved previous charging?
Many EVs, including Teslas, have received OTA updates that has improved the vehicle's DC fast charge times.
Is there a truck that gets more miles per minute charged than the CT? The Silverado is so terribly inefficient it only charges fast because the battery is twice the size, assuming that actually comes to production.
The Silverado is in production and has been for a while now. It also adds back miles of range faster than the CT.
On which chargers and from which levels of charge. I don’t believe that’s true on a V3 equivalent as used in your video. You can’t comparing a Silverado charging at 800V to the CT charging on a 400V V3. 🤷🏼♂️
Tom, would you say Tesla is actually damaging their own chargers by pushing the amps up to 700 with the Cybertruck? I doubt they planned for 700A charging in the first place for v3 chargers.
No, I don't think their engineers would allow the CT to exceed what the stations can safely deliver. Elon may be a little unstable, but the engineers know their stuff
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney long term reliability might be on another page though? Let's hope, there won't be any temp sensor failures... seeing people covering handels with wet towls is quite a statement for a company claiming to be at the innovation forefront.
I would be very interested for you to test the rumoured 2025 Kia EV6 with 84 Kwh battery. I road trip my 2023 EV6 and typically charge from 25% to 80% and use battery preconditioning and max out at times at 245 KWH/Hr on EA 350KW chargers.
Come on A2Z get the adaptor in Tom's hands ASAP.
We’ve seen this with the 4680 model y and that never got any updates for charging speed. I think the drawback is the 4680s. So far they have been underperforming and I don’t know why Tesla would have rushed them out into the Cybertruck instead of using 21700s for the time being.
Can you use the Ford wall Charger with an adapter to charge a cyber truck?
You can, but you need a very specific adapter that will allow both AC & DC charging and is a CCS1 to NACS adapter. Most of those only work on DC stations, but a few work on AC also. Also, I assume you're talking about Ford Charge Station Pro. If you're talking about Ford Connected Charge Station, than any J1772 to NACS adapter that's rated for 48-amps will work.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney thanks. Yes it is the ford pro station. Can you recommend a ccs1 to NACS please?
@@jackcovington645 Latrough makes one and A2Z is coming out with one very soon. But I haven't used either yet, so I can't really recommend either.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney thanks again.
@jackcovington645
I too have the same question. I have the charge station pro but it is not installed. The tesla charger is. I have the tesla supplied adapter but it does not work on a public charging station. Hesitant to install the ford charger not knowing that the adapter will actually charge the tesla.
I wonder if the reduced charging rate is because Tesla charging cables don’t have any cooling in them. My Kia EV9 was able to go from 23% to 88% in 32 min, with a peak of 217kw that it held for most of the charge.
The Tesla V3 cables are liquid cooled. Thats why they are significantly thinner than the lower power non cooled V2 chargers. Doesn't apply to the part in the truck of course.
CT should be able to take 350 peak. Tesla normally is cautious with new vehicles and battery cells. Once they have enough data they'll bump it up.
What was your EV9 charging on? If it was an 800v charger, then your experience should be better as there was no voltage conversion.
Part of the problem here is voltage conversion, Tesla SCs operate at 400v at lower amps (V3 is at 400 amps) while the CT is on 800. The voltage needs to be stepped up by the CT. Voltage conversion incurs losses, which impacts total power output. The other part of the problem is likely the 4680 pack- which has demonstrated charging issues in the MY even at 400v.
@@paulo3011 you're half right the CT has an internal switch in the middle of the battery that converts it to a 400 volt pack. But then you need to double the amps.
@@paulo3011 I have the long range EV9 which has a lower pack voltage than the standard range model. I think the peak voltage is around mid-600v when fully charged. I think it’s because when they add the extra cells they don’t want to have to reconfigure the whole pack just for the long range versions compared to the standard range ones.
So in just 20mins you added over 150 miles of real WORLD range. Isn't that vastly superior to most of the other ev truck's available now Tom? 👍🏻
lol. Really 20 minutes. In 5 minutes I can add 300 miles of range to my gas vehicle.
No
@@gherrerajI can add 400 miles in 3 minutes or 25 miles in 5 seconds 🤷♂️
@@ralanham76On a road trip, most drivers don’t care about a few minutes extra because it takes 20 minutes to eat, use rest room, and stretch. They are not racing to destination. Over 80% of charging is at home where it’s only 30 sec to plug in and same to unplug.
@@gherreraj
In 10 seconds I can add 100% charge to my Model Y.
So we’ll have Lightnings charging at Tesla stations and CyberTrucks at EA 😂
Hmm... I don't think it's the infrastructure. I think it's the vehicle. If it was infrastructure, they'd max out the SCs whilte getting that max power on EA. Something about the CT is downgraded on Tesla SC. ...which is good news. It'll definitely improve over time as data is collected I'm sure.
Sitting forever at a fast charger means it’s not a brick in the Tesla repair dump. I’d take that as a win.
Tesla has a lot left in the tank with charging speed with this vehicle. It'll improve with updates.
Is it true that it costs more to tow with the CT than it does a diesel truck? I've heard that after 85 miles of towing it cost $10 more than a diesel would have cost for the same amount of 85 miles. Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the costs in all these charging videos? They never break down the prices, just the charging amount. How do we even know if we are being charged correctly at these charging sites? Gas stations are checked by independent oversight, why not all these chargers?
I posted a video explaining the cost of charging my Lightning: th-cam.com/video/ARyjXcQRzWc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xzJK9D_9kxywCtNu
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney thank you
When you compare apple to apple ev cost more.
So if you are solely relying on peak pricing from Superchargers, I can see it costing more to tow compared to diesel prices today. If you can rely on your house charging, it would likely be cheaper to charge based on your home electric rates.
There should be independent testing, but you will know know how much energy it costs to charge at home from one percentage to the next by looking at your electric bill so then you can compare that to what you see at a station where you charge from the same two percentages to see how much power it gave you to see how close it is.
@@lanceareadbhar California bay area is prime location based example. Ev don't make any sense even you charge at home. Electricity at home ia as expensive as DC fast charging. Still havey ev adoption.
16:07 I don't understand why you say it's not a good fast charging vehicle, when it's BETTER than the other two main electric trucks on the market. I get that you wanted it to be even better, we all do, but to say it's "not great" just isn't true relative to the competition. The fact that both the Lightning and the Rivian have larger packs means they should charge FASTER to 80% since they can hold a higher charge rate longer than the CT.
120 kwh is roughly $34....I'm not waiting 51 minutes of time charging this thing....going to see how much the silverado EV can charge.....till then, sticking with ICE for now
The Silverado is what the Cybertruck should have been.
Tom, what other ev are you comparing the charging speed to that has a 123.4 kwh battery pack? 18 minutes x two = 36 minutes, so for the size of the pack, it's not really that bad. I've had the invite to order about a month, but I will wait for a $69,000.00 price or buy the Silverado EV RST with double the pack size. 😊 I enjoyed your video. Thanks for your efforts.
Maybe they nerfed the rate so that owners are more incentivized to charge at superchargers for a shorter period of time and move on.
Ridiculous Tesla still hasn't deployed V4 Superchargers, they were first announced two years ago. That said like most EVs you don't want to charge up to 80%, you charge to a lower SOC more frequently.
I'll stick with my ioniq 5 lol
That doesn't make sense. It's a completely different vehicle. I believe exactly zero people in the history of ever have chosen their vehicle based solely on how fast it charges, regardless of whether that's an SUV or pickup with wildly different styling.
17:10 that's great, but we don't know how long the battery will last. Imagine getting to charge faster, but the battery capacity drops to 80% in 2 years.
@@AudiTTQuattro2003 yup
For a $100k car, this is a horrible curve...
So Tesla "super" chargers AREN'T super compared to other charging networks.
Please see if you can get a battery temperature graph overlaid on the charging graph. Most people don't run the capacity down to 0% . Doing this will generate a ton of heat. Depending on ambient conditions, above the fact you drove the battery hot and then fast charged it. A cooling system can only handle x. If you go above x, it SHOULD charge at a lower rate to protect the battery, especially in this scenario.
Even if the battery can handle what you did to it, (0 -100% fastcharge), this should be avoided if you want your battery to last and not throttle back your power after charging. 30 - 70% is best for fast charging to extend battery life.
Many of us forget that thermal cycling is also a major factor in battery degradation.
Not a truck, rolling toaster oven. 🤡
@@AudiTTQuattro2003 When you leave the crayons in Leon's design cybertarium, and the ketamine.
Adequate but not exceptional.
Yeah, that's what I thought. But I have been so accustomed to Tesla doing DC fast charging so well it was disappointing.
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney nxu CEO did 327kws peak on his ct using his companies charger getting 80+miles back in 8mins.
It just needs the update Lars promised and then widespread v4s or to use the available 350kw 800+v chargers others already use. 🤔
wonder if the v4 slow rollout globally had something to do with the scer team getting sacked. 😀
You guys seem to skip over the fact that it starts off a high rate and then tapers off the amount of heat that the coolant has to dissipate is a huge factor. Not sure why you’re not talking about that…. Seeing that affects the charge rate.
There are plenty of EVs that are able to actively cool the cells enough to hold a higher charge rate for much longer periods of time. Tesla is falling behind
@@StateOfChargeWithTomMoloughney
Tesla as been behind for awhile when talking about charging speed, their saving grace is reliability and sheer size of the SC network. I think those 4680 batteries are the problem, hence why Tesla is collaborating with CATL on fast charging batteries with some new SC tech. Relatively speaking north america in general is falling behind in charging versus China or Europe DCFC networks.
Now you’re losing credibility when you said you’d like to see the power curve go away across. So how do you expect that thing to dissipate that much heat from the battery charging. How about studying the thermal dynamics of the batteries instead of the charge rates. You’re like an info commercial. Try to say the charge rate is the only thing that matters. You’re proving that point that the people on TH-cam don’t work for Tesla so don’t take their advice on what Tesla makes.
Have you seen a Porsche Taycan or Audi eTron charging curve?