40,000 Production this year prediction

rudedawg78

Well-known member
First Name
Ernie
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,813
Location
South Carolina
Vehicles
2025 Cybertruck
Occupation
Retired USAF, Emergency Manager
Country flag
Aero = 1/2 ((0.002377) (110))^2 (0.4) (40) = 230.09 Ft Pounds, or (230.09)(0.001989) = 54.69 KwH
That's (0.5) x (coefficient of air times velocity in feet squared) x (drag coefficient) x (surface area of entire system) ---- surface area is if you looked at the CT and trailer head on and figured the size hole it would punch through a wall as it drove through...

Rolling resistance =Total weight x 0.015 = 13,500(0.015)(0.001989) = 40.27 KwH
Sponsored

 

uscbucsfan

Banned
Well-known member
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
157
Reaction score
222
Location
South Carolina
Vehicles
2021 Tesla Model Y, 2022 Tesla Model S LR
Country flag
With my expectations at towing to be 50%, I believe I am not being too optimistic.
Regarding cold weather effects, My model 3 is not that impacted in cold weather. I do not see a drastic drop in range. What I do see in my 3 and my hybrid Lincoln is similar effects in the heat of summer and the cold of winter. Nothing too drastic. I expect the truck to be the same.
I expect the 500 mile 3 motor to realistically be 350 miles at 80% (natural drop as I've seen in my 3) charge levels. That is just fine around town and I expect 425 when charged for trips to the hills.
I am good with these ranges. I am not impacted by range anxiety due to my experience with my 3.
Keep in mind that the 3 and the S are FAR more efficient than the X/Y and hold more true to their ranges at highway speeds. The CT will fair worse than the X/Y if all the predicted drag coefficients are correct.
 

Frank Mendez

Well-known member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
61
Reaction score
111
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
Vehicles
3, mkzh, f150
Occupation
sales
Country flag
TLDR: Read the Red.

My personal F-350, I pulled 15,000 across country a few times (moves from base to base). I would get about 12-13 mpg towing. Sometimes down to 10. We didn't go slow. 30+ gallons made sure we could get 300-400 miles per tank.

Conversely, my current F150 2.7L Ecoboost struggled with my camper that was right at 7,000#. It was about 180 miles before I was sweating to find a gas station (23 gallon tank)... it absolutely sucked at getting good gas mileage when towing.

Physics is the same for ICE and BEVs.
To move a load a distance takes the same energy regardless of source.

approximately 33.7KwH of energy per gallon of gas means my truck would start with the equivalent of an 1,011KwH battery pack.

Efficiencies in drivetrain helps BEVs but that whole gasoline equivalent is why BEVs will not be as capable as a truck with a full tank unless it has one hell of a big battery. I love the CT but I'm not expecting much

Physics of towing

A 100KwH battery has 100 KwH energy
One gallon of gas has about 33.7 KwH energy
Cybertruck with 200 KwH battery will have 200 KwH energy.
F-150 with 36 gallons of gas has 1,213 KwH energy

End, Even though an F150 is inefficient, it can tow max weight twice as far as a Cybertruck with a 200 KwH battery (and we aren't even sure it'll get a battery that big... more likely 150 KwH which would be twice a Model Y pack... 200 KwH would be twice a Model S pack but since those are much lower in production rate, it would seem Tesla will be able to make the Model Y packs much faster and thus, will be able to doublestack that pack into a Cybertruck Pack.

150 KwH @ 300W/mile = 500 miles of range. Not saying this will be the battery size for sure, but I'd argue it over a beer.


The three main forces against you when towing a 7,000# trailer at 65mph:

Aero = 1/2 (0.002377) (80.667)^2 (0.4) (40) = 123.74 Ft Pounds, or (123.74)(0.001989) = 24.61 KwH
That's (0.5) x (coefficient of air times velocity in feet squared) x (drag coefficient) x (surface area of entire system) ---- surface area is if you looked at the CT and trailer head on and figured the size hole it would punch through a wall as it drove through...

Rolling resistance =Total weight x 0.015 = 13,500(0.015)(0.001989) = 40.27 KwH
That is (weight) x (coefficient of rolling resistance of a tire on pavement)

Gravity: 0 KwH (only comes into effect when traveling UP HILL on average meaning your ending point is higher than your starting point and for this example, it isn't.)

Taking the math above and add those three forces together and you get a requirement of 64.88 KwH to tow a 7,000 pound trailer 100 miles at 65 mph. This means we should be able to haul a 7,000# trailer 231 miles with a 150 Kwh battery pack in the CT (which happens to be the same approximate size of a double-stacked Model Y battery pack that I'm guessing the CT will have since Tesla already makes batteries in that configuration less the stacking).

That's not a crap ton of miles and it isn't super far but my F-150 would only get 180 miles per tank. Granted, it takes less time to fill it up than it will probably take to charge up but "them's the breaks." Speaking of brakes (see what I did there?), 180 miles is about 3 hours of driving 65 mph and that's breaktime for me these days. LOL
Don't forget the loss of energy due to heat loss in the ICE truck.
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,724
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
obtw.. i mighta worked with a few batteries in my time 8)
yeah sorry, I think we’re talking past one-another

I’ll leave it at this:

The anecdotal stories that folks recount from, eg, Lightning Forum, are uninteresting.

Someone takes a Lightning with 320 max range at EPA conditions, then says “this thing can’t tow for very long distances - I only got 120 miles”

people ask then ask, “tell us about what you towed”

they say “a 8,000lb RV, doing a constant 75mph, in 50° weather”

at which point it’s apparent that a drop from 320mi to 120mi isn’t surprising

and we’re it an ICE F150 that started with the range equivalent of 12.8 gallons of fuel, would equate to a towing mpg of 11 - which ain’t wildly (materially?) inconsistent with the range loss one would expect in an ICE F150 hauling the same 8,000lb RV at the same 75-80mph in 50° weather.


your expertise in batteries in noted. But expertise in batteries is irrelevant to the above.


Why would I pay double on F150 Lightning when it's performance for my intended use of towing and winter driving is a lot lower than it's replacement/alternative F150 counterpart?
you still can’t understand the point?

all I’m saying is this: if your intended use is towing heaving things long distance, buying a Lightning would be a bad idea, for the exact same reasons it would be a bad idea to buy an ICE F150 with a 12.8 gallon fuel tank

and the converse is also true: if your use case is towing heavy things long distance, buying an ICE F150 with a 12.8 gallon fuel tank would make you an uninformed buyer, for the exact same reasons buying a Lightning would make you an uninformed buyer

there is nothing magical about the towing range loss of BEV vehicles, except and other than BEV have “small” fuel tanks

which is why people around here hoping to tow want a 500mi CT: so they can tow 200 mi, due to the larger fuel tank
 

Frank Mendez

Well-known member
First Name
Frank
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Threads
1
Messages
61
Reaction score
111
Location
Salt Lake City, UT
Vehicles
3, mkzh, f150
Occupation
sales
Country flag
What I am most interested in the delivery of 2023 Cybertrucks is the distribution to local markets so I can touch and feel my future (if I still like it) purchase. I am down in the 600K range for reservations and am hoping for a 2025 delivery. Not holding my breath though.
 


cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,724
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
What doesn't make sense to me is how two identical truck profiles (ICE F-150 vs. Lightning) can vary so much in delta efficiency when comparing unladen vs. towing.

ICE F-150 towing is roughly 70% efficient vs. unladen.
EV Lightning towing is roughly 50% efficient vs. unladen.
go find an example of this that controls for the variables of importance to range

you take an ICE F150 towing under exact same conditions as a Lightning, and the % range reduction I’d bet to be within single-digit % points

happy to be proved wrong

but having lived in the Lightning forum for over a year, I’ve never seen a single instance of this - if controlling for the relevant variables

The only exception to this rule has nothing to do with the nature of towing- it’s the separate matter of any BEV taking a range hit due to ambient temperatures on the battery

so if someone wants to say “the thing about BEVs vs ICE is, the fuel tank shrinks in materially cold weather” - I agree 100%

and if someone wants to say, “the thing about towing with a BEV truck is, they have such small fuel tanks” - I agree 100%

but what is BS FUD is anyone saying, in effect, “the thing with BEV trucks is that due to having a battery instead of gasoline, BEV magically have a more drastic % reduction in range as an ICE truck towing under identical conditions”
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,724
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
75 mph pulling 7,000 pounds? Is that even legal? It certainly isn't smart. I want to be a few states away from anyone doing that.
I’m with you

And then they go on to say “and I can’t figure why I’m getting such low mileage range”

and when you say, “if you towed at 55mph your mileage would increase by probably >30%” they say “real men tow at 75”

Tesla Cybertruck 40,000 Production this year prediction 5B6461A2-B5B8-45CA-BB5D-D28140D762E2
 

Jhodgesatmb

Well-known member
First Name
Jack
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Threads
63
Messages
4,901
Reaction score
7,088
Location
San Francisco Bay area
Website
www.arbor-studios.com
Vehicles
Tesla Model Y LR, Tesla Model 3 LR
Occupation
Retired AI researcher
Country flag
The freeways and highways are full of CA-plated lifted trucks towing loads at least that heavy while doing 80-90 mph during busy Imperial Sand Dune weekends. It is indeed quite scary.
On our trip to Denver this past winter I saw a full-sized pickup that had been pulling a full-sized RV down an embankment. There were high-winds signs everywhere and low visibility due to blowing snow. I doubt the driver had decided to pull off the road into a ditch for a rest, so either they blew a tire (didn't seem to be the case) or they lost control and did the unintentional detour. It was being pulled out by a specialty truck which there might have been a few within a hundred miles of that desolate place in Wyoming. I bet the family was really happy with the driver (well, happy to be alive at least), and I am glad I was no where around when it happened.
 

Jhodgesatmb

Well-known member
First Name
Jack
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Threads
63
Messages
4,901
Reaction score
7,088
Location
San Francisco Bay area
Website
www.arbor-studios.com
Vehicles
Tesla Model Y LR, Tesla Model 3 LR
Occupation
Retired AI researcher
Country flag
Keep in mind that the 3 and the S are FAR more efficient than the X/Y and hold more true to their ranges at highway speeds. The CT will fair worse than the X/Y if all the predicted drag coefficients are correct.
You meant to say that the 3/Y/S are far more efficient than the X, right? I found a site that shows performance of all 4 and the 3 on that site gets 260 Wh/mile, the Y and S get 280, and the X gets 330. These are all LR or AWD variants. No plaids.

Where did you read or imagine that the CT will get far worse than the X? Elon said that the weight of the CT will be based on the weight of the F150 and that is comparable to the Model X, and he also said that the drag coefficient of the CT will be close to .3 while the Model X is 0.24. If I take the average of the low and high weight for the F150 it would be 4850 lbs. The weight of the Model X is 5200 lbs. The guestimates for the weight of the Cybertruck trims, averaged, would be 5,500 lbs. If I use the higher value then the CT will be 5% heavier than the Model X but will have a 25% higher drag coefficient. If the Model X has an efficiency of 330 Wh/mile and we simply multiply that by 30% (this is probably not a good way to do it) then the CT might be as bad as 430 Wh/mile. I am not sure where the earlier 300 Wh/mile came from but that would seem to be a great number compared to my half-assed calculation.
 

uscbucsfan

Banned
Well-known member
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2023
Threads
0
Messages
157
Reaction score
222
Location
South Carolina
Vehicles
2021 Tesla Model Y, 2022 Tesla Model S LR
Country flag
You meant to say that the 3/Y/S are far more efficient than the X, right? I found a site that shows performance of all 4 and the 3 on that site gets 260 Wh/mile, the Y and S get 280, and the X gets 330. These are all LR or AWD variants. No plaids.

Where did you read or imagine that the CT will get far worse than the X? Elon said that the weight of the CT will be based on the weight of the F150 and that is comparable to the Model X, and he also said that the drag coefficient of the CT will be close to .3 while the Model X is 0.24. If I take the average of the low and high weight for the F150 it would be 4850 lbs. The weight of the Model X is 5200 lbs. The guestimates for the weight of the Cybertruck trims, averaged, would be 5,500 lbs. If I use the higher value then the CT will be 5% heavier than the Model X but will have a 25% higher drag coefficient. If the Model X has an efficiency of 330 Wh/mile and we simply multiply that by 30% (this is probably not a good way to do it) then the CT might be as bad as 430 Wh/mile. I am not sure where the earlier 300 Wh/mile came from but that would seem to be a great number compared to my half-assed calculation.
Keep in mind that we are talking about interstate speeds. Drag/wind resistance is the biggest factor. The Y is terrible. Not as bad as the X, but far far worse than the S.

Those wh/miles vary by person. There are people who get 240 wh/mile with their 22 MX and people like me whose lifetime wh/mile on 2 different MYs are around 314, while my MS is 266.

For reference; The MS has 30k miles, Red MY has 26k miles, and the while one (traded for the MS had 18k miles.

For me at 70 degrees, I typically get around 180-200 miles with my MY out of 330 EPA miles at 75-80 mph while I get 330-366 out of 405 EPA miles on my MS.

The CT will be absolutely worse than the X as it's less aerodynamic. The MX drag coefficient is .24, where the predicted CT has been said to be between .39 and .48.

Edit: that 366 was a one time deal from Columbia, SC to DC I made it on 1 SC stop. All conditions were perfect, but I routinely hit 330-340 from Columbia, SC to Atlanta and back. I can usually make it there and a large portion back on a single charge where my MY needs 1-2 stops each way.
 
Last edited:


cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,724
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
Elon said that the weight of the CT will be based on the weight of the F150 and that is comparable to the Model X, and he also said that the drag coefficient of the CT will be close to .3 while the Model X is 0.24. If I take the average of the low and high weight for the F150 it would be 4850 lbs. The weight of the Model X is 5200 lbs. The guestimates for the weight of the Cybertruck trims, averaged, would be 5,500 lbs. If I use the higher value then the CT will be 5% heavier than the Model X but will have a 25% higher drag coefficient. If the Model X has an efficiency of 330 Wh/mile and we simply multiply that by 30% (this is probably not a good way to do it) then the CT might be as bad as 430 Wh/mile.
You seem to be simultaneously talking about drag force (when you speak about drag coefficient) and rolling resistance (when you talk about weight)

setting aside the weight/rolling resistance for a moment, drag force is:


Fd=1/2•Cd•ρ•A•v2

where Cd is the drag coefficient, A is the frontal area of the object facing the air, and ρ is the density of the air

you mention that Cd of the Model C is 0.24, and assume the Cd of the CyberTruck is 0.3. It should first be noted that the difference between 0.24 and 0.3 is significant.

but moreover, you don’t address the difference in frontal area between the Model X and the CyberTruck. The later is presumably materially greater in frontal area - and I take “materially“ here to mean that as little as 10% more frontal area has an exponential impact as speed increases.

So, that 0.06 increase in Cd, multiplied by that 10% increase in frontal area, is then multiplied by V2, culminating in a material difference in Fdas speeds increases, or as @uscbucsfan notes:

Keep in mind that we are talking about interstate speeds. Drag/wind resistance is the biggest factor.

Which is why the following chart (joke title aside) looks the way it does:

Tesla Cybertruck 40,000 Production this year prediction 44E1553D-9340-46BB-9E4C-0F211D2ACCC6



the increase in Cd, times the increase in A, at higher V-squared, means that
compared to the Model X as the CT approaches hwy speeds it will become subject to exponentially more energy required to counteract Fd


rolling resistance is a separate matter, but here again weighs against the CT, on the basis of not only weight, but also tire types/materials (given the CT’s payload rating), and tire size (massive in the CT)

At 75mph, the CT will be materially less efficient vehicle than the Model X in terms of both Fd and rolling resistance

not because anything’s wrong with it, but because it’s a truck
 
Last edited:

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,724
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
Where did you read or imagine that the CT will get far worse than the X? Elon said… that the drag coefficient of the CT will be close to .3 while the Model X is 0.24.
you mention that Cd of the Model X is 0.24, and assume the Cd of the CyberTruck is 0.3. It should first be noted that the difference between 0.24 and 0.3 is significant
thought I’d double-click on that:

Model X Cd = 0.24
Model S Cd = 0.24 (also)

Model X frontal area = 2.59 m2
Model S frontal area = 2.34 m2 (~10% less)

Model X Drag area = CdA = 0.24 * 2.59 m2 = 0.622 m2
Model S Drag area = CdA = 0.24 * 2.34 m2 = 0.562 m2

Model S and Model X have equal Cd, but because Model X has a larger frontal area, air drag is 10.5% higher in Model X

Now imagine that the CT has not only 10% greater frontal area than the Model X (CT’s A = 2.85 m2) but also the increased Cd of 0.30:

CT Drag area = CdA = 0.30 * 2.85 m2 = 0.857 m2

So while the Model X has a 10.5% higher air drag than a Model S, the CT has air drag that at any speed is always 27.5% higher than a Model X

Add on top of that the increased rolling resistance of the CT, and there will be material difference from a Model X
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,724
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
ICE F-150 towing is roughly 70% efficient vs. unladen.
EV Lightning towing is roughly 50% efficient vs. unladen.

Why the discrepancy?
wanted to double click on this:


in this vid, TFL test the following ICE F150s, same loop/day, both at ~70mph, with an 8,000lb horse trails

V8: EPA 22mpg HWY, but towing tested at 9.8mpg or 55% range reduction

EcoBoost: EPA 24mpg HWY, but towing tested at 8.7mpg or 64% range reduction

I’d bet a Lightning on that same loop/conditions is spitting distance from the EcoBoost, or could beat it in “slow-and-go” hwy traffic (due to regen, and other towing advantages of BEV not previously introduced)

Unfortunately TFL didn’t put the Lightning on that comparison directly, but it did another side-by-side test with the Lightning pulling an identical 6,000lb trailer/loop alongside a GMC Sierra Denali Ultimate V8

for reduction in range, the stats are:

GMC w/ 24gallon tank and EPA HWY rating of 20mpg, or a max range at EPA conditions of 480 miles, while towing got 7.6mpg = 182mi max towing range for 63% range reduction

Lightning max charge EPA HWY range of 320mi, got 98mi max or 69% range reduction
- and no clue if these guys had on regen or knew how to employ it (that they didn’t mention creates doubt)

And the TFL video is a great example of the sort of silly FUD directed at BEV trucks. The entire video is couched in terms of “which truck can tow further!?!” And with a conclusion to the video of “the Lightning just can’t tow as far!!!”

If people don’t see how stupid that is, I don’t know what to say.

the conclusion is that a truck that starts with 480mi of unladen range can tow further than a truck that starts with 320mi of unladen range. Both trucks experience more or less 65% reduction in range towing

that difference of 69% reduction (lightning) vs 63% (GMC) is within expected differences of even two identical aero trucks with different ICE motors: see above compare of ICE F150 V8 vs EcoBoost, 55% vs 68% towing range reduction

I don’t see anything unique or magical about the Lightning % range reduction vs ICE, other than the comparatively small fuel tank

tell a coal roller that a diesel truck with a 36 gallon tank will tow further than a diesel with a 24 gallon tanks, and they’ll say “so, get a bigger tank”

tell the same coal roller that an ICE truck with a 24 gallon tank will tow further than a BEV tank with a 13gal equiv tank and …

TFL makes a 20 minute video about it
Sponsored

 
 




Top