PREDICTION: Cybertruck Accessory = Wireless Charging

[RVAC]

I don't see the appeal of it for anything other than Robotaxi applications. I still think it's first and foremost aero driven, the Alpha prototypes had a similar 'diaper' and that was before Tesla's purchase of Wiferion.

the two green lines above are the same length. While a really rough compare, it emphasizes that there simply is no room for any spare, donut or otherwise

That's a bit too exaggerated, the spare could sit closer to the rear axle. Obviously the vehicle would have to be designed with that in mind from the beginning, not something you can do after purchase.

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

I feel like I'm missing something here, how would this help non home owners?

You still have to feed the wireless charger on the parking spot with the same (or more depending on efficiency) as a wired charger? It's merely an easier/lazier way to hook up to the electrical system. Or am I completely missing something here?

Urban dwellers utilizing shared parking (garage, parking lot, on the street) currently rely on some sort of infrastructure being installed, with a box on a post, and a cable, maybe an adapter. This is subject to wear, damage, vandalism, etc.

If these were replaced with wireless charging pads under all the parking spots, most of those problems go away.

 

[CyberGus]

I should have said that it ‘should’ be permanent, because anything else is just dangerous.

Nothing is "permanent", even protons decay. What level of permanence do you require?

The charging pads are typically bolted down, that's fairly permanent. And, like EVSE cables, they are not energized until a connection is established with the car. They are safe.

 

[cvalue13]

the Alpha prototypes had a similar 'diaper' and that was before Tesla's purchase of Wiferion.

the purchase timing is irrelevant

Tesla doesn't purchase on a lark, then decide to utilize

Tesla has presumably been licensing/deligencing this technology (and the company) for years during the development of the CT, which at some point led to the discussion and later execution of the acquisition.

That the alpha prototypes had a similar 'diaper' is evidence of that, not evidence to the contrary.

That's a bit too exaggerated, the spare could sit closer to the rear axle. Obviously the vehicle would have to be designed with that in mind from the beginning, not something you can do after purchase.

I mean, feel free to un-exaggerate it as you see fit. But no degree of un-exaggeration will result in saying "a spare will fit there."

Meanwhile, as for the exaggeration: note that the last 8+ inches of the bumper isn't the relative endpoint for a spare, nor could it apparently sit any closer to the rear 'axle' (not that there is one).

The above-provided photos are *absent* the space-irrelevant rear bumper fascia, and at the same time show where the suspension/motor mounts begin relative to the rear tire.

kind of neither here nor there, insofar as no un-exaggerating results in sufficient space - but instead only to point out I'm not *trying* to exaggerate.

maybe this shot gives a better sense of scale:

 

[CyberGus]

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36062942/evs-explained-charging-losses/

This says 95% on L2 charger, and 60-85% with L1 charger (dependant on weather)

Throw away 2% for a cool wireless charger pad? sure!

Hmmm, your comment sounds judgy, and implies that a "cool wireless charger pad" wastes energy.

Indeed it does, but do you unplug all those little 5V USB phone chargers every night, or is that too inconvenient? They consume power just sitting there. So does your TV, PC, pretty much anything with a power brick or that does data-processing sips power all the time. And it adds up.

If you really loved the Earth, you would switch off the main breaker every time you left the house.

 

[RVAC]

the purchase timing is irrelevant

Tesla doesn't purchase on a lark, then decide to utilize

Tesla has presumably been licensing/deligencing this technology (and the company) for years during the development of the CT, which at some point led to the discussion and later execution of the acquisition.

That the alpha prototypes had a similar 'diaper' is evidence of that, not evidence to the contrary.

Tesla could have certainly been doing their due diligence on the technology and company for years but that doesn’t necessarily mean they had the product in mind for Cybertruck. Particularly when they were at the Alpha design stage which would have been quite a long while ago. It could have been just a matter of the space being there already for the aforementioned aero reasons.

That being said I'm not going to discount the possibility entirely given you have insider info, it would just strike me as an odd choice for them to prioritize wireless charging over departure angle were it not for, primarily, aero reasons. Which, unlike wireless charging, ranks far higher in importance on a vehicle like the Cybertruck. Robotaxi would be an entirely different story.

I mean, feel free to un-exaggerate it as you see fit. But no degree of un-exaggeration will result in saying "a spare will fit there."

Meanwhile, as for the exaggeration: note that the last 8+ inches of the bumper isn't the relative endpoint for a spare, nor could it apparently sit any closer to the rear 'axle' (not that there is one).

The above-provided photos are *absent* the space-irrelevant rear bumper fascia, and at the same time show where the suspension/motor mounts begin relative to the rear tire.

kind of neither here nor there, insofar as no un-exaggerating results in sufficient space - but instead only to point out I'm not *trying* to exaggerate.

maybe this shot gives a better sense of scale:

Just to clarify I’m not saying there is space for one with the way the truck has been designed but there might have been enough space for one had Tesla wanted for there to be one, it just didn’t rank high on their list of priorities for a number of reasons, some of which you mentioned.

Looking at the Model S Plaid rear drive unit you could have one be very close to the centerline of the 'axle':

 

[Ryan95738]

I’ve heard that wireless charging is better for small loads like phones where the inefficiency is not much of a cost, but Wiferion claims up to 93% efficient:
https://www.wiferion.com/us/

Even then, I could imagine many people choosing to spend the equivalent of $93 to charge their Cybertruck with a cable rather than $100 without.

That's not how it works! Current chargers are only about 91% efficient so this can be more efficient than cheap home chargers just a little bit less efficient then really good expensive home chargers.
Nothing is 100% efficient not solar, not batteries, not converters, and not inverters. Not even your home getting the power to your outlets is 100% efficient. And if the system is set up right and the cable is very short and hefty it can definitely be more efficient then the average charger nowadays and it probably is.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Nothing is "permanent", even protons decay. What level of permanence do you require?

The charging pads are typically bolted down, that's fairly permanent. And, like EVSE cables, they are not energized until a connection is established with the car. They are safe.

You are welcome to install them at your house that way - I would not.

 

[cvalue13]

Tesla could have certainly been doing their due diligence on the technology and company for years but that doesn’t necessarily mean they had the product in mind for Cybertruck. Particularly when they were at the Alpha design stage which would have been quite a long while ago. It could have been just a matter of the space being there already for the aforementioned aero reasons.

No doubt that this portion of the rear fascia has to some degree been designed with aero in mind. Every part has.

But in terms of maximum aero efficiency, the OG prototype rear fascia nearer to ideal.

So the starting question becomes, for what purpose would Tesla adjust to a less ideal aero rear fascia with this form factor?

And the answer to why they would make this move to a design that is both less aerodynamic and results in less departure angle, is that they are accommodating something of importance.

What that importance might be was somewhat a mystery, until we were able to see *under* the fascia and realize that ... nothing is there. Other than a few minor support struts which themselves appear to be there for the near sole purpose of providing attachment points for this rear fascia bump down (in the photo above, see the four trim attachment points, which correspond to those support struts).

So Tesla has changed this rear fascia to be less aerodynamic and reduce departure angle for, nothing?

Alone it leads one to think it's there to accomodate some option not present in the unit we've seen *under.* That option not being a spare, it leaves open the question.

My post was in effect then pointing out that this rear fascia's form factor (mirroring the Wiferion tech equipment), together with the acquisition of Wiferion, together with the screen-grab tease from Investor Day showing the Model S with wireless charging, and also this rear area of the vehicle to be Tesla's preferred location for Wiferion tech, seems to me to wrap it all together.

There's a longer more tenuous discussion left as to why, if it's an option, Tesla wouldn't also have an optional rear fascia that is used only for wireless-equipped units. I have thoughts on that, but neither here nor there for present purposes.

IF nothing else, what doubt one might have left regarding this rear fascia being for wireless charging, puts the onus on them to come up with an alternative explanation for why Tesla has reduced both aero and departure angle for no apparent reason (once we've seen under).

 

[PilotPete]

No doubt that this portion of the rear fascia has to some degree been designed with aero in mind. Every part has.

But in terms of maximum aero efficiency, the OG prototype rear fascia nearer to ideal.

So the starting question becomes, for what purpose would Tesla adjust to a less ideal aero rear fascia with this form factor?

And the answer to why they would make this move to a design that is both less aerodynamic and results in less departure angle, is that they are accommodating something of importance.

So Tesla has changed this rear fascia to be less aerodynamic and reduce departure angle for, nothing?

Alone it leads one to think it's there to accomodate some option not present in the unit we've seen *under.* That option not being a spare, it leaves open the question.

I don’t subscribe to the camp that is assuming this is “less aerodynamic”. All of your theories are based on this facia being a negative. I can see where this might have a benefit Controlling flow as you pass the rear of the vehicle. Without knowing the entire lower flow, I can’t make that a promise. But if the facia prevents localized turbulence due to something sticking out into the flow, or a localized higher pressure area, then it has an aero benefit.

 

[cvalue13]

I don’t subscribe to the camp that is assuming this is “less aerodynamic”. All of your theories are based on this facia being a negative. I can see where this might have a benefit Controlling flow as you pass the rear of the vehicle. Without knowing the entire lower flow, I can’t make that a promise. But if the facia prevents localized turbulence due to something sticking out into the flow, or a localized higher pressure area, then it has an aero benefit.

I suppose let me re-phrase the point in context of the prior suggestion that it is “for” aero:

For reasons you state, one can by eye probably neither state this rear fascia was included for or against aero.

If one chooses to ignore all the other indices mentioned above regarding the proposed purpose for this lower fascia to accommodate wireless charging equipment, and instead say in effect “it’s only for aero,” then I’d direct them to your comments.

 

[PilotPete]

I suppose let me re-phrase the point in context of the prior suggestion that it is “for” aero:

For reasons you state, one can by eye probably neither state this rear fascia was included for or against aero.

If one chooses to ignore all the other indices mentioned above regarding the proposed purpose for this lower fascia to accommodate wireless charging equipment, and instead say in effect “it’s only for aero,” then I’d direct them to your comments.

Correct. And to simplify what I was saying, just because you can’t say it isn’t for aero, doesn’t mean it is hiding something. Be it a spare, or wireless, or a mobile chick coop, or Jimmy Hoffa, or whatever.

 

[dempster]

Hmmm, your comment sounds judgy, and implies that a "cool wireless charger pad" wastes energy.

Not at all Gus, if this product comes out I'll be installing 2 in the driveway, wireless charging is pretty convenient.

 

[cvalue13]

Correct. And to simplify what I was saying, just because you can’t say it isn’t for aero, doesn’t mean it is hiding something. Be it a spare, or wireless, or a mobile chick coop, or Jimmy Hoffa, or whatever.

I mean, you’re free to have your own version of induction of course.

But your comment appears to gloss over the bulk of *my* induction in the post.

I did not say, as you seem to suggest, “that if it’s there, that fact alone means it’s hiding something.”

I said, in effect, that it being there causes one to begin to wonder if it’s for a purpose, and then presented a constellation of other independent facts that taken collectively lead me to conclude it’s there for a given reason.

You can single out any one of those facts, as you appear to, and say essentially ‘that fact alone says nothing.’ And I’d have to agree.

But a meaningful critique would take on the entire constellation.

 

[JBee]

Hmmm, your comment sounds judgy, and implies that a "cool wireless charger pad" wastes energy.

Indeed it does, but do you unplug all those little 5V USB phone chargers every night, or is that too inconvenient? They consume power just sitting there. So does your TV, PC, pretty much anything with a power brick or that does data-processing sips power all the time. And it adds up.

If you really loved the Earth, you would switch off the main breaker every time you left the house.

Yes I do. It's called automation.

The biggest continuous draw in my house is the 40-70W Starlink uses and our fridge, that runs on less than 0.8kWh day. Our intermittent power users, are gaming desktops that are around 2-300W each because of GPUs and high refresh monitors, server rack at between 4-60W, network around 15W, then water pump 180W, induction cooking/oven up to 7kW, but typically around a few hundred watts once heated, and a 2.5kW inverter heat pump that only uses a few hundred watts to maintain air temperature in the whole house.

Overnight our consumption goes below 70W as things power down to sleep, and we don't notice any difference in convenience.

Sponsored