Finally got to see the Cybertruck Unicorn in person after 4yrs... it's so badass and appears much larger

[JBee]

you think the Lightning has less frontal area??

0.56 is the only value I can find online, which is both as hood and bad a source as for any other

not sure, as I also see the 0.56 elsewhere attributed to the Raptor, by one of those folks who did rough modeling of the CT vs, early on

Car & Driver has an article that proclaims the Lightning Cd is 4% better than a standard F150

Everything else online are companies that sell ‘aerodynamic’ bed covers, etc, just claiming to make ace better

I see no way it’s in the 0.3Xs, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s not in the 5s



In any event, the F150 is Certainly less slippery than the CT, and the vertical surface area is way taller - like 9”+

I think the CT will have less of a skirt, because the structural pack is lower, making the CT cabin potentially lower. But the offset here is that the CT roof apex is higher in to keep the angular design aesthetic, meaning it might be a similar body height.

Note here the body "height" aerodynamically, is not the height from the roof to the ground, rather from the roof to the vehicle underbody, air passes underneath the vehicle as well, meaning, that that the underfloor surface becomes an important feature for drag, especially so whilst considering compression from wing in ground effects, and vehicle rake (lean forwards) that is the primary source of both lift and downforce on most vehicles. You could in fact use the CT air-suspension to optimise these whilst driving, with a "cruise mode" that produces no up or down force, and no induced drag, and a "performance mode" that leans forward cheater style like on the MSP.

In general the rule for god aerodynamics is simply to move the air around the vehicle in such a way that disturbs the air the least possible way. That means take the air, separate it to pass the vehicle through it, and then recombine it back to how it was before. Any extra air "movement" caused is either producing lift, downforce or drag, or any combination of these forces, that in turn reduce forward efficiency.

With that as a reference point, the front shape of the vehicle can be less important the the rear shape of the vehicle, in that a water droplet is blunt and bulbous at the front and has a tail at the end to bring the airflow back together. Note here that both the vehicle and the droplet are moving through the air, and the air is not moving over them. The distinction is important whilst considering airflow under the vehicle.

The point I want to make here, is that the front shape of the vehicle, including the rake of the Lightning windscreen, the different surfaces and how they interact, surface roughness conditions etc, are all included as components of the tested Cd value, and need not be considered after that value has been established. The Cd is the drag coefficient for that object including all of these factors.

The other variable here is the sectional front area, being the largest cross section of the vehicle, anywhere along the length of the vehicle. In this case it would be somewhere where the roof apex is, that also has the widest width nearby. In the case of the Lightning this would also be in the cab area.

For example: if we take two different frontal section areas with the same Cd we will get a lower and a higher drag component. Likewise if we have the same front section area and have two different drag numbers, we get lower and higher drag forces.

In the case of the CT vs Lightning, I expect the CT to be better from the general shape, especially the rear, but not by such a large amount.

Just roughly, a Lightning at 60mph with 0.34Cd would have rolling resistance of about 8hp and aero drag of around 16hp. At 0.56Cd that would be 26hp (19kW) for drag alone or 125Wh/mile extra drag than the CT at the same frontal area.

I think that doesn't correlate well with the pack sizes, in that if the Lightning has such a bad Cd and is potentially larger sectional area, it should actually have a worse range than it does. I expect the erroneous high Cd statement to be the most likely culprit, simply because there are no such significant margins in the rest of the system efficiency to compensate for the extra drag to get those ranges.

Sponsored

 

[Crissa]

It just looks massive. I haven’t had the F-150 for several years, but recently sold my Cayenne diesel and I’d consider that a semi large SUV. The Cybertruck just looked huge to me.
From an earlier post, it very well could just be that the suspension was set to high and made it seem larger.

That Cayenne is not a large SUV. The Cybertruck is longer but basically as wide and while the peak is taller, much of it isn't.

-Crissa

 

[jasper7821]

That Cayenne is not a large SUV. The Cybertruck is longer but basically as wide and while the peak is taller, much of it isn't.

-Crissa

To me, the Cayenne was a semi large SUV. A Yukon or Suburban a huge SUV. So that’s my reference.
All I’m saying is the Cybertruck looks massive to me when I saw it. That’s what I think about it from my perspective.
I’ve been waiting 4yrs to finally get to see it and can’t wait until it’s in my garage.
My F-150 Supercrew, I had to nail an old comforter to the back wall and back the truck in until the bumper touched the wall and has 2” of space to the garage rollers.
So hopefully the Cybertruck will fit in it.

 

[cvalue13]

I think the CT will have less of a skirt, because the structural pack is lower, making the CT cabin potentially lower. But the offset here is that the CT roof apex is higher in to keep the angular design aesthetic, meaning it might be a similar body height.

In medium, CT is 70.5” high and clearance of ~9.8”, meaning ~60.7” ‘tall’

Lightning stock is 77.2” high and clearance of 8.4”, meaning 68.8” ‘tall’ — or ~13%

now, with lightning that height includes maybe 1.5” of antennae and underneath maybe some differential etc

But regardless of increases in frontal height, and widths (CT being more of an octogon than a rectangle), the CT’s seeming Cd would be materially better than an F150 ??‍ a whole tenth you’d think at least

But I suppose we can’t forget rolling resistance and those CT tires

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Now THAT truck is set on high (at least)

And yes, in high it appears very large.

Set on 'Stiletto' ...... @BEAST.

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

I measured with my phone and it looks like about 6’2” from the ground to the peak.

Seriously folks, does no-one carry a tape to 'The OK Corral'
Harry Callahan: 'Was it 6'5" or 6'6"...go ahead, make my bed'

 

[jasper7821]

I honestly think that when people see it for the first time, they’re going to be really impressed.

 

[Dman_CT]

I assume CT range specs will be with the tonneau closed which could really help reduce drag (cd, not frontal area of course. My current pickup got slightly better highway mpg consistently with a cab-high shell. As for size perceptions, I haven’t seen it yet except on the freeway, but our local dealerships never have the full-size pickups in their showrooms, always outdoors. I‘m sure space is a constraint, but I wonder also if they don’t people to feel overwhelmed by the size up close. Not the shopper who knows they wants a big truck, but perhaps a family member who isn’t fully onboard with it.

 

[jasper7821]

I assume CT range specs will be with the tonneau closed which could really help reduce drag (cd, not frontal area of course. My current pickup got slightly better highway mpg consistently with a cab-high shell. As for size perceptions, I haven’t seen it yet except on the freeway, but our local dealerships never have the full-size pickups in their showrooms, always outdoors. I‘m sure space is a constraint, but I wonder also if they don’t people to feel overwhelmed by the size up close. Not the shopper who knows they wants a big truck, but perhaps a family member who isn’t fully onboard with it.

Hoping the specs will be decent, looking forward to it.

 

[h_arout]

Are those astronaut-like footprints surrounding the floor the cybertruck is on? Or am I overthinking it.

 

[jasper7821]

Are those astronaut-like footprints surrounding the floor the cybertruck is on? Or am I overthinking it.

Ha ha, I never noticed that. They’re all over the floor in that store. Don’t know what the marks are.

 

[PilotPete]

Ha ha, I never noticed that. They’re all over the floor in that store. Don’t know what the marks are.

HAHAHAHA, At San Diego they have those same marks. They’re tire marks on the floor.

 

[anionic1]

At Tesla Buena Park now. It is a big vehicle. A couple observations. The stainless definitely has a light brushed finish. It is not a mill finish. Those front shocks are huge. Like 8” to 10” diameter

 

[CYBRSMTH]

On the way from Arizona to Orange County for Thanksgiving and stopped in La Jolla to see the Cybertruck. It’s so badass, I can’t wait until my number is up. It’s also so much bigger in person.

Other info / impressions:


I measured with my phone and it looks like about 6’2” from the ground to the peak.


Yes there were a few people there that never heard of it.
Definitely the most common reaction (including me) was the size of it. It just looks so massive.
And from overhearing other people who are very familiar with it (also including me), we’re impressed with the build quality.

I had an older Model S, and now have a Model 3, I’m fully impressed with this thing.

The only bummer was I asked about are they really only delivering 10 at the delivery event, and they said yes. But who knows.
I can’t wait to get mine, reserved during the unveiling so hoping by the end of next year. Fingers crossed.


I used to have a F-150 Supercrew and this just seems larger.
To me it was truly like finally seeing a unicorn. I’ve been waiting so long to see one.
When I walked into the Tesla store, I was in shock. To me it truly looks massive.


I was truly so impressed with the size and the build quality from what I could see.
I’m really looking forward to getting it.


It just looks massive. I haven’t had the F-150 for several years, but recently sold my Cayenne diesel and I’d consider that a semi large SUV. The Cybertruck just looked huge to me.
From an earlier post, it very well could just be that the suspension was set to high and made it seem larger.


To me, the Cayenne was a semi large SUV. A Yukon or Suburban a huge SUV. So that’s my reference.
All I’m saying is the Cybertruck looks massive to me when I saw it. That’s what I think about it from my perspective.
I’ve been waiting 4yrs to finally get to see it and can’t wait until it’s in my garage.
My F-150 Supercrew, I had to nail an old comforter to the back wall and back the truck in until the bumper touched the wall and has 2” of space to the garage rollers.
So hopefully the Cybertruck will fit in it.


I honestly think that when people see it for the first time, they’re going to be really impressed.

The build quality on this one looks amazing!

Sponsored