Elon Reconfirms Production Cybertruck Will be Around 3% Smaller. Factory Delivery / Pick Up Will Be Available!

[drscot]

It depends on the cost. If it is included as part of the standard equipment, then sure. How many miles' charge on an optimal day was it? 15? I don't remember, but it wasn't much and considering the likely cost of accessories and the fact that mine will sit in my garage most of the time, there will not be enough bang for the buck to justify the most likely substantial add-on cost. Considering night driving, stormy or cloudy weather and suboptimal exposure angles, the optimal benefit will rarely be achieved in my opinion, but that's just my opinion, and why I wouldn't order solar. Solar is not even near competitive where I live. I priced several different set-ups including power walls, and none of them would do the job I needed. A natural gas standby generator powers my entire 2700 sq ft home with reserve available at 1/10th the cost I was quoted for the most expensive solar with no backup. 1/5th the cost of the cheapest no-frills panels. Backup limited to 24 hours. Generator whirs along as long as it has natural gas. Never had a gas failure in 69 years. Not one. Solar has promise, but it isn't a panacea.

Those surfaces are not "always" exposed to light. They are exposed to adequate light when adequate light is present, which is not always. Nighttime and inclement weather come to mind just for two. Covered parking decks, shaded areas, all reduce available exposure. The sun is always shining (daytime) above the cloud cover, and shining somewhere even at night, even though we can't appreciate it, but I'm not sure how much of it can be utilized in those conditions.

Sponsored

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I have heard his name before but never watched any of this stuff. Is his deal that he brings in a guest as an audience and then just goes adlib about anything while the guest gets uncomfortable? ?

Anyway, CT being too big for the boring tunnel seems like a really bad reason. Is the Boring Company really trying to get all these big tunneling jobs without being able to adjust the size of the tunnel they offer? Was the test tunnel perfect and the limiting factor for all their designs now? I’m sure there were other reasons for the shrinkage. One reason could be to make it just a notch closer to a world truck as they’re usually smaller elsewhere, while still keeping essential bed size etc. Another could be to fit inside a typical (full size) garage. Or maybe there was some “wasted” space in the 3% bigger one. Maybe wind tunnel testing dictated resizing? Is it more proportional design-wise now? I don’t know but that just sounded like a good anecdote, like the one about him ordering the rockets to be more pointy because of a movie.

Nice to get some new info though. Thanks!

 

[drscot]

Let me get this straight: It is going to be 5% smaller.....no... 3% smaller.......no... actually it is going to stay the same size ........not smaller.......uh......3% smaller because Jay Leno got nervous ......or was that Elon that got nervous? Or was that "Bill and Ted" style nervous? Was that a "hair raising boring tunnel experience" or a "boring hare raising tunnel experience?" Bunnies are cute! Now that we are well into the "month or so" reveal of the changes in the CT we all know it was a typo. Should have been "Months or so on....." Just teasing! I would not want to have Elon's job, and I would never accept the pay if I couldn't do the job, but that's just me. I was raised by the WWI and WWII generations. Different breeds they were than what we see today.

I'm glad to hear that! I'd be in trouble otherwise, since my CT might outlive me and boring tunnel worries will likely become an issue with the second or third generation of CT. Who plans to commute ANYWHERE in a boring tunnel?

 

[drscot]

Those surfaces are not "always" exposed to light. They are exposed to adequate light when adequate light is present, which is not always. Nighttime and inclement weather come to mind just for two. Covered parking decks, shaded areas, all reduce available exposure. The sun is always shining (daytime) above the cloud cover, and shining somewhere even at night, even though we can't appreciate it, but I'm not sure how much of it can be utilized in those conditions.

And if I recall correctly, even Elon said it wasn't economically feasible. There just isn't going to be enough solar gain (or whatever they call it) for the surface area available to justify the cost involved. It might not even be offered because of that. The solar top is simply a "gee whiz bang" that won't ever come close to breaking even, let alone be substantially functional. I have a solar flashlight that never charges outside because I'm either inside at home or using it IN THE DARK. If one isn't camping (I don't camp), it isn't likely it will be able to charge, so I plug it in.

 

[Sirfun]

And if I recall correctly, even Elon said it wasn't economically feasible. There just isn't going to be enough solar gain (or whatever they call it) for the surface area available to justify the cost involved. It might not even be offered because of that. The solar top is simply a "gee whiz bang" that won't ever come close to breaking even, let alone be substantially functional. I have a solar flashlight that never charges outside because I'm either inside at home or using it IN THE DARK. If one isn't camping (I don't camp), it isn't likely it will be able to charge, so I plug it in.

Hi Dr. anytime I have solar things like your flashlight, I put them in a window sill on the southfacing side of my house. Of course there aren't any trees or shade there, and they are always charged up.

 

[FutureBoy]

I would not accept Elon's salary because I obviously do not have his talents.

From what I understand, Elon's salary isn't much worth sneezing at. His Tesla wealth is mostly in the incentive stock tranches. But if you do not have his talents, I'd recommend against signing on to his incentive package since that is highly based on performance. And oh what a performance it has been so far.

 

[FutureBoy]

I'm glad to hear that! I'd be in trouble otherwise, since my CT might outlive me and boring tunnel worries will likely become an issue with the second or third generation of CT. Who plans to commute ANYWHERE in a boring tunnel?

I don't plan to commute in a boring tunnel but by the time there are any boring tunnels near me, FSD will be fully active so who knows where FSD will want to commute. If I have a daily commute at that time, I'd just let FSD take over and pay little to no attention to where it decided to drive.

 

[Dids]

It depends on the cost. If it is included as part of the standard equipment, then sure. How many miles' charge on an optimal day was it? 15? I don't remember, but it wasn't much and considering the likely cost of accessories and the fact that mine will sit in my garage most of the time, there will not be enough bang for the buck to justify the most likely substantial add-on cost. Considering night driving, stormy or cloudy weather and suboptimal exposure angles, the optimal benefit will rarely be achieved in my opinion, but that's just my opinion, and why I wouldn't order solar. Solar is not even near competitive where I live. I priced several different set-ups including power walls, and none of them would do the job I needed. A natural gas standby generator powers my entire 2700 sq ft home with reserve available at 1/10th the cost I was quoted for the most expensive solar with no backup. 1/5th the cost of the cheapest no-frills panels. Backup limited to 24 hours. Generator whirs along as long as it has natural gas. Never had a gas failure in 69 years. Not one. Solar has promise, but it isn't a panacea.

Solar produces every sunny day. Your backup generator runs only when the power is out... not the same thing at all. If you produced as much electricity as the solar does with the gas generator it would be more expensive.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...ience/amp34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/

 

[Crissa]

It depends on the cost. Solar has promise, but it isn't a panacea.

...And as I pointed out, a Tesla is losing range sitting in the field. It doesn't matter how many miles range you get positive, because no matter what you do, it's losing range sitting out wherever.

And no, you can't take your backup generator and use it everywhere. And that most certainly will cost more than solar for the same energy! The solar would have to cost tens of thousands of dollars to cost more, over time.

And a generator would have an inverter, requiring you to waste energy using the rectifier built into the truck, and...

Total waste.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

And if I recall correctly, even Elon said it wasn't economically feasible. There just isn't going to be enough solar gain (or whatever they call it) for the surface area available to justify the cost involved.

...Which is straight up wrong, as I've pointed out.

-Crissa

 

[drscot]

...Which is straight up wrong, as I've pointed out.

-Crissa

Excuse me!

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

...Which is straight up wrong, as I've pointed out.

-Crissa

I dunno, I trust his opinion on this.

 

[Crissa]

I dunno, I trust his opinion on this.

I don't. He talks out of his hat frequently.

His mistake is trying to compare the energy a car needs in a complete journey to what a solar panel produces.

But this isn't all a solar panel does. It's always there. It's a marathon, not a sprint. And the car always has a baseline loss of energy... Which only gets worse in the winter... And nearly all the time a car isn't moving, but just sitting still.

And it's that sitting still time that adds up. Unlike panels mounted on your house, a panel on the car is always charging the car. And the car can always find something to do with that energy! The house panels will max out what the house can absorb, but the car can always consume more than the panels produce, by heating or cooling itself.

Even more, the car will not always be parked when it can be plugged in. Where those house panels can charge it. Elon'll realize this when he sees how people use the trucks. That they aren't always plugged into a house with panels every day.

-Crissa

 

[BillyGee]

I don't. He talks out of his hat frequently.

His mistake is trying to compare the energy a car needs in a complete journey to what a solar panel produces.

But this isn't all a solar panel does. It's always there. It's a marathon, not a sprint. And the car always has a baseline loss of energy... Which only gets worse in the winter... And nearly all the time a car isn't moving, but just sitting still.

And it's that sitting still time that adds up. Unlike panels mounted on your house, a panel on the car is always charging the car. And the car can always find something to do with that energy! The house panels will max out what the house can absorb, but the car can always consume more than the panels produce, by heating or cooling itself.

Even more, the car will not always be parked when it can be plugged in. Where those house panels can charge it. Elon'll realize this when he sees how people use the trucks. That they aren't always plugged into a house with panels every day.

-Crissa

Before I go on, let me preface by saying I want the solar tonneau cover. It's just cool and will make my CT that much niftier. Unless it's stupid expensive, I want it personally.

That said, let's do some math! The big problem I foresee is that economically it's a tough gambit considering how little we know. All that we kind of know is that it can generate 15 miles a day (maybe more with fold out wings), and that's from an off the cuff Elon remark. But that's enough to work with for the sake of speculation. Let's make some assumptions:

1 - you always generate 15 miles a day
2- you always use it in some way, meaning none is ever wasted
3 - you get roughly the same mileage as a Model X, which is the closest Tesla to the CT in size. This is about 33kWh/100 Miles, or 0.33 kWh/M
4 - electricity costs 0.27$ per kWh, which is what I actually have to pay to PG&E because they're crooks.

Plugging and chugging we get:

15 miles per day X 365 days = 5475 miles per year

0.33 kWh per Mile X 5475 miles per year = 1806.75 kWh per year

1806.75 kwh per year X 0.27$ per kWh = $487.82 a year in regen

That sounds good, better than nothing anyway. However, we have no idea what this feature will cost and this is all in a min-maxed case, with high energy prices, a likely more efficient car as a basis, and full regen. Assuming you get a loan on the car for 5 years, that's only $2439.11. knowing Tesla, this feature will easily exceed that savings in terms of cost, I'd guess somewhere between $3k and $5k for the solar tonneau.

And then there's the really fun elephant in the room, you will likely not get anywhere near that 15 miles a day in most cases. Solar arrays need to be directed appropriately and need good weather. So if you're driving towards the sun on a cloudy day, you get nothing.

Let's be generous and say that the array is 75% effective, that's only $365.86 in savings a year, or $1829.33 over a 5 year loan. Depending on how bad your credit is that may be only slightly more than a single payment.

As neat as it is, the numbers aren't great for a feature that will likely far exceed the savings in cost. Even if you plan to have the car for a long time, solar derate and real world usage will drop that number even lower, but I don't feel like making a spreadsheet right now.

All said, I think when Musky said it's said it's "not economically feasible", it's a polite way of saying that it won't make sense to put resources into it for anybody. Even nullifying phantom draining is a losing gambit for energy in vs energy out. All that would mean is your car is topped off just sitting in the sun, assuming you don't use it. Moreover, you can get the same effect with an extension cord which I assume will be cheaper than the solar tonneau unless Monster started making gold plated extension cords.

To speak to the way people use trucks, even if a construction company replaced their whole fleet with CTs and had them fleet parked to maximize generation every day on site, the numbers won't shake out for a business. At that point they'd probably just order a solar trailer to bring on site to drip feed the fleet for a fraction of the price, and they'd even get more out of it per day in terms of wattage vs a nifty roll up tonneau.

For the people out there who plan to overland with their CT, you can just get some portable solar panels and outperform the 15 miles of generation handily. 15 miles at .33kWh per mile is about 5 kWh. A 100W solar panel generates around 8kWh a day and harbor freight sells them for $179.99 meaning just one will get you almost 24 miles of range per day. Link a few of those up and you can go anywhere.

Tl;dr: I get why it would be a cool feature, but the numbers don't shake out for it to be a useful feature and I won't be surprised if it gets binned.

 

[Dids]

Before I go on, let me preface by saying I want the solar tonneau cover. It's just cool and will make my CT that much niftier. Unless it's stupid expensive, I want it personally.

That said, let's do some math! The big problem I foresee is that economically it's a tough gambit considering how little we know. All that we kind of know is that it can generate 15 miles a day (maybe more with fold out wings), and that's from an off the cuff Elon remark. But that's enough to work with for the sake of speculation. Let's make some assumptions:

1 - you always generate 15 miles a day
2- you always use it in some way, meaning none is ever wasted
3 - you get roughly the same mileage as a Model X, which is the closest Tesla to the CT in size. This is about 33kWh/100 Miles, or 0.33 kWh/M
4 - electricity costs 0.27$ per kWh, which is what I actually have to pay to PG&E because they're crooks.

Plugging and chugging we get:

15 miles per day X 365 days = 5475 miles per year

0.33 kWh per Mile X 5475 miles per year = 1806.75 kWh per year

1806.75 kwh per year X 0.27$ per kWh = $487.82 a year in regen

That sounds good, better than nothing anyway. However, we have no idea what this feature will cost and this is all in a min-maxed case, with high energy prices, a likely more efficient car as a basis, and full regen. Assuming you get a loan on the car for 5 years, that's only $2439.11. knowing Tesla, this feature will easily exceed that savings in terms of cost, I'd guess somewhere between $3k and $5k for the solar tonneau.

And then there's the really fun elephant in the room, you will likely not get anywhere near that 15 miles a day in most cases. Solar arrays need to be directed appropriately and need good weather. So if you're driving towards the sun on a cloudy day, you get nothing.

Let's be generous and say that the array is 75% effective, that's only $365.86 in savings a year, or $1829.33 over a 5 year loan. Depending on how bad your credit is that may be only slightly more than a single payment.

As neat as it is, the numbers aren't great for a feature that will likely far exceed the savings in cost. Even if you plan to have the car for a long time, solar derate and real world usage will drop that number even lower, but I don't feel like making a spreadsheet right now.

All said, I think when Musky said it's said it's "not economically feasible", it's a polite way of saying that it won't make sense to put resources into it for anybody. Even nullifying phantom draining is a losing gambit for energy in vs energy out. All that would mean is your car is topped off just sitting in the sun, assuming you don't use it. Moreover, you can get the same effect with an extension cord which I assume will be cheaper than the solar tonneau unless Monster started making gold plated extension cords.

To speak to the way people use trucks, even if a construction company replaced their whole fleet with CTs and had them fleet parked to maximize generation every day on site, the numbers won't shake out for a business. At that point they'd probably just order a solar trailer to bring on site to drip feed the fleet for a fraction of the price, and they'd even get more out of it per day in terms of wattage vs a nifty roll up tonneau.

For the people out there who plan to overland with their CT, you can just get some portable solar panels and outperform the 15 miles of generation handily. 15 miles at .33kWh per mile is about 5 kWh. A 100W solar panel generates around 8kWh a day and harbor freight sells them for $179.99 meaning just one will get you almost 24 miles of range per day. Link a few of those up and you can go anywhere.

Tl;dr: I get why it would be a cool feature, but the numbers don't shake out for it to be a useful feature and I won't be surprised if it gets binned.

A short rebuttal.
Solar electricity is the cheapest energy in human history.
You don't know what the solar tonneau would cost.
If the economics work out for a larger array, why don't they work for a smaller array?

Sponsored