SHorzy

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Messages
37
Reaction score
40
Location
Prince George, BC
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
Hmm…so if it’s a $4500 option you recover the cost after 10 years…if it’s a $2000 option maybe by 5? I wonder what the price of this will be. If it’s too expensive then I guess you would have to judge its value by its convenience rather than cost savings.
i plan on keeping our CT3 for 15 years or more. guess the last years are more free cash.





Advertisement

 

happy intruder

Well-known member
First Name
O. K.
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
241
Reaction score
167
Location
Irvine
Vehicles
Model 3 Jun 2019..... Model S Jan 2020
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I just hope I can get it before I kick the bucket.....my number is 46,146
 

CoyoteJim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
148
Location
Carmichael
Vehicles
Model 3, i3, Zero DS, F-250, CT & Aptera res
Occupation
Oracle Database Developer
Country flag
There is a lot of speculation on here about how useful the solar option will be based on what the efficiency of the Cybertruck is going to be, but we already have enough data to estimate it pretty well:

The CARB filing in Dec 2019 stated the Cybertruck would be class 2b - GVWR 8501-10000 lbs. The payload is 3500 lbs so that puts the weight of the truck at 6500 lbs max. However, Elon stated during the presentation that they didn’t cheat in the dimensions or the weight in comparison to an F-150. An F-150’s max weight is 5700 lbs.

The model X weighs 5200-5700 lbs. the model X 100D’s tested efficiency is 351 Wh/mile (with the larger wheels). The model X has a cd of .24, the CT an expected cd of .30 (per Elon via tweet). So let’s say there is a 15% difference in drag efficiency between the X and the CT, bringing the CT’s Wh/mile to approximately 404. This assumes the battery kWh for each is about the same. The CT body could weigh less and the battery more, or vice versa, but I think we can safely give the CT an efficiency range of 375-425. So for the solar panel option of 15 miles per day we are looking at kWh output at 5.6 to 6.4 kWh.

The inflated phantom drain figures that have been posted here of 9 miles per day are just not accurate. If the CT has about the same kWh battery as the the model X then we can safely estimate the phantom drain rate will be about the same. Research shows that if all apps and settings are configured correctly, the model X on average will lose 1% per day or 1 kwh. This is equivalent to about 3 miles. So on the CT the solar panels would still be giving you a net of 12 miles or 4.6 to 5.4 kwh per day.

Worth the money the option will cost? If I can count on 12 miles a day in remote situations, the truck could get 80+ miles in a week where there would be no other way to charge it. Or I could run up to 5 kwh for camp items every day without reducing the charge on the battery. Or I could reduce the typical commute distance in the US of 19 miles to the energy equivalent of 7 miles.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
2,889
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
The inflated phantom drain figures that have been posted here of 9 miles per day are just not accurate.
I direct your attention to the measured phantom drain (MX Long Range) below. 0.4 miles per hour is 9.6 miles per day. This is getting pretty silly but it's always fun to push some numbers around.The rated consumption for this car is 282 Wh/mi and so the 9.6 miles is equivalent to 2.7 kWh which is about 2.8% of the 98 kWh battery in this vehicle. To replace the phantom drain of a 91 hr 42 min period required 8.86 kWh. That implies a phantom drain rate of 108 watts equivalent to 2.6 kWh per day. Nearly the same answer obtained a different way.


Research shows that if all apps and settings are configured correctly, the model X on average will lose 1% per day or 1 kwh
Guess my "settings" aren't configured "correctly". Couldn't be that the 'research' was bogus. But I'll come back to this.

IMG_3CBD39A44851-1.jpeg


...9 miles per day are just not accurate.
Well the actual number is more like 9.6 but how accurate do you want me to be?

If the CT has about the same kWh battery as the the model X then we can safely estimate the phantom drain rate will be about the same.
In the first place there is no way the battery is going to be as small as that in the X except perhaps in the RWD version. The TriMotor is to offer 500 mi range. Estimates for consumption range from 385 - 485 Wh/mi (485 is ABRP's estimate). So let's be optimistic and assume it is 400 as that's an easy number to work with. Using that number the battery size is 200 kWh - twice the size of the battery in the X. Only a small part of phantom drain comes from internal battery loss but yes, that will be double the battery portion of phantom drain in the X. The bulk of phantom drain comes, of course, from the vehicle systems that are kept alive when the car is "off". This includes some computers, the cell phone modem etc. Sentry, if you leave it on evidently swamps everything else. Thus much of phantom drain is not under the user's control but some is. In particular apps that poll the vehicle periodically such as Stats which produced the image above and TeslaFi which logs trip and charge data both do this and increase phantom drain. I personally consider both of these indispensable and so my phantom drain is higher than the average. It is higher than that of 3/4 of users. If I wanted to forego the benefits of Stats and TesliFi in order to justify the solar panels I could do that but it would be as silly as this whole discussion to do so.

But of course the discussion is silly because my correspondent cannot grasp that phatom drain has all along been offered as a benchmark - nothing more or less.
 
Last edited:

happy intruder

Well-known member
First Name
O. K.
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
241
Reaction score
167
Location
Irvine
Vehicles
Model 3 Jun 2019..... Model S Jan 2020
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
I direct your attention to the measured phantom drain (MX Long Range) below. 0.4 miles per hour is 9.6 miles per day. This is getting pretty silly but it's always fun to push some numbers around.The rated consumption for this car is 282 Wh/mi and so the 9.6 miles is equivalent to 2.7 kWh which is about 2.8% of the 98 kWh battery in this vehicle. To replace the phantom drain of a 91 hr 42 min period required 8.86 kWh. That implies a phantom drain rate of 108 watts equivalent to 2.6 kWh per day. Nearly the same answer obtained a different way.


Guess my "settings" aren't configured "correctly". Couldn't be that the 'research' was bogus. But I'll come back to this.

IMG_3CBD39A44851-1.jpeg


Well the actual number is more like 9.6 but how accurate do you want me to be?

In the first place there is no way the battery is going to be as small as that in the X except perhaps in the RWD version. The TriMotor is to offer 500 mi range. Estimates for consumption range from 385 - 485 Wh/mi (485 is ABRP's estimate). So let's be optimistic and assume it is 400 as that's an easy number to work with. Using that number the battery size is 200 kWh - twice the size of the battery in the X. Only a small part of phantom drain comes from internal battery loss but yes, that will be double the battery portion of phantom drain in the X. The bulk of phantom drain comes, of course, from the vehicle systems that are kept alive when the car is "off". This includes some computers, the cell phone modem etc. Sentry, if you leave it on evidently swamps everything else. Thus much of phantom drain is not under the user's control but some is. In particular apps that poll the vehicle periodically such as Stats which produced the image above and TeslaFi which logs trip and charge data both do this and increase phantom drain. I personally consider both of these indispensable and so my phantom drain is higher than the average. It is higher than that of 3/4 of users. If I wanted to forego the benefits of Stats and TesliFi in order to justify the solar panels I could do that but it would be as silly as this whole discussion to do so.

But of course the discussion is silly because my correspondent cannot grasp that phatom drain has all along been offered as a benchmark - nothing more or less.
Hey A.J.

What app are you using to get you information presented in the pix?........thanks.....OKU
 

CoyoteJim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
148
Location
Carmichael
Vehicles
Model 3, i3, Zero DS, F-250, CT & Aptera res
Occupation
Oracle Database Developer
Country flag
ajdelange, If you have some actual research or published numbers you can refer to please do so as that would be helpful. Referring to your personal app settings or what you suppose 3/4 of people do is not. I use TeslaFi too and I don't suffer phantom drain like that. Guessing that the battery size has to be 200 kwh for 500 miles if fine, but the Cybertruck will use a completely different frame and construction technique so the body/frame could be much lighter than anyone can "guess." What we do know is the max weight and cd, and we have published numbers and real-world tests for a similar weight vehicle, the model X.

But of course the discussion is silly because my correspondent cannot grasp that phatom drain has all along been offered as a benchmark - nothing more or less.
Also, dude, this is what I'm talking about - ad hominem (personal) attacks - a fallacious form or argumentation. You engage in them constantly in place of actual evidence to back up your claims.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
2,889
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
ajdelange, If you have some actual research or published numbers you can refer to please do so as that would be helpful.
I have better than that. I have real numbers from the Tesla fleet.

Referring to your personal app settings or what you suppose 3/4 of people do is not.
You may be an engineer but clearly you are not an analyst. Analysts use real data from the real world to draw conclusions about the real world. Here is phantom drain data from the Tesla fleet - all models.

IMG_EAEC995B99E6-1.jpeg


Out of the goodness of my heart I analyzed this and determined that phantom drain is gamma distributed with scale parameter 0.12831 and shape parameter 2.13155. Thus the mean drain is 0.297 with standard deviation of 0.195. Median: 0.26. Thus my observed drain rate of 0.44 isn't even one standard deviation above the mean (are you familiar with these terms?).

I use TeslaFi too and I don't suffer phantom drain like that.
What do you conclude from that?

Guessing that the battery size has to be 200 kwh for 500 miles if fine, but the Cybertruck will use a completely different frame and construction technique so the body/frame could be much lighter than anyone can "guess." What we do know is the max weight and cd, and we have published numbers and real-world tests for a similar weight vehicle, the model X.
If you want to think that CT battery size and consumption are going to be anything close to those of the X then go ahead and do so. I don't think you will convince anyone else but it is your fantasy. Enjoy!



Also, dude, this is what I'm talking about - ad hominem (personal) attacks - a fallacious form or argumentation.
While too modest to mention it previously I am also, in fact a renaissance man. I've had 3 years of Latin.
 
Last edited:

John K

Well-known member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
707
Reaction score
998
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicles
Volt, CT reserve day 2
Country flag
Out of the goodness if my heart I analyzed this and determined that phantom drain is gamma distributed with scale parameter 0.12831 and shape parameter 2.13155. Thus the mean drain is 0.297 with standard deviation of 0.195. Thus my observed drain rate of 0.44 isn't even one standard deviation above the mean (are you familiar with these terms?).
Range delta divided by 6?... oh wait, that is an estimated deviation.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
2,889
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
Range delta divided by 6?... oh wait, that is an estimated deviation.
No, it's not quite that simple. The mean is the average, the standard deviation is a "standard" measure of the dispersion of values about the mean and the median is the value that splits the set of numbers into two equal halves. Half of people have phantom drain less than the median and the other half, above.
 

CoyoteJim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
148
Location
Carmichael
Vehicles
Model 3, i3, Zero DS, F-250, CT & Aptera res
Occupation
Oracle Database Developer
Country flag
I have better than that. I have real numbers from the Tesla fleet.

You may be an engineer but clearly you are not an analyst. Analysts use real data from the real world to draw conclusions about the real world. Here is phantom drain data from the Tesla fleet - all models.

IMG_EAEC995B99E6-1.jpeg


Out of the goodness if my heart I analyzed this and determined that phantom drain is gamma distributed with scale parameter 0.12831 and shape parameter 2.13155. Thus the mean drain is 0.297 with standard deviation of 0.195. Thus my observed drain rate of 0.44 isn't even one standard deviation above the mean (are you familiar with these terms?).

What do you conclude from that?

If you want to think that CT battery size and consumption are going to be anything close to those of the X then go ahead and do so. I don't think you will convince anyone else but it is your fantasy. Enjoy!



While too modest to mention it previously I am also, in fact a renaissance man. I've had 3 years of Latin.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, no, I am not an engineer…far from it. I do recognize those terms although statistics is not my strong suit. I can see from the graph you provided, however, that most users across the fleet experience a phantom drain rate of what looks to be about an average of 0.17 mph loss. So in 24 hours that’s 4.8 miles of range loss? That’s higher than the research I did which reported about 3, but that was specifically for the 2021 model X 100D whereas your chart is showing phantom drain for all models all years.

"The Model S & X should lose around 1-4 miles or 1-3% per day"
https://teslaowners.org.uk/kb/reduce-battery-drain-leave-tesla-parked

IMG_0233.jpg
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
2,889
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
Research shows that if all apps and settings are configured correctly, the model X on average will lose 1% per day or 1 kwh. This is equivalent to about 3 miles.
Now that we know how phantom drain is distributed we can see how well this "research" matches reality. 1 kWh is equivalent to 3.54 mi per day or 0.1478 mi/hr. Inserting this number into the cumulative gamma probability distribution with the parameters we determined from the fleet data we find that 22.4% experienced drain of less than 1 kWh per day. Keeping in mind that the fleet contains relatively few X and that the X is the largest car in the fleet we conclude that the "research" was rubbish. We are not surprised.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,696
Reaction score
2,889
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
Sorry, no, I am not an engineer…far from it. I do recognize those terms although statistics is not my strong suit. I can see from the graph you provided, however, that most users across the fleet experience a phantom drain rate of what looks to be about an average of 0.17 mph loss. So in 24 hours that’s 4.8 miles of range loss? That’s higher than the research I did which reported about 3, but that was specifically for the 2021 model X 100D whereas your chart is showing phantom drain for all models all years.
After pointing out how foolish firsttruck looked for assuming that a remark directed at him was actually directed at someone else I now have to don the dunce's cap too. I've confused you with firsttruck. Please accept my apology.

Anyway it is difficult to estimate statistics from skewed distributions like the one in this data. That's why I went to the trouble to estimate the actual parameters. The average as determined from that analysis is actually 0.297. The "mode" (the peak of the distribution) is about 0.17. More people got a number close to that than any other number but the average is actually higher because the mass (area under the curve) to the right of that peak is bigger than the mass to the left.
 

CoyoteJim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
63
Reaction score
148
Location
Carmichael
Vehicles
Model 3, i3, Zero DS, F-250, CT & Aptera res
Occupation
Oracle Database Developer
Country flag
Now that we know how phantom drain is distributed we can see how well this "research" matches reality. 1 kWh is equivalent to 3.54 mi per day or 0.1478 mi/hr. Inserting this number into the cumulative gamma probability distribution with the parameters we determined from the fleet data we find that 22.4% experienced drain of less than 1 kWh per day. Keeping in mind that the fleet contains relatively few X and that the X is the largest car in the fleet we conclude that the "research" was rubbish. We are not surprised.
I don’t think your data shows what you think it does. I think it shows you’re only doing better than 23% of users and you need to make some adjustments in your settings so you can get back down where most of us are at around 0.2 mph phantom drain.

It also shows your estimate of 9 miles per day loss for the CT (for most people) would be incorrect, but I don’t expect you to admit that.
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top