40,000 Production this year prediction

OP
OP
BeastSlayer

BeastSlayer

Banned
Well-known member
Banned
First Name
Andrew
Joined
May 17, 2023
Threads
2
Messages
163
Reaction score
124
Location
Yosemite
Vehicles
Red Ryder
Occupation
Chief Investment Officer of MyLooseChange
Country flag
Appreciate the elaborate physics. Yes, I do understand. My dad taught me physics in high school and did knock my head a few times doing my homework. And the more complicated aspect of the lessons fell down.

But yeah, let me use simple math for comparison.

F150 ICE - 36% drop or lower mpg when towing

F150 Lightning - 70% drop in range while towing (and not yet in winter)

Tesla Semi (best benchmark and reference for Cybertruck) - 620 miles range empty - 500 miles full load - 20% drop in range.

I hate repeating myself, but yes, I would have bought the F150 Lightning had the range drop been 50%. Still worst than my puny 4runner at 40% but liveable for my driving stops when RVing.

There is such thing as better battery tech. And Ford obviously don't have it yet -- and there's this rush to be in the market pronto.

"Uninformed" or simply refusing to be foolish?
Sponsored

 
Last edited:

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,131
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
"Uninformed" or simply refusing to be foolish?
apparently just uninformed

because the below is a false equivalence:

F150 ICE - 36% drop or lower mpg when towing

F150 Lightning - 70% drop in range while towing (and not yet in winter)
you can make an ICEF150 have a 70% reduction in range, and you can make a Lightning have a 36% reduction in range. you can’t make the comparison without identical relevant conditions.

you can make an ICEF150 have a 70% reduction in range, and you can make a Lightning have a 36% reduction in range. you can’t make the comparison without identical relevant conditions.

You appear to just be bootstrapping anecdotal stories you’ve heard from others who also can’t think this through.

at this point it’s either obstinance or density

Either way, carry on propagating falsehoods regarding the magic inferiorities of BEV trucks compared to ICE, and so unnecessarily supplying FUD ammo to coal-rollers.
 
OP
OP
BeastSlayer

BeastSlayer

Banned
Well-known member
Banned
First Name
Andrew
Joined
May 17, 2023
Threads
2
Messages
163
Reaction score
124
Location
Yosemite
Vehicles
Red Ryder
Occupation
Chief Investment Officer of MyLooseChange
Country flag
Either way, carry on propagating falsehoods regarding the magic inferiorities of BEV trucks compared to ICE, and so unnecessarily supplying FUD ammo to coal-rollers.
Must be a failure of the state's public education., Reading comprehension problem?

I can't be anti-BEV when my posts were specific about F150 Lightning range issues and when I'm actually praising Tesla's battery tech. The family owns Tesla X and a Y.

And when my biggest stock portfolio is heavy on Tesla.

But yeah, this must be where your entire life revolve -- to even twist my words to feed fuel to your debate. And for the nth time, there is no 23 gallon gas tank in trucks to load your false argument dice.
 

Greshnab

Well-known member
First Name
Doug
Joined
May 14, 2023
Threads
4
Messages
338
Reaction score
507
Location
Fort Worth, Tx
Vehicles
Model Y
Occupation
Software Arrchitect
Country flag
apparently just uninformed

because the below is a false equivalence:



you can make an ICEF150 have a 70% reduction in range, and you can make a Lightning have a 36% reduction in range. you can’t make the comparison without identical relevant conditions.

you can make an ICEF150 have a 70% reduction in range, and you can make a Lightning have a 36% reduction in range. you can’t make the comparison without identical relevant conditions.

You appear to just be bootstrapping anecdotal stories you’ve heard from others who also can’t think this through.

at this point it’s either obstinance or density

Either way, carry on propagating falsehoods regarding the magic inferiorities of BEV trucks compared to ICE, and so unnecessarily supplying FUD ammo to coal-rollers.
I am confused here.. are you arguing that the f150 doesn't loose 70% capacity when fully loaded because that is documented well on numerous tests including car and driver.. or that this affects ALL ev's.??

I was curious about this so did a little googling...
https://insideevs.com/news/507832/tesla-modely-towing-range-test/

apparently the model y does a LOT better at towing it's capacity.. to summarize for those that don't wanna read the article..

In the end, Camp365 determined that the Model Y handled well with the foldable cabin in tow. In addition, the full setup was able to travel 218 miles on a single charge, only losing about 30 percent efficiency, which is impressive.
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,131
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
to even twist my words to feed fuel to your debate
no

the obvious point is that you’re unwittingly doing so, despite your stated intent, because you don’t understand what you’re blabbing on about

despite being pro-BEV, you’re unwittingly propagating false information that negatively reflects on BEVs, and the falsity of that information is rooted in misinformation that is the sort typically held up by the anti-BEV crowd

you’re going to be disappointed when you find out the CT is also subject to physics

the vast majority of all towing range limitations will be addressed by larger batteries and increased charging infrastructure

In any way that counts, everything else are issues shared between both IVE and BEV vehicles
 


OP
OP
BeastSlayer

BeastSlayer

Banned
Well-known member
Banned
First Name
Andrew
Joined
May 17, 2023
Threads
2
Messages
163
Reaction score
124
Location
Yosemite
Vehicles
Red Ryder
Occupation
Chief Investment Officer of MyLooseChange
Country flag
@cvalue13 - Gawd you are relentless!

Would you be ameliorated and consoled if I say that ok, you may not have made a big boo-boo buying that F150 Lightning low-tech lemon. You can even show it to your wife.

And yes, read and re-read @Greshnab post about towing range for Tesla Model Y. Read very very slowly so you may understand it.

Then, Google the performance of Tesla Semi, empty and hauling, to confirm the minimal 20% drop while hauling.

And perhaps you'll begin to understand that the reason why F150 Lightning suck in towing and winter driving is DUE TO it's deficiencies in BATTERY TECHNOLOGY.

I am not telling you to stop. I don't have that power. I am simply begging you to tone down the neurosis, don't twist our words (it's in writing, so you can reference back) and improve on your reading comprehension. I don't think that's too much to ask, is it?
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,131
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
I am confused here.. are you arguing that the f150 doesn't loose 70% capacity when fully loaded because that is documented well on numerous tests including car and driver.. or that this affects ALL ev's.??
here’s the rub:

can you use a Lightning to tow 7,000lbs in such a way as to achieve a 70% reduction in range from max? Absolutely. in the exact same ways you can use an ICEF150 towing 7,000lbs in such a way to achieve a 70% reduction in range from max.

can you use a Lightning to tow the same 7,000lbs in such a way as to achieve an only 40% reduction in range from max? Absolutely. in the exact same ways you can use an ICEF150 towing 7,000lbs in such a way to achieve only a 40% reduction in range from max.

Because, except for some limited ways that effect only the margins on range reduction, the forces on vehicles that cause range reduction apply ~equally to both ICE and BEV trucks

And the very existence of these exchanges to the contrary prove up the effectiveness of the FUD around this topic created by either the anti-BEV crowd, or the pro-BEV crowd who have been mislead.

I’ll finish with a cartoon-simplistic reiteration of the scenario:


‱ at EPA testing conditions, the ICE F150 that has only 12:8 gallons ma in its tank has a max range of 320mi, unladen

‱ speed effects drag exponentially, so, e.g., a vehicle traveling at 80mph experiences 4X the drag experienced by a vehicle at 40mph

‱ vehicles, like trucks, with larger frontal planes, experience greater drag than smaller vehicles, like sedans - exacerbating the effects of speed on drag

Tesla Cybertruck 40,000 Production this year prediction 8BE5E34D-FB88-4045-AB8D-F18774303CE1


‱ at optimum EPA testing conditions (including 48mph average) the ICE F150 has a max range of 320mi, unladen

‱ if you take that identical ICE F150 and instead run it at 75mph on the highway continuously, it experiences ~3-3.5X the drag as when it was EPA-rated at avg 48mph

‱ so at continuous 75mph, that “320mi max range” F150 with 12:8 gallons of fuel in board now achieves materially less range - let’s call it 220mi max range, unladen, merely because it’s going faster and so experiencing 3-3.5X more drag

‱ now take that same ICE F150 at 75mph continuous and reduce its tire pressure by 1 psi, range hits further

‱ now take that same ICE F150, and decrease air temperatures, the air is more dense, and drag increases, range hits further

‱ now take that same ICE F150 and make the cold air dry (not humid), air is more dense, drag increases, range hits further

‱ and after all that, now attach a 7,000 lb trailer that increases not only rolling resistance but in terms of drag may as well be a parachute out back, and run it at 75mph, etc., and the end result is that unladen <220mi max range is now cut in half due to the parachute trailer out back

all the above is equally true if instead of the F150 you substitute the Lightning

put differently: go talk to my grandfather, and tell him you have an ICE F150 with 12.8 gallons of fuel in the tank. Next tell him you’re surprised and upset that you hooked a 7,000lb breadbox RV up, ran it at 75mph in 50° weather, and “only” got 90 miles down the road. Then wave your hands excitedly saying “but the EPA said I had 320mi of range unladen in ideal conditions!!”

my grandfather, like anyone else familiar with towing effects on range, will look at you like you just arrived on our planet and are experiencing physics for the first time
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,131
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
And yes, read and re-read @Greshnab post about towing range for Tesla Model Y. Read very very slowly so you may understand it.
you re-read it, and focus on the differences between a Model Y and a truck as relates to physics

then go ask the folks around here who put a bicycle rack on their model Y hitch and experience a 20-25% range it


Then, Google the performance of Tesla Semi, empty and hauling, to confirm the minimal 20% drop while hauling.
how about instead you google how semi’s work and address drag/range - you’ll notice they don’t look like trucks with RVs

This is 101 class level stuff


And perhaps you'll begin to understand that the reason why F150 Lightning suck in towing and winter driving is DUE TO it's deficiencies in BATTERY TECHNOLOGY.
QED: you understand nothing

BATTERIES ARE ONLY ENERGY RESERVOIRS - THE ONIY PORTION OF THE “TECHNOLOGY” THAT IS RELEVANT IS THE “SIZE” of the battery.

one last time for hard of understanding:

a Lightning at max charge has the exact same max range as an ICE F150 with only 12.8 gallons of gas in its tank


and improve on your reading comprehension.
hilarious, given the context here
 
Last edited:

Roy2001

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2022
Threads
6
Messages
110
Reaction score
126
Location
CA
Vehicles
F150 Lightning
Country flag
Appreciate the elaborate physics. Yes, I do understand. My dad taught me physics in high school and did knock my head a few times doing my homework. And the more complicated aspect of the lessons fell down.

But yeah, let me use simple math for comparison.

F150 ICE - 36% drop or lower mpg when towing

F150 Lightning - 70% drop in range while towing (and not yet in winter)

Tesla Semi (best benchmark and reference for Cybertruck) - 620 miles range empty - 500 miles full load - 20% drop in range.

I hate repeating myself, but yes, I would have bought the F150 Lightning had the range drop been 50%. Still worst than my puny 4runner at 40% but liveable for my driving stops when RVing.

There is such thing as better battery tech. And Ford obviously don't have it yet -- and there's this rush to be in the market pronto.

"Uninformed" or simply refusing to be foolish?
The EV tow mpg drops more because it is SO efficient!

For ICE, let's say for 100 miles it consumes 5 gallons of gas. Among 5 gallons of gas, only close to 1.5 gallons were used to drive the truck, rest were wasted as max thermal efficiency for gas engine is usually just over 20%.

When towing, let's say it needs another 1-1.2 gallons of gas to tow, but it won't need to waste another 3 gallons since it would be more efficient when it is working hard. So it may just needs 2 gallons. So gas consumption would increase from 5 gallons to 7 gallons when towing.

For EV, since there is almost no thermal waste, all the energey was used to drive the truck, when you add the trailer, then energy consumption would be doubled. It is just that simple.
 
OP
OP
BeastSlayer

BeastSlayer

Banned
Well-known member
Banned
First Name
Andrew
Joined
May 17, 2023
Threads
2
Messages
163
Reaction score
124
Location
Yosemite
Vehicles
Red Ryder
Occupation
Chief Investment Officer of MyLooseChange
Country flag
@cvalue13 - did you work in the casino loading dice or is it in carnival in shell game?

@Greshnab brought up towing performance of Tesla Model Y with 30% drop in range and you are muddying it up by putting some looky-here bicycle add on (to match your F150 Lightning 70% range drop)?

Yes, I am no longer taking your posts seriously. I have a vertigo and can't be in your carnival and riding your ferries wheel.
 


SSonnentag

Well-known member
First Name
Shawn
Joined
Feb 24, 2020
Threads
5
Messages
391
Reaction score
861
Location
Yuma, Arizona
Vehicles
2018 X100D and 2023 YP
Occupation
IT Specialist
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.

Why the discrepancy?

Please don't get sidelined by the exact percentage numbers, these are simply rough observations by numerous people after having performed various range tests.

If a theoretical ICE vehicle has an EPA range of 500 miles and a theoretical EV has an identical EPA range of 500 miles, why can the ICE vehicle tow farther than the EV when outfitted with the identical theoretical trailer?
 

Greshnab

Well-known member
First Name
Doug
Joined
May 14, 2023
Threads
4
Messages
338
Reaction score
507
Location
Fort Worth, Tx
Vehicles
Model Y
Occupation
Software Arrchitect
Country flag
here’s the rub:

can you use a Lightning to tow 7,000lbs in such a way as to achieve a 70% reduction in range from max? Absolutely. in the exact same ways you can use an ICEF150 towing 7,000lbs in such a way to achieve a 70% reduction in range from max.

can you use a Lightning to tow the same 7,000lbs in such a way as to achieve an only 40% reduction in range from max? Absolutely. in the exact same ways you can use an ICEF150 towing 7,000lbs in such a way to achieve only a 40% reduction in range from max.

Because, except for some limited ways that effect only the margins on range reduction, the forces on vehicles that cause range reduction apply ~equally to both ICE and BEV trucks

And the very existence of these exchanges to the contrary prove up the effectiveness of the FUD around this topic created by either the anti-BEV crowd, or the pro-BEV crowd who have been mislead.

I’ll finish with a cartoon-simplistic reiteration of the scenario:


‱ at EPA testing conditions, the ICE F150 that has only 12:8 gallons ma in its tank has a max range of 320mi, unladen

‱ speed effects drag exponentially, so, e.g., a vehicle traveling at 80mph experiences 4X the drag experienced by a vehicle at 40mph

‱ vehicles, like trucks, with larger frontal planes, experience greater drag than smaller vehicles, like sedans - exacerbating the effects of speed on drag

8BE5E34D-FB88-4045-AB8D-F18774303CE1.jpeg


‱ at optimum EPA testing conditions (including 48mph average) the ICE F150 has a max range of 320mi, unladen

‱ if you take that identical ICE F150 and instead run it at 75mph on the highway continuously, it experiences ~3-3.5X the drag as when it was EPA-rated at avg 48mph

‱ so at continuous 75mph, that “320mi max range” F150 with 12:8 gallons of fuel in board now achieves materially less range - let’s call it 220mi max range, unladen, merely because it’s going faster and so experiencing 3-3.5X more drag

‱ now take that same ICE F150 at 75mph continuous and reduce its tire pressure by 1 psi, range hits further

‱ now take that same ICE F150, and decrease air temperatures, the air is more dense, and drag increases, range hits further

‱ now take that same ICE F150 and make the cold air dry (not humid), air is more dense, drag increases, range hits further

‱ and after all that, now attach a 7,000 lb trailer that increases not only rolling resistance but in terms of drag may as well be a parachute out back, and run it at 75mph, etc., and the end result is that unladen <220mi max range is now cut in half due to the parachute trailer out back

all the above is equally true if instead of the F150 you substitute the Lightning

put differently: go talk to my grandfather, and tell him you have an ICE F150 with 12.8 gallons of fuel in the tank. Next tell him you’re surprised and upset that you hooked a 7,000lb breadbox RV up, ran it at 75mph in 50° weather, and “only” got 90 miles down the road. Then wave your hands excitedly saying “but the EPA said I had 320mi of range unladen in ideal conditions!!”

my grandfather, like anyone else familiar with towing effects on range, will look at you like you just arrived on our planet and are experiencing physics for the first time
all that is awesome and nice.. however it pretends that all batteries are equal.. and this simply isn't so...

the voltage drop from a battery based on current over time is a HUGE design decision.. it is possible to make a battery that maintains high voltage for a while at high current and the drops like it fell off a cliff .. and it is easy to design a battery that maintains voltage at a low current usage then drops ... what isn't possible is to make a single type of battery that performs optimally at both high and low current usage..
.
Voltage drop on a battery is bad juju thatis when the power consumption and heat generation go way up and the time left of use goes down FAST.

I understand your argument and get the physics of towing wind hills etc.. but to me it sounds lik you believe all batteries are simple energy storage and will perform the EXACT same and they simply do not do this.
 

TyPope

Well-known member
First Name
Ty
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Threads
19
Messages
1,641
Reaction score
2,757
Location
Papillion, NE
Vehicles
'18 F150, '23 MY, '24 CT, '23 Maveric hybrid soon
Occupation
Operations Planner
Country flag
Now do it for 75mph!

1684793696836.gif
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
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 86.03 KwH to tow a 7,000 pound trailer 100 miles at 75 mph. This means we should be able to haul a 7,000# trailer 157 miles with a 150 Kwh battery pack in the CT.

To figure out other speeds, replace the green number with the answer to this equation:
1. Multiply (0.002377 x 5280 x your speed and then divide by 60 and then divided by 60 again)
2. Multiply that answer by itself.
3. Multiply that answer by 0.4 x 40 x .5 x 100 to get the Aero hit you take for the speed you are going.
4. Add your final answer in #3 above to 40.27 to get the total KwH you'll use to go 100 km on a flat plane.
5. Divide the battery size (I think it'll be 150 KwH) by the answer to #4 and multiply by 100 to get the total distance you can travel on a fully charged battery.
 
Last edited:

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,131
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
I understand your argument and get the physics of towing wind hills etc.. but to me it sounds lik you believe all batteries are simple energy storage and will perform the EXACT same and they simply do not do this.
No I don’t believe this

“we’ve” just not even gotten to the basic agreement on principals, to next turn to the minutia of how those differences in batteries relate to range loss from towing. NOTICE, for example, that my comparisons to f an ICE F150 to a Lightning aren’t comparing differences in two battery technologies

and in any event, this is why I keep talking in terms of max range and % loss of max range, not another parameter

because those differences in batteries are inherent to (or ‘behind’) the stated max range

Battery X, whatever its composition/characteristics, evidence themselves in a max range of X’ at [EPA conditions]

Battery Y, whatever its composition/characteristics, evidence themselves in a max range of Y’ at [EPA conditions]

in any event, to reiterate, these theoretical differences in efficiency curves between two battery technologies aren’t yet even ripe in the discussion

because the discussion to date has centered around either (A) why the Lightning doesn’t achieve EPA max range, depending on variables, or (B) whether those same variables have roughly equal effect on the range of an ICE F150. No battery comp going in in either.
Sponsored

 
 




Top