Bed rack wind resistance & reduced range

[Solarrrs]

The recent viewing of the cyber truck with a rack with lots of slots would increase wind resistance in a big way. Be willing to loose a minimum of 25% range on the highway.

Sponsored

 

[Ogre]

Yep. My bike rack puts a lot of hurt on my Model Y range.

For a lot of people this would be worth the trade-off. Ford still sells their 230 mile range truck.

 

[cvalue13]

Be willing to loose a minimum of 25% range on the highway.

Or do 55mph like the good lord intended

 

[CyberGus]

Or do 55mph like the good lord intended

The limit is 85MPH on TX-130 by the factory. I parallel park at 55MPH

 

[Diehard]

Adding my old rack to my standard battery pack Lightning Pro has had no impact on my range. My average range for 23 pro is 240 miles. The rack is adjustable and all of it is bellow roofline without load.

 

[cvalue13]

Adding my old rack to my standard battery pack Lightning Pro has had no impact on my range. My average range for 23 pro is 240 miles. The rack is adjustable and all of it is bellow roofline without load.

Not surprising. I suspect the Lightning’s design realizes it’s aero inefficiencies over the bed area no matter what. Adding the rack is relatively negligible to the aero mess occurring there already.

the CT’s design in contrast is better optimized for aero at the peak in the cab back to the tailgate, so a rack in that location ‘sticks out’ and creates the aero mess - much like a bike rack on the back of a model Y

in any event, all these effects are equally true on ICE vehicles - we just don’t ‘care’ as much because the fuel tanks are so much larger and there’s a fuel station on every corner

 

[CoachTerry]

The limit is 85MPH on TX-130 by the factory. I parallel park at 55MPH

 

[cvalue13]

Adding my old rack to my standard battery pack Lightning Pro has had no impact on my range. My average range for 23 pro is 240 miles. The rack is adjustable and all of it is bellow roofline without load.

 

[ÆCIII]

I think what many people are forgetting, is that if someone is using a rack in the first place, they're going to also be fastening stuff onto it. So regardless of the wind coefficient of any particular rack, once you start putting ladders, lumber, luggage containers, or other items up on it you're going to have increased drag but everyone already knows and expects that.

Trucks in general have increased drag anyway. But for those type concerns and also like @Crissa once wrote something similar about, it would be prudent wanting to have a rack that is fairly easily to unfasten and remove by rope lift/hooks or similar setup in a garage, where one backs in, unfastens the rack and connects it to awaiting hooks, and then lifts it up a little out of the way in the garage for storage.

That way you can drive the CT without a rack or maybe put other accessories on it or whatever.

But trucks are trucks, and accessories are going to induce drag, yet this has been obvious with all trucks for decades since they came into existence. So why bring it up again here??

- ÆCIII

 

[cvalue13]

So why bring it up again here??

basically, because people aren’t yet used to having a vehicle with such a small “fuel” tank and so few “refueling” stations that they have to pay attention to these effects on range

these things were better understood by any average driver in the mid-80s and prior in rural parts of the country, when trucks had mere 16gal tanks and V8s that drained the tank if going 75mph on the hwy

A few decades of 32gal extended tanks and money to burn at the pump allowed people to ignore/forget physics

everything old is new again

 

[ÆCIII]

basically, because people aren’t yet used to having a vehicle with such a small “fuel” tank and so few “refueling” stations that they have to pay attention to these effects on range

these things were better understood by any average driver in the mid-80s and prior in rural parts of the country, when trucks had mere 16gal tanks and V8s that drained the tank if going 75mph on the hwy

A few decades of 32gal extended tanks and money to burn at the pump allowed people to ignore/forget physics

everything old is new again

Yes, but we don't yet know the exact range the CT will be capable of so it could surprise us maybe a little. The low cost of electricity 'fuel' still makes the financial effect of wind resistance much less of a concern, sort of like (fuel) 'money to burn' as you stated. But for the range limitation itself, as long as a supercharger is reachable I'm good, and many areas I think are already covered pretty well.

I'll gladly take half the range if I save two, three or four times the money, every day of the week.

- ÆCIII

 

[cvalue13]

Yes, but we don't yet know the exact range the CT will be capable of so it could surprise us maybe a little. The low cost of electricity 'fuel' still makes the financial effect of wind resistance much less of a concern, sort of like (fuel) 'money to burn' as you stated. But for the range limitation itself, as long as a supercharger is reachable I'm good, and many areas I think are already covered pretty well.

I'll gladly take half the range if I save two, three or four times the money, every day of the week.

- ÆCIII

Oh, no disagreements from me, on any account.

Just describing at 40K feet why so many people, even those experienced with BEVs, speak of BEV trucks like there's some magical effect of physics that makes them more prone to range reduction than ICE trucks.

take it from someone who has experienced the Ford Lightning forum lifecycle from pre-release to a year after: lots of folks will be yamming on about the CT taking a 50% range reduction when towing like it's unique to the CT, and not just the same physics/effects that apply to ICE trucks

 

[Diehard]

Yup. That V^2 is on my mind every time I get in the truck. In my local drives I can get around 3.4-3.6 mi/KWh with the rack in it’s low position. On weekend 300 mile round trip, I get 2.3. I take scenic routs and I am at or bellow 65 for most of it. There is no perceive cost to me driving like this. I am not as stressed and enjoy the trip more than I used to. When time is a factor, I may dip bellow 1.8 mi/KWh on the highway but that is usually short and not very often. The only time I may want a lot more efficient vehicle would be on a super long trip but I am not sure when that would be. We are taking wife’s Subaru next week for a 600 mile trip. We probably could make it on one tank of gas, cheaper than public charging with my truck. Next time, I may feel adventurous enough to try going green and risk getting stranded with the truck.

 

[Solarrrs]

Or do 55mph like the good lord intended

Slowing to 55 mph will certainly increase your mileage (The purpose of the national, 55 mile an hour speed limit was to conserve fuel)
It’s like putting a parachute on the back of the cyber truck similar to that unit were referring to with all the slots, each of which grab air, will use a lot of energy.
Many people don’t realize there’s more wind resistance behind the car than there is in front.
take a look at a bird, an airplane, or a fish more streamlined in the back.

 

[Solarrrs]

Adding my old rack to my standard battery pack Lightning Pro has had no impact on my range. My average range for 23 pro is 240 miles. The rack is adjustable and all of it is bellow roofline without load.

Good point sounds like your rack is out of the Windstream behind the cab. Just imagine if the surface was right at the wind stream like the unit on the cyber truck and was full of little holes. All grabbing air.

Sponsored