Cybertruck efficiency vs F150 Lightning efficiency

[roadrunner32]

I like the massive Frunk on the F150 lightning good for packing extra stuff but does it come as an increased operating cost? ie it takes more kWh's to push all that air around in the front vs the relative small size of the cyber truck front and longer times to charge. Just wondering what are the battery pack sizes of the F150 lightning vs the cyber truck?

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

I like the massive Frunk on the F150 lightning good for packing extra stuff but does it come as an increased operating cost? ie it takes more kWh's to push all that air around in the front vs the relative small size of the cyber truck front and longer times to charge. Just wondering what are the battery pack sizes of the F150 lightning vs the cyber truck?

well, we don’t know the battery pack details of the CT yet. And as the battery types may be materially different, other comparisons (charge times, etc) are also unavailable.

but as a lightning owner, there’s no doubt that the Lightning has ~identical aerodynamics to the ICE F150 (the only differences coming from the radiator differences).

and no doubt the Lightning could have materially worse aerodynamics than the CT, given that the Lightning is not a ground-up BEV platform optimized for the aero benefits to BEVs, while the CT has been built ground-up with aero benefits in mind.

that said, it takes surprisingly little for these things to move away from optimal. Put a Lightning on the right tires at correct PSI and no modifications, vs a CT on the wrong tires and under-inflated by just a few PSI plus the wrong accessory (eg an aftermarket bumper), and things can equalize real fast.

I don’t have many reasons to think the CT is certain to have a materially smaller Frunk than the Lightning, but a lot of reasons to believe the CT won’t have a materially larger Frunk than the lightning.

 

[Diehard]

You have to wait for real world comp. There are just too many things, from motor efficiency to cabin heating efficiency in winter that has impact on the result. Until then, you can use things like this video to keep yourself entertained. I have not done the math but I am guessing, instead of 70 mph in CT, you could go 65 in F150 and consume the same amount of electricity to get to your destination. If you driving on local roads and slower, there should be less of a difference. If you are doing 80+ all the time, may be more of a difference.

 

[Solarrrs]

well, we don’t know the battery pack details of the CT yet. And as the battery types may be materially different, other comparisons (charge times, etc) are also unavailable.

but as a lightning owner, there’s no doubt that the CT has ~identical aerodynamics to the ICE F150 (the only differences coming from the radiator differences).

and no doubt the Lightning could have materially worse aerodynamics than the CT, given that the Lightning is not a ground-up BEV platform optimized for the aero benefits to BEVs, while the CT has been built ground-up with aero benefits in mind.

that said, it takes surprisingly little for these things to move away from optimal. Put a Lightning on the right tires at correct PSI and no modifications, vs a CT on the wrong tires and under-inflated by just a few PSI plus the wrong accessory (eg an aftermarket bumper), and things can equalize real fast.

I don’t have many reasons to think the CT is certain to have a materially smaller Frunk than the Lightning, but a lot of reasons to believe the CT won’t have a materially larger Frunk than the lightning.

I don’t know where you got the misinformation that the aerodynamics of the lightning and cyber truck are similar. You’re off by a factor of two check it out.

 

[cvalue13]

I don’t know where you got the misinformation that the aerodynamics of the lightning and cyber truck are similar. You’re off by a factor of two check it out.

show me where I said that?

 

[hridge2020]

[/QUOTE]




Did they do a bug splatter effect on each design too by chance? lol

 

[Greshnab]

show me where I said that?

I think you mistyped in your initial post.. what you typed was.. there’s no doubt that the CT has ~identical aerodynamics to the ICE F150

and i think what you meant was there is no doubt the LIGHTNING has identical... i was going to mention it but from the next line realized you probably mistyped. Assuming in this case CT is short for cybertruck

 

[cvalue13]

I think you mistyped in your initial post.. what you typed was.. there’s no doubt that the CT has ~identical aerodynamics to the ICE F150

and i think what you meant was there is no doubt the LIGHTNING has identical... i was going to mention it but from the next line realized you probably mistyped. Assuming in this case CT is short for cybertruck

Ah yes, thanks! Fixed

 

[cvalue13]

@Jhodgesatmb and @BeastSlayer I thought we might move this exchange to the more on-point thread

Sorry, let me reframe my point and see if it helps clarify what you view as contradictory:

The F150, like the CT, converted many from ICE to BEV for the first time. Like myself. I’ve loved the idea of BEV, but need (want?) a full-sized truck. Now, here’s an option for one.

Accordingly, the Lightning has been subject to many critiques from two camps that need qualification:

First, first-time BEV buyers that don’t appreciate the quirks that are unique to all BEVs: e.g., performance effects of cold weather. Many first time BEV Tesla buyers go through these same learning curves. These folks need only education and acclimatizing.

Second, YouTubers and media outlets that are sensationalists. You yourself appear to reference these as the source of your opinions. And the CT is going to receive its fair share of lumps from these very same infuencer-wannabes. This group I ignore, about any manufacturer, and we all should.




If one of your “reasons” is towing performance, then you’re not an informed buyer. And, the CT isn’t going to perform any differently than the Lightning in this respect, except to the extent the CT offers a larger battery pack and better interstate charging infra.

If one of your “reasons” is cold weather performance, then you’re not an informed buyer. And the CT isn’t going to perform any differently than the Lightning in this respect, except to the extent the CT offers a larger battery pack and better interstate charging infra (and maybe heat pump).

That sort of list goes on.

But rather than acknowledging that the fundamental towing/cold weather performance between the Lightning and CT boil down to the (painfully obvious) differences in battery size and intrastate charging infra, you instead seem to just regurgitate YouTube FUD that is based on sloppy thinking.

If you think you’re waiting on a CT to not experience a >50% reduction in range while towing, you’re going to be disappointed.

If you think you’re waiting on a CT to not experience material reductions in range due to cold weather, you’re going to be disappointed.

To avoid these disappointments, you should focus on the actual, substantive, advantages of the CT in these respects: choose a trim with a far larger battery than any Lightning, and be prepared to stop and recharge at the better Tesla intrastate charge infra.

I am divided on your reply. On the one hand you are absolutely correct that all BEVs will suffer range loss due to towing, weather, etc., and that all new (or current) BEV owners will have to deal with it. On the other hand, Tesla is much better than Ford for drive efficiency, drag, range, and battery life, so these impacts might be less pronounced for the CT over the Lightning. We should prepare ourselves for the worst and be happy if it is better.

yes, absolutely, there will be differences and I expect that Tesla’s technological leads over Ford’s will show up in the numbers. Exacerbated further in a comparison with the Lightning in particular (which isn’t a ground-up BEV platform optimized for BEV, but instead an ICE platform with BEV guts packed in).

That said, my comments also relate to what has in the Lightning forums and my 9 months of ownership become clear (at least to me) but may not yet be clear to the hopeful CT owner: many of the quirks currently being attributed to the Lightning as a vehicle, are actually inherent to BEV trucks as a class.

And so while the CT may very well beat the Lightning in some of these metrics, it won’t avoid them. And in some instances, there may be unexpected oddities where the CT has its own quirks.

I’m thinking for example of towing.

Start with the fact that essentially all of the range reduction from towing comes not from some special nature of BEVs, but instead there basic physics of towing in any vehicle, ICE or otherwise. People fail to appreciate that even the best diesel rigs will also experience a >50% decrease in range if, eg:

• towing a trailer shaped like a parachute
• with even 1 PSI below reccomended
• on tires not ideal for towing/rolling resistance
• in any headwind
• in 20° weather
• all while doing 75mph

People only feel this is any different in a Lightning because they’re not used to having a truck with only a 13 gallon equivalent tank and fuel stations not available every few miles.

The CT won’t escape the majority of these effects of physics, by any technology we know of.

Here’s where I see the aforementioned possible quirk with the CT coming into play: unlike the Lightning, which is shaped like an ice cream truck, the CT’s stated [500]mi range will be in part the result of not just a larger battery, but the CT’s improved aerodynamics compared to the lightning.

Which means possibly that once you hook the CT to a trailer, what is usually a [500] mile battery in optimum drag conditions now has a perhaps even more dramatic apparent reduction in range. Whereas the Lightning’s bad aerodynamics merely gets worse with a trailer, will the CT’s better aerodynamics interplay with the trailer aerodynamics to a more pronounced effect?

Or maybe more simply: Lightning owners have experienced relatively little effect on range with racks or cargo in its bed, in part because the aerodynamics over the Lightning’s bed are already “felt” before the air gets there.

In contrast, the CT’s maximum range and better aero will be in part due to the sloping rear and tonneau cover - but adding a rack or cargo sticking up into what was once a smooth airstream will materially alter its drag in a way the Lightning doesn’t suffer.

But to emphasize, I don’t mean the above examples to at all suggest that on an all-in basis the CT will be “worse” on any given metric. Instead only to point out that it will be its own quirky participant in the same physics that effect all trucks.

Perhaps it’s a good time to re-up this graph. I’ve seen people say something like “my model X experiences very little range reduction, so I’m sure Tesla has this figured out, too.” But they’re confusing how physics works, as between drag profiles of increases frontal planes.

The bigger the object, the more air temp, humidity, wind, and speed accelerate the exponential curve of drag (all of which I know you in particular know very well, but to state it for the observer):

 

[cvalue13]

and @Jhodgesatmb and @BeastSlayer I thought I might also cross-paste here a post from the Lightning forum that I made not long ago

I think it applies somewhat equally here to us CT hopefuls - especially the part i here put in bold - because it is a point about not letting FUD and misinformation place a stain on BEVs generally, to the degree it's undeserved or misunderstood. People will run with the "story" that "BEVs have some magical inability to tow" even though that's not the fair critique.

"I feel like this is something we BEV truck owners need to better understand and explain to the skeptics​

​

namely, that there is nothing special about BEV’s in these respects of mileage. It is not an issue with the BEVs, it’s an issue only if BEVs having small “tanks” and not enough gas stations.​

​

the short(ish) version is this​

​

• EPA hwy range test has an average speed in the low 50s - and just like and to the same degree as with an ICE vehicle, you won’t get near that EPA range if you’re pegging it at 75mph​

​

• the most fuel efficient ICE F150 is EPA rated at 26mph highway, which means the Lightning’s 320 EPA is equivalent to an ICE F150 with a 12.3 gallon fuel tank - and just like with that ICE, you won’t get far on 12 gallons, especially if pegged at 75mph​

​

• as for towing, ICE F150s also experience an ~50% range reduction with any material trailer - so just like an ICE F150, if you’re doing 75mph with a 12 gallon tank, you aren’t getting far​

​

which is all to say, there isn’t anything materially different about the performance of the Lightning when it comes to range or towing. The difference comes in primarily with the fact that the Lightning’s “tank” is small, owing to the current state of battery technology, and the frequency of “fuel stations” is limited, owing to the current state of charging infrastructure.​

​

Now at the end of the day, the range is comparatively low, there’s no getting around that. But it’s because modern ICE trucks have massive fuel tanks, and stations on every corner.​

​

And when an ICE driver says “man, a real truck has to have more range than that” you might respond with “go back in time and hop in a 1981 F150 with a V8 and a 16 gallon fuel tank, and tell me how far “real trucks” can tow 7,500 pounds at 75mph” Back then, you towed slow (for fuel economy) and stopped often (of necessity).​

​

We should stop being confused by, and even ourselves propagating the myth that, when it comes to range and towing performance there’s something inherently different from ICE trucks. There’s not. The physics of efficiency and aero are the same on both vehicles.​

​

In that way, a Lightning owner upset about range and towing is like someone who buys an ICE f150 with a 12 gallon fuel tank and is frustrated with the “mystery” of not being able to drive all night long at 75mph.​

​

Current battery technology means these trucks have a small fuel tank. That’s all. And with a small fuel tank, all the normal effects of physics on fuel economy simply means you will notice the effects more than if you were in a ICE truck with a 26 gallon tank. Especially when there’s not a station on every corner.​

​

And if skeptics balk, just say “look, I’m kind of old school - I like a ‘real’ truck like back in the 1970s, when people weren’t so soft, afraid of planing trips carefully and taking it slow” ​

 

[Solarrrs]

Ford is already losing money on there lightning even at $15,000 above the original 40,000 projected base price seems unlikely with inflation they’re going to lower their price at all.
And on the niche volume you mention for Tesla they’ll be producing many more cyber trucks than lightnings shortly after release.

 

[firsttruck]

250K/year Cybertrucks is not niche. Cybertruck would be definitely be high volume.

In-fact, 250K/year would put Cybertruck in top 5 (5th place) of U.S. full-size pickups by model.

Beating GMC Sierra 1500/2500, Toyota Tundra, Nissan Titan and even Toyota's higher volume mid-size Toyota Tacoma.

U.S. Full-size Truck Sales: Full-year 2022
Sales Model
653,957 Ford F-Series
523,249 Chevrolet Silverado
468,344 Ram Trucks
241,522 GMC Sierra
104,246 Toyota Tundra

237,323 Toyota Tacoma (mid-size)


------------------------------------

15 Best Selling Trucks Of 2022
Jan 05, 2023
Jeff Perez By: Jeff Perez
https://www.motor1.com/features/629701/best-selling-trucks-2022/

------------------------------------

 

[cvalue13]

In-fact, 250K/year would put Cybertruck in top 5 (5th place) of U.S. full-size pickups by model.

Beating GMC Sierra 1500/2500, Toyota Tundra, Nissan Titan and even Toyota's higher volume mid-size Toyota Tacoma.

U.S. Full-size Truck Sales: Full-year 2022
Sales Model
653,957 Ford F-Series
523,249 Chevrolet Silverado
468,344 Ram Trucks
241,522 GMC Sierra

these stats are not for the 1/2 ton class. They’re for all non-HD tonnage variants (eg F150+F250+F350, or the Ram 1500, 2500, and 3500 etc)

and across both retail and fleet

if one takes the view that the CT is squarely a 1/2 ton truck, and focused on retail only, it would mean 250,000 a year would be a top 3 in terms of 1/2 ton retail specifically

 

[firsttruck]

these stats are not for the 1/2 ton class. They’re for all non-HD tonnage variants (eg F150+F250+F350, or the Ram 1500, 2500, and 3500 etc)

and across both retail and fleet

if one takes the view that the CT is squarely a 1/2 ton truck, and focused on retail only, it would mean 250,000 a year would be a top 3 in terms of 1/2 ton retail specifically

Cybertruck specs make it more than JUST "full-size 1/2 ton truck".
Cybertruck overlaps some specs of payload & towing of some lower trims/engine Ford F-250s, Chevy/GMC/RAM 2500s.

Also some mid-size pickup truck buyers who limited themselves to mid-size ICE only to save fuel might move up to Cybertryck because they can get large savings on fuel and get more capacity.

So the market for Cybertruck is more than just "full-size 1/2 ton truck".

There is no reason to exclude Cybertruck from fleets. We already know of people with intentions to buy more than 5 (some as many as 50) for fleet (not scalping) and that is just early adopters. Once Cybertruck is out there there will be more fleet orders.

Sponsored