Flat Rack Setup Surprised Us – Range Loss Was Way Lower Than Expected

[Urander]

Just wanted to drop in and share a video from one of our flat rack users - he’s been super happy with the setup! As it turns out, we had no idea he previously ran another rack, and we honestly didn’t expect to see this kind of result.

We haven’t even done official testing on the flat rack yet, and we never thought about stacking some of the crossbars to smooth out that cheese grater effect on the top platform when the rack isn't being used to mount anything - but it totally works. What really blew us away was how little it affected range in the end. Way better than we guessed.

He stacked some of the crossbars together and left most of the top platform open to let air flow through. So seeing only a 3% impact is surprisingly low when the rack isn’t being used to haul anything.


Records are meant to be broken - and we don’t expect this lowest records to last that long. But for now, we’re stoked to see it hit this milestone!


Some pics from this Cybertruck Owners

Sponsored

 

[Urander]

FWIW: Here’s our earlier range test with the Molle Rack, rooftop tent, and some extra gear - so expect a bit more drag up top & and along the sides.

 

[Urander]

Here are the two types of side storage for the flat panel rack. They’re designed for those who prefer not to hang anything outside, helping maintain range efficiency while still keeping the full functionality of MOLLE storage.

 

[Gigahorse]

Here are the two types of side storage for the flat panel rack. They’re designed for those who prefer not to hang anything outside, helping maintain range efficiency while still keeping the full functionality of MOLLE storage.

Inside looks way cleaner.
For those of us who are mentally impaired, can we get a graphic of the range loss vs setup.
So many different configurations, hard to keep track of what configs drop range 3% and which ones drop it 13%

 

[BrockN]

It would be interesting to see how a wind tunnel simulator would model this.

I'm curious about how much molle panels drag (without any gear clipped on) compare to the solid panels. Presumably the molle holes add significant drag.

I also wonder how much the stream of air stays tight to the tonneau cover itself and how much it simply stays horizontal after passing over the high point of the truck. That would impact the vacuum and vortex created over the tonneau. And that would likely impact how much the inner molle panels and shelves add to drag.

Experimenting with the positioning of the crossbars might also reveal some optimizations.

 

[Urander]

Inside looks way cleaner.
For those of us who are mentally impaired, can we get a graphic of the range loss vs setup.
So many different configurations, hard to keep track of what configs drop range 3% and which ones drop it 13%

Hope this helps!

 

[Gigahorse]

Hope this helps!

Very nice, thanks!

 

[CyberTrk]

Tesla should make an SUV version of the CT, looking like this picture with the Urander rack,
and also remove the tonneau cover and the trunk wall separation, and add a third row seat.

It would certainly outsell the current CT, like the Rivian R1S versus the R1T

 

[Urander]

Added MarsAG MOLLE rack data for comparison. The flat panel rack without side MOLLE holes actually performed much better - this Cybertruck owner stacked several crossbars together and achieved 419.2 Wh/mi at 70 mph over an 89.1-mile loop.


For Gen 2, Urander chose to integrate side storage instead of having everything mounted externally to improve the Wh/mi. The MOLLE version will launch first, followed by the polycarbonate flat panel version. It’s designed to match the range efficiency of the Gen 1 flat panel at around 419.2 Wh/mi and is scheduled for release in July.

For the Gen 2 Urander Flat Panel Rack, our focus is on maximizing functionality while minimizing the impact on range efficiency.

I haven't seen anyone online do a proper range test with a roof rack mounted on the Cybertruck.

So, I range tested my rig (and filmed it) using the Mars Adventure Gear Roof Rack and Aeroblade tent on an AWD Cybertruck with 35" All-Terrains.

My 70mph range test resulted in the following efficiency:
Roof Rack + Aeroblade Tent: 470Wh/mi (261mi @ 100%)
Roof Rack: 458Wh/mi (268mi @ 100%)
Stock Cybertruck: 397Wh/mi (309mi @ 100%)

18% difference between stock and RTT! 15% difference between stock and bare roof rack. Not bad at all!

The difference between the rack & Aeroblade tent is also very tiny (<3% difference). That tent is super efficient. Judging by a recent road trip, I'm almost positive a spare tire mounted on top of the roof rack had a larger hit to range than the tent itself.

Just wanted to squash some speculation that roof racks cause deal-breaking range loss. 15% is not "deal breaking" range loss IMO. Some tire combos alone can cause similar range loss!

Here's the video:

 

[Urander]

Another CT with our flat panel rack. This Cybertruck wrap

Sponsored