Onboard solar charging.

[Fritztech]

Just get the Aptera as the Cybertruck sounds totally overkill if that's all the driving you will be doing on a daily basis.

If your needs change in the future, and you find the Aptera no longer meets all your needs, you could get a Cybertruck and install a solar carport or rooftop solar. It generally makes more sense to have the electricity generation separate from the vehicle if the goal is to reduce dependence upon grid power.

Having both vehicles is another solution. They are both on almost the opposite spectrum of weight capability. One is for when you or just another need to make a short trip with no "cargo". CT is for carrying many folks and cargo.

Sponsored

 

[rizvend]

Ok, I am new to the forum so I don't know if it has been brought up before but I want more information on the onboard solar charging. I have two reservations one for a CT and the other for an Aptera. Still trying to decide. Solar charging on the CT would seal the deal.

We're on the same boat! Investor for both but when it comes to buying, will jump the bridge when I get there. End up with both? Possibility but not practical.

 

[cvalue13]

I find this desire for on-CT solar an intriguing and strange discussion.

The use cases, where it would be better than obvious alternatives, seem so limited.

Those include, far as I can tell, really only one sort of scenario: when away from the house, in outdoor public parking, if/when the vehicle can be oriented towards the sun, without blocking surroundings, and then only for so long as it remains oriented towards the sun.

I imagine for example, someone works where they can park in an open air lot, with a spot available that roughly orients towards S/SW?

otherwise:

• if you’re at home, better to have roof panels.

• if you’re camping, better to have deployable panels

• etc.?

What scenarios am I missing, that causes someone to want to have the option and maintenance expense of a fixed panel on the CT?

 

[bad61]

Solar charging on CT would not have as much of an impact as it does on Aptera. I wouldn’t put as much weight on your decision for CT. For Aptera on the other hand, I would get as much solar onboard as I could.

I want to see more front and back Inlets for solar and wind. Add panels as needed. Fixed is not upgradeable, cheaply.
Air compressor outlets front and back. For hydraulics and airbags. Right behind the tailgate have in the hitch receiver a self-deploying wind catcher and could be doubled as propeller for the water.

 

[Diehard]

I want to see more front and back Inlets for solar and wind. Add panels as needed. Fixed is not upgradeable, cheaply.

I agree. Making use of accessories based on wants and needs of the individual seamless is what makes it a truck. There is no reason a sunshade for your windshield in summer time should not be able to collect energy while keeping your truck cool. And after your dog chews it up, you should be able to upgrade to the most price competitive one with more efficient cells. That way if you live and work in a cool shady place, you won't pay for a more expensive truck for a feature you won't use.

However if price, efficiency and longevity of solar cells on something like Aptera was reasonable, I could go for a permanent setup due to convenience, sacrificing ease of upgrade later.

 

[rudedawg78]

If not available via the config tool when released, maybe a solar charging accessory will be available from this "super secret Tesla team" that is creating a Cybertruck store?

 

[ldjessee]

I find this desire for on-CT solar an intriguing and strange discussion.

The use cases, where it would be better than obvious alternatives, seem so limited.

Those include, far as I can tell, really only one sort of scenario: when away from the house, in outdoor public parking, if/when the vehicle can be oriented towards the sun, without blocking surroundings, and then only for so long as it remains oriented towards the sun.

I imagine for example, someone works where they can park in an open air lot, with a spot available that roughly orients towards S/SW?

otherwise:

• if you’re at home, better to have roof panels.

• if you’re camping, better to have deployable panels

• etc.?

What scenarios am I missing, that causes someone to want to have the option and maintenance expense of a fixed panel on the CT?

What about those renting and on street parking?

What about someone who is van-life living and spends a few days at locations, then might move 20 miles? or 200?

Me, I have already sank enough into my current money pit and that included a new roof, so not looking to invest that kind of resources to not have it pay off, which due to tall trees, get 3-5 hours of sun exposure, but the house faces south… was considering it, but the new furnace and AC knocked that idea straight out.

I work from home 90% of the time and my wife does 50-50.

It would sit in the drive way offsetting drain and maybe adding a few miles a day…

I can think of scenarios from my own past and that of friends where even 5 miles a day would have helped.

 

[cvalue13]

What about those renting and on street parking?

What about someone who is van-life living and spends a few days at locations, then might move 20 miles? or 200?

Me, I have already sank enough into my current money pit and that included a new roof, so not looking to invest that kind of resources to not have it pay off, which due to tall trees, get 3-5 hours of sun exposure, but the house faces south… was considering it, but the new furnace and AC knocked that idea straight out.

I work from home 90% of the time and my wife does 50-50.

It would sit in the drive way offsetting drain and maybe adding a few miles a day…

I can think of scenarios from my own past and that of friends where even 5 miles a day would have helped.

good thoughts, and I get that there will be use cases. Not sure there are enough use cases for Tesla to make it part of the vehicle, though

and, when I read posts like yours, I’m left with that exact sense of intrigue and strangeness I first mentioned. Because I can’t tell if I don’t get it, or others don’t get the seeming limitations of a vehicle-fixed solar solution.

you mention renters with on-street parking. Of those, how many have reliable on on-street parking locations that aren’t materially obscured from the sun by trees, neighboring buildings, etc.? And of those with sufficient light in the first place, how many will have on-street parking on a north/south oriented street such that they can orient their vehicle towards meaningful charging? And of those how many are even home during most of daylight hours, rather than at work? And of those who are at work most of the week, is their work parking unobscured, facing S/SW, etc?

Forgive the piling on, but it’s sort of the point: it seems like a needle-threading effort to think of who will have the correct conditions for what… gaining a couple miles a day? Offsetting vampire drain?

Take yourself for example. You say you want solar on the CT because you work from home, but that you won’t put solar on your home - in part - because it’s obscured by tall trees.

But your driveway isn’t?

And if you’re home, why not … plug in? Even a 120 trickle charger would do an order of magnitude more than an on-vehicle panel, much less one in partial shade.

Anyhow, your situation may be a needle threaded. But I would find it strange if, after consideration, Tesla didn’t decide that the squeeze ain’t worth the juice for on-vehicle solar.

offer instead a deployable solar windscreen shade and call it good

 

[firsttruck]

.....
you mention renters with on-street parking. Of those, how many have reliable on on-street parking locations that aren’t materially obscured from the sun by trees, neighboring buildings, etc.?

Is Austin and other places near a river really indicative of most of U.S. southwest & northern Mexico.

"TREES"?
In large parts of Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, southern California, Northern Mexico, the answer back is "TREES?", where did you find one?

In the U.S. southwest & northern Mexico, solar obstruction by trees or even tall buildings is usually not a problem.

Many times it is the other way around, many people wished they had a tree to hide under from the sun.

.....
And of those with sufficient light in the first place, how many will have on-street parking on a north/south oriented street such that they can orient their vehicle towards meaningful charging? And of those how many are even home during most of daylight hours, rather than at work? And of those who are at work most of the week, is their work parking unobscured, facing S/SW, etc?

Solar panels do not require perfect orientation. In larger installations sometimes some panels are purposely oriented in directions east, southeast, southwest, west.

Panels can even work to some degree without direct exposure and on certain types of cloudy days, just with reduced energy collection.

 

[cvalue13]

Is Austin and other places near a river really indicative of most of U.S. southwest & northern Mexico.

Wait a second, you’re telling me there exist places without many trees?!

Solar panels do not require perfect orientation.

Who said they did?

larger installations sometimes some panels are purposely oriented in directions east, southeast, southwest, west.

exactly.

and for the same reasons, you, too, can go re-park your CT as the sun’s COS changes in the sky during the day

 

[TyPope]

I want the panels so while my truck is parked at work during the day, it'll recharge at least enough to offset vampiric loss. Plus, I go on enough 1 week work trips where I end up parked at the airport. It'd be great to come back to a truck with some battery remaining rather than praying my trip doesn't get extended and having to figure out how to get my dead truck moving again....

 

[firsttruck]

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

Solar panels do not require perfect orientation. In larger installations sometimes some panels are purposely oriented in directions east, southeast, southwest, west.

Panels can even work to some degree without direct exposure and on certain types of cloudy days, just with reduced energy collection.

.....
Who said they did?

Ahhh. you did. (see below)

....
how many will have on-street parking on a north/south oriented street such that they can orient their vehicle towards meaningful charging?

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

....
Take yourself for example. You say you want solar on the CT because you work from home, but that you won’t put solar on your home - in part - because it’s obscured by tall trees.

But your driveway isn’t?

Yes, (if there are trees) by design there are probably a lot of houses shaded by trees but the driveway isn't.

Trees purposely left there from before the house was built or specifically planted later specifically to shade the house. In environments where trees grow easily and before relatively cheap air conditioning/electricity this was common.

Shading the driveway was probably not thought important so yes solar panels on Cybertruck in the driveway might get more exposure than solar panels on the house roof.


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

 

[cvalue13]

Ahhh. you did. (see below)

It does not say what you think it says, and in an obvious way

But in short, for optimum charging, yes it must be pointed near directly at the sun; the less this is true, the less the charging is effective, and the drop off can be considerable

see the word “meaningful” in what you’re quoting?

this is such a patently obvious thing that it makes your comments appear to be trolling. That, or you have zero idea how solar works.

True also of the remainder of your contributions here.

 

[Crissa]

Non-optimum is still better than none at all.

-Crissa

 

[happy intruder]

Just get the Aptera as the Cybertruck sounds totally overkill if that's all the driving you will be doing on a daily basis.

If your needs change in the future, and you find the Aptera no longer meets all your needs, you could get a Cybertruck and install a solar carport or rooftop solar. It generally makes more sense to have the electricity generation separate from the vehicle if the goal is to reduce dependence upon grid power.

not to drive another discussion, but I listened to the Aptera review this morning and it scared the hell out of me......was told that the load capacity would only be 500 lbs....... they figured it on 2-people weight 150 lbs each (300lbs) and 200 for gear.....well I am 220lbs and my wife is 110 lbs...thats 330 lbs.....leaving 170 lbs for all camping gear, cooler, clothes etc......even on a road trip, luggage will weigh more than 100 lbs.......re-thinking camping and road trip with this machine......btw, will the aptera be registered as a motorcycle?

Sponsored