Possible Cybertruck Beast Mode to be classified as Class 4 vehicle ?

[FutureBoy]

Today Farzad Mesbahi had a Youtube community video to talk about the video we've all seen from Matthew Donegan-Ryan:





Here is the video from Farzad:




Interesting thing came up in the chat. One of the participants was Brian Wang of NextBigFuture. He has an article called Tesla Cybertruck Will Be Dominant Work Truck and a Cult Car which talks about the possibility of having a CT that can do much better on range while towing than the ICE Ford F-150. He has a bunch of calculations to back that up but you can read for yourself. I'll add the article in my next post below.

However, after talking about that, he then goes on to talk about a possible beast mode CT. Based on the ability to take advantage of Tesla Semi tech, he makes the conjecture that the CT could have a Beast Mode where it would be classified as a Class 4 vehicle and take advantage of some federal ($40k) and state (CA and NY were mentioned) ($60k) EV tax credits to claim up to $100k back on the cost of the CT.

I don't know what to think about that. It kind of breaks my head. But his argument starts here. I'm curious what everyone thinks about this.

Sponsored

 

[FutureBoy]

Here is the article mentioned above by Brian Wang:

Tesla Cybertruck Will Be Dominant Work Truck and a Cult Car
March 9, 2023 by Brian Wang

Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley has written that he thinks the Tesla Cybertruck could end up being a “Cult” Car with only 50,000 to 100,000 per year production volumes. This is despite over 1.5 million reserved Cybertrucks.

Nextbigfuture has calculated that a Tesla Cybertruck will be able to beat the range of a gas-powered Ford F150. This is based upon the calculated Tesla Cybertruck specifications with the assumption they will use Tesla Semi technology. A Ford F150 has a 23 gallon fuel tank and gets 460 miles of range without carrying anything and gets 207 miles of range with payload. F150 handles 8,200 lbs of towing and maximum payload of 1,985 lbs. The F-150 Platinum has a 36 gallon tank. The platinum has a range of 324 mile range with a heavy load.

Tesla Cybertruck will also use several Plaid motors (like the Tesla Semi) and a 1000-volt powertrain. These are optimized to not lose range under load. Cybertrucks with Semi motors and powertrain should have 200 miles of range with full loads with 85 kWh batteries and 250 miles with 110 kWh. A 180 kWh pack should give 500 miles empty and 400 miles under class 4 load.

A Tesla Cybertruck with a 180 kWh pack pulling a combined vehicle and payload weight of 15,000 lbs would beat the gasoline Ford F150, Ford F250 and Ford F350. The Tesla Cybertruck would outclass the Rivian and the Ford Lightning.

Adam Jonas predicted the Tesla Cybertruck will weigh over 7000 lbs. The Tesla Semi has vastly lighter weight and more range than all competing electric Semi trucks. The Tesla Model Y and 3 have superior range and weight than all competing electric cars. Tesla Cybertruck has exoskeleton and powertrain are all designed for lighter weight and more efficiency. Tesla Cybertruck will be using adapations of the plaid motors used in the Semi and the Model S and X. This already is known to have abundant power and light weight.

I matched the formula for energy used by the Tesla Semi for their recent 500-mile video-recorded delivery of 81,000 lbs. Tesla is about 13% from optimal assuming they drove at 60mph on their 500-mile test. If they drove at 52mph then they were 27% from optimal. Optimal based upon known aerodynamics and other parameters. The formula is at the bottom of this article.

A Tesla Cybertruck that is able to match the Tesla Semi at 13% from optimal energy usage while towing or moving loads would surpass a Ford F150 range while towing with a 110 kWh battery pack.

I have used a formula for calculating the energy usage for an electric vehicle based upon its weight, speed and aerodynamics.

The Tesla Cybertruck has a width of 79.8 inches (6.65 feet) and measures 75 inches in height. Cybertrucks has about 12 inches of ground clearance. This means cross section height is 5.25 feet from the base of the car to its top. This means the cross section is 34.9 square feet. I used 35 square feet in my calculation.

This formula is from the – ACS Energy Letter – Performance Metrics Required of Next-Generation Batteries to Make a Practical Electric Semi Truck [2017, American Chemical Society]

Instagrammer, Ftronz, posted a picture and video of a beta production Tesla Cybertruck.

 

[CyberGus]

 

[FutureBoy]

I think they are talking about a different Beast mode. But Farzad at the beginning said he was getting compared to Mr. Beast.

 

[CyberROD]

 

[Gurule92]

So basically, the truck is soooo powerful, that the load barely effects it?

 

[FutureBoy]

So basically, the truck is soooo powerful, that the load barely effects it?

I think the argument is more like the wind drag is still an effect but if the wind drag does not change between loads (same trailer with same size and shape) then the difference in weight between a large and small load does not make much difference in range because of the excellent regen and overall efficiency.

So ideally the trailer (or even better the full load is in the bed with the tonneau closed) is built to be very efficient and smooth in the same slipstream as the CT itself. Then the extra weight isn't supposed to diminish range very much.

At least that is what he seems to be saying.

The further implication of it then is that since load weight isn't very much of an effect on range, then the CT could be built out to handle and be rated for huge loads. Like on the order of class 4 trucks or more. Then competitively they could far outclass the large trucks on price and also potentially take advantage of large tax relief. And if that is what the truck was rated at, truck nation would potentially see the CT as a beast of a truck.

 

[Gurule92]

I think the argument is more like the wind drag is still an effect but if the wind drag does not change between loads (same trailer with same size and shape) then the difference in weight between a large and small load does not make much difference in range because of the excellent regen and overall efficiency.

So ideally the trailer (or even better the full load is in the bed with the tonneau closed) is built to be very efficient and smooth in the same slipstream as the CT itself. Then the extra weight isn't supposed to diminish range very much.

At least that is what he seems to be saying.

Agreed. I made my first post without watching and based on beast mode name lol. I just got to the drag and regen talk.

 

[Bill906]

Wait, first I get tricked into watching a 31 minute video that was extremely painful to watch and full of speculation. Now you want me to watch an hour and a half video that talks about the first video?

 

[Quicksilver]

I watched snippets of the Investor Day event,
Am I wrong or did one of the Tesla higher ups say that the CT production would be limited to 50,000 per year?
If so it would be seven years before mine is built,
Did anyone else pick up on this?

 

[FutureBoy]

The further implication of it then is that since load weight isn't very much of an effect on range, then the CT could be built out to handle and be rated for huge loads. Like on the order of class 4 trucks or more. Then competitively they could far outclass the large trucks on price and also potentially take advantage of large tax relief. And if that is what the truck was rated at, truck nation would potentially see the CT as a beast of a truck.

Adding on to this. In the video from Matthew Donegan-Ryan he says the following (quote video cued at bottom):

Next let's talk about the Cybertruck suspension. All Cybertrucks as standard will have air suspension. Staff have told me they have tested this for Baja style terrain racing. As someone who has owned a raptor, you know raptors have really beefy off-road suspensions with very strong shocks and springs. That allows the truck to be jumped a little bit. When you do jump a truck like a raptor, the suspension wears out very quickly. You're going to have to replace your shocks and your suspension every 10,000 miles or so. If you are just driving it around town like most people are, driving on dirt and gravel roads, the suspension on something like a Raptor should last about 100,000 miles when you have to replace it. So I was asking the staff about this. If you are doing Baja style racing, are you going to have a version of the Cybertruck that does not have air suspension? Because how are the cylinders going to stand the pressure? You know the force when you jump a truck and land it that's going to exert a huge amount of force on those cylinders. I was told very directly that they have tested it. They have tested the air suspension and they are confident it can handle Baja style racing. So that was very exciting to hear.
I did meet Sandy Monroe while I was standing in front of the Cybertruck and he told me the air suspension cylinders are the biggest he's ever seen. He said he's seen very large ones on a RAM truck but these air suspension cylinders are actually larger.

Taking that information and combining it with what Brian Wang was saying, I'm wondering if the air shocks are oversized to do double duty. First is to "kick ass at Baja" as suggested by Elon way back. But as long as the shocks are that large, they might just be large enough to handle direct loads of Class 4 or larger trucks.

As a future owner, I don't see myself ever actually competing in the Baja 1000 with my CT. But I'd love to see someone do it and do it well. Right now, Ford likes to brag about their performance at Baja. But let's look at their actual performance last year.

Ford’s New Ranger Raptor Completes Baja 1000, Drives Back To California
The most capable version of the Ford Ranger finished first in the stock midsize class of the Baja 1000
by Thanos Pappas
November 21, 2022

Ford Performance came back victorious from this year’s International Baja 1000 race with a rally-prepped Ranger Raptor finishing first in the stock midsize class where it was the only contestant. After the tough 1,000-mile off-road race, the pickup drove back to Riverside, California, proudly exhibiting its dirty livery on public roads.

According to Ford, the Baja-ready Ranger Raptor was “race-prepped but remaining stock and street legal”. Besides the racing stickers, exterior upgrades included the snorkel, bull bar, skid plates, LED light bar, new wheels, and tires, plus two full-size spares, a larger tank, and extra equipment mounted on the rear bed.

A low-carbon biofuel from Shell was used for the race, without any changes to the twin-turbo 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6 petrol that produces 392 hp (292 kW / 397 PS) and 583 Nm (430 ft-lb) of torque in Australian specification. The heavy-duty suspension with Fox shocks was also left stock.

Despite the hurdles of the 1,000-mile race in the Baja Peninsula California, the truck didn’t have any major incidents or repairs and finished in good condition. This allowed the team to drive it back to base, without needing a trailer for the transport. This is the second time Ford achieves this after their 2017 Bajar 1000 effort with an F-150 Raptor.

The team was managed by Curt Leduc who has quite an experience in off-road races. Four driver and co-driver pairings stepped into the Ranger Raptor including Brad and Byam Lovell (Lovell Racing), Jason Hutter and Paul Blangstead (Fire Guys Racing), Loren Healy and Eric Davis (Fun-Haver Off-Road), and Andy and Danny Brown (ARB).

Brian Novak, Off-Road Motorsports Supervisor at Ford Performance, said: “Ford Performance Australia put their heart and soul into this project with Kelly Racing to start us off. When we took it over on the North American side with Lovell Racing and Huseman Engineering, it all came together seamlessly. There’s just so many people that came together to do this, and I couldn’t be prouder.”

Turns out that the Ford Raptor finished 1st in a class with 1 entry. So as long as they finish the race, they finish in 1st place. Another way of saying that is they finished in last place. They were the last entrant in their class to cross the finish line.

I bet Tesla could do better. But the race officials will probably put the CT in a different class so we'll have to compare overall times to see how well they actually do in comparison to each other.

Another important point though, is that Ford brags about being able to drive home after the race. OK. But Matthew Donegan-Ryan tells us that jumping the Ford Raptor will result in the need to replace the suspension after about 10,000 miles. I wonder what the Tesla CT will do. If it has suspension to handle the workload of a Class 4 truck, but the weight of the CT is down around Class 1 or Class 2, will that translate to the possibility of having the CT race at Baja, drive home, then come back the next year to race again, all without needing to replace the suspension? Now THAT would be something to brag about.





Video of the Matthew Donegan-Ryan quote cued here:

 

[cvalue13]

Based on the ability to take advantage of Tesla Semi tech, he makes the conjecture that the CT could have a Beast Mode where it would be classified as a Class 4 vehicle and take advantage of some federal ($40k) and state (CA and NY were mentioned) ($60k) EV tax credits to claim up to $100k back on the cost of the CT.

I’ll admit I didn’t watch it all. And admit that the maths he performs makes it clear it’s not ignorant if some things. But assumptions/assertions he makes suggests he IS ignorant of both (1) tax law, and (2) trucks/towing.

TAX LAW:

I can’t speak to the CA and NY incentives for >14,000lb vehicles, but would expect the state incentives to have many similar features, so a few thoughts come to mind:

• how on earth would they cause the ‘Beast Mode’ CT to weigh more than 14,000lb to qualify in the first place?!?

• these incentives are for commercial vehicles, so there are issues raised for anyone who can’t both (A) purchase the vehicle in the name of a business, and (B) have the ‘receipts’ necessary come tax time to prove up the usage (on a mileage basis) for commercial not personal use

•The credit for qualified commercial clean vehicles is not calculated like that of personal vehicles. While personal 30D vehicle credit amounts are calculated as a rebate to MSRP, the commercial 45W credits are calculated on the basis is equal to the lesser of (i) 30% of the basis of the BEV vehicle and (ii) the “incremental cost” of the vehicle. The “incremental cost” is the excess of the purchase price of the vehicle over the price of a comparable vehicle, which is a vehicle powered solely by a gasoline or diesel internal combustion engine and which is comparable in size and use.

Set aside that these credits are not calculated in a dollar-per-dollar way like personal vehicles, which *seems* to be the assumption you suggest this commentators asserts. Since the calculation is on the lower of 30% basis vs incremental cost of compatible “in size and use” - I think the CT used in “beast mode” is going to have a pear-shaped analysis on comparables.

End results of these tax points: likely nowhere near as much credit as the $40K, only for commercial trucks, and only if the load the truck with hidden lead to get it above 14,000lbs?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding his point

NOT UNDERSTANDING TRUCKS/TOWING

If I understand his discussion, he takes the (let’s call it) towing capabilities of the Tesla Semi (in weight and range) and then says basically “just put THOSE motors in the CT, and now it will out-tow, in range, an ICE F150 or Lightning because those have efficiency reductions of much higher percentages than the Semi.”

Problem with that is: the Semi is so efficient in towing, and the F150/Lightning so comparably inefficient, not because of the motors but because of aerodynamics.

a Tesla Semi’s aero-package is built for purpose to a standardized semi trailer. That’s why it looks like this:

Pickup’s aero-package, including the CT, are not married to their trailer. As a result, the lion’s share of inefficiency (and range reduction) in towing with a pickup comes from increased drag, increasing almost exponentially as speed increases. A pickup towing at 55mph experiences on the order of 40% less drag than one towing at 75mph.

Accordingly, the reason the ICE F150 or Lightning - or any other truck including the CT - experience such significant range hits when towing isn’t because their motors are less magical than Tesla’s motors, it’s because they’re towing a parachute. And that parachute grows with increased speeds, in significant scale.

When he, eg, references people with an Extended range Lightning (>300mi range) getting “less than 100mi” he’s ignoring that these are people towing breadbox trailers (poor aero even at low speeds) and doing so at over 70mph.

The same decreases in efficiency/range are seen in ICE vehicles, because the physics at play isn’t changing. The only difference is I’ve vehicles have gas stations every 10 miles and have to worry only about their wallet (but ICE drivers who tow are accustomed to that variable of cost, to the point of not thinking about it).

The Semi is so efficient in towing because it is ~not towing a parachute. It’s not because it’s motors are magic.

Nothing about the CT changes this basic of towing physics.

Again, maybe I misunderstand some key nuance to his point. But I think instead he’s a guy who is smart about some things, making the common mistake of feeling he’s smart about all things.

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

So basically, the truck is soooo powerful, that the load barely effects it?

Able to leap Tall Tales!!!!!

'INFINITE' Talk!

 

[JBee]

Without having a known fixed value for the trailer Cd and size and how the trailer affects CT aerodynamics there is just no way to compare.

If in fact if the CT is more streamlined and more efficient than a F150 Lightning, then it is going to be the case that the CT will be affected more, and not less by attaching a trailer.

Bed or trailer load is known to not be as much of a range reducer in comparison to vehicle aerodynamics. But the trailer also affects the CT aero, so a blunter less aerodynamic tow vehicle shape will likely have less range impact from attaching a trailer.

Conversely, a well designed, low profile, close following, and aerodynamically optimised trailer could technically improve aerodynamics of the CT as well.

 

[cvalue13]

OK. But Matthew Donegan-Ryan tells us that jumping the Ford Raptor will result in the need to replace the suspension after about 10,000 miles. I wonder what the Tesla CT will do. If it has suspension to handle the workload of a Class 4 truck, but the weight of the CT is down around Class 1 or Class 2, will that translate to the possibility of having the CT race at Baja, drive home,

Unlikely, The suspension needs of a class 4 truck couldn’t be worse for the suspension needs of a Baja-like use case.

there’s a reason the raptor is not on air suspension. It’s the same reason the Raptor is particularly bad at towing and payload.
set up is closer to Baja trucks, while the CT’s appears to be altogether further away.

air suspension of the sort that seems to be on the CT** is not going to be doing well at high speed offroad. It could be good for crawling, or lifting/lowering for obstacles. If instead traveling at high speeds on bumpy terrain, the type of air suspension that seems to be in the CT** will … fail. A hard impact (eg from jumping) will likely just … fail.

and that’s before we get to the 4WS sensitivities for this use case.

the following gif (stabilized to body) indicates what Baja trucks are good at, the Raptor approximates, and the CT** is likely particularly unsuited for

** I could of course be misunderstanding the CT’s suspension details. I know Musk had some tweet about a “dynamic air suspension” being worked to “kick butt in Baja” - and maybe Tesla reconnoiters physics ok this one to some degree. But generally speaking, it’s no accident that million-dollar trophy trucks have not reconnoitered these physics already.

And to be honest, I took that tweet to be possibly more in line not with some engineering marvel, but instead with his unveil day stunt with the F150 “towing battle” - someone knowingly (or u knowingly) saying something that would simultaneously cause people who don’t know towing/suspension to say “ooooh!” while people who do to say “eeeeeh” (and by a wide enough margin that it doesn’t take an expert to notice)

Sponsored