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

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
Conversely, a well designed, low profile, close following, and aerodynamically optimised trailer could technically improve aerodynamics of the CT as well.
Or just traveling at 55mph not 75mph

both variables ~equally true for any BEV that is towing

PS: did you not mean to say:


so a blunter less aerodynamic shape will likely have more range impact from attaching a trailer.
Sponsored

 
OP
OP
FutureBoy

FutureBoy

Well-known member
First Name
Reginald
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Threads
207
Messages
3,522
Reaction score
6,012
Location
Kirkland WA USA
Vehicles
Toyota Sienna
Occupation
Financial Advisor
Country flag
ā€¢ how on earth would they cause the ā€˜Beast Modeā€™ CT to weigh more than 14,000lb to qualify in the first place?!?
As per the discussion, the point was made that the 14,000 pounds weight is for the combined weight of the truck plus the load. CT could stay at its expected weight (6-7000 pounds?) as long as it was rated to carry/to an additional 7-8,000 pounds or more. I'm not a tax expert so will leave that point to others.

ā€¢ these incentives are for commercial vehicles, so there are issues raised for anyone who canā€™t both (A) purchase the vehicle in the name of a business, and (B) have the ā€˜receiptsā€™ necessary come tax time to prove up the usage (on a mileage basis) for commercial not personal use
The expectation would be that businesses using larger trucks would be replacing them with CTs due to the cost savings, low maintenance, etc. Having all the other truck guys see these larger trucks be replaced effectively by the CT is what make them see it as a Beast. They are not saying that everyone would be getting a CT with a much larger tax incentive. Just that it might be possible to qualify for it as long as the truck was classified large enough.

ā€¢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 ā€œincremental costā€ of the vehicle. The ā€œincremental costā€ 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.
I agree with you here. When I was listening and looking at the incentives they brought up, it looked like the CT would need to be higher priced than the comparable ICE truck it was replacing if it was going to max out the tax ramifications. But again, I'm no tax expert.

If I understand his discussion, he takes the (letā€™s call it) towing capabilities of the Tesla Semi (in weight and range) and then says basically ā€œjust 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.ā€

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.
This is a mischaracterization of his argument if I understand correctly. Basically he is saying that for the Semi, the aerodynamics doesn't change for a heavy vs a light load. In both cases it is same large trailer on the back with the same aerodynamics.

So for the CT, he is making a like comparison where he says that whatever the configuration is, (load 100% in the bed with tonneau closed, or towing a flat trailer a specific sized box no matter the load, or towing an aerodynamic trailer that almost doesn't increase the wind drag from the lone CT) pick your specific configuration. Then do the range test with a light load vs a heavy load. The argument is that the load itself doesn't make a very large difference in range because of the extreme efficiency (including superior brake regen of the Semi). Will the aerodynamics be much worse than a Semi if the trailer is a full sized shipping container on wheels? Most likely. But stuff the container with feathers or lead, and the range difference there supposedly won't be as large as expected.

Given that argument, he says that on the Ford F-150 (ICE or Lightning) people are getting much worse range on loads based on weight increases (again, comparing using identical wind drag). But if the weight is not such a problem for the CT, then using a hauling configuration with very low drag, should allow the CT to have very large weights being transported without large decreases in range. Only time will tell here.

The real problem with this whole argument is that there are 2 primary variables (aerodynamics and weight) but normally the aerodynamics makes such a large impact on range that it is difficult for people to see the impacts of weight.

What do I think? I have no idea if his argument will turn out to hold any water in the long run. But I really like how the idea of Beast mode coincides with the Sandy Monroe comment about the size of the shocks and Elon's desire to have the CT kick butt at Baja. If all of that marries up correctly, we could all end up with one beast of a strong truck that will be able to take on any others out there.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Threads
18
Messages
4,752
Reaction score
6,129
Location
Australia
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
. Professional Hobbyist
Country flag
Or just traveling at 55mph not 75mph

both variables ~equally true for any BEV that is towing

PS: did you not mean to say:
No I mean less range impact, if the tow vehicle is less aerodynamic. This is because a less slippery tow vehicle will create a larger displacement of air, through which a towed trailer will displace less air itself, as the trailer is essentially "slipstreaming" the tow vehicle, instead of forging its own path through the air.

In aerodynamics the amount of work ( and energy over time) is directly proportional of the amount of air displaced, and how fast it does this. So as you point out vehicle velocity plays a large role in range calculation as well.

You can intentionally design the tow vehicle to improve the slip streaming effect on the trailer, but doing so by increasing the frontal area and Cd of the tow vehicle will mean the tow vehicle, without a trailer attached, will have less range for a given battery size. In saying that though, you can also design the trailer to suit the aerodynamic shape of the tow vehicle, in such a way that together they have less drag. Like your semi example.

Like with semi, the greatest improvement on range comes directly from its length in comparison to its frontal area. This is because at highway speeds skin friction drag is minimal in comparison to frontal area form drag, so making the vehicle longer with a flat sided trailer does not increase drag by much, provided you can keep airflow laminar accross the length of the vehicle.
 
Last edited:

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
As per the discussion, the point was made that the 14,000 pounds weight is for the combined weight of the truck plus the load.
Good morning!

Yes - and whatā€™s the proposal for recertification to a class 4? Just the ā€œbeefy air suspensionā€?

I would be keen to see, eg, a Dually CT, but the ride quality may be for shit!

Hereā€™s an idea: what if it turns out to not be air suspension, but instead a liquid reservoir system?

The expectation would be that businesses using larger trucks would be replacing them with CTs due to the cost savings, low maintenance, etc.
I understand was just stating the limitation


Then do the range test with a light load vs a heavy load. The argument is that the load itself doesn't make a very large difference in range because of the extreme efficiency (including superior brake regen of the Semi).
exactly: and all of this is also true of an ICE vehicle towing

weight of load has very little to do with range (nominally at tire/rolling resistance)

accordingly:

Given that argument, he says that on the Ford F-150 (ICE or Lightning) people are getting much worse range on loads based on weight increases (again, comparing using identical wind drag).
The above being incorrect was my point

this isnā€™t about differences in motors etc

Itā€™s about the physics of of towing, which apply equally to vehicles

both the CT and Lightning have enough power, absent rolling resistance, drag, and tongue weight, to tow millions of pounds
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,130
Reaction score
13,725
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
You can intentionally design the tow vehicle to improve the slip streaming effect on the trailer, but doing so by increasing the frontal area and Cd of the tow vehicle will mean the tow vehicle, without a trailer attached, will have less range for a given battery size.
sure sure weā€™re on the same page
 


Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
126
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
27,077
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
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?
No, they did not say any such thing.

-Crissa
 

greggertruck

Well-known member
First Name
g
Joined
Mar 30, 2022
Threads
208
Messages
2,502
Reaction score
7,250
Location
Zimbabwe
Website
www.twitter.com
Vehicles
Dual-CT
Occupation
I post Cybertruck stuff on the Internet and people like it.
Country flag
All the Tesla YouTube guys do the ceiling glance deep thinking Elon pose now. Itā€™s so funny and recent.
Sponsored

 
 




Top