PREDICTION: Cybertruck Accessory = Wireless Charging

[JBee]

Tesla could have certainly been doing their due diligence on the technology and company for years but that doesn’t necessarily mean they had the product in mind for Cybertruck. Particularly when they were at the Alpha design stage which would have been quite a long while ago. It could have been just a matter of the space being there already for the aforementioned aero reasons.

That being said I'm not going to discount the possibility entirely given you have insider info, it would just strike me as an odd choice for them to prioritize wireless charging over departure angle were it not for, primarily, aero reasons. Which, unlike wireless charging, ranks far higher in importance on a vehicle like the Cybertruck. Robotaxi would be an entirely different story.




Just to clarify I’m not saying there is space for one with the way the truck has been designed but there might have been enough space for one had Tesla wanted for there to be one, it just didn’t rank high on their list of priorities for a number of reasons, some of which you mentioned.

Looking at the Model S Plaid rear drive unit you could have one be very close to the centerline of the 'axle':

This is a fairly old conversation, but maybe these even older drawings I made a few years back, will help show the spare wheel size problem:

That's using the Plaid motor setup in the rear, which is mounted so that the rear driveshafts to the rear of the CT line up with the centre of the rear wheels so that the CV joints aren't on angle that increases wear, and reduces torque handling. A smaller motor would not change the location of the driveshafts to the rear wheels, so here the limiting factor is the distance behind the rear wheel centre to the end of the rear bumper.

You can see the proximity in the reflection of the render above.

I'd say mounting the spares on the rear is the only way to get them onboard, without interfering with the CT design length (which has been shortened since these old drawings) or increasing the rear overhang by reducing the wheelbase.

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...k-come-with-a-full-size-spare.3196/post-52851

Sponsored

 

[MiguelAznar]

That's not how it works! Current chargers are only about 91% efficient so this can be more efficient than cheap home chargers just a little bit less efficient then really good expensive home chargers.
Nothing is 100% efficient not solar, not batteries, not converters, and not inverters. Not even your home getting the power to your outlets is 100% efficient. And if the system is set up right and the cable is very short and hefty it can definitely be more efficient then the average charger nowadays and it probably is.

I’ve not studied how they come up with their 93% efficiency, but if it is applied after all the inefficiencies of wired charging, then it would, using your number, still be a hit: 0.93 x 0.91 = 0.85. It seems that the only inefficiency they’re avoiding is the actual cable, which is probably not where most losses occur.

As I said, I’ve not researched it, so if you have, please explain.

 

[wtibbit]

it’s not permanent. Equip-wise it’s like any other charger, except instead of a connector at end of wire, it’s a pad that lay on the ground (wire, too).




bare in mind the size of a “donut” is relative to the size of the standard tire: a “donut” for a 35” standard would still be a large tire

set aside that Tesla doesn’t really do spares, and set aside that there is “stuff” in the way prohibiting a spare in this under-bed location, and set aside that a spare under trim fascia such as this is generally unworkable, and you’re still left with their just not being room there

the two green lines above are the same length. While a really rough compare, it emphasizes that there simply is no room for any spare, donut or otherwise

What if the both the spare wheel AND the tire are each MUCH smaller in both diameter and width than the street wheel and tire? Small enough for the spare to be covered by the diaper.

The spare tire can be a pop out type like Audi offers, which is only a few inches larger in diameter than the wheel. If the wheel was only 16” in diameter the compressed spare could possibly be only 20” in diameter and 10” or so in depth.

The suspension could lower the truck and extend the wheel with the undersize spare Installed to make up the tires’ height differences.

The jack or equivalent could be stored with the spare or in the bed “trunk”.

This could easily be offered as an option.

 

[SlegMD]

What if the both the spare wheel AND the tire are each MUCH smaller in both diameter and width than the street wheel and tire? Small enough for the spare to be covered by the diaper.

The spare tire can be a pop out type like Audi offers, which is only a few inches larger in diameter than the wheel. If the wheel was only 16” in diameter the compressed spare could possibly be only 20” in diameter and 10” or so in depth.

The suspension could lower the truck and extend the wheel with the undersize spare Installed to make up the tires’ height differences.

The jack or equivalent could be stored with the spare or in the bed “trunk”.

This could easily be offered as an option.

I think the discussion is based on full-size spares, for off-road purposes. Otherwise the onboard compressor and plug system should handle all city life. Unless the person in question is a “tool” driving over curbs incorrectly.

 

[Ryan95738]

I’ve not studied how they come up with their 93% efficiency, but if it is applied after all the inefficiencies of wired charging, then it would, using your number, still be a hit: 0.93 x 0.91 = 0.85. It seems that the only inefficiency they’re avoiding is the actual cable, which is probably not where most losses occur.

As I said, I’ve not researched it, so if you have, please explain.

From what I understand they take the 240 volts from your main line and the up the voltage to something like a thousand volts which goes to the wireless floor unit. I believe that decreases their losses by quite a lot and if you have really quality transformers and rectifiers and all of that then you can reduce the losses even more. With a good management system and high efficiency switches you can fix some of the problems as long as you make a quality product and don't cut corners. You could do the same thing with the wall charger but unless you have a supercharger model then you can't increase the voltage above 240 in your garage

 

[SlegMD]

I imagine long term Tesla would shift to a wireless charging solution for supercharging to potentially reduce cost of maintenance for supercharger platforms.

Edit: Might be a way to offer some exclusivity to Tesla vs “others” brands when using superchargers.

Until wireless is applied such as this it seems a novelty item. But to each his/her own.

 

[fhteagle]

I'll call the OPs conclusions plausible, but my guess is probably not available at launch. Something they plan to bring out in the future and reserved space for now makes sense. If there is a similar blank space on Highland / Juniper refreshes, I'll believe that it's ready for prime time, though.

This brings up a whole new issue, which is standardization of where the transmitter pad is located in parking spaces. If one company is aligning it to be just behind the front axles, another is aiming for behind the back axles, we will have an even worse parking mess on our hands....

One of the sources of wireless charging inefficiency is going from the grid's 50/60HZ AC to DC to high frequency AC . Wonder if Tesla or others will tap solar and/or Powerwall battery HVDC to provide to the charger coil. This could result in deleting a second AC-DC rectifier part in an "all Tesla setup".

Not saying I have any evidence for this, just my guess.

 

[cvalue13]

I'll call the OPs conclusions plausible, but my guess is probably not available at launch. Something they plan to bring out in the future and reserved space for now makes sense.

I’d offer a modified version of this, which I think I suggested in OP:

At launch, they’ll definitely describe this as an offered option

Separately, it may be that they don’t begin delivering this option for some time after launch - or it’ll be rare as hensteeth for a while

All similar to how I believe they’ll treat the tri-motor for a spell

That said, here’s an extension of my above prediction:

Because Tesla will have and hype its in-house accessories, and because the insider deliveries will be intended as essentially a product beta release (to use the colloquial sense of ‘beta’ as opposed to the roadmap sense Tesla uses), I’m going to guess that the delivery event units will come packed with options - likely all options.

That said, depending on how ready the wireless charging is for prime time, if they were to omit any option at insider delivery I could see it being the wireless charging hardware.

Still, if the CT will ‘eventually’/anytime in 2024 offer wireless charging as optional equipment, they will absolutely tout it at the delivery event as a new feature, even if it’s some time before they’re shipping with the option

 

[wtibbit]

I think the discussion is based on full-size spares, for off-road purposes. Otherwise the onboard compressor and plug system should handle all city life. Unless the person in question is a “tool” driving over curbs incorrectly.

Actually, this thread's discussion is supposed to be about wireless charging. I probably should put my idea about a spare in the diaper area in a different thread.

But, to speak to your point, I would bet my place in line that the percentage of Cybertrucks bought by off-roading enthusiasts or even used often for an off-road trip will be small - maybe very small - compared to all the other types of buyers. Here's some 2022 vehicle sales stats to justify that bet:

• 181,410 jeep wranglers
• 726,004 Ford F-Series
• 520,936 Chevy Silverados
• 468,344 Ram pickups

1,715,284 to 181,410; about ten pickups for each wrangler.

I see a good number of purpose-built off-road vehicles - jeeps mostly but also specially equipped pickups that are intended for off-roading - driving around North Texas. Most of them have obviously never encountered a tree, bush, gully, rock, fordable water, deep mud, extremely steep hill or an owner who would purposefully expose their pride and joy to any of them. I think the average Cybertruck will be even less likely to see those challenges.

Of course your opinion may be different and I certainly may be wrong. The very large height adjustment function, paint-less exterior and good approach and departure angles will be attractive to off-roaders and could drive their purchase decision to a Cybertruck. Tesla was smart to include them, as they are generally desirable for most buyers, also.

This question along with many, many others will get answered soon enough. One thing we all agree on:

Soon can't come soon enough!

 

[SlegMD]

Actually, this thread's discussion is supposed to be about wireless charging. I probably should put my idea about a spare in the diaper area in a different thread.

But, to speak to your point, I would bet my place in line that the percentage of Cybertrucks bought by off-roading enthusiasts or even used often for an off-road trip will be small - maybe very small - compared to all the other types of buyers. Here's some 2022 vehicle sales stats to justify that bet:

• 181,410 jeep wranglers
• 726,004 Ford F-Series
• 520,936 Chevy Silverados
• 468,344 Ram pickups

1,715,284 to 181,410; about ten pickups for each wrangler.

I see a good number of purpose-built off-road vehicles - jeeps mostly but also specially equipped pickups that are intended for off-roading - driving around North Texas. Most of them have obviously never encountered a tree, bush, gully, rock, fordable water, deep mud, extremely steep hill or an owner who would purposefully expose their pride and joy to any of them. I think the average Cybertruck will be even less likely to see those challenges.

Of course your opinion may be different and I certainly may be wrong. The very large height adjustment function, paint-less exterior and good approach and departure angles will be attractive to off-roaders and could drive their purchase decision to a Cybertruck. Tesla was smart to include them, as they are generally desirable for most buyers, also.

This question along with many, many others will get answered soon enough. One thing we all agree on:

Soon can't come soon enough!

Yes, I agree that these vehicles have spares, and it is ideal that a spare be available, and I would hope CT does in fact have one.

True need for a spare that warrants the user to keep one on board in high challenge environments are usually limited off-road. Otherwise blow-out is fairly rare with general use. And I’m not arguing for not having a spare here. However, based on info we know regarding a spare, or lack therof with the CT at this time, you may expect to not have one provided through Tesla and may need aftermarket accessories to address this issue.

 

[PilotPete]

I mean, you’re free to have your own version of induction of course.

But your comment appears to gloss over the bulk of *my* induction in the post.

I did not say, as you seem to suggest, “that if it’s there, that fact alone means it’s hiding something.”

I said, in effect, that it being there causes one to begin to wonder if it’s for a purpose, and then presented a constellation of other independent facts that taken collectively lead me to conclude it’s there for a given reason.

You can single out any one of those facts, as you appear to, and say essentially ‘that fact alone says nothing.’ And I’d have to agree.

But a meaningful critique would take on the entire constellation.

Ok, let me try this AGAIN. In the post to which I first responded, you made the following statement...
"So the starting question becomes, for what purpose would Tesla adjust to a less ideal aero rear fascia with this form factor?"

And you then later state; "So Tesla has changed this rear fascia to be less aerodynamic and reduce departure angle for, nothing?"

And my point was, that shape in that position is not necessarily "less ideal" depending on a number of factors. The remainder of your post is all based on the assumption that they are sacrificing aero for something. My point is and has been, there may, in fact, be an aero benefit of some kind for the facia change. I'm not singling out a lone point in a discussion, it is the premise of your argument. I'm saying, if your initial premise is wrong, the remainder of the discussion is flawed. It matters not what you say based on that premise, it is POSSIBLY a faulty foundation.

For the record,I hope you're right. I would love to see wireless charging in the CT. I want to see just about every possible new tech added to this beast on day one. I know it's not ALL on there. But I wish it was.

C, you respond sometimes like I'm trying to argue with you, or degrade you, or diminish your contribution or place here. That ain't how I roll. I've been divorced and honestly, that took a lifetime of arguments out of me. It also made me realize it's frustrating and not worth my time to argue or discuss anything with stupid people. So the fact that I respond to you and have these discussions is testament that you are respected by me. I wouldn't engage if you weren't. I'm just trying to offer my viewpoint and enrich the discussion.

 

[cvalue13]

Ok, let me try this AGAIN. In the post to which I first responded, you made the following statement...
"So the starting question becomes, for what purpose would Tesla adjust to a less ideal aero rear fascia with this form factor?"

And you then later state; "So Tesla has changed this rear fascia to be less aerodynamic and reduce departure angle for, nothing?"

Let me clarify the arch of the discussion.

Meanwhile, for months we’ve wondered what could have required the Cybertruck to now have the ‘diaper’ in the lower rear fascia of the truck, especially given the apparent effects on departure angle.

While the rear fascia surely plays a role in aero, it's shape strongly suggests it must be covering something of a certain form factor, and something of some importance for Tesla to have in effect compromised on the Cybertruck’s departure angle.

To which @RVAC conjectures it waa driven by aero:

ill think it's first and foremost aero driven

To which I intended to reply, in effect, it could just as easily be seen as contrary to aero.
You: you can’t say it’s bad for aero

Me: agree, let’s all agree we can’t say it’s for or against aero

You: you said it’s against aero

Me, here, now: not quite, but fine - which only leaves all the more substantive parts of the OP

 

[cvalue13]

C, you respond sometimes like I'm trying to argue with you, or degrade you, or diminish your contribution or place here. That ain't how I roll.

nah man, only looking for generous interpretation in a format that doesn’t permit of long format nuance

 

[RVAC]

No doubt that this portion of the rear fascia has to some degree been designed with aero in mind. Every part has.

But in terms of maximum aero efficiency, the OG prototype rear fascia nearer to ideal.

So the starting question becomes, for what purpose would Tesla adjust to a less ideal aero rear fascia with this form factor?

And the answer to why they would make this move to a design that is both less aerodynamic and results in less departure angle, is that they are accommodating something of importance.

What that importance might be was somewhat a mystery, until we were able to see *under* the fascia and realize that ... nothing is there. Other than a few minor support struts which themselves appear to be there for the near sole purpose of providing attachment points for this rear fascia bump down (in the photo above, see the four trim attachment points, which correspond to those support struts).

So Tesla has changed this rear fascia to be less aerodynamic and reduce departure angle for, nothing?

Alone it leads one to think it's there to accomodate some option not present in the unit we've seen *under.* That option not being a spare, it leaves open the question.

My post was in effect then pointing out that this rear fascia's form factor (mirroring the Wiferion tech equipment), together with the acquisition of Wiferion, together with the screen-grab tease from Investor Day showing the Model S with wireless charging, and also this rear area of the vehicle to be Tesla's preferred location for Wiferion tech, seems to me to wrap it all together.

There's a longer more tenuous discussion left as to why, if it's an option, Tesla wouldn't also have an optional rear fascia that is used only for wireless-equipped units. I have thoughts on that, but neither here nor there for present purposes.

IF nothing else, what doubt one might have left regarding this rear fascia being for wireless charging, puts the onus on them to come up with an alternative explanation for why Tesla has reduced both aero and departure angle for no apparent reason (once we've seen under).

Given that premise, yes. However I'm not of the same view that there is no aero benefit to the 'diaper'. The OG bumper had a very steep angle to it, which usually isn't a design conducive to reducing drag. That is not to say there won't be a wireless charger, just that I'm not entirely convinced it was the primary reason they shaped it that way. Unless you have info coming from within Tesla to the contrary.

This is a fairly old conversation, but maybe these even older drawings I made a few years back, will help show the spare wheel size problem:

That's using the Plaid motor setup in the rear, which is mounted so that the rear driveshafts to the rear of the CT line up with the centre of the rear wheels so that the CV joints aren't on angle that increases wear, and reduces torque handling. A smaller motor would not change the location of the driveshafts to the rear wheels, so here the limiting factor is the distance behind the rear wheel centre to the end of the rear bumper.

You can see the proximity in the reflection of the render above.

I'd say mounting the spares on the rear is the only way to get them onboard, without interfering with the CT design length (which has been shortened since these old drawings) or increasing the rear overhang by reducing the wheelbase.

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.co...k-come-with-a-full-size-spare.3196/post-52851

Not saying you could definitely fit one but it's small margins. Any combination between the OG possibly having had 37's, using a smaller spare, new 'diaper' bumper, some degree of error in the diagram etc... might be the difference between being able to fit one or not. No point in discussing it now though, we saw the post-crash underbelly photos and it's clear there won't be one. As SledgeMD mentions below, provided they include an onboard compressor you can tap into, it's a reasonable call on Tesla's part.

I think the discussion is based on full-size spares, for off-road purposes. Otherwise the onboard compressor and plug system should handle all city life. Unless the person in question is a “tool” driving over curbs incorrectly.

 

[RandyS]

While the photos and discussion are compelling, my vote is for "no wireless charging" on the first generation Cybertruck. My logic is pretty simple. There are undoubtedly features that are going to be left off the truck in order to get it to market faster (and the general perception among my friends and colleagues is that the truck is late). Wireless charging would not be useful to very many people out of the gate. Tesla's time would be better spent getting other features and accessories to market (120/240v outlets, additional truck bed / cargo / off-road features/accessories, etc.)

Maybe in a future version of the truck they'll have wireless charging, but my vote is "not now" for the first generation truck. We'll see soon if I have to eat those words...

Sponsored