Towing tested with 6,000lb Tesla and trailer load

[Art O'Connor]

So, when is Tesla going to get around to doing its 2024 EPA mileage tests? No Tesla vehicles listed for 2024. CT is 2024 model. Others have done it. Here is Chevy's:

I believe the top one is the WT1 and the bottom one is the WT4, although it is hard to tell from the EPA description.

Sponsored

 

[Woodrick]

I guess the only way to go with a camper is to get the ones they are now starting to launch with the battery packs and powered axles. This way no impact on the CT performance. and you get a way to charge up your CT when it gets low.

I know what you are saying, but that is not necessarily reality.

One of the big issues is something in the Cybertruck's slipstream, it can impact the truck's efficiency.

But having the trailer take care of it's portion of the load definitely helps.

 

[Woodrick]

So, when is Tesla going to get around to doing its 2024 EPA mileage tests? No Tesla vehicles listed for 2024. CT is 2024 model. Others have done it. Here is Chevy's:

I believe the top one is the WT1 and the bottom one is the WT4, although it is hard to tell from the EPA description.

At least Tesla is producing the Cybertruck, unlike the Silverado.

 

[Gigahorse]

So, when is Tesla going to get around to doing its 2024 EPA mileage tests? No Tesla vehicles listed for 2024. CT is 2024 model. Others have done it. Here is Chevy's:

I believe the top one is the WT1 and the bottom one is the WT4, although it is hard to tell from the EPA description.

It would not put ALL the questions to bed but would give a lot of answers or at least make estimates a lot easier if we had the full Cybertruck EPA #s.

 

[mhaze]

not clear if you’re pointedly disagreeing with the basic concept I put forward in your quote, or instead helpfully piling on to the point of the basic concept I put forward.

no doubt that the precise details of the net drag effect of a vehicle + trailer package will depend on a lot of factors.

but in broad strokes, the general concept holds: the drag effects of a given trailer will be different between different tow vehicles, sometimes (sometimes more or less than expected depending on these other nuanced factors) - with the background principle remaining true: a tow vehicle that is smaller/more aerodynamic/shorter will experience greater drag effects from an given trailer than it will behind a tow vehicle that is larger/less aerodynamic/taller.

in that way, many of the things that tend to help the CT itself minimize drag, will tend to increase the drag effects of adding a towed package behind the CT.

I wouldn't agree with what you call "background principle" one bit, and then can't agree with conclusions based on it. Like I said, it's largely the eddies and swirls that creates drag. Maybe this is not intuitive. Think of a hand placed out in the wind at 60 mph. if there was zero turbulence in the air behind the hand, the resistance you felt would be zero. Period. (Unless we dive into laminar flow issues).

Regardless I can't quite see the point - it is as if electric vehicles are being given a pass on the basis of some talk about drag and some phrases about aerodynamics. But the electrics are in fact being directly compared to gas and diesel vehicles and are being found lacking.

Most use of trailers has zero ability to change the trailer wind drag or anything about it. I have stuff like bobcats that go on trailers. It's just a big messy thing that has to be hauled around.

 

[BahamaTodd]

At least Tesla is producing the Cybertruck, unlike the Silverado.

Silverado is being delivered to fleets.

California department of transportation bought 600.

Minnesota power company

Detroit power company

With a 6500 lbs trailer it can go over 230 miles

 

[Gigahorse]

Silverado is being delivered to fleets.

California department of transportation bought 600.

Minnesota power company

Detroit power company

With a 6500 lbs trailer it can go over 230 miles

Silverado range #s are impressive, didn't know they were delivering already, interesting that they are sending them out as test vehicles to power companies.

 

[Woodrick]

Silverado is being delivered to fleets.

California department of transportation bought 600.



Minnesota power company



Detroit power company



With a 6500 lbs trailer it can go over 230 miles

They are currently being delivered? Or was this last year when they put a bunch of effectively test mules in the public hands? Pretty sure they haven't started production yet.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I haven't found anything to indicate that they are currently in production. And lots of things that say they aren't

 

[cvalue13]

I wouldn't agree with what you call "background principle" one bit, and then can't agree with conclusions based on it. Like I said, it's largely the eddies and swirls that creates drag. Maybe this is not intuitive. Think of a hand placed out in the wind at 60 mph. if there was zero turbulence in the air behind the hand, the resistance you felt would be zero. Period. (Unless we dive into laminar flow issues).

ok, so you’re your just describing the same thing in dthe rent terms and posturing like you’ve made a substantive distinctions

basically, everything you’ve just said *is* what is captured by “Cd”

so you have some familiarity with aero and some flight hours, but less so with policing your semantics?

Regardless I can't quite see the point - it is as if electric vehicles are being given a pass on the basis of some talk about drag and some phrases about aerodynamics. But the electrics are in fact being directly compared to gas and diesel vehicles and are being found lacking.

well, my intent was 100% the opposite

I’m describing and stressing how ICE and BEV are identical in these respects

and that at the end of the day, the reality is that the only material difference is that BEV trucks have the equivalent of a ~13 gallon gas tank

the purpose of stressing that: people stop thinking the relative range of BEV comes from some magical effects of batteries and electrons, that they can’t wrap their mind around and wish OEMs would just stop fucking around already

I’m not giving any “passes”

My only problem is I keep bumping into othe people’s with butt-hurt clogged ears who recoil at anything other than equally butt-hurt bellyaching and magical thinking

Most use of trailers has zero ability to change the trailer wind drag or anything about it. I have stuff like bobcats that go on trailers. It's just a big messy thing that has to be hauled around.

can’t even interpret what you’re attempting to say here

 

[cvalue13]

They are currently being delivered? Or was this last year when they put a bunch of effectively test mules in the public hands? Pretty sure they haven't started production yet.

they’re in the same posture as the Tesla Semi

they are a fleet-only vehicle, that to date has essentially a pilot project parter

 

[BahamaTodd]

They are currently being delivered? Or was this last year when they put a bunch of effectively test mules in the public hands? Pretty sure they haven't started production yet.

I would love to be proved wrong, but I haven't found anything to indicate that they are currently in production. And lots of things that say they aren't

Silverado EV production started last year with sales to business fleet customers.

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicle/701963515

 

[Eye of Elon]

We need powered trailers in this new glorious EV age. Unfortunately, I'll probably be dead of old age before that happens.

Unless there is some significant price drops in the next 2 years, or FSD becomes a thing, I'll be looking for a small, smoke belching RV.

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

Here’s where we remind about the paradoxical effects of towing using an aerodynamic vehicle

• The CT arrives at a headline range similar to the F150 Lightning ER, despite the CT having a pack size ~8kWh smaller, in part in virtue of the CT being more aerodynamic
• the less aerodynamic F150 busts up the air before it hits the trailer, thereby minimizing the aerodynamic impact of the trailer
• the more aerodynamic CT busts up less of the air before it hits the same trailer, causing the CT to realize more of the added drag of the trailer
• on top of all that, there is a packaging difference between the CT and F150 that will also negatively effect the CT towing range compared to the Lightning - in that the CT is materially shorter, which means an identical trailer load will stick up higher into the airstream than a Lightning (which will have more of the trailer ‘tucked in’ behind it)

That’s why it’s been expected that the CT, being significantly more aerodynamic that the Lightning, would with the identical trailer experience a greater hit to towing range than a Lightning.

This is the point in the post where someone says “we can’t say what Lightning would do in identical circumstances.” Depending on what one means by “identical,” I suppose we can’t, strictly speaking.

But here we have some very detail-oriented testers using a Lighting to also conduct a towing test using a car hauler with a Tesla on back.



They towed a Model 3, on apparently a larger/heavier trailer (combined towing weight of 7K lb), and did both blended city/hwy and full hwy tests, both with and without the trailer, and these are their results:

In the highway test most comparable to the CT in this thread, the EV-Pulse guys got out of the Lightning ER 1.4mi/kWh and 183mi, compared to the CT’s 115mi.

This comparison in terms of headline starting range is pretty uniquely paired, in that the AWD FS has a headline range of 318mi while the Lightning ER Lariat has a nearly identical headline of 320mi.

Now, the tests also have some important differences. The test in the OP post was conducted at 61° while the Lightning test was conducted at 90° - and that 29° temp differential will have a non-trivial impact on the lower range shown by the CT.

And, while the Lightning load is purportedly heavier by ~1,000lbs compared to the OP test, aero of the trailer package is by far the major factor in drag. And, the EV-Pulse guys were pulling a hauler with a model 3, while the OP test appears to be the same hauler but with a model X?

At which point I express some uncertainty about the weight of the trailer in the OP test. The heaviest model 3 is 4000lb while the lightest Model X is 5,100lb. If that is an identical trailer, I’m not sure yet about the OP to weight (the EV-guys seem pretty fastidious) and sounds like more details are forthcoming.

Regardless, aero is still the predominant variable in drag effects on towing. If that is a Model X, the drag by towing is sure to have been larger by a non-trivial amount in the OP test.

Further working against the CT,

So, working against the CT in this test is

​

(1) CT’s greater aerodynamics compared to the F150L (which is a general ‘against’ in terms of expected range generally)​

​

(2) CT’s lower ride height creates further aerodynamic costs when towing compared to the F150L (which is another general ‘against’ in terms of expected range generally)​

​

(3) the CT was towing in 29° cooler temperatures which will have a non-trivial negative impact on towing range (which is a test-specific ‘against’ these specific test outcomes) and​

​

(4) the CT was towing a slightly less aerodynamic Model X (which is a test-specific ‘against’ these specific test outcomes)​

Notice that all 4 of these ’againsts’ cross-amplify one-another. The two inherent ‘againsts’ (CT being more aerodynamic, and lower to the ground relative to a given trailer), mean that the two test-specific ‘againsts’ will have an even greater negative impact (the air being colder and the MX being larger, means that the CT’s aero/height was working that much more against it).

What that all means, is that the CT’s test result of 115mi, and the Lightnings results of 183mi, demonstrates a mixed outcome.

On one hand, the CT test conditions were expected to have a disproportionate impact compared to the Lightning, even if all else was equal.

On the other hand, even if all else was equal, the CT aerodynamics and height would be expected to mean the CT will inherently tow less than a Lightning given identical trailers - and so the range difference isn’t merely the difference in test conditions, it’s also amplified by the CT’s proclivity for being *more* subject to towing range effects of temps etc. the Lightning.

End of the day, the 115mi/CT vs 183mi/L discrepancy is not super surprising even before we know the relative test conditions. We should expect The CT to have a greater impact from towing that a CT given the identical trailer.

At the same time, the difference seen here is not all inherent to the CT vs Lightning, in that 30° is a big temp differential, made all the more impactful by the X (sticking out over the CT) being larger than the M3 (tucked in behind the F150L).

Regardless, the results are the results. Broadly speaking, is the 115mi vs 183mi what one might (at best) expect to get in the CT at 60° vs 90°?

We’ll have to wait and see! Including the details of this test and its conditions (speed, etc.).

But regardless, if you plan to instead tow a load like like this at 60°, in various mixes of conditions, you might in one of them expect to get something like these test results.

Do we expect an improvement in towing range by raising the CT to match the F150 Lightning? Curious.....

 

[Woodrick]

Silverado EV production started last year with sales to business fleet customers.

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicle/701963515

Those were in a pilot test. They haven't made one for a while.

 

[Woodrick]

We need powered trailers in this new glorious EV age. Unfortunately, I'll probably be dead of old age before that happens.

Unless there is some significant price drops in the next 2 years, or FSD becomes a thing, I'll be looking for a small, smoke belching RV.

Take a look at the Pebble Flow, they should be getting near production.

Sponsored