Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-14-2019, 11:13 AM   #421
Rivet Master
 
2007 27' International CCD FB
San Diego , California
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherzi View Post
I don't think there's any confusion at all. Tesla in their own comment on the truck said they expect it to be classified as a medium duty truck per CARB rules, probably because Tesla wants to brag about it's supposed payload. The weight capacity of a vehicle has nothing to do with it's energy source, more to do with suspension and strength.

"The Cybertruck will double the payload capacity of the F150, double the distance range of the Porsche Taycan, with efficiency to rival a Prius."

If the Cybertruck doubles the payload of a F150, and weighs over 8,500 lbs doing it, then it's a F250. So Tesla making the comparison of a Cybertruck to a half ton truck was always fraudulent. About as absurd as trying to comparing seating capacity of a five passenger sedan to a motorcycle.
Your choice of words is interesting. Fraudulent? Because Tesla is willing to go outside the capacity norms of what defines a traditional 1/2 truck? Something we usually celebrate on these boards as we all generally want more capacity?

The F150 has a payload of 1,485 to 2,311 lbs.

If Tesla were to match those norms, based on its estimated 5000-6500 curb weight, it surely could class as a 1/2 ton light truck with a GVWR of 6485 - 7811 lbs. Well within the 6,001–8,500 Class 2a 1/2 ton light truck definition.

Tesla is optionally choosing to play in the class 2b medium truck by supporting a prodigious 3,500 lb payload.

By your measure, it would also be fraudulent to traditional 3/4 ton trucks that the new kid on the block wants to punch above its weight to show them some class with similar capacities, yet with better performance and efficiency?

Aside from that, there may be some strategy that Tesla is playing by going into the class 2b medium truck range. Perhaps to accommodate its construction as medium truck classes do not have to abide by the same pedestrian safety standards.
pteck is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 11:36 AM   #422
Rivet Master

 
, Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,721
Images: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteck View Post
<snip>.... Perhaps to accommodate its construction as medium truck classes do not have to abide by the same pedestrian safety standards.
I don't think the Tesla pickup would have any problems complying with Pedestrian Safety Standards.

The bumper height and slope of the hood will easily scoop up pedestrians, they won't penetrate the shatterproof windshield, and they will land safely in the soft grass beside the highway.
markdoane is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 01:08 PM   #423
Master of Universe
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,694
I would like to see the Tesla scooping up pedestrians and depositing them on the grass. What condition will they be in when they land, especially if the grass is actually a sidewalk? Quiet EV’s are an issue with pedestrians, but the truck will be no different in that regard then any other EV.

But the stainless steel exterior will reflect a lot of light. Have you ever traveled behind an 18 wheeler with a highly reflective rear door and the sun is behind you? An interstate trucker that was called “England” I believe used to have those doors and they could
behind you or just flash a temporary beam of intense light as the road curved. Trucking firms come and go frequently, so I haven’t seen that recently. Maybe they are gone. The Tesla will have lots of surfaces facing different directions and can reflect intense light everywhere. I don’t know of any regs about too much reflection, so I guess Tesla will figure it out, but what if they don’t? Then the trucks would get a really bad reputation as causing great danger on the highways.

I think the eventual version of the truck will be quite different than the original proposal. Concept vehicles, if they come to market, and many don’t, change a lot as reality and technological advances happen.
__________________
Gene

The Airstream is sold; a 2016 Nash 24M replaced it.
Gene is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 01:13 PM   #424
Rivet Master
 
kscherzi's Avatar
 
2013 27' FB International
El Dorado Hills , California
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,023
Images: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteck View Post
Your choice of words is interesting. Fraudulent? Because Tesla is willing to go outside the capacity norms of what defines a traditional 1/2 truck? Something we usually celebrate on these boards as we all generally want more capacity?
Not sure what you're saying by "capacity norms of what defines a traditional 1/2 truck". It's pretty clearly defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Light trucks occupy the GVWR range of 6,000 to 8,500 lbs. Various classes of Heavy Duty are above the 8,501 weight range. These are facts, I think we already agree.

Maybe fraudulent is a too strong a term, sorry about that, but I might want to substitute "purposely misleading" or maybe "exaggeration" at a minimum. We don't know what the Cybertruck will weigh. All we know is Tesla did say they expect its GVWR to exceed 8,501 lbs. So the F150, and other light duty trucks, are not really equal comparisons to the Cybertruck.

I have a F150 (Supercrew Lariat ecoboost) and went and looked at the door sticker. It's GVWR is 7,000 lbs, 1,700 lb payload. I weighed it at a CAT scale soon after purchase, empty, it weighs 5,200 lbs. I looked up a Tesla Model X, the closest thing today to a tow vehicle, and found it weighs between 5,200 and 5,600 lbs depending upon model. The Cybertruck certainly looks a larger than the F-150 from that pulling competition video so it probably will weigh quite a bit more than the Model X. By that metric, and Tesla's claimed 3,500 payload, it's likely not in the same class as light duty trucks, thus the "misleading" comparison to a F-150.

Hypothetically, if the Cybertruck were to be powered by a diesel engine I've no doubt everybody would be comparing it to the F250/350 lineup of models.
kscherzi is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 03:03 PM   #425
Rivet Master
 
truckasaurus's Avatar
 
1960 33' Custom
Athens , Georgia
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,373
Images: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherzi View Post
Not sure what you're saying by "capacity norms of what defines a traditional 1/2 truck". It's pretty clearly defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Light trucks occupy the GVWR range of 6,000 to 8,500 lbs. Various classes of Heavy Duty are above the 8,501 weight range. These are facts, I think we already agree.

Maybe fraudulent is a too strong a term, sorry about that, but I might want to substitute "purposely misleading" or maybe "exaggeration" at a minimum. We don't know what the Cybertruck will weigh. All we know is Tesla did say they expect its GVWR to exceed 8,501 lbs. So the F150, and other light duty trucks, are not really equal comparisons to the Cybertruck.

I have a F150 (Supercrew Lariat ecoboost) and went and looked at the door sticker. It's GVWR is 7,000 lbs, 1,700 lb payload. I weighed it at a CAT scale soon after purchase, empty, it weighs 5,200 lbs. I looked up a Tesla Model X, the closest thing today to a tow vehicle, and found it weighs between 5,200 and 5,600 lbs depending upon model. The Cybertruck certainly looks a larger than the F-150 from that pulling competition video so it probably will weigh quite a bit more than the Model X. By that metric, and Tesla's claimed 3,500 payload, it's likely not in the same class as light duty trucks, thus the "misleading" comparison to a F-150.

Hypothetically, if the Cybertruck were to be powered by a diesel engine I've no doubt everybody would be comparing it to the F250/350 lineup of models.
I don't think it's misleading in the slightest. In the reveal Elon says something to the effect that it will occupy the same dimensions and weigh the same as the F150. The new info adds that it will weigh more than 5001 lbs (8501 lbs - 3500 lbs) and less than 6500lbs (10,000lbs - 3,500 lbs). If the 2021 F150 could get a redesign to carry a 3500 lbs payload do you think Ford would bin the F150 model name.

I am however comparing it to a 2500/ 3500 truck. I want the payload, power, torque and towing stability and I believe at this point that may be what the CT is offering but it's going to be a while until anyone knows what the real deal is. I would like the 8' bed but I guess I'm out of luck there.
__________________
1960 Sovereign 33' Pacific Railroad Custom
truckasaurus is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 03:32 PM   #426
Rivet Master
 
2007 27' International CCD FB
San Diego , California
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscherzi View Post
Not sure what you're saying by "capacity norms of what defines a traditional 1/2 truck". It's pretty clearly defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Light trucks occupy the GVWR range of 6,000 to 8,500 lbs. Various classes of Heavy Duty are above the 8,501 weight range. These are facts, I think we already agree.

Maybe fraudulent is a too strong a term, sorry about that, but I might want to substitute "purposely misleading" or maybe "exaggeration" at a minimum. We don't know what the Cybertruck will weigh. All we know is Tesla did say they expect its GVWR to exceed 8,501 lbs. So the F150, and other light duty trucks, are not really equal comparisons to the Cybertruck.

I have a F150 (Supercrew Lariat ecoboost) and went and looked at the door sticker. It's GVWR is 7,000 lbs, 1,700 lb payload. I weighed it at a CAT scale soon after purchase, empty, it weighs 5,200 lbs. I looked up a Tesla Model X, the closest thing today to a tow vehicle, and found it weighs between 5,200 and 5,600 lbs depending upon model. The Cybertruck certainly looks a larger than the F-150 from that pulling competition video so it probably will weigh quite a bit more than the Model X. By that metric, and Tesla's claimed 3,500 payload, it's likely not in the same class as light duty trucks, thus the "misleading" comparison to a F-150.

Hypothetically, if the Cybertruck were to be powered by a diesel engine I've no doubt everybody would be comparing it to the F250/350 lineup of models.
You still misunderstand GVWR. It includes curb weight AND max payload capacity.

If an F150 variant were actually able to handle 3500lbs payload - it would also be required to register as a class 2b medium weight truck.

It can't, so it plays in the light truck class.
pteck is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:08 PM   #427
Winemaker
 
rgwatkin's Avatar
 
2022 25' Flying Cloud
Avila Beach , California
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 243
Images: 2
I agree completely. Hot swap out is the only way the consumer will put up with it.
rgwatkin is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 04:28 PM   #428
jcl
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Vancouver , British Columbia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,566
Trucks up through Class 3, max 14,000 lbs, are all classed as light duty trucks. Medium Duty starts at Class 4, which is a 450 or 4500 depending on brand.

Light duty has been broken into Class 1, Class 2a and 2b, and Class 3. Class 2b is referred to as light medium or light heavy, but that doesn’t mean it is a medium duty or heavy duty truck, as that would imply a Class 4 or greater.

It seems silly to me to argue Class 2a vs Class 2b as being fundamentally different. They differ not so much in capacity, but more in the applicability of various safety regulations.
jcl is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 05:20 PM   #429
Rivet Master
 
1988 25' Excella
1987 32' Excella
Knoxville , Tennessee
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,095
Blog Entries: 1
Lot of speculation for a truck that does not actually exist yet.
Bill M. is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 07:25 PM   #430
Rivet Master
 
kscherzi's Avatar
 
2013 27' FB International
El Dorado Hills , California
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,023
Images: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by pteck View Post
You still misunderstand GVWR. It includes curb weight AND max payload capacity.

If an F150 variant were actually able to handle 3500lbs payload - it would also be required to register as a class 2b medium weight truck.

It can't, so it plays in the light truck class.
I understand GVWR perfectly. The F150 is 7,000 lbs, the Cybertruck is greater than 8,501 lbs. Truck below 8,501 lbs are light duty, trucks above 8,501 lbs are heavy duty light trucks (like the F-250/350). Take a look at this government chart if that isn't clear https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10380.

Bottom line, pretending the Cybertruck is equal to a F-150 is fudging the truth. It's more like a F-250/350. Not sure how much payload a F-250/350 has but its a lot more than a F-150. If the Cybertruck lives up to the promise, it will be a very capable hauling and tow vehicle, just at F-250/350's are, and should be able to handle large trailers and fifth wheels with ease.

Frankly, this discussion is getting tiresome. There are almost no facts known as to the final disposition of the Cybertruck, so claims as exactly how much it hauls, and that it will be more efficient than a Prius, are purely speculative.
kscherzi is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 07:58 PM   #431
Rivet Master
 
2017 23' Flying Cloud
Bartlett , Tennessee
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by out of sight View Post
That's what I said and I stand by it. Not only that I've proven it. Now, back to EV's.
We have taken up enough bandwidth here, but I am really interested in your proof. Please PM me your proof. I would really like to see evidence of what you claim. Physics seems, to me, to say the weight of the tow vehicle has no impact on the side to side oscillation of a trailer attached to a ball with a coupler. However, I am willing to be convinced.
__________________
Bobbo and Lin
2017 F-150 XLT 4x4 SuperCab 3.5l EcoBoost V6
2017 Flying Cloud 23FB "BobLin Along"
Bobbo is offline  
Old 12-14-2019, 08:59 PM   #432
Living Riveted since 2013
 
Rocinante's Avatar

 
2016 Interstate Lounge Ext
Green Cove Springs , Florida
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 8,201
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
We have taken up enough bandwidth here, but I am really interested in your proof. Please PM me your proof. I would really like to see evidence of what you claim. Physics seems, to me, to say the weight of the tow vehicle has no impact on the side to side oscillation of a trailer attached to a ball with a coupler. However, I am willing to be convinced.
Yes, thanks, please take that discussion (argument?) to another thread, as it's way off the topic of this thread, and we want to keep this thread focused on the stated topic. That said, you may wish to bear the following in mind when it comes to the other topic.
__________________
Rocinante Piccolo is our new-to-us 2016 Interstate Lounge 3500 EXT
(Named for John Steinbeck's camper from "Travels With Charley")


Rocinante is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 05:01 AM   #433
Rivet Master
 
2018 27' International
Southeastern MI , Michigan
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by markdoane View Post
I don't think the Tesla pickup would have any problems complying with Pedestrian Safety Standards.

The bumper height and slope of the hood will easily scoop up pedestrians, they won't penetrate the shatterproof windshield, and they will land safely in the soft grass beside the highway.
Maybe people will have to actually look before stepping into an active road? Would never work in Detroit. However, semis and trucks are not really expected to be pedestrian safe, are they?
Countryboy59 is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 08:11 AM   #434
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar
 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Georgetown (winter)Thayne (summer) , Texas & Wyoming
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,602
OK, so I was having discussion about my son in law's ModelX and his experiences on taking a long trip and stopping to "power up". He said they still don't have the kinks worked out yet and from his experience (Austin to Dallas) couple trips, took twice as long due to fuel stops. He said a friend in CA going to Oregon from Bay Area said same thing...combination of few stops, people waiting, etc...not there yet, but working on it.
__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, 6.7L, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer-Star Valley Ranch RV Resort (Thayne, WY); Winter-Sun City (Georgetown,TX)
gypsydad is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 08:34 AM   #435
Rivet Master
 
2019 28' Flying Cloud
2014 22' FB Sport
Davie , FL
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 904
If we're going to be towing on long trips there will have to be pull through charge stations. I'm not sure who's going to install those. It will take up valuable land space. And you just can't install a charger at a gas pump island, seeing as how high voltage and gasoline fumes don't mix very well.
out of sight is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 08:39 AM   #436
Rivet Master
 
2019 28' Flying Cloud
2014 22' FB Sport
Davie , FL
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 904
We will also have to rethink the Airstream design. The curved surfaces of the Airstream will clash too much with the flat folded surfaces of the Cybertruck.
out of sight is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 11:15 AM   #437
Rivet Master
 
gypsydad's Avatar
 
2017 28' Flying Cloud
2014 25' FB Flying Cloud
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Georgetown (winter)Thayne (summer) , Texas & Wyoming
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by gypsydad View Post
OK, so I was having discussion about my son in law's ModelX and his experiences on taking a long trip and stopping to "power up". He said they still don't have the kinks worked out yet and from his experience (Austin to Dallas) couple trips, took twice as long due to fuel stops. He said a friend in CA going to Oregon from Bay Area said same thing...combination of few stops, people waiting, etc...not there yet, but working on it.
More data...he went on to say the available power is clearly affected when you accelerate, like on the freeway, which caused him to need to stop and replenish power more then he expected- keeping up with traffic in Texas is a real challenge on 35 going between Dallas/Austin. Many stretches having 80mph speed limits, and the big rig truckers going even faster!

He said even in everyday driving around Austin, he needs to be conscious on stepping on the power pedal to hard/often. Curious how many EV owners have taken a long trip and found it to be twice as long as expected due to power needs? I can understand maybe 25% longer on trips, perhaps, but not 100%. He said you can't just pull into a power station location all the time and have no one there ahead of you...he also gets frustrated when trying to shop/charge at Whole Foods for example, and EV people parked in the charging port spots, but not using the charger...
__________________
Empty Nesters; Gypsies on the road!
2017 28' Twin Flying Cloud
2017 F250 King Ranch, 4X4, 6.7L, Blue-Ox WDH
Summer-Star Valley Ranch RV Resort (Thayne, WY); Winter-Sun City (Georgetown,TX)
gypsydad is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 11:32 AM   #438
Moderator
 
DKB_SATX's Avatar

 
2017 26' Flying Cloud
Alamo Heights , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,493
Images: 1
Blog Entries: 7
No stretches of I35 in Texas have 80 mph speed limits. There are several stretches of 75mph. I10 and I20 have some 80mph stretches in the far west.
__________________
— David

Zero Gravitas — 2017 Flying Cloud 26U | WBCCI# 15566

He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. — Sir Winston Churchill
DKB_SATX is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 11:54 AM   #439
Master of Universe
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,694
It used to be called the "hot stove league"—old guys sitting around the pot belly stove in the general store arguing about baseball all winter. Norman Rockwell painted that more than once I think and he would have a hard time painting the Forum. Now we argue at home about concept trucks that may never be built and will undoubtedly look and act differently than the tease about them.

Nothing wrong with it if you are caught up in your life and have taken the garbage out.

My search for a newer SUV has specific requirements, so I am going about that the same way I would search for a truck. I am looking at hybrid SUV's and finding very little. I have restricted my search to Toyota and Subaru because I want reliability—I hate to pay others to fix cars and I no longer am motivated to fix them myself. I still change oil and grease them and do simple fixes, but there's a limit to that these days. Because of depreciation, buying a 2 or 3 year old vehicle makes sense just like buying older RV's makes sense. Repos often have low mileage and are pretty new. It may make sense to buy certified ones even though they cost more to get more warranty—though I am unsure of that. Seems somewhat like a extended insurance policy to me and they are rip offs. I need an SUV that climbs up my driveway in snow and ice without a problem. Not sure the Highlander AWD or the RAV4 AWD will do it but they are the only hybrids I can find. Subaru does not seem to have any. I think I could get a three year old Forester for less than our FJ Cruiser is worth—there is an appeal to walking out of a dealer with a newer vehicle and a check. I have read the fJ holds value better than any other vehicle. That allmeans here are four things: reliability, go anywhere capability, hybrid, price. It may be impossible to satisfy all four. This is not unlike the decisions to be made for a tow vehicle and the same four requirements seem to be many people's requirements.

Teslas have not been all that reliable from what I see. The Rivian has no track record, but anything as complex as a truck being produced by a totally new company with all new hires probably will have reliability problems for quite a while. I do not know of either truck will be 4WD or AWD. Both are total EV's. Price is quite high and I have called them vanity trucks because they are not used to pick up stuff as trucks were originally designed to do. If I were in a place where it made sense to replace our truck. then these options would probably fail for me on 3 or 4 of 4 requirements. Still fun to wonder what is coming and how it will effect things we really will do.
__________________
Gene

The Airstream is sold; a 2016 Nash 24M replaced it.
Gene is offline  
Old 12-15-2019, 08:34 PM   #440
New Member
 
2018 Tommy Bahama Interstate
Herndon , Virginia
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuco View Post
IMO this video has a flawed analysis. I posted the text below on the comments for the video:
Complements on a nice mathematical analysis. But like all logic chains usually the assumptions are the problem.

Differing Trailer Weights
IMO, using trailer weights that are vastly different invalidates the conclusions. However, I believe the core analysis is a reasonable approximation.Usually people buy a trailer that fits their need and use a tow vehicle that can support that trailer's weight. In your analysis, you are using the maximum weight that the vehicle is rated to tow. Thus your analysis creates a huge advantage for the Model X and a small advantage for the F150 compared to the Cybertruck.

A reasonably large, high-end trailer such as an Airstream 27' is between 6,500 to 7,500 pounds. This would exceed the Model X's rating but well within the rating for the F150 and Cybertruck. Both the F150 and the Cybertruck would handle the load and make the trip.

An Alternative Analysis for Comparison
The EPA's conversion number of 1 gallon of gasoline is 33.7 kw-hr represents the total possible energy contained in gasoline. So to double check some numbers here let's mix in some real-world numbers.

Flat ground:

Most owners of 25-28' Airstream trailers towed with Ford F150 EcoBoost 3.5 report from 8 to 12 MPG on flat ground (actually measured, not trip computer) when towing. And these same folks report 16 to 18 MPG when not towing. That means the F150 is consuming 3.4 kw-h/mile (33.7 kw-h/g / 10 m/g) of gasoline energy when towing and 2.0 kw-h/mile (33.7 kw-h/g / 17 m/g) when not towing. The presence of trailer increases the F150's consumption of gasoline energy by 1.4 kw-h/mile. Thus the F150 has either a towing range of 230 miles (23 gallon tank) or 360 miles (36 gallon tank) on flat ground.

Based on your estimates that the Telsa Cybertruck has a 500 mile range and a 200 kw-hr battery, the Cybertruck would consume about 0.4 kw-hr/mile when not towing.

Most internal combustion cars can convert somewhere between 15 to 25% of the energy in gasoline to mechanical energy. If Tesla is using there new permanent magnet reluctance motors then the motors are 97% efficient at turning electricity into mechanical energy. However, axles and tires eat up a good a good bit of energy also.

Without towing the F150 uses four times as much fuel energy as the Cybertruck (2.0 / 0.4). But the unusual shape of the Cybertruck is probably much more aerodynamic than the F150. We could say that the Cybertruck has a 25% efficiency advantage because of aerodynamics (and thus not helpful to towing). Thus the four time advantage is reduced to three times for pure energy conversion. Thus the Cybertruck would consume an additional 0.5 kw-hr during towing (1.4 / 3).

This assumes that the Cybertruck's conversion of electricity to mechanical energy is similar for the additional load of the trailer. Accordingly the addition of the trailer should increase the Cybertruck's energy demand to a total of 0.9 kw-hr (0.5 + 3.4 / [2.0 / 0.4]) when towing. Thus the Cybertruck has a towing range of 222 miles on flat ground.

Up the 1 mile hill:

The basic energy requirement to lift 1 lb up 1 ft in 1 sec is 0.737 watts. Or 0.000000205 kw-h per lb lifted 1 ft.
Thus to lift 7,000 lb up 5,280 ft is 7.6 kw-h of net mechanical energy required.

I'm guessing Ford has tuned the F150 well and is converting about 20% to mechanical energy. Since I'm conservatively estimating that the Cybertruck is only three times more efficient at fuel to mechanical energy conversion this would make the Cybertruck about 60% efficient at converting electrical energy to mechanical energy (I suspect the number is closer to four times).

The F150 would use an additional 38 kw-h (7.6 kw-h / 20%) to pull the 7,000 lbs up 5,280 ft higher.
The Cybertruck would use an additional 12.7 kw-h (7.6 kw-h / 60%) to pull the 7,000 lbs up 5,280 ft higher.

You have add the additional energy of raising the vehicles themselves to get them up the hill. I come up the following to drive up 5,280 ft: F150 uses an additional 30 kw-h ([5,000 + 500] * 5,280 * 0.000000205 kw-h / 20%) and Cybertruck uses an additional 11.7 kw-h ([6,000 + 500] * 5,280 * 0.000000205 kw-h / 60%).

Thus:
F150 + trailer going up hill = additional 88 kw-h
Cybertruck + trailer going up hill = additional 24.4 kw-h

F150 loses 26 miles of range by going up the hill (88 kw-h / 3.4 kw-h/m).
Cybertruck loses 27 miles of range by going up the hill (24.4 kw-h / 0.9 kw-h/m).

All-in-all looks very comparable to me. Thus I think your analysis is flawed.
AirFoiler2 is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pickup truck storage unit Born2kayak Airstream Classifieds 0 07-13-2016 12:39 PM
Pickup truck cap or no cap? weber.roger Airstream Lifestyle 28 12-04-2015 06:22 AM
Generator in back of Pickup truck Rawn77 Generators & Solar Power 20 07-22-2010 06:20 AM
What Diesel pickup truck has driven to the North Pole? purman Tow Vehicles 15 11-08-2008 10:45 PM
Need help in selecting a Pickup Truck for a 34 SO DEO Tow Vehicles 53 11-20-2006 11:06 AM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.