2nd look at CYBERTRUCK

[oil pan 4]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lpZiPZ...ature=youtu.be

https://youtu.be/lpZiPZwwXhM

[freebeard]

Why not the what are listening to thread?

Dick Dale - Amazing Grace (Live on KEXP)

[Hersbird]

Well I have heard the Cybertuck final is .34 Cd it's frontal area is pretty big too. So the smaller Rivian at .30 is the aero king still. The Cybertuck isn't that much better than the .357 2019 Ram. I can't seem to find he latest F150 or Silverado number especially the EV versions. Wait, I found a .404 for the gas 2015 F150, thr 2023 Lightning must be better than that. Bottom line the Cybertruck design wasn't game changing for aerodynamics. Put a aero topper on a Ram, make it an EV, and you probably beat the Rivian but definitely the Cybertuck.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Well I have heard the Cybertuck final is .34 Cd it's frontal area is pretty big too. So the smaller Rivian at .30 is the aero king still. The Cybertuck isn't that much better than the .357 2019 Ram. I can't seem to find he latest F150 or Silverado number especially the EV versions. Wait, I found a .404 for the gas 2015 F150, thr 2023 Lightning must be better than that. Bottom line the Cybertruck design wasn't game changing for aerodynamics. Put a aero topper on a Ram, make it an EV, and you probably beat the Rivian but definitely the Cybertuck.

Does that include the bed cover, because Tesla says that's worth 10%.

The only disappointing thing I learned is the $39k base model is now $60k, and the $49k model is now $80k. The truck was barely within my consideration at the prior price points, but this fantastic new economy has put it out of consideration.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Well I have heard the Cybertuck final is .34 Cd it's frontal area is pretty big too. So the smaller Rivian at .30 is the aero king still. The Cybertuck isn't that much better than the .357 2019 Ram. I can't seem to find he latest F150 or Silverado number especially the EV versions. Wait, I found a .404 for the gas 2015 F150, thr 2023 Lightning must be better than that. Bottom line the Cybertruck design wasn't game changing for aerodynamics. Put a aero topper on a Ram, make it an EV, and you probably beat the Rivian but definitely the Cybertuck.

Yep Tesla failed the 33% more efficient than F150 tripe by a mile.

Big selling point was that the Cyber was supposed to be more efficient than the competitors giving it a better range off the same battery.

[redpoint5]

... again, I ask if that includes the aero cover, because there was some talk of that not being standard (though it is at the moment).

At some point we'll start to get miles/kWh data in and get a sense for what is more efficient.

All that said, my use case for a truck is hauling a boat to the lake, or getting materials from Homedepot, yard waste removal, or camping. None of my use case involves traveling hundreds of miles at 80 MPH on a freeway.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Well I have heard the Cybertuck final is .34 Cd it's frontal area is pretty big too. So the smaller Rivian at .30 is the aero king still. The Cybertuck isn't that much better than the .357 2019 Ram. I can't seem to find he latest F150 or Silverado number especially the EV versions. Wait, I found a .404 for the gas 2015 F150, thr 2023 Lightning must be better than that. Bottom line the Cybertruck design wasn't game changing for aerodynamics. Put a aero topper on a Ram, make it an EV, and you probably beat the Rivian but definitely the Cybertuck.

I watched the 24-minute You-Tube of the November 30th, Gigafactory Texas Cybertruck delivery event.
Within the presentation, Tesla's video contained a 'subtitle' reporting a 0.335 Drag Coefficient for Cybertruck.
Cybertruck's height is 64.5" at its lowest setting, width is given at 79.8", giving a gross frontal area of 35.743- sq-ft, before adjusted to 'actual' Af.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rivian R1T drag coefficient of Cd 0.30, which has been repeatedly reported nearly universally among journalists, is from the AirShaper CFD results, which according to AirShaper's founder, Wouter Remmerie, does not reflect the Rivian's actual 'more like' Cd of 0.45-to-0.50, according to Remmerie.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another fly in the ointment involves the AirShaper initial CFD results for the un-wipered, and un-mirrored Cybertruck, which they reported @ Cd 0.48, which can now be compared to Cd 0.335, which includes windshield wiper and two side-view mirrors. If Tesla publishes scale technical drawings of Cybertruck, the actual projected frontal area may be ascertained directly from the front or rear elevation images.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I myself will await official numbers from Rivian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone with access to EPA Mobile Sources's data would be able to examine the Rivian R1T dynamometer load settings provided to EPA, of which would have the CdA values encoded within the specified loads. R-R values are measured directly from the twin-roll chassis dyno during certification testing in Ann Arbor, Michigan, if EPA chooses to verify a manufacturers own submitted claims.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Yep Tesla failed the 33% more efficient than F150 tripe by a mile.

Big selling point was that the Cyber was supposed to be more efficient than the competitors giving it a better range off the same battery.

Ford claimed the Lightning's drag at 7% lower than the ICE F-150, which places it around Cd 0.3757, and Af 36.0 sq-ft, CdA 13.5259 sq-ft ( 1.25659 meter-squared ).

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... again, I ask if that includes the aero cover, because there was some talk of that not being standard (though it is at the moment).

At some point we'll start to get miles/kWh data in and get a sense for what is more efficient.

All that said, my use case for a truck is hauling a boat to the lake, or getting materials from Homedepot, yard waste removal, or camping. None of my use case involves traveling hundreds of miles at 80 MPH on a freeway.

I'm presuming that the CFD/ wind tunnel testing was conducted with the tonneau cover closed over the vault, as the Ram 1500 eco, and RIVIAN R1T would have had.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

All that said, my use case...

My use case for $60-100,000 is to not buy a Cybertruck.

Maybe a dome house and a rat rod.