CYBERTRUCK range pulling tadpole trailer = approx. 870-miles

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

1) What is the relevance to your calculations? Tesla used to use the front/rear power split to maximise efficiency as the motors had different efficiency bands, I don't know if they still do.

2)Relevance?

3)True, apart from the fact I am not an engineer

4)Assumptions of constant efficiency are perfectly adequate,(assuming you know that there is a small margin of error) we can agree there also. Thanks for clearing that up.

1) As Tesla is the gold standard for efficiency, your points would not be lost on them, and if they thought it was merited, they could go to a 2-speed trans, as Porsche has. Sandy Munro, of Munro Associates has reported on this topic specifically.
Cybertuck / tadpole is limited to aerodynamics vs road load, in comparison to a Cybertruck with the body shape of an Silverado / Sierra, F-150, RAM 1500, and Cybertruck 'naked'. The 'shape' is the only variable.
Range remains an issue. 800-plus miles per charge may be of interest to those with range anxiety. Cd 0.10 leaves something on the table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Karlsruhe claims that the only issue for them, were the items listed, and with enhancements of magnet positioning, they were able to shape the magnetic field lines of flux in their motor, to overcome the Lorentz - Reluctance conflict, rendering the high-rpm issue mute.
Living off the grid for a decade, we learned that out inverters operated at their maximum efficiency at maximum load. Heat sinks for MOSFETS, IGFETS, whatever, were sized for the heat flux at 100% load.
Thermal management at battery, power conversion, and motor, all seem to be 'engineered ' for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Even the SAE Paper on the 1934 Chrysler De Soto Airflow, aerodynamic test-mule experiments included constant BSFC in their energy balance methodology. I think engineers have used it way before gasoline or diesel ever existed. Wood. Coal. Capitalism demands the fewest unknowns. H. Ross Perot's Electronic Data Systems built an economic empire from table scraps IBM was comfortable throwing way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Yes, a smidgeon of inexactness is a luxury which we are all accorded.

[aerostealth]

https://youtu.be/5-p88HW1Drg

My new YouTube video blog on the relative drag of the Cybertruck, Rivian, and Ford trucks. This is for Phil Knox if he sees this.

[aerohead]

Thanks John!
For a recap of the video, here's some tabular data used in the creation of the charts:
* All trucks of equal 6,000-pounds curb weight
* All trucks of equal 36- square-foot frontal projected area
* All trucks of equal Rolling-Resistance power absorption coefficient, and equal to that derived from empirical testing of the Tesla Model X
* Standard SAE air density ( rho ) 0.00238 slugs
* Fully warmed, straight, level, dry, calm, sea level, constant-velocity
* Horsepower X 0.7457 = kW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 130-mph:
+ Cd 0.40 Road Load power = 144.9-hp ( 108- kW )
+ Cd 0.35 = 129.3-hp ( 96.4-kW )
+ Cd 0.30 = 113.8-hp ( 84.9-kW )
+ Cd 0.25 = 98.3-hp ( 73.3-kW )
+ Cd 0.20 = 82.9-hp ( 61.8- kW )
+ Cd 0.10 = 53.9-hp ( 39.5-kW )
+ Rolling Resistance Road Load fraction = 20.7545-hp

[aerostealth]

https://youtu.be/ESlv1EtX6Mk

My video on how the enhanced lower drag body form of the Tesla Cybertruck results in better performance. A shout out to Phil Knox whom I credit in my Part II video.

[aerostealth]

https://youtu.be/V9Z63I6J9qI

Latest YouTube video on Cybertruck versus Ford F-150 XLT Eco Boost gas truck. For Phil Knox.

[aerohead]

So after being stranded on ice for seven days, then a week with the internet down, I finally had a look at the video.
Anyone born here today, will be getting their learner's permit about the time pistons go the way of the Dodo bird.
Being able to compare gallons to kWhs, and BSFC to BSFC-e will be handy in navigating the not-so-far-off future of automobiles. Brake Specific Energy Consumption will be a useful tool.
' You better slice that pizza in four pieces. I don't think I can eat six.' Yogi Berra

[aerostealth]

https://youtu.be/YqOJ-Sh-w6U

My March 5th, 2021 video on the enhanced Cd performance (Cd = 0.25 and Cd = 0.20 ) of the Tesla Cybertruck and a discussion of the Well to Wheel of of EV's versus ICE.

[aerohead]

Thanks John.
Ph.D. Michael E. Wysession's Great Courses lecture series on energy, I believe, came up with an average 15% overall thermal-mechanical efficiency for internal combustion vehicles, so your numbers are spot-on according to his research.
In nine years, some carmakers will have already put all their pistons out to pasture.
Cutting BSFC by 66% is a smart move.
Get rich slow.

[aerohead]

This image survived in my photo albums and will give a 'face' to the concept of a range-extending trailer.
Low drag and 'length' go together. Trailers add length. Streamline them and you get past the 'practical' length issue.
Any penalty from added rolling resistance is overwhelmed by the drag reduction, netting an overall range improvement.
https://ecomodder.com/forum/member-a...ed-micro-r.jpg

[aerohead]

https://imgur.com/lPaURnC