Cybertruck Towing during cross-country trek

[TruckElectric]

During the planned cross-country trek of the CT this fall mentioned by Elon Musk, hopefully he will showcase the towing capabilities and the interface associated with it.

I would like to see a Tri-motor pulling the maximum rated towing capacity of 14,000 lbs. up(how fast up x% grade) and down(show braking capabilities) grades and on level ground through heavy rain.

Also the range while pulling max load and no load.

Advertisement

 

[TruckElectric]

I forgot to mention that the CT will probably have the new million mile battery as well.

 

[TruckElectric]

Rivian R1T Electric Pickups Take 13,000-Mile Road Trip for TV

Watch as the EVs follow actors and friends Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman on the third installment of their motorcycle road-trip show.



Source: CAR AND DRIVER

 

[ajdelange]

I would like to see a Tri-motor pulling the maximum rated towing capacity of 14,000 lbs. up(how fast up x% grade)

You can easily get some guestimate numbers on that. The power required to take truck (estimated weight) and 14,000 lb trailer up a 10% grade at 60 mph is
((6000 + 14000)/2.2)*9.8*.1*(60*1609/3600)/1000 = 238.963 kW plus the power than goes for drag and rolling resistance, which, while appreciable, is probably relatively small compared to 240 kW. I expect you can deduce the formula from the example to the point you can plug in your own numbers.

Will the CT be able to deliver 250 kW? With a 180 kWh battery perhaps but not probably for a sustained time period.

 

[TruckElectric]

You can easily get some guestimate numbers on that. The power required to take truck (estimated weight) and 14,000 lb trailer up a 10% grade at 60 mph is
((6000 + 14000)/2.2)*9.8*.1*(60*1609/3600)/1000 = 238.963 kW plus the power than goes for drag and rolling resistance, which, while appreciable, is probably relatively small compared to 240 kW. I expect you can deduce the formula from the example to the point you can plug in your own numbers.

Will the CT be able to deliver 250 kW? With a 180 kWh battery perhaps but not probably for a sustained time period.

I'm thinking we will all be surprised with the new battery the CT will be using.


In the tweet posted the person asked "Can Cybertruck also have a payload/towing calculator?"

Elon replied "Yes, will also show real-time changes to max acceleration, braking, cornering, speed on gradient & range, latter factoring in route elevation changes & cargo or tow mass & drag impact"

So I want is to see it doing all these things, to see it happen in real-time.

Will it have a separate monitor/interface for all this or will it all be displayed on the single monitor(which I am supposing it will)?.

It's not that I don't trust Elon to deliver on all this, I just want to see it. And since he has said there will be a cross-country trek with the CT I am fairly confident it won't be just to show it going from one supercharger to the next and the expected photo/video ops.

There is still a lot of skepticism out there about the CT's capabilities and whether Elon and his crew at Tesla can deliver all these things.

I get enjoyment when Elon shows the critics/skeptics he can deliver! ?

 

[ldjessee]

Elon replied "Yes, will also show real-time changes to max acceleration, braking, cornering, speed on gradient & range, latter factoring in route elevation changes & cargo or tow mass & drag impact"

So I want is to see it doing all these things, to see it happen in real-time.

Will it have a separate monitor/interface for all this or will it all be displayed on the single monitor(which I am supposing it will)?.

I assume it will be like the power consumption graph screen, a specific screen to get that information.

 

[Crissa]

The prototype truck is just a dual-motor, I think.

-Crissa

 

[Geo]

I think that video is good for a couple of reasons.

To the unfamiliar, that figure of 235 Wh/mile is certainly possible ( you can even hyper mile at an even lesser rate),

but I understand thats a little on the low side of what most trips for most Tesla drivers are, which covers more taxing common conditions.

A rough figure around the 270 Wh/mile is more commonly the benchmark.

Which is kind of splitting hairs when the issue at hand is towing big loads, where energy consumption is already confirmed to skyrocket

EPA : 402 miles @ 100 kwh battery, approx, 4900 lbs. = 4.02 miles per kwh

Real world. Approx. 360 miles = 3.6 miles per Kwh. = 277 wh/mil

Tri motor Cybertruck estimated to be no more than 6000lbs (per Tesla Carb application ) but possibly about 5600 lb/s

Documented power consumption when towing for other Tesla’s is widely known. Re TFL and other sources.

Tri Motor Cybertruck towing 14000 lbs is a very serious load and a great achievement, though how long it can do it for is terrible.

Estimated Power consumption on flat ground, will be a minimum in excess of 3200 wh/mile.

Meaning the 500 mile range will likely drop to less than 50 miles.

P.S. The new million mile battery refers to number of cycles not energy density. And its confirmed it is the CATL battery which is good for 1.2. million miles. But it is in fact Lithium Iron Phosphate which is actually about 30% LESS, NOT MORE, energy dense than the current best other battery !

Recent Panasonic announcement of an estimated 20% improvement in energy density by the end of 2026, is a forecast.

Even if we include a 5% improvement in energy density to be announced as early as battery day in 5 weeks, that means that the approx. 267 wh/kg will become 280 wh/kg.

So that the 402 mile range of the best ranging Tesla, the model S will become 422 miles.

Energy Density of the best Automotive Battery unfortuneately will still be about 1.5% of a kilogram of Diesel fuel.

Cybertruck towing just 4500 lbs will more than halve the normal driving range, let alone what 14000 lb/s will do to it. (But yep that load calculating software will be great at highlighting how bad the range will suffer under various loads, and an excellent tool)

It’s just the state of science fact at the moment about batteries and energy density.

F = M x A

M = E / C2

 

[ajdelange]

I don't think level ground consumption with a trailer is going to be anything like 3200 Wh/mi unless one is going up hill). 14000 lbs is the weight of 2.3 CT's (at 6000 lbs each). A CT needs about 450 Wh/mi on level ground and 3.3 of them (2.3 simulating the trailer and one to pull) would thus nominally require 3.3*450 = 1485 Wh/mi. That's still a lot of juice and it reduces the range to 30% of the range of the CT alone (150 miles for a working range of about 112 miles). Of course add in hilly terrain, a headwind and some rain and things get even worse.

There is only one towed article that I can think of for which I have a pretty good idea as to what the energy requirement would be and that is another CT which is clearly going to require the same amount of energy as a CT pulling it. This 5500 - 6000 lb load would cut the range in half.

Note that what is seen in real towing depends on the efficiency of regeneration and drag more than the batteries themselves.

 

[Geo]

I don't think level ground consumption with a trailer is going to be anything like 3200 Wh/mi unless one is going up hill). 14000 lbs is the weight of 2.3 CT's (at 6000 lbs each). A CT needs about 450 Wh/mi on level ground and 3.3 of them (2.3 simulating the trailer and one to pull) would thus nominally require 3.3*450 = 1485 Wh/mi. That's still a lot of juice and it reduces the range to 30% of the range of the CT alone (150 miles for a working range of about 112 miles). Of course add in hilly terrain, a headwind and some rain and things get even worse.

There is only one towed article that I can think of for which I have a pretty good idea as to what the energy requirement would be and that is another CT which is clearly going to require the same amount of energy as a CT pulling it. This 5500 - 6000 lb load would cut the range in half.

Note that what is seen in real towing depends on the efficiency of regeneration and drag more than the batteries themselves.

1828 wh/mile
1828 wh/mile
1828 wh/mile
1828 wh/mile is what the TFL guys got towing a 4500 lb trailer on level ground with a model X.

That load alone reduced the range by 2 Thirds !

What will tripling the load to 14,000 Ib/s do !

The Cybertruck will certainly draw consumption that is over 3200 wh/mile while towing 14,000 Ib/s.
That is not open to debate.

This fact is well established, Aj is aware of this, Why does he repeat this clearly wrong statement,
Its a mystery of the universe, that we can never determine . . . . on flat ground or otherwise !

 

[Crissa]

How can you compare and assume?

The X displaces very little air compared to the Cybertruck.
The X has motors designed for optimal torque at a different load weight.

Expecting any similarities between them is nuts.

Also, why do people tow bricks and the assume it's the weight, not the slipstream, that accounts for the difference? Do they not believe in air resistance?

-Crissa

 

[Geo]

How can you compare and assume?

Its called Science, its called physics.

How can one tell the composition of the atmosphere of a planet billions of miles away without ever visiting, perhaps its Voodoo, perhaps its fake news

The X displaces very little air compared to the Cybertruck.

The Cybertruck is actually reasonably aerodynamic, people have confirmed this online.
Its Coeffiecient of Drag is reasoned to be fairly similar. The towing range reduction is a function of mass (while maintaining the approximate same given aerodynamic circumstance). ie Just measuring the impact between towing 4,500 lbs vs 14,000 lbs.

The X has motors designed for optimal torque at a different load weight.

The Cybertruck motors will not miraculously be vastly more improved over the current Tesla motors. But we can all pray to Allah, Jesus and the Easter Bunny, that Elon has been saving these motors Just for the Cybertruck ! And then the less than 50 mile range will magically go up to say 60 miles. An extraordinary 20% improvement !!! or does the magic extend much much further, I mean it is magic that we're now forecasting with, isn't it !

Expecting any similarities between them is nuts.

Quite a statement. Putting aside, Deductive Reasoning, Critical Thinking, and Science, of course

Also, why do people tow bricks and the assume it's the weight, not the slipstream, that accounts for the difference? Do they not believe in air resistance?

The 4500lbs horse trailer, is a reasonably standard shape. And not unnecessarily unaerodynamic.
And once again, the question is about the impact between towing 4500 lb/s vs 14000 lb/s, all other variables being equal.
ie. Comparing towing the same 4500 Trailer empty vs carrying an extra 9500 lbs of load within in.
Be it very fat horses, or 9500 lbs of feathers, or 9500 lbs of concrete !

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

(Missing because Geo uses tags incorrectly)

That's not how quotes work.

It's also not how science works. Science isn't just assumptions taken as a given.

-Crissa

PS, 'reasonably aerodynamic' is only mildly correlated with 'air displacement'. Aerodynamic is a measure of how well it displaces air. But it's still a big object, and displaces alot more air than the X and creates a different cone of disturbed air behind it. An airliner is reasonably aerodynamic but it displaces a huge amount of air.

Either way, the shape of the towing vehicle and the shape of the towed object matters quite alot to towing capacity on the highway.

 

[ajdelange]

A.J. repeats this "clearly wrong" statment because he has 55 years experience in testing, collecting and analyzing data and is perfectly aware that the guys in that video don't have any. He has a basic understanding of the physics and is aware that those guys don't. He knows that no responsible scientist would draw a conclusion from a single test. He knows that when towing with a BEV the weight of the towed load is not the most important factor but that it is, in fact, drag. He knows that if one does a test and gets a ridiculous answer that he has done something wrong and does additional tests with the goal of finding out what he did wrong. He knows from long and sometimes bitter experience that this is what it takes to get a meaningful test series going. He knows that few people have experience with measured power consumption in BEVs but that lots can offer experiences with towing behind ICE. He understands how many variables go into determining consumption and that even without a trailer a CV of 28% in consumption is typical and he knows this because he has measured it. He knows that however much it takes to move a CT a mile it won't take more than twice that to tow a second one behind it and that that would result in a range reduction to 50%. IOW he knows about a whole lot of things that someone with no engineering or scientific or analytical experience would not know about and would therefore not consider though he should.

The Cybertruck will certainly draw consumption that is over 3200 wh/mile while towing 14,000 Ib/s.
That is not open to debate.

Perhaps you have not seen the video in which Ford (was it?) hooked up one of their prototype vehicled and towed a train consisting of dozens of railway cars full of trucks. Would you like to reconsider that statement? The trick is, and this is the reason a railroad can move tons of freight hundreds of miles on a few gallons of fuel, is that the rolling resistance is so low. The energy required of a towing vehicle is the sum of that required to bring the load to speed (m*v*v/2). This is proportional to mass but is a one time investment that can be largely recouped in a BEV with regen. The other battery requirement is that power must be supplied to overcome drag. This is rho*C_drag*A*v*v*v/2 and the energy required per unit distance is rho*C_drag*A*v*v/2. Thus it is clear by keeping speed low Wh/mi can be dramatically reduced and consumptions well below 3200 Wh/mi are entirely possible while towing 14,000 lbs. We should be considering rolling resistance which, at really low speed, would dominate. We won't have actual numbers until people try particular trailers with particular C_drag and A.

Don't believe A.J. if you don't want to but give Tesla credit for being smart enough to not advertise 14,000 lb towing capacity if it means 50 miles range or less. I'm guessing that their measurements on typical trailers of that size would indicate 200 - 250 i.e. a loss of about half. This seems to be what the ICE drivers report though it certainly can be more than that.

 

[Geo]

I think a couple of Tesla fan boi's are upset at some very plain truth about towing.

Fact : EV's suck at towing.
Fact : Cybertruck towing 14,000 lbs, will absolutely get impractically teeny tiny range.

To any impartial interested audience following, you have been abundantly warned.
For everyone else, standby for some fun entertainment and some pretty pissed off Cybertruck customers soon.

P.S. Come to think of it, I think that's why Tesla are quoting the range with " + ".
could It be the equivalent of getting free steak knives with a purchase !

When you get buyers remorse, when you discover how much range you lose when towing, especially if the Vault is open, you can try to console yourself you ordered a 300 mile or 500 mile Cybertruck but got a 400 mile or 700 mile one.

I'll be reasonably happy with my purchase, but I'll know when to leave mine at home.

An interesting question I'd love to know the answer to is :
What impacts range more, carrying my bike in the bed, which means the vault stays open, or towing the bike on a trailer weighing 150 kg ? (bike and trailer combined equal about 260 kg)