Ford Hybrid F150 used as a generator

[ajdelange]

At some point in time I would imagine there will be some tests done to compare generators with this vehicle and even a Cybertruck.

Probably not. The manufacturers will, of course, test their equipment and release the absolute minimum amount of information e.g. that the item produces X watts continuous and Y watts peak at 120V and what the fuel flow is at a couple of load levels. What else do you want to know? Do you care about insulation class, THD, regulation at various load levels, power factor? Does the public even know what those things mean?

Better, is very subjective.

To the public perhaps but engineers are well aware of this and so in comparing performance lay out very specific criteria of optimality. These criteria usually depend to a great extent on the application.

As far as I am concerned a power source built into the vehicle is vastly superior to any portable generator or battery pack in that I don't have to carry any additional equipment or fuel for it. It is vastly inferior in that it takes energy from my traction supply. I would decide one way were I a carpenter running a table saw at a job site and another were I going camping for a few days.

I'm delighted that the CT will have onboard power even though I will probably use it seldom.

Advertisement

 

[Luke42]

A 50% range reduction is common with ICE tow vehicles, too, though it depends greatly on the cross sectional area and the weight of the trailer (and the aerodynamics of the trailer).

One of the trailers which had a surprisingly large impact on the range of my gas tow vehicle was one like this:
Carry-On Trailer 5-ft x 8-ft Wire Mesh Utility Trailer with Ramp Gate in the Moss, Algae & Fungus Control department at Lowes.com

The thing weighs almost nothing. Two or three dudes can lift it pretty easily. The numbers suggest it weighs about 355lbs.

Even towing this trailer empty would kill my MPG (range) by about 30% or so on the 4-cylinder Ford Ranger I was using to tow it, and loading it up didn't affect the mileage very much.

(The range/MPG reduction number is from memory and from 15 years ago, so go easy on me if you have actual data on this.)

What was killing my range was having that ramp stowed in the vertical position. It has a huge cross-sectional area, and it's in a position which places it into the slipstream of the compact pickup truck I was using to tow it. Putting that grate into the wind seems to be even worse than putting a piece of plywood there in terms of creating parasitic drag, because enough air flows through it in a way that probably just creates turbulence (rather than changing the course of the slipstream).

When I started stowing the ramp in the forward position (when allowed by the load), the little truck I was using to tow it barely knew it was there -- which is about what you'd expect from such a light trailer. Both the MPG and the driving feel were both dramatically improved.

I fly sailplanes now, and I can recognize an airbrake more easily these days.

 

[ajdelange]

What was killing my range was having that ramp stowed in the vertical position.

I think those that try to tie range reduction to the fact that the vehicle is a BEV are not aware that
Y = a + b*v + c*v*v
so that the major determinant of range reduction is the geometry of the trailer (as reflected through c - but note that while this c is dependent on the drag coefficient it is not the drag coeffiient) and the square of the velocity, v, at which it is driven.

 

[Luke42]

the square of the velocity, v, at which it is driven.

There's a lot to be said for the European 100km/h (or 80km/h) towing speed limit -- at least from the efficiency and safety perspectives.

That's one of the reasons the same car usually has a higher tow rating in Europe. Their trailer brake requirements are another reason.

These benefits do come at the expense of other drivers' patience, though.

 

[FutureBoy]

There's a lot to be said for the European 100km/h (or 80km/h) towing speed limit -- at least from the efficiency and safety perspectives.

That's one of the reasons the same car usually has a higher tow rating in Europe. Their trailer brake requirements are another reason.

These benefits do come at the expense of other drivers' patience, though.

Once everyone is on mandated FSD though the other driver's patience will become a non-issue I think. Till then, the bulletproof body will be our great protection.

 

[firsttruck]

Till then, the bulletproof body will be our great protection.

Remember the steel only resistant but the windows even less.

So you better pay attention & have good reflexives to duck down (like super human) since now I am told the windows & roof will not protect you in that way.

 

[FutureBoy]

Remember the steel only resistant but the windows even less.

So you better pay attention & have good reflexives to duck down (like super human) since now I am told the windows & roof will not protect you in that way.

Maybe I will just replace all the windows with 3 mm stainless steel like the body. Let FSD do the driving. LOL.

 

[Geo]

I think those that try to tie range reduction to the fact that the vehicle is a BEV are not aware that
Y = a + b*v + c*v*v
so that the major determinant of range reduction is the geometry of the trailer (as reflected through c - but note that while this c is dependent on the drag coefficient it is not the drag coeffiient) and the square of the velocity, v, at which it is driven.

Results below are with using the same trailer, but the F150 is carrying a 20% bigger load.
(6000 lbs vs 5000 lbs)

To put it politely, have you been innocently wrong or actively deceitful !

( Usually you have put the depth of the Nile in your calculations or is that "C" is this time ;-)

Note : The Model X is more Aerodynamic than the Cybertruck, and it has a smaller frontal area.
: The range reduction when towing will be proportionally worse .

65.7 mile loop	Empty	Towing	Reduction in Range
Model X : weighs 5400 lbs	325 mile range	112 mile range	66 %
Towing 5000 lbs	19.3 Kwh to do 65.7 m	52.6 kwh to do 65.7 m
F150 Hybrid : Weighs 5200	700 m range (30 gal)	242 mile range	66 % towing 20% bigger load
Towing 6000 lbs	2.2 gal to do 65.7 m	8.18 gal to do 65.7 m
		~ 290 m range towing 5000 lbs	~ 58.5% towing 5000 lbs

For a load of 5000 lbs :

Model X = 112 mile range

F150 Hybrid = 290 mile range ( 2.6 x more range ).

 

[Crissa]

I think you both bring important facts to the conversation, but your conclusions are wrong.

??‍

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

Remember the steel only resistant but the windows even less.

So you better pay attention & have good reflexives to duck down (like super human) since now I am told the windows & roof will not protect you in that way.

The Cybertruck glass will likely be more resistant to bullet penetration than the steel exoskeleton. People forget, that heavy steel ball that Franz threw at the window kept the "driver" safe - in a normal pane of window glass that solid steel ball would have gone right through the glass and hit the driver. On the Cybertruck it bounced right off.

 

[ajdelange]

To put it politely, have you been innocently wrong or actively deceitful !

Is that a question or a statement?

In either case, to put it politely, you are in a bit over your head. The a + b*v + c*v*v model is
1)clear from the physics
2)the model of drag that the OEM must use in running the EPA certification test.

( Usually you have put the depth of the Nile in your calculations or is that "C" is this time ;-)

Again not sure what this "sentence" is supposed to be saying but the coefficients are determined by fitting to observed deceleration data. I was careful to point out in the referenced post that c is NOT the drag coefficient (though it depends on it) but I did not make clear that it is NOT the battery capacity, I do apologize if it is that which has you confused.

Note : The Model X is more Aerodynamic than the Cybertruck, and it has a smaller frontal area.
: The range reduction when towing will be proportionally worse .

65.7 mile loop	Empty	Towing	Reduction in Range
Model X : weighs 5400 lbs	325 mile range	112 mile range	66 %
Towing 5000 lbs	19.3 Kwh to do 65.7 m	52.6 kwh to do 65.7 m
F150 Hybrid : Weighs 5200	700 m range (30 gal)	242 mile range	66 % towing 20% bigger load
Towing 6000 lbs	2.2 gal to do 65.7 m	8.18 gal to do 65.7 m
		~ 290 m range towing 5000 lbs	~ 58.5% towing 5000 lbs

Anecdotal data like this is, of course, interesting but you must understand that , given a set of vehicle and trailer parameters, the thing that most effects range reduction is the actual speed profile and the terrain (weather and road conditions do too) during the test. As you can't know that a-priori the best you can do is try to gain some insight via Monte Carlo simulation of speed profile and/or terrain which you hope are representative of profiles that you will actually encounter. What comes out of such a model is watt hours per mile irrespective of whether the tractor gets those from petrol or a battery or a fuel cell. The (1 + Y/X) factor is only for the grossest estimates but it does have some validity under the assumption that X and Y are averaged over the same set of conditions. If I have determined that my trailer uses 500 Wh/mi running around town then knowing that my new X uses 280 Wh/mi, my old one used 300 and my Lexus 700 (WAG) I can come up with three range reduction factors (respectively 35.8%, 37.5%, and 58.3%) that at least give me an idea as to what to expect generally. To try to go deeper requires us to determine each of the components of X and Y and the point about a + b*v + c*v*v is a, b and c depend not only on the physical properties of tractor and trailer but on grade and weather to the point that one is practically forced to go to Monte Carlo techniques to get answers.

Note : The Model X is more Aerodynamic than the Cybertruck, and it has a smaller frontal area.
: The range reduction when towing will be proportionally worse .

The crude formula shows the thing that determines the range reduction is the energy consumption of the tractor relative to the trailer. Certainly drag can be a large component of this at high speed but is not dominant at lower speeds hence again we have to know the speed regime (and terrain for going up a hill behind slow traffic potential energy load obviously swamps drag).

But for grins in driving around town I know my X uses 280 Wh/mi. I think the CT will use about 450. Based on those two numbers reduction factors for a trailer that uses 500 are 1 + 500/280 = 2.78 ( (reduction to 35.9%) and 1 + 500/450 = 2.11 (reduction to 47.3%)

 

[Crissa]

If you drive more highway miles than city miles, of course your range will be worse.

If you drive more wet miles than dry ones, your range will be worse.

If you drive around with more passengers, your range will be ever so slightly worse. More luggage. A roof rack. Up more hills. Have more stops.

Some of these effects are tiny; weight and hills (up and down) seem to have much less of an impact when you have regen, than added air or rolling resistance, for instance.

Some of these effects are large, like towing a big brick. And some of these will vary from vehicle to vehicle: My range on a bike will drop more towing that brick than a Model 3, which will lose more than an X, which will lose more than a Cybertruck. Why? Because each of these have their own mass and how much air they displace and have lost in range already.

So the theoretical eFord 150 will 'lose less range' towing a brick than a Cybertruck. Because it's already pushing the brick that is itself. That doesn't mean it will have a higher towing range, though.

-Crissa

 

[ajdelange]

Since I went back and looked at the videos again I want to comment on how disappointed I was with the skinny bloke's. He's an engineer and generally pretty good but in the one linked above he goes on about how a gallon of gasoline contains as much energy as 13 gallons of battery represented by cans of what he calls "pampelmousey" (it's "pomp-le-moose"). What he does not mention is that only perhaps 30% of that energy is available from the pertrol whereas 90% of the energy stored in a battery is. Thus, while his point that it takes a lot of battery to get 500 miles range out of a BEV us valid he exaggerates the magnitude of that problem. This seems rather disingenuous.

This reflects on the range reduction too. The rang reduction factor is (1 + Y/X) with Y being the trailer consumption and X the tractor's. This is already too much math for some but i'm going to make it worse (more obfuscation) for those stayed awake in high school algebra. X, the consumption for the tractor, includes several components such as rolling resistance, drag, inertial load, gravitational load an heat loss. Let's call that last one H and the sum of all the others U (for "useful"), Then X = U + H. Note that here H represents only the loss in converting energy in the form we are storing it to the form in which we can use it. As noted above H might represent something like 70% of X in the case of an ICE vehicle but only 10% of X in a BEV. With this we have factor
1 + Y/X = 1 + Y/(U + H) = 1 + (Y/U)/(1 + H/U)
From this we see that if the heat losses are very large relative to useful energy requirements the denominator becomes large, the second term small and the reduction factor moves towards 1 i.e. little reduction in range at all. Thus if most of your energy is wasted as heat it doesn't matter that much if your trailer requires a little more energy to move it. That isn't going to effect the total energy consumption much.

 

[firsttruck]

The Cybertruck glass will likely be more resistant to bullet penetration than the steel exoskeleton.

Elon Musk said, "It is literally bulletproof to a 9 mm handgun, that's how strong the skin is."

Tesla showed 3mm 30x cold rolled stainless steel stopping multiple 9mm bullets fired at same spot.

9mm full metal jacket
115 grain
10 meters


"If fully hardened, 3mm of 301 stainless is more than adequate to stop any 9mm Luger round I can think of, apart from exotic stuff like dedicated armor piercing bullets, which you're not going to find on gun store shelves," said Iain Harrison, editor-in-chief of Recoil as well as a competitive shooter and former British Army captain.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pickup-bulletproof-stainless-steel-body/

Can you link to a statement by Tesla or Elon Musk that said the the glass of Cybertruck would be resistant to 9mm bullet fired from a handgun?

Can you link to picture of a ballistic glass (bullet resistant glass) that did not crack when hit with 9mm bullet fired by handgun?

Are you really saying Cybertruck glass will likely be more resistant to 9mm bullet penetration than the 3mm 30x cold rolled stainless steel?

 

[Crissa]

What he does not mention is that only perhaps 30% of that energy is available from the pertrol whereas 90% of the energy stored in a battery is...

...Depends entirely upon what you're using that energy for. If you're converting it to heat, nearly all of it is available. If you're converting it to motion, alot less. If you're converting it to electricity, even less. But even with this hobble, it starts out super-dense energy and is still in the lead for storage, hence his point being: We should continue to get better at extracting that energy as well as invest in batteries, because it will have such a large impact.

-Crissa