Aero Wheel Hubcaps. Anyone Do Real World Tests on Range?

[mswlogo]

a bit off topic but not really...i saw a model 3 on the freeway last week with aero covers on the rear wheels, aero covers off the front...gave me a chuckle

from what i gathered loosely, the range increase is seen at higher speeds, north of 70mph. don't quote me on that.

i'm keeping my covers off, regardless of how much they help with range.

I suspect that may be true. My testing was all at 65mph and barely notice any difference. So much so that I switched to 19” OEM wheels (not OEM tires though) and still see no appreciable difference. Average over 600 miles is 230 wh/mi (AWD), exactly the same as Aero’s with covers on.

 

[mswlogo]

Test length of only 3 miles would result in a higher % of acceleration/regen losses overhead, potentially why your numbers are coming in lower. What were the temps that day? Did the Supercan kick in?

I agree, 3 miles is way to little to assess anything. Battery readings alone could be off by 3 miles.

 

[bxr140]

Your ICE car loses so much in losses that have nothing to do with aerodynamic drag that it matters less, percentage-wise. Aero covers aren't magically going to reduce your colossal mechanical losses in your ICE motor, they're only going to help reduce aero losses. On an ICE car, these are a smaller fraction of all losses.

You're getting a bit confused. I'm happy to turn this into a big internet discussion if you need help understanding the physics, but in an attempt to not swing this thread too far of topic, let me just encourage you to consider the difference between the efficiency with which a vehicle consumes energy and the efficiency at which a vehicle's power plant generates energy. They are completely separate, and aerodynamics only plays a part in the former.

Good luck!

 

[bxr140]

I agree, 3 miles is way to little to assess anything. Battery readings alone could be off by 3 miles.

Its plenty in a controlled experiment. Certainly more would improve accuracy of the results, but consistency in results indicates the experiment is valid.




Regardless what the actual number is for improved aero efficiency, I fall back on the logic that Tesla would not have gone through the effort to implement aero covers if they did not provide a sufficient improvement for Tesla. As a quick maths exercise, if we use 3% average improvement from the covers (which I contest is reasonable), that would mean for equivalent battery capacity the Model 3's recurring battery cost to Tesla (so, not price to you or me), would be an additional ~$200. That would also add another ~25lbs on the vehicle weight...and we're not even digging into the non-recurring impact of things like finding space to put 3% more battery cells. Conversely, I have to imagine their recurring cost of the plastic wheel covers is in the tens of dollars, and I think the plastic wheel covers are around ~5lbs total.

THEN, fold in ripple effect throughout the value chain and it starts to make even more sense. For instance, 3% more battery cells per vehicle means ~3% fewer battery packs being produced, and that of course means ~3% fewer vehicle deliveries. Of course, Tesla could just sell cars with 3% less range and

 

[sixela]

if you need help understanding the physics,

I don't, thank you.

 

[bxr140]

I don't, thank you.

Great, glad you figured it out!

 

[Kleenerth3]

Scientifically the data shows unequivocally the Aero hubcaps make my 3 over 3% more efficient at the speed I drive AND look really cool at highway velocity.
Conversely, the opposite is true at city speed where the cool factor is increased 90% without the aero hubcaps and instead show off the center caps kit! Safety is also increased in this city senario where driving slowly and carefully can benefit your fellow road warriors in letting them check out your rims... Hell your entire, scientifically proven through undisputable data, badass Tesla Model 3!!!