Elon Musk on Twitter
In comparison Ford trucks are around 0.40
Improving Aerodynamics to Boost Fuel Economy | Edmunds
In comparison Ford trucks are around 0.40
Improving Aerodynamics to Boost Fuel Economy | Edmunds
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wonder if some accessory could be made that would allow the tailgate to be at a half open position, with the accessory (carbon fibre, or fibre glass, or fabric) that would latch into place covering the opening, and creating a wedge shape with the tailgate (when viewed from the side) instead of the flat panel to at least partially fill in the low pressure zone at the rear end and allow for smoother reattachment of the airflow going over and under the truck. It would have to allow for tail lights to work properly, but led's could be incorporated into it that plug into the trailer plug.
The accessory could latch directly to the main tailgate latches, creating an extension or bridge to the tailgate allowing it to still be opened fully for access, albeit with a smaller opening area. The tonneau could still open with the accessory in place as well to allow access.
My suggestion would be to toss an extra battery pack in that trunk under the bed to makeup for the inefficiency for an extra $5k-$10k (maybe optional), and make it more like a pickup truck. They are so close to being able to tap into the entire pickup market, but the obsession with range vs price is making it into a niche vehicle that won't accomplish the main goal of converting a substantial number of ICE pickup buyers into EV pickup buyers.
The aerodynamic inefficiency of having an open pickup bed which is what I would prefer it to have. They are talking of making it even more efficient while I think they have already compromised too much of the truck functionality in the name of efficiency.What inefficiency?
The aerodynamic inefficiency of having an open pickup bed which is what I would prefer it to have. They are talking of making it even more efficient while I think they have already compromised too much of the truck functionality in the name of efficiency.
I think Elon's tweet is warning people the final design is still subject to further changes they might not prefer as they are working to hit the range/price point they already promised. I cannot imagine those big knobby tires and fender flares help hit the desired range/price points. But they sure do sell trucks.
I loved the irony of the last paragraph where a Chrysler spokesman said they were "not about to produce an aerodynamic car that no one will buy." They should know, since the infamous 1934 Chrysler and Desoto Airflow vehicles caused sales declines that nearly bankrupted the company.Elon Musk on Twitter
In comparison Ford trucks are around 0.40
Improving Aerodynamics to Boost Fuel Economy | Edmunds
I think it was when Tesla introduced the original Roadster that Chrysler, along with several other automakers, chimed in with claims they were working on electric cars and would be introducing them shortly. Then *crickets*. Does anyone else remember that?I loved the irony of the last paragraph where a Chrysler spokesman said they were "not about to produce an aerodynamic car that no one will buy." They should know, since the infamous 1934 Chrysler and Desoto Airflow vehicles caused sales declines that nearly bankrupted the company.
Cd: Elon says as low as .30. Some won’t say, but think it’s lower than most trucksHappy to discuss CT Cd calculations here...and the validity of regulation on another thread.
Cd: Elon says as low as .30. Some won’t say, but think it’s lower than most trucks
Tesla Cybertruck Aerodynamics Explored In Detail
Some think it more like .38
CFD Analysis of Tesla Cybertruck
Some think .47
CFD Analysis of Tesla's Cybertruck : Infographics
I saw somewhere a comment attributed to Elon that the suspension lowers as speed increases. In his presentation he said “you can go very low or very high, so you can be efficient on the highway” which alluded to that. I haven’t seen anything about what the lowest would be or at what speed, but that would have to be factored into the modeling.Thanks for the links! I hadn't seen the middle one before, and also the link to the simulation he did, even though I came across his CAD models. Will run some of my own there.
I think the dimensions aren't quite accurate with those models. In particular the two front side angles that deflect the air around the wheels as also the wheelbase etc, which i have at 4m not 3.8m.
I'm also wondering how it will do at lower speeds than those simulated so far. There was talk that there's a high pressure zone in front of the vehicle that helps separate airflow smoothly along the surfaces even though it's not round there. I thought that was quite smart. The tail can do with some better streamlining, or at least some plastic vanes to maintain smoother vertices behind the vehicle rather than the turbulent drag inducing ones.