Fair tug of war?

[CMoZ]

Now we just need to know what the best F-150 puts to the ground in 4WD Low (if it's able to be heavily loaded in that mode)! I'm sure this is knowable...

That should be pretty easy to calculate an approximation at least. 4WD low is a ratio of 2.64:1 on the Raptor at least but then we'd need to know if the CT is doing a reduction as well, which we don't know yet

 

[CMoZ]

1st gear is 4.69:1, differential is 3.55:1, transfer case is 2.64:1, so the crawl ratio is 44:1. The 2.7L Ecoboost (the smallest available engine) has 400 ft-lbs of torque at 2,750rpm so that would be 17,600ft-lbs to the wheels! Unfortunately it's more complicated than that. The torque converter does multiply the torque but I'm not sure whether or not it would allow the motor to spin to its torque peak or what the multiplication ratio would be.

yup. I actually suspect that the ATC system has a lot to do with the CT's ability to put the torque to the ground better than something like an F150.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

1st gear is 4.69:1, differential is 3.55:1, transfer case is 2.64:1, so the crawl ratio is 44:1. The 2.7L Ecoboost (the smallest available engine) has 400 ft-lbs of torque at 2,750rpm so that would be 17,600ft-lbs to the wheels! Unfortunately it's more complicated than that. The torque converter does multiply the torque but I'm not sure whether or not it would allow the motor to spin to its torque peak or what the multiplication ratio would be.

That's quite a crawl ratio. I managed to dig up these numbers...should have waited. Sounds like the Raptor is 51:1!

Yeah, I understand that it might get a bit more complicated than that...that's an awful lot of torque to put to the ground. Only 14,000 pounds of force to the ground though. Looks like if it is pre-loaded properly it could give the CT a run for its money, maybe.

I feel like we may as well just compare using the beefiest version of the engine though - seems more fair, may as well eliminate any question and prove CT superiority against all comers by just comparing against the best F-150 (for this type of test). So something like 470lb-ft at 2500rpm. Otherwise people will come back with "there's a better model." The Raptor hits peak torque at a little higher engine speed so not sure whether it's the best candidate or not (though it has the 51:1 ratio so maybe it is better in the end). Maybe the Shelby Baja Raptor would be ideal? No idea. (Cost really isn't relevant to this discussion.)

So anyway, at 1mph the motor would be at 500rpm or so (30.6 inch diameter wheels). Would need to be going about 5mph to hit that torque peak, assuming nothing is slipping. I guess that's really the question...how that all works and whether something would break.

 

[nativewolf]

It does sound like the Porsche folks before Tesla went to Germany. First laughing because there were no "time slots", then laughing because Tesla didn't have a driver, then ok, they have a driver...then ok they have a time slot... then f*** me that crushed our Toycan.

The Porsche fanboys have shown exactly what the pickup truck fanboys need to do....slowly walk away and stay silent because everything you say or do is only going to embarrass you. Now every speed demon/track racing nutcase knows that the next version of the S will crush almost all Porsches. Much less the Roadster. The Roadster is going to have a good chance of closing in on the track record the way it looks to me. So all the" it isn't a fair test folks" should stay get fingers off keypads and consider that all the inherent advantages of the electric powertrain are coming to a pickup very soon. It will obsolete most pickups. Denial is hard...move on to acceptance as quickly as you can.

 

[mongo]

1st gear is 4.69:1, differential is 3.55:1, transfer case is 2.64:1, so the crawl ratio is 44:1. The 2.7L Ecoboost (the smallest available engine) has 400 ft-lbs of torque at 2,750rpm so that would be 17,600ft-lbs to the wheels! Unfortunately it's more complicated than that. The torque converter does multiply the torque but I'm not sure whether or not it would allow the motor to spin to its torque peak or what the multiplication ratio would be.

That's quite a crawl ratio. I managed to dig up these numbers...should have waited. Sounds like the Raptor is 51:1!

Yeah, I understand that it might get a bit more complicated than that...that's an awful lot of torque to put to the ground. Only 14,000 pounds of force to the ground though. Looks like if it is pre-loaded properly it could give the CT a run for its money, maybe.

I feel like we may as well just compare using the beefiest version of the engine though - seems more fair, may as well eliminate any question and prove CT superiority against all comers by just comparing against the best F-150 (for this type of test). So something like 470lb-ft at 2500rpm. Otherwise people will come back with "there's a better model." The Raptor hits peak torque at a little higher engine speed so not sure whether it's the best candidate or not (though it has the 51:1 ratio so maybe it is better in the end). Maybe the Shelby Baja Raptor would be ideal? No idea. (Cost really isn't relevant to this discussion.)

So anyway, at 1mph the motor would be at 500rpm or so (30.6 inch diameter wheels). Would need to be going about 5mph to hit that torque peak, assuming nothing is slipping. I guess that's really the question...how that all works and whether something would break.

Torque converter slips so the 500 RPM is not in play (else the engine would stall with the truck stopped) one advantage of automatic over manual.
A 2,000 RPM stall torque converter would let the engine hit 2k standing still, however it would then be putting (rough numbers for example) 470*51 = 23,970 lbft to the tires resulting in around 19,000 lbs of force, meaning the tires would need a coefficient of friction of >3 with all weight on drive wheels to not break traction. If the CT pulled the 150 backward at 4 MPH ( with tires having traction), the engine would stall.


With a 51x torque multiplier does the precision exist to ride the edge of traction?
CT can control forward torque while being pulled backwards.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

meaning the tires would need a coefficient of friction of >3 with all weight on drive wheels to not break traction.

Probably a coefficient greater than 1 is possible, but I'd assume they'd put 5000 or 10000 pounds or whatever in the bed for this test (maybe would have to reinforce it, which is fine and fair - payload capacity is 3000 pounds but probably you could do a bit more). It would at least be worth a try to load the bed up, put really sticky tires on it if needed, etc. Just start initially with 3500 pounds in the bed and see how things go I guess.

CT can control forward torque while being pulled backwards.

True, that's a big advantage. I suppose the Ford would simply eventually break traction to avoid stalling and then presumably lose due to lowering of the coefficient when slipping, since the Cybertruck would presumably simply control torque and avoid losing traction on the tires.
Still, the question in the end is whether Cybertruck has enough torque available to avoid being pulled backwards by the Ford. Assuming it has no low range (we have no idea I guess) or other gearbox, the acceleration numbers suggest it can probably "only" apply 7000 pounds or so of force to the ground (maybe 8750 lb-ft of torque - don't know exact wheel radius). Not sure of the CT weight. I'm assuming about 6500 pounds or so. That wouldn't be enough, would it? You'd load up the CT a bit as well but if this is the limit of its torque then you wouldn't need as much weight.

To be fair, maybe have the Ford get going first, up to 1-5mph, and then have the Cybertruck try to stop it?

 

[mongo]

Probably a coefficient greater than 1 is possible, but I'd assume they'd put 5000 or 10000 pounds or whatever in the bed for this test (maybe would have to reinforce it, which is fine and fair). It would at least be worth a try to load the bed up, put really sticky tires on it if needed, etc.


True, that's a big advantage. I suppose the Ford would simply eventually break traction to avoid stalling and then presumably lose due to lowering of the coefficient when slipping, since the Cybertruck would presumably simply control torque and avoid losing traction on the tires.
Still, the question in the end is whether Cybertruck has enough torque available to avoid being pulled backwards by the Ford. Assuming it has no low range (we have no idea I guess) or other gearbox, the acceleration numbers suggest it can probably "only" apply 7000 pounds or so of force to the ground (maybe 8750 lb-ft of torque). Not sure of the CT weight. I'm assuming about 6500 pounds or so. That wouldn't be enough, would it? You'd load up the CT a bit as well but if this is the limit of its torque then you wouldn't need as much weight.

To be fair, maybe have the Ford get going first, up to 1-5mph, and then have the Cybertruck try to stop it?

Rolling start is not super fair since you then need enough additional traction to arrest momentum. More less fair if CT starts first

If the CT were underpowered, it could put out the max torque possible and hope the 150 overdoes it and breaks traction. If the 150 ever goes less that CT they will accelerate the other direction.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Rolling start is not super fair since you then need enough additional traction to arrest momentum.

I'm not sure I follow that...rolling start for the Ford is just a way of getting the whole ICE disadvantage out of the picture - and it would make the demonstration of the electric motor advantage more impressive! Plus the CT would get a little bit of free energy transfer via regen, from the Ford, initially. I kind of feel like it should be fine for the Cybertruck - it simply then progressively increases the load on the F-150, and if it's strong enough, it should be able to stop it (or make it break traction whereupon the F-150 would lose).

I don't see how momentum has much to do with it...in the end if the Ford is pulling the system at a fixed 1-5mph or whatever, it's just a question of whether the Cybertruck can accelerate the system in its direction. That should be possible if it can outpull the Ford. But maybe I'm missing something here. I guess I'm starting to get a bit confused...

 

[keeney]

Until you match weight on the drive axles, nothing else really matters. Imagine a large flatbed tow truck vs the Cybertruck. The tow truck will just leave its drive train in park while it winches the Cybertruck up on its bed without a problem, The Cybertruck can smoke all its tires, but cannot generate more pull than its own weight. If the tow truck weighs more than the Cybertruck, its not moving. Meanwhile, the tow truck winch wouldn't even have to be that powerful - only needs a line pull sufficient to match the weight of the Cybertruck.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Until you match weight on the drive axles, nothing else really matters.

Agreed, they just need to load those things up a LOT. It's possible 4000 pounds in each won't be enough. But you could start there.

 

[kaffine]

How many trucks are going to end up at a dealer for "warranty" repair when they fail replicating this test? Both Tesla and other brands. Things tend to break when doing stupid things.

If I was Ford I wouldn't be happy with the guy that challenged for a rematch but I would have kept it. At this point you are going to get bad press either way. One by backing down the other by having the Tesla drag the truck around again. Send a team of engineers and designers to look over the Tesla truck. Tesla should push to have Ford bring out their electric F150. It would help Tesla's mission they can claim that no ICE could provide a challenge so Ford had to have an Eelectric truck as it was the only fair competition. Although Ford probably wouldn't allow the prototype to be used for that.

Tesla should use the F150 with best performance and have both trucks loaded.

In reality it is a marketing contest that Tesla knew they would easily win. Has no real bearing on how the truck will perform but puts on a good show.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Torque converter slips so the 500 RPM is not in play (else the engine would stall with the truck stopped) one advantage of automatic over manual.
A 2,000 RPM stall torque converter would let the engine hit 2k standing still, however it would then be putting (rough numbers for example) 470*51 = 23,970 lbft to the tires resulting in around 19,000 lbs of force, meaning the tires would need a coefficient of friction of >3 with all weight on drive wheels to not break traction. If the CT pulled the 150 backward at 4 MPH ( with tires having traction), the engine would stall.


With a 51x torque multiplier does the precision exist to ride the edge of traction?
CT can control forward torque while being pulled backwards.

Someone with an F150 needs to go against a Model X. I want to see what happens.
Once you’re being pulled backwards you’ve already lost so stalling is not an issue. I think the key is to start by holding the brake and loading the torque converter. I agree it would be challenging to modulate the power to keep the wheels from spinning. I think the front and rear axles being locked together would be an advantage for the F150. I wonder if the traction control on the Cybertruck is actually programmed for this use case.

 

[MP3Mike]

Someone with an F150 needs to go against a Model X. I want to see what happens.

The closest you will probably find is this:

The Model X was at a 1,320 lb. disadvantage...

So it seems like the traction control system in the F-150 could be a big factor.

There is also:

 

[mongo]

I'm not sure I follow that...rolling start for the Ford is just a way of getting the whole ICE disadvantage out of the picture - and it would make the demonstration of the electric motor advantage more impressive! Plus the CT would get a little bit of free energy transfer via regen, from the Ford, initially. I kind of feel like it should be fine for the Cybertruck - it simply then progressively increases the load on the F-150, and if it's strong enough, it should be able to stop it (or make it break traction whereupon the F-150 would lose).

I don't see how momentum has much to do with it...in the end if the Ford is pulling the system at a fixed 1-5mph or whatever, it's just a question of whether the Cybertruck can accelerate the system in its direction. That should be possible if it can outpull the Ford. But maybe I'm missing something here. I guess I'm starting to get a bit confused...

I'm probably getting way too ideal in the physics.
If both vehicles are the exact same weight and exact same traction, then they can produce the exact same force. So if the pair are already moving in one direction, then the only result of the second vehicle fighting back would be to stop the acceleration, there is no force available to reduce it.

Someone with an F150 needs to go against a Model X. I want to see what happens.
Once you’re being pulled backwards you’ve already lost so stalling is not an issue. I think the key is to start by holding the brake and loading the torque converter. I agree it would be challenging to modulate the power to keep the wheels from spinning. I think the front and rear axles being locked together would be an advantage for the F150. I wonder if the traction control on the Cybertruck is actually programmed for this use case.

Loading up the converter is how automatic cars do drag races. You can buy kits to internally lock the transmission to do this. However, when the 150 starts letting off the brake, if one wheel releases first, they might start spinning from the get go.

F150 definitely wants the center differential locked. Ideally for a pull, the front and rear diffs would also be lockable/ solid (or a really stiff Detroit locker). However, I don't think the locked center diff is an advantage over the CT's dual motor design. The combined motor powers are too much for one axle.

As to software, Tesla could make a tug of war control routine that runs the motors on the edge of max traction and modulates the brake if needed to handle and left right friction difference. I think launch mode basically does that already to give max acceleration (power) with minimal wheel slip. In the tug case though, the velocity profile will be shallower.

Oh yeah, saw a Fiat Electric ad where they tow an passenger plane. Flattery.

 

[CMoZ]

we're so far out in the weeds here. Truck tug of wars are a thing that's been done probably as long as there have been trucks. I don't really think fair comes into this at all anything that makes it not "fair" besides maybe not being on a completely flat surface really actually means that it's a Cybertruck advantage. Regardless of what flipping model of truck it was neither truck was loaded down so if the CT wins it wins it's better because it has things that give it an advantage in that test, yes that test may not be an accurate representation of towing power but who the heck cares.

- If it weighs more good that seems to mean it puts power to the road better
- If it has better traction control controlling how that torque gets put down good
- If it comes with gripper tires, good that's nice

Heck if it has anything that's giving it an "unfair" advantage in this test "so what" I want an unfair advantage in my tool

There'll undoubtedly be more and different tests done by Tesla or Others with a wide range of challenging pickups let's see if we get an Unfairly good result in those as well. I hope we do

There's your slogan "Cybertruck Unfairly good"

 

[mongo]

Rear egeel drive test:
Place vehicles bumper to bumper.
Jack up trucks, remove rear tires and replace with sprockets
Use chains to connect sprockets.
First to 100 rotations wins.

Maybe strap down trucks so as not to destroy bumpers.

 

[Hugh Mannity]

Tug of war with the trucks is still too debatable.

Let’s connect a 10000lb trailer to both trucks and run them through the mountains for a 2 hr drive. That would be a test that would be more practical for most people.

 

[ricohman]

Heavier always wins.

 

[nativewolf]

How many trucks are going to end up at a dealer for "warranty" repair when they fail replicating this test? Both Tesla and other brands. Things tend to break when doing stupid things.

If I was Ford I wouldn't be happy with the guy that challenged for a rematch but I would have kept it. At this point you are going to get bad press either way. One by backing down the other by having the Tesla drag the truck around again. Send a team of engineers and designers to look over the Tesla truck. Tesla should push to have Ford bring out their electric F150. It would help Tesla's mission they can claim that no ICE could provide a challenge so Ford had to have an Eelectric truck as it was the only fair competition. Although Ford probably wouldn't allow the prototype to be used for that.

Tesla should use the F150 with best performance and have both trucks loaded.

In reality it is a marketing contest that Tesla knew they would easily win. Has no real bearing on how the truck will perform but puts on a good show.

Free marketing and Ford paid for it, twice.

As to how often this happens...all the time today. I mean this is a normal everyday contest in the countryside with teens and older teens (read parents) get bored. That's why they did it. Go for it...break em. We did when I was a kid.

 

[TheLocNar]

Put the same tires on each truck, use a 4x4 Ford. That’s as even a playing field as you’ll get.