Max

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Threads
35
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
2,299
Location
Maryland
Vehicles
Nissan Truck
Not much new here. If you want the gist of it, aero is still the main factor. 2 mi/KWh loaded to the max on 22s at 73 mile per hour speed. Basically negligible impact due to load.


 
Last edited:

Jeeves

Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Threads
1
Messages
21
Reaction score
63
Location
Ohio
First Name
Andy
Vehicles
Corvette C8, Tesla Model Y, Acura MDX
Occupation
Management Consultant
I have no idea about payload tests or range tests, but I saw a video of his yesterday where he was describing the ride and handling and I thought he did a much better job than most.
 

shamoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
208
Reaction score
328
Location
SoCal
Vehicles
Porsche 911 GT3, BMW X5M
I expected this result. Once you're moving (assuming same for same air resistance), it shouldn't affect range/efficiency much.

However, in constant stop and go, I'm sure it would play a role. That initial force needed to move that much mass is not insignificant.
 

DJG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Threads
8
Messages
548
Reaction score
574
Location
TX
Vehicles
Various
I expected this result. Once you're moving (assuming same for same air resistance), it shouldn't affect range/efficiency much.

However, in constant stop and go, I'm sure it would play a role. That initial force needed to move that much mass is not insignificant.
Not really when the underlying vehicle is already over 7k lbs. A gross weight change of 10% only impacts consumption by about 4%. Cargo (without aero penalty) is close to irrelevant to range/efficiency in EV truck world. Better to have a low profile 500lb cast iron roof box than a tall one made of platinum weighing only a few pounds.

It's like asking the elephant if they feel the toddler on their back.
 


OP
OP
Max

Max

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Threads
35
Messages
1,533
Reaction score
2,299
Location
Maryland
Vehicles
Nissan Truck
Not really when the underlying vehicle is already over 7k lbs. A gross weight change of 10% only impacts consumption by about 4%. Cargo (without aero penalty) is close to irrelevant to range/efficiency in EV truck world. Better to have a low profile 500lb cast iron roof box than a tall one made of platinum weighing only a few pounds.

It's like asking the elephant if they feel the toddler on their back.
As one of the guys mentioned driving uphill probably makes the biggest difference. If R1T is towing a magical RV with zero rolling resistance and zero drag that weighs 10,000 Lb, it should lose 6.53 KWh every 1000 feet elevation gained in addition to 2KWh/mi (and RV friction losses). That kinda sounds low, It has been a few decades since my school days. Someone check my math:

It takes 10 Nm to raise 1 Kg to 1 meter so it should take 23503128 Nm (6.53 KWh) to raise 17,000 lb to 1000 ft. Is that right?
 

MountainBikeDude

Well-Known Member
First Name
Adam
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Threads
15
Messages
673
Reaction score
1,403
Location
Vancouver
First Name
Adam
Vehicles
2010 Nissan Xterra (El Cap R1T Max pack)
And the Lightning Payload test


Efficiency unladen was 1.9m/kwh
fully loaded max payload 1.8m/kwh

In conclusion they think the slightly lower profile of the rivian took an aero hit due to the water crate being more above the roof line, where the f-150 cab was slightly taller, and thus created a better profile for air flow.

Payload is meaningless (except on hills) in an EV, it all comes down to wind resistance incurred by the load/trailer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Max

DJG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Threads
8
Messages
548
Reaction score
574
Location
TX
Vehicles
Various
As one of the guys mentioned driving uphill probably makes the biggest difference. If R1T is towing a magical RV with zero rolling resistance and zero drag that weighs 10,000 Lb, it should lose 6.53 KWh every 1000 feet elevation gained in addition to 2KWh/mi (and RV friction losses). That kinda sounds low, It has been a few decades since my school days. Someone check my math:

It takes 10 Nm to raise 1 Kg to 1 meter so it should take 23503128 Nm (6.53 KWh) to raise 17,000 lb to 1000 ft. Is that right?
Well yes, when you go to 10,000 lbs of additional weight it starts to make a real impact. My point was adding cargo type weight, particularly in the cab or bed that doesn't have any friction or aero penalties as well, will have an impact that is less than half of the percent of total weight added. So, for something like Kyle's test, if you could get full payload capacity inside the cabin, it would still only slightly impact your range.

No need to worry about extra passengers, or gear, when trip planning is the takeaway. The same things have twice the impact on a Model 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Max

RBR1S

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2022
Threads
14
Messages
201
Reaction score
241
Location
Kirkland, WA
Vehicles
R1S preorder holder; '14 JGC,'20 Subaru Crosstrek
Not much new here. If you want the gist of it, aero is still the main factor. 2 mi/KWh loaded to the max on 22s at 73 mile per hour speed. Basically negligible impact due to load.
Thanks for summarizing. It answers what I figured, that aerodynamics are more important, which I suspect is the same with any load or trailer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Max

deerobbs

New Member
First Name
Denise
Joined
Jun 9, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington DC
First Name
Denise
Vehicles
Rivian R1T
Not much new here. If you want the gist of it, aero is still the main factor. 2 mi/KWh loaded to the max on 22s at 73 mile per hour speed. Basically negligible impact due to load.

These people are fun to watch though :p
 

 
Top