Increase range by 18% with Flated Cap

[Mmiketa]

So, w/o a third brake light I believe they would be illegal in California.

Would the light bar in the center of the tailgate count as the 3rd brake light?

Sponsored

 

[Jseis]

Would the light bar in the center of the tailgate count as the 3rd brake light?

Has to be a CHMSL and the tail gate isn’t that high compared to the roof. Also has to be mounted to a fixed part of the vehicle that cannot be easily removed. Tailgates and bed caps can easily be removed. If you drill into traffic safety analysis, CHMSL have been effective in light trucks.

 

[MaintGrl]

... because it's known to cause cancer in the state of California.?

 

[mr.Magoo]

If someone really wanted to increase efficiency they'd add a topper that starts at the back of the cab and extends all the way to the tip of the open tailgate. Even then, it would take a lot of luck or access to a wind tunnel to get the shape right to maintain laminer flow over the entire surface.

And even then it does little/nothing to improve efficiency...
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...ing-xlt-yearlong-review-update-9-aerodynamics

 

[RickLightning]

... because it's known to cause cancer in the state of California.?

Only if you eat it.

 

[WaterboyNorCal]

And even then it does little/nothing to improve efficiency...
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/...ing-xlt-yearlong-review-update-9-aerodynamics

Did you read the Motor Trend article that you linked? Nowhere does it state that an aero cap would do nothing to increase efficiency. In fact it states that it certainly WOULD, although the real-world testing conditions they faced during the short time they had to test the aero cap meant that they didn’t observe the increase that “virtualwind tunnel”testing indicated was possible. Honestly, MT should be embarrassed by this article- they are comparing their measured efficiency in poor weather conditions and with a faulty air dam to their aggregate efficiency over the prior 1300 miles of driving, which is a pretty worthless comparison. Someone needs to test the aero cover over the same route in the same weather conditions (two identical Lightning trucks - same wheels/tires, same trim would be ideal) against a Lightning with no tonneau cover, and see the results. I would imagine that we would see a significant improvement- a decrease of drag coefficient of 20% would not be nothing. Might increase efficiency by 5% or more, but again, we won’t know until someone does a proper analysis.

 

[WaterboyNorCal]

There is no aerodynamic explanation for any gain of efficiency by adding a bed topper, much less an 18% gain. All the topper does is move a low pressure area from behind the cab to behind the topper.

Ford claims the wide tailgate top reduces the low pressure area behind the cab so you're probably reducing efficiency by adding any bed cover.

If someone really wanted to increase efficiency they'd add a topper that starts at the back of the cab and extends all the way to the tip of the open tailgate. Even then, it would take a lot of luck or access to a wind tunnel to get the shape right to maintain laminer flow over the entire surface.

I don’t think it’s accurate to simply say that there’s no possibility of aerodynamic changes from adding a bed topper. Yes, it moves the low-pressure area further back, but depending on the shape of the topper and the speed of the vehicle moving through the air, it’s not accurate to say that the low pressure area would be identical. It clearly is possible that a topper could reduce the COD, although I would agree that the amount of reduction would likely be low enough to not have a significant effect on efficiency.
I completely realize that it’s not scientific evidence, but I not only have I observed zero efficiency losses over 35,000 miles with my SmartCap EVO, but I have seen a very slight improvement (a few percent). Of course, it’s hard to know exactly because I have also changed tires and weather (wind/temps) are always changing. Bottom line- don’t add a topper because you think you are going to see efficiency gains. Add a topper if you need/want one, and know that your efficiency won’t decrease because of it. If you happen to see some very slight gains, then… yay!

 

[Jaime]

Waiting for someone to design a replacement, angled front hood that will improve aerodynamic efficiency...

 

[WaterboyNorCal]

Waiting for someone to design a replacement, angled front hood that will improve aerodynamic efficiency...

Already been done. It looks like a dumpster. But certainly more aero.

.39 cod vs .44 for the Lightning. But the frunk sucks. I will take the Lightning all day, every day. Would prefer a solid state battery upgrade so that I can drive across Idaho, but there are always compromises…

I was obviously mostly joking but it’s always fun to bash Elon’s cybertruck monstrosity. The Rivian R1T, surprisingly, has a stated cod of .31, but it’s not really comparable with full-sized trucks, with only a 4.5 foot bed and smaller interior space. It’s feels more like a Tacoma inside to me. If Rivian would make a bigger version of the R1T with dual motors, ditch the air suspension and silly add-ons like the integrated speaker and air compressor, I think it’d be really awesome, but they can’t seem to keep pricing competitive with Chevy and Ford.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don’t think it’s accurate to simply say that there’s no possibility of aerodynamic changes from adding a bed topper. Yes, it moves the low-pressure area further back, but depending on the shape of the topper and the speed of the vehicle moving through the air, it’s not accurate to say that the low pressure area would be identical. It clearly is possible that a topper could reduce the COD, although I would agree that the amount of reduction would likely be low enough to not have a significant effect on efficiency.

It's possible a bed topper could improve aerodynamics on a truck but extremely unlikely unless it was designed specifically for that purpose. I put the odds of me getting a hit off Tarik Skubol in the same category as an aero bed topper.?

I've seen sloped bed toppers before but never on an actual truck driving on the street except...the Cybertruck. This leads me to believe the market for an aero bed topper is not big enough to offset development and testing costs.

 

[mr.Magoo]

Did you read the Motor Trend article that you linked? Nowhere does it state that an aero cap would do nothing to increase efficiency.

Sorry, you're absolutely right, I should have just said "little" instead of "little to nothing", my bad.

I'm sure there's a few people out there who would love to have 10-15% more range at highway speeds and for them its great.
For the rest of us, as in my use case, it would equate to an energy savings worth less than $100 a year (and that's being generous) so I dont think one could justify the cost of the Aerocap through savings / improved efficiency alone.

But, hey, if people want one because of form, function, whatever, have at it.

 

[Yubbs]

Since its an inflatable topper, couldn't we fill it with helium, less wight would mean even better range.

/s

 

[moder8tor]

save spending the $1500 for this flated advertisement and just carry around a refrigerator box in the bed.

 

[daibt6]

Wow that’s impressive! I just completed 2200 mile trip from Blaine, Wa to San Luis Obispo, Ca and averaged 1.7-1.8 m/kW overall with the same Flated air topper. I wasn’t tracking super focused but it appeared truck was averaging 2.0 until I hit central Oregon. From there to SLO, efficiency dropped to 1.6-1.7. I’m thinking the terrain changes over the few passes plus 95 plus degrees made the impact. However when I reached SLO, the range stayed at 1.7-1.8 for duration of the week. Now back home and driving mixed highway and local trips, the efficiency is back to 2.0 - 2.1. If you’re hovering at 2.3 that’s awesome your range at 90% must be around 290 miles?

 

[twodogsdennis]

Wow that’s impressive! I just completed 2200 mile trip from Blaine, Wa to San Luis Obispo, Ca and averaged 1.7-1.8 m/kW overall with the same Flated air topper. I wasn’t tracking super focused but it appeared truck was averaging 2.0 until I hit central Oregon. From there to SLO, efficiency dropped to 1.6-1.7. I’m thinking the terrain changes over the few passes plus 95 plus degrees made the impact. However when I reached SLO, the range stayed at 1.7-1.8 for duration of the week. Now back home and driving mixed highway and local trips, the efficiency is back to 2.0 - 2.1. If you’re hovering at 2.3 that’s awesome your range at 90% must be around 290 miles?

I have a Pro SR so 90% is about 210 or a few more in ideal conditions.

Sponsored