First Road Trip in my new Pro SR!

[Maxx]

Makes sense!
And just because I can't resist... I'll point out that you're not necessarily moving MORE air molecules when you go faster, just moving them at a higher rate (more per second), which requires more energy - yes?

Exactly. Higher displaced air molecules per second. I was trying to simplify things a bit. If you want to get more technical, although due to turbulence you can actually move more (numerically speaking) air molecules at higher speed, it is not just the number of air molecules you move, it is the kinetic energy (how much you move them and how fast you move them).

A Cue Ball can move 15 balls slightly with a gentle strike or spread them all over the table with a hard hit. In both cases only 15 balls were moved but energy transfer were quite different.

Boxy shapes like F150, forces some of those particles to have to accelerate a lot faster than others to get out of the way which takes more energy. And resulting turbulence makes them and the neighboring particles move a longer distance (again more energy). This is most pronounced in front and back of a boxy truck where those particles have to move the fastest. Of course there are tons of other factors. Cold particles are lazier and take more energy to move.

I think we may be hijacking the thread. I better shut up on this before I get kicked out.

Sponsored

 

[RickLightning]

I would use Apple Maps with EV routing. It will continually track the SOC to your destination. I ignore the GOM. I track my efficiency with the current trip meter (miles per kWh). The SR has a 98kWH usable battery so it makes calculations easy. I start all trips with a preconditioned battery and cabin. I drive 67mph and try to use only heated seats.

You start with a preconditioned battery. BUT, by using Apple Maps, you aren't preconditioning the battery before DC fast charging. That requires you to navigate to the fast charger with Ford Navigation.

 

[TheWoo]

Makes sense!
And just because I can't resist... I'll point out that you're not necessarily moving MORE air molecules when you go faster, just moving them at a higher rate (more per second), which requires more energy - yes?

Given that force = mass x acceleration, you must use more force to move the same number of molecules faster. That's the big difference, right?

Exactly. Higher displaced air molecules per second. I was trying to simplify things a bit. If you want to get more technical, although due to turbulence you can actually move more (numerically speaking) air molecules at higher speed, it is not just the number of air molecules you move, it is the kinetic energy (how much you move them and how fast you move them).

A Cue Ball can move 15 balls slightly with a gentle strike or spread them all over the table with a hard hit. In both cases only 15 balls were moved but energy transfer were quite different.

Boxy shapes like F150, forces some of those particles to have to accelerate a lot faster than others to get out of the way which takes more energy. And resulting turbulence makes them and the neighboring particles move a longer distance (again more energy). This is most pronounced in front and back of a boxy truck where those particles have to move the fastest. Of course there are tons of other factors. Cold particles are lazier and take more energy to move.

I think we may be hijacking the thread. I better shut up on this before I get kicked out.

My physics understanding is rudimentary, but is drag caused, essentially, by low pressure behind the object creating drag? Essentially that low pressure is what "pulls" air molecules back together behind the vehicle, but that low pressure is also "pulling" the vehicle backwards.

There may be a much better explanation, but that's how my simple mind thinks about it. And why you want shapes that allow the air to essentially slip back together as naturally behind the object?

 

[Txxthie]

You start with a preconditioned battery. BUT, by using Apple Maps, you aren't preconditioning the battery before DC fast charging. That requires you to navigate to the fast charger with Ford Navigation.

Yup,
I will precondition to DCFC via Fords navigation and run Apple Maps on my phone. I would prefer 1-touch DCFC preconditioning and the temperature of the battery. I believe Porsche Taycan has both of these capabilities.

 

[On the Road with Ralph]

I would use Apple Maps with EV routing. It will continually track the SOC to your destination. I ignore the GOM. I track my efficiency with the current trip meter (miles per kWh). The SR has a 98kWH usable battery so it makes calculations easy. I start all trips with a preconditioned battery and cabin. I drive 67mph and try to use only heated seats.

I agree on all counts. I have been using Apple Maps with EV routing and, frankly, have found it better at guessing stuff like range and SoC at arrival than any other EV planner, including the one built into the truck. Ford should talk to Apple about licensing its algorithm.

The difference between 67 mph and 75 mph is huge, especially when you are driving a squared-off brick like the F-150. Aero drag increases with the square of the speed. That said, I do a fair amount of driving above 5000 feet elevation, and have found that I can cheat up to 72 mph on those stretches and preserve ±1.9 miles/kW and sometimes better above 7000 feet.

 

[hturnerfamily]

You make a great point about the neutral, I'm glad to know that. Here is the plug, which I understand now is a NEMA 6-50P, and it has a 20 amp breaker. I suppose I could have unwired his plug and then re-wired it to a four prong NEMA 14-50 connector, but I needed to work with what I had. Because we visit them often I've purchased an adapter for it below, $17 on scamazon. I believe I can run this at 16A speed with my adjustable charger and be ok. Correct me if I'm wrong. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0C4NRWMW1/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_image_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&th=1

yes, a perfect adapter for this very type of situation... and where an adjustable EVSE comes in quite handy : )

 

[Txxthie]

I agree on all counts. I have been using Apple Maps with EV routing and, frankly, have found it better at guessing stuff like range and SoC at arrival than any other EV planner, including the one built into the truck. Ford should talk to Apple about licensing its algorithm.

The difference between 67 mph and 75 mph is huge, especially when you are driving a squared-off brick like the F-150. Aero drag increases with the square of the speed. That said, I do a fair amount of driving above 5000 feet elevation, and have found that I can cheat up to 72 mph on those stretches and preserve ±1.9 miles/kW and sometimes better above 7000 feet.

Apple Maps EV routing doesn’t make me miss my Model Y route planning as much. It’s very good, typical Apple stuff!

Apple announced today it is pushing its car out to 2028. I don’t think Apple has any intention in making a car, like they had no intention in making a TV. They will make the “box” that controls them.
Apple Maps EV routing is a taste of what’s to come with next generation CarPlay.

Ford is expanding its commitment to Carplay.
https://9to5mac.com/2024/01/22/ford-new-digital-experience-with-carplay/

 

[Maxx]

Given that force = mass x acceleration, you must use more force to move the same number of molecules faster. That's the big difference, right?

My physics understanding is rudimentary, but is drag caused, essentially, by low pressure behind the object creating drag? Essentially that low pressure is what "pulls" air molecules back together behind the vehicle, but that low pressure is also "pulling" the vehicle backwards.

There may be a much better explanation, but that's how my simple mind thinks about it. And why you want shapes that allow the air to essentially slip back together as naturally behind the object?

I was suppose to shut up on this but what the heck, you are essentially correct. Keep in mind the word "pressure" is something we use to communicate with each other how those molecules behave. Same number of molecules in a hot box giggle around more and will bang against the box wall with more total force so we say it has high pressure. We say it has low pressure at cooler temps because the same molecules giggle less.

What happens in the context of a Lightning moving on the road is that at any given instance, the truck and the air can not occupy the same space. So when the truck tries to move forward it has to replace the air in the front of it. As it tries to push those molecules aside especially with a flat nose, It squeeze them together (more molecules in less space). This is what we call high pressure which resist against truck going forward.

In the back as the truck moves forward, the space that it used to occupy, now needs to be filled with some of the molecules truck pushed aside earlier. There are less of them behind the tailgate (low pressure). Stuff always want to go from where there is more of them (High Pressure) to where there is less (Low pressure). And moving them there takes energy. This is just another way of saying the same thing you said, the low pressure environment, like vacuum tries to suck the truck back. Ultimately how much energy that will cost the driver is a matter of how many of those molecules have to be moved to get them back to a stable position. Turbulence in the back of the truck is all the fighting the molecules have to do to finally agree on their individual place (that is until the next car come along and tries to mess with them again. I wouldn't want to be a molecule on interstate.

The whole point of these kinda contraptions is to reduce the path each molecule has to travel before it settles on it's resting place (less energy).

What you said is correct. It is just that I always preferred the explanation in a way that made more sense to me. If I had to take someone's word for it and memorize fancy terms to explain it to others, it never was much of an explanation for me. Sorry if I made it longer than it had to be. What I probably should have said instead was "yes".

Disclaimer: I am not working in the field and anything I learned in school is long evaporated so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

 

[rio]

Slow down, start at 100%.

This. Plus setting up a departure time. I've done many 150+ mile trips in the Northeast in the middle of winter and I've found it very manageable (and enjoyable) in my SR with proper planning.

 

[eRock77]

I was suppose to shut up on this but what the heck, you are essentially correct. Keep in mind the word "pressure" is something we use to communicate with each other how those molecules behave. Same number of molecules in a hot box giggle around more and will bang against the box wall with more total force so we say it has high pressure. We say it has low pressure at cooler temps because the same molecules giggle less.

What happens in the context of a Lightning moving on the road is that at any given instance, the truck and the air can not occupy the same space. So when the truck tries to move forward it has to replace the air in the front of it. As it tries to push those molecules aside especially with a flat nose, It squeeze them together (more molecules in less space). This is what we call high pressure which resist against truck going forward.

In the back as the truck moves forward, the space that it used to occupy, now needs to be filled with some of the molecules truck pushed aside earlier. There are less of them behind the tailgate (low pressure). Stuff always want to go from where there is more of them (High Pressure) to where there is less (Low pressure). And moving them there takes energy. This is just another way of saying the same thing you said, the low pressure environment, like vacuum tries to suck the truck back. Ultimately how much energy that will cost the driver is a matter of how many of those molecules have to be moved to get them back to a stable position. Turbulence in the back of the truck is all the fighting the molecules have to do to finally agree on their individual place (that is until the next car come along and tries to mess with them again. I wouldn't want to be a molecule on interstate.

The whole point of these kinda contraptions is to reduce the path each molecule has to travel before it settles on it's resting place (less energy).

What you said is correct. It is just that I always preferred the explanation in a way that made more sense to me. If I had to take someone's word for it and memorize fancy terms to explain it to others, it never was much of an explanation for me. Sorry if I made it longer than it had to be. What I probably should have said instead was "yes".

Disclaimer: I am not working in the field and anything I learned in school is long evaporated so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Ah, ok then! For all of you physics majors out there, I have installed a middle of the road quality tonneau cover. If you must know it's a Leer Latitude tri-fold soft cover, mostly so my stuff is dry and relatively secure. Got a good deal, scamazon once again, and it fits nice.

So would the Tonneau cover reduce the amount of drag, increase the drag, or have no effect at all? You must all remember those vinyl tailgates with the holes in them everyone had in the 80's, did they actually improve gas mileage aka efficiency? Curious to hear the opinions.

 

[ryun]

Ah, ok then! For all of you physics majors out there, I have installed a middle of the road quality tonneau cover. If you must know it's a Leer Latitude tri-fold soft cover, mostly so my stuff is dry and relatively secure. Got a good deal, scamazon once again, and it fits nice.

So would the Tonneau cover reduce the amount of drag, increase the drag, or have no effect at all? You must all remember those vinyl tailgates with the holes in them everyone had in the 80's, did they actually improve gas mileage aka efficiency? Curious to hear the opinions.

On most modern trucks tonneau covers don't affect fuel efficiency. The Lightning isn't an exception. I've heard different reasons why. What convinced me (prior to getting one myself and testing it out) is a business-oriented argument rather than a physics one: if Ford could sell you a tonneau cover that increased efficiency by a significant amount wouldn't they market it to you that way? Or even offer it as standard to gain a competitive edge?

The only modern exceptions I know of are the cybertruck and rivian R1T. And they both come with one standard. *edit* Nevermind rivian isn't standard. Guess it's just the cybertruck then.

That said, if you live in an area with regular snowfall in the winter a tonneau will prevent your bed from filling up with snow. A bunch of snow in the bed might decrease your efficiency a bit and definitely messes with your carrying capacity so I'd get at least a basic one just for the snow reason alone.

 

[Maxx]

So would the Tonneau cover reduce the amount of drag, increase the drag, or have no effect at all?

If you already paid for it, it reduces drag.

p.s. I was a mechanical engineer by training a lifetime ago. I remember zilch so now I just pull stuff out of my ……….hat.

 

[RST]

2.0 mi/kWh this time of year with some 75mph driving is actually amazingly good!

That would be amazing. Only thing is he didn't get anywhere near that kind of mileage. The OP stated in post #1, that he left with a 90% SOC, and 85 miles later he was at 3%. 87% of a 98kWh battery equals 85.26 kWh, or a hair under 1 mile/kWh.

 

[eRock77]

That would be amazing. Only thing is he didn't get anywhere near that kind of mileage. The OP stated in post #1, that he left with a 90% SOC, and 85 miles later he was at 3%. 87% of a 98kWh battery equals 85.26 kWh, or a hair under 1 mile/kWh.

On my way south I ran about 80 with sauna like heat. That was close to 1 mi/kWh. On the way back, 60mph with no heat (just an occasional blast of defroster to keep the fog down) I was at 2.0. Hard to believe I can double my efficiency that way. Wind, temp, elevation, and many other factors might play in, but that was the result.

 

[TheWoo]

On my way south I ran about 80 with sauna like heat. That was close to 1 mi/kWh. On the way back, 60mph with no heat (just an occasional blast of defroster to keep the fog down) I was at 2.0. Hard to believe I can double my efficiency that way. Wind, temp, elevation, and many other factors might play in, but that was the result.

The difference between 60 and 80 is HUGE. I go from cruising at 80 to cruising at 75 and immediately get 0.2-0.4 mi/kWh improvement. If I was disciplined enough to drop to 70 or even 65 it would be even larger.

Sponsored