Range predictions

[Revenant89]

Slated Blank Slate height: 69.3
Maverick Lobo height: 67.7
Maverick Lobo ground clearance: 7.4
Accord ground clearance: 5.3

Maverick Lobo is lower than a Blank Slate, but hardly 'low'. I can easily imagine lower than a Lobo.

It's tall because of the cab height but projected to be between 6-7" off the ground. Slamming it to the ground wouldn't give you much utility.

 

[danielt1263]

Well it's 69.3" normally, but you can get a 2" lowering kit. So, that would bring it to 67.3" which is a lower roofline than the Lobo.

 

[Revenant89]

Well it's 69.3" normally, but you can get a 2" lowering kit. So, that would bring it to 67.3" which is a lower roofline than the Lobo.

I didn't even see the lowering kit I thought it was only the 2" lift. Not enough wiggle room for me.

 

[mattlach]

To be fair, a 0.39 Cd is atrocious.

I mean, it is a truck, so that is kind of expected, but other vehicles I have experience with that do very well, like my Audi A6 E-Tron both has a 0.21 Cd and a smaller frontal swept area.

Because of this it gets about the same range on the highway as it does around town.

The Slate Truck- however - I'd expect will do pretty well around town at speeds of 45mph or below, but that the range will drop like a brick on the highway due to the drag.

I'd imagine in SUV configurations, especially the fastback configuration, the Cd will be a bit lower, and in that configuration it will do better.

 

[TomFrank]

The maker doesn't mention it now, but I seem to remember the lift kit was a 2" lift and the lowering kit was 1½" drop.

 

[cadblu]

To be fair, a 0.39 Cd is atrocious.

I mean, it is a truck, so that is kind of expected, but other vehicles I have experience with that do very well, like my Audi A6 E-Tron both has a 0.21 Cd and a smaller frontal swept area.

Because of this it gets about the same range on the highway as it does around town.

The Slate Truck- however - I'd expect will do pretty well around town at speeds of 45mph or below, but that the range will drop like a brick on the highway due to the drag.

I'd imagine in SUV configurations, especially the fastback configuration, the Cd will be a bit lower, and in that configuration it will do better.

Wondering if adding a tonneau cover on the pickup will improve the Cd? Or not that much?

 

[mattlach]

Wondering if adding a tonneau cover on the pickup will improve the Cd? Or not that much?

I'll fully admit that while I am an engineer, I am not that kind of engineer. Aerodynamics are not my specialty by any stretch of the imagination, so I am more like a well read layman than an expert on this topic.

That said, at speed, I suspect a tonneau cover might help. Nowhere near as much as a fastback body would, and probably nowhere near as much as the marketing materials from the tonneau cover manufacturers claim, but I think it would be at least slightly beneficial.

Educated guess is that adding a tonneau cover would reduce the Cd by maybe 5-6%. In a gas pickup truck that probably only results in a 1-3% mileage improvement as drag is only a part of the resistance the engine has to overcome, but in an electric one, where drag is the primary source of resistance, you might just get that full 5-6% back in range when driving on the highway. It's not a lot, but it should help.

 

[Revenant89]

To be fair, a 0.39 Cd is atrocious.

That's just based on the model which is based on the prototypes. Also doesn't factor in the air curtains and other details. It's expected to be well below that.

 

[Revenant89]

Wondering if adding a tonneau cover on the pickup will improve the Cd? Or not that much?

I imagine it'll be a pretty small difference with the short bed and the spoiler they added to the cab. Even on full size trucks it has a minor impact.

 

[KevinRS]

A tonneau cover or SUV kit may actually lower range. See the mythbusters episode on the topic for a simplified explanation.
Slate put a lot of sim time in before they even made the prototypes to optimize aero, while staying in the constraints of looking like a truck, that may make a bigger difference than on that truck mythbusters used.

 

[AKrietzer]

Where was the 300 mile (city) range mentioned?

 

[Revenant89]

Where was the 300 mile (city) range mentioned?

Wishful thinking based on potential efficiency.

 

[Revenant89]

Thought I'd add other predictions..

I predict 3.2mi/kwh city, 2.8mi/kwh highway. I'm basing this on 1: vibes, 2: numbers from other boxy EVs, and 3: the fact that nothing from the shape to motor/inverter is optimized for efficiency

	Range (mi)	Battery Size (kWh usable)	Efficiency (mi/kWh)
Highway​	140​	50​	2.80​
City​	160​	50​	3.20​
Highway​	220​	80​	2.75​
City​	252​	80​	3.15​

Slate is going to be worse than 3.8 mi/kWh. I'd guess a 5 - 10% reduction, so somewhere around 3.5 mi/kWh. That still indicates that Slate's original estimates are (understandably) conservative, but not by the suggested 33%.

	Range (mi)	Battery Size (kWh usable)	Efficiency (mi/kWh)
Highway​	150​	50​	3.00​
City​	175​	50​	3.50​
Highway​	236​	80​	2.95​
City​	276​	80​	3.45​

 

[danielt1263]

Slate's figures estimate 2.85 mi/kWh, yes? If they are off by 10%, then the truck will get 3.13 mi/kWh. Meanwhile ABRP uses a reference consumption of 245 Wh/mi (or 4.08 mi/kWh) for the Slate truck...

Humm...

 

[Revenant89]

Slate's figures estimate 2.85 mi/kWh, yes? If they are off by 10%, then the truck will get 3.13 mi/kWh. Meanwhile ABRP uses a reference consumption of 245 Wh/mi (or 4.08 mi/kWh) for the Slate truck...

Humm...

Based on the total kWh they've given for the battery, yes. I'm assuming 3.00 mi/kWh based on a 5% unusable reserve.