R1T topper shell by Wakeshield

[DayTripping]

It was delivered yesterday in a giant crate! Planning on installing it this weekend.

Enjoy and good luck with the install. I hope it is all you hoped it would be.

Having a topper really expands the usability of the truck. I couldn't be happier with autofitpro group buy one I did. My efficiency has been very good though I really don't care that much about it in general.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

It was delivered yesterday in a giant crate! Planning on installing it this weekend.

Because so many variables impact efficiency it is difficult to measure the impact of changes, but I am looking forward to your impressions especially as it relates to highway efficiency.

 

[josh0]

Because so many variables impact efficiency it is difficult to measure the impact of changes, but I am looking forward to your impressions especially as it relates to highway efficiency.

Same! We’ll be heading out on a ~4,000 mile road trip (on familiar routes) right after we put it on, so we should get a good picture of the impact!

 

[josh0]

I have it installed on the truck! Overall happy with the build quality. The latches that hold it shut are a little stiff, and kept it from closing fully at first, but I suspect they’ll loosen up with use (and I can lube them). Install was ridiculously simple, but seems like it should be sufficiently secure.

I suspect everyone’s biggest question is about visibility. It definitely reduces the visibility out the back, though I haven’t had it on the road yet to see how big of a deal it is in real driving conditions. I’m not sure if I need to adjust the position of it or what, but the little window for the bed camera so far just seems like a nice view of some glare. I imagine that will be better when the sun is not directly overhead.

 

[josh0]

Did a little driving today. I can’t say for certain, but I think the truck is quieter now. Makes sense, as there should be less turbulence in the air stream, but I don’t have any real data on that.

It also makes it darker, which is a plus for us (our dog is often in the back seat, and can get too hot with direct sun. I can also confirm that the insane glare I was getting yesterday was due to the angle of the sun. Visibility through the little window with the bed camera was fine today.

It does, definitely reduce visibility in a way that affects driving. Cars behind you are only visible in the rear mirror if they’re very close, and obviously the topper blocks your view to the side behind you, which can be awkward in certain merging situations.

I put about 80 miles on it today, in a pretty common route, so I should be able to pull up some useful numbers for comparison on Electrafi.

 

[josh0]

Ok, I have Electrifi numbers to compare from today and about a month ago doing the exact same segment (from Walmart in Española, NM to Bode's in Abiquiu, NM). It's only a hair under 23 miles, but it is the same drive under very similar conditions.

On June 23 I did the drive in 28 minutes at an average speed of 47 mph. That drive consumed 9.78 kWh, which is 2.35 mile/kWh.

Today, July 5, I did the exact same drive in 26 minutes at an average speed of 51 mph. This drive consumed 9.01 kWh, which is 2.55 mile/kWh.

The drive is pretty much entirely uphill:

There is definitely a noticeable increase in efficiency. According to the (very limited) numbers available, we're actually looking at an 8.5% increase in range! Obviously we can't say that it's definitely due to the topper, but we can certainly say that the topper does not hurt!

We've got a road trip of about 4,000 planned for later this month, so it will be very interesting to see if and how these numbers hold up!

 

[DayTripping]

Color me sceptical about the efficiency yet but an 8% improvement when your speeds are in the speed range you are driving is highly unlikely. I think they only claim 5% for it and that is likely at higher speed where the benefit would likely be greater.

 

[josh0]

Color me sceptical about the efficiency yet but an 8% improvement when your speeds are in the speed range you are driving is highly unlikely. I think they only claim 5% for it and that is likely at higher speed where the benefit would likely be greater.

I agree. This is too small a dataset, with far too few controls to draw any real conclusions.

 

[mkhuffman]

Color me sceptical about the efficiency yet but an 8% improvement when your speeds are in the speed range you are driving is highly unlikely. I think they only claim 5% for it and that is likely at higher speed where the benefit would likely be greater.

I agree. This is too small a dataset, with far too few controls to draw any real conclusions.

I agree high speed highway is the most likely improvement area, as you guys said. The numbers claimed by Wakefield are reasonable, and might be conservative. At least if it were me, I would be more conservative with claims to avoid getting beat up on social media.

Vehicles with the shape this topper creates do tend to be more aerodynamic. Even the lip on the end is consistent with vehicles who leverage the rear shape to improve efficiency.

 

[strykerwsu]

I wouldn't be too surprised. Our R1S with similar tires is >7% more efficient than R1T overall.

 

[josh0]

I’ll need to sit down with it later and do some better analysis, but just last night completed a 2,000+ mile drive. According to Electrafi, I used 404 Wh / mile on this drive. Two months ago I did the same drive with a slightly different route in both directions, and used about 425 Wh / mile both times. I’ll be going back in about a week, and sticking to that same route as last time, so it will be a better comparison, but this represents a roughly 5% improvement in efficiency, which I definitely subjectively feel is accurate. Drove from Tucumcari, NM to Sayre, OK without stopping to charge using only 73.1% of my battery (104 kWh), which is just under 240 miles at an average speed of 75 mph.

 

[mkhuffman]

I’ll need to sit down with it later and do some better analysis, but just last night completed a 2,000+ mile drive. According to Electrafi, I used 404 Wh / mile on this drive. Two months ago I did the same drive with a slightly different route in both directions, and used about 425 Wh / mile both times. I’ll be going back in about a week, and sticking to that same route as last time, so it will be a better comparison, but this represents a roughly 5% improvement in efficiency, which I definitely subjectively feel is accurate. Drove from Tucumcari, NM to Sayre, OK without stopping to charge using only 73.1% of my battery (104 kWh), which is just under 240 miles at an average speed of 75 mph.

Was it a mostly highway trip, and what speed did you tend to maintain on the highway?

 

[josh0]

Was it a mostly highway trip, and what speed did you tend to maintain on the highway?

Almost entirely highway. Average speed for the whole trip was a hair over 68 mph.

My fastest segment was the aforementioned run across the top of Texas. Average speed was 75, max was 91. 2.29 mi/kWh for 238.43 miles at 83.9° F.

I’ve driven that exact segment multiple times in the past. I’ll have to dig up the Electrafi data on it, but I don’t think I’ve ever done it without stopping to charge somewhere in Texas before.

 

[mkhuffman]

Almost entirely highway. Average speed for the whole trip was a hair over 68 mph.

My fastest segment was the aforementioned run across the top of Texas. Average speed was 75, max was 91. 2.29 mi/kWh for 238.43 miles at 83.9° F.

I’ve driven that exact segment multiple times in the past. I’ll have to dig up the Electrafi data on it, but I don’t think I’ve ever done it without stopping to charge somewhere in Texas before.

What drive mode did you use, and did you lower the height for more efficiency? I have noticed a measurable improvement just by lowering the truck to the lowest height in Conserve mode. The ride is a little rougher, but if range is top priority, it is worth it.

 

[josh0]

What drive mode did you use, and did you lower the height for more efficiency? I have noticed a measurable improvement just by lowering the truck to the lowest height in Conserve mode. The ride is a little rougher, but if range is top priority, it is worth it.

All-purpose with auto height (so yes, lowered). I have a dual-motor, so no conserve mode.

Sponsored