No Exoskeleton

[cvalue13]

but they in no way form a significant structural element of the main body like some have claimed.

more than one sense of the word “structural” though

there’s structural to vehicle operation, then there’s structural to occupant/cargo safety

Tesla only ever said “structural” - so they could fairly have meant a bit of both, depending on which panels one is discussing

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

Good luck at the “Strawman of the Year” awards

lol without definition there is no fidelity, no purpose in conversation.

I see many here on this thread who sat across the isle in the great exoskeleton debates, have now come to terms with the Cybertrucks "not-an-exoskeleton exoskeleton" and have seen the light, by admitting defeat to an engineering authority they know and trust.

They could of just listened to me too, but hey I'm just some hack on a keyboard living out yonder in the bush on the other side of the planet. So what do I know, huh? ?

Where's that @HaulingAss character anyways when you need someone to argue with?
Gosh this place is really going downhill when it comes to finding someone to debate with now! ?

 

[cvalue13]

The doors likewise.

but the doors are “structural” in two ways

first, they’re the only “structure” providing occupant safety - in leu of the sorts of anti-intrusion bars found inside conventional doors, and in leu of a secondary B-pillar support for crash resistance, that collectively usually perform this structural function of occupant safety. With the CT, there’s only the door skin, and a single B-pillar support for fitment purposes.

second, the door skins themselves are what the entire inner window mechanics, motors, hinges, and inner trim of the door hang upon, in leu of the sort of inner door framing that is typically providing the structure for hanging load.

put differently, because doors are “separate” from the body, they don’t perform operational function at the body level (like assisting in payload), but for the very same reasons doors themselves are individual structural units.

In a conventional door, there is a skeleton, upon which mechanics and outer skins hang. In the CT, there’s only its own exoskeleton.

So the CT has at least 4 exoskeletons - one at each door.

then there’s the operational exoskeleton, formed by the quarterpanels, glass, and structural battery back/underbody plates

by admitting defeat to an engineering authority they know and trust.

for the record, I think you’re wrong in the same way Monro is wrong, and it’s what I think @CyberGus is getting at

Tesla never said it’s the singular type of exoskeleton you and Monro assumed

So this error has nothing to do with your engineering expertise, and everything to do with ascribing to Tesla an argument they never made, then saying that it’s wrong

 

[Crissa]

Literally, there was never any way for the motors or the axles to attach without the castings, but are the castings an internal frame or external?

Like I said. It's like saying a beetle doesn't have an exoskeleton because it stores its wings inside or a crab isn't because the gills have rib-like protrusions around them from the shell.

I swear, it's like none of you all have shucked shellfish.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

more than one sense of the word “structural” though

there’s structural to vehicle operation, then there’s structural to occupant/cargo safety

Tesla only ever said “structural” - so they could fairly have meant a bit of both, depending on which panels one is discussing

I've watched a few interviews done by that youtuber, and he is the opposite of an engineer from what I can tell and has little to no engineering expertise or experience. I'd have asked Coby exactly how the door skins worked to keep them structural, and also a few regarding the overlapping of load pathways for operational and impact loads. I would like one of these guys to use the term "hybrid endo-exoskeleton" where impact loads are dispersed through the shell, but operational and structure loads are through the internal body.

Really it is now like a knight's body armour: Bones on the inside, then muscle and tissue, then a hard outer steel shell. The bones and muscles keep it all up and together, but the SS skin protects the insides.

 

[Crissa]

Really it is now like a knight's body armour: Bones on the inside, then muscle and tissue, then a hard outer steel shell. The bones and muscles keep it all up and together, but the SS skin protects the insides.

No, it it not, and that assertion is baseless.

Like, it's the most wrong assertion there is. The one thing we do know is that there's no frame in the middle that everything hangs off of and the skin hanging off that. That's definitely not how it's assembled.

Like I said, it's like none of you all have ever shucked a crab. I've lost count of how many I have. And they totally have cast-like parts and joints where it pinches inward for the legs and gills and mandibles and eyes and damn, even the brain has 'em.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

but the doors are “structural” in two ways

first, they’re the only “structure” providing occupant safety - in leu of the sorts of anti-intrusion bars found inside conventional doors, and in leu of a secondary B-pillar support for crash resistance, that collectively usually perform this structural function of occupant safety. With the CT, there’s only the door skin, and a single B-pillar support for fitment purposes.

second, the door skins themselves are what the entire inner window mechanics, motors, hinges, and inner trim of the door hang upon, in leu of the sort of inner door framing that is typically providing the structure for hanging load.

put differently, because doors are “separate” from the body, they don’t perform operational function at the body level (like assisting in payload), but for the very same reasons doors themselves are individual structural units.

In a conventional door, there is a skeleton, upon which mechanics and outer skins hang. In the CT, there’s only its own exoskeleton.

So the CT has at least 4 exoskeletons - one at each door.

then there’s the operational exoskeleton, formed by the quarterpanels, glass, and structural battery back/underbody plates

Exactly, what I've been saying from day one.

for the record, I think you’re wrong in the same way Monro is wrong, and it’s what I think @CyberGus is getting at

Tesla never said it’s the singular type of exoskeleton you and Monro assumed

So this error has nothing to do with your engineering expertise, and everything to do with ascribing to Tesla an argument they never made, then saying that it’s wrong

Wait a minute here buddy.... I never said I knew what EM or Tesla meant by "exoskeleton", I only said that other peoples interpretation of what he meant was wrong, because it didn't make any sense, which is exactly the case now.

My initial questions, that got shot down to no end, was always "what exactly is the exoskeleton" on the Cybertruck, becasue the further we got info on the internals the less "exo" there was left to do what people claimed.

I then as I always do, laid out in detail what I thought was and wasn't included in that description, which is nearly word for word the comments made in the video, to the point I thought he was reading off my posts at one point. Now not to toot my own horn, but Cory doesn't go into the load path design for impacts at all in this interview, and at that point he would have had to acknowledge the contributions made by the door/opening skins. I think I've made the door skins are "structural exoskeleton on impact argument" at least 4 times in this last week alone, on various threads.

 

[JBee]

No, it it not, and that assertion is baseless.

Like, it's the most wrong assertion there is. The one thing we do know is that there's no frame in the middle that everything hangs off of and the skin hanging off that. That's definitely not how it's assembled.

Like I said, it's like none of you all have ever shucked a crab. I've lost count of how many I have. And they totally have cast-like parts and joints where it pinches inward for the legs and gills and mandibles and eyes and damn, even the brain has 'em.

-Crissa

Your argument is still false, because by definition something that is inside is not outside, nor vice versa. A shell fish is incapable of existing without it's exoskeleton to give it structure, it would then be called a jellyfish.

The CT in comparison does absolutely function completely without it's outside skin, like a naked knight. But for impact protection it functions even better with an additional external steel skin.

Further, the primary area of a crustacean is structural skin that is exposed to the outside, whereas the SS skin is now limited to the fenders on the CT. Now the glass could technically also be exoskeleton, being a thin structural layer, but it would be fairly useless without the cabin structure to support so the vehicle can hold it's shape. The structural battery could also be considered familiar, but is also dependent on the internal frame.

What is clear though is that the external skin doesn't support the casts, cabin or structural pack, rather its the other way around.

 

[Mini2nut]

The term’s “exoskeleton“ and “30x“ are marketing terms that Tesla used to help convey the durability of the Cybertruck.

I never expected the production truck to incorporate a true exoskeleton design.

 

[SSonnentag]

Does this mean the Model 3 and Y have exoskeletons when compared to the Model S and X? After all, steel is tougher than aluminum. Otherwise, as far as anyone can tell so far, the Cybertruck only differs from all other Tesla models (semi excepted) by the material that makes up its skin.

 

[Cybergirl]

In November 2019 we saw the concept vehicle called Cybertruck. It had an exoskeleton in the true sense of the word. But like every concept vehicle, on the way to production it ran into reality. The same happened to Aptera. The interesting thing is that the design changes for the Cybertruck and the Aptera are internal, invisible, and functional enhancements whereas most concept designs drastically alter the vehicle's shape and function into something unrecognizable.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

lol without definition there is no fidelity, no purpose in conversation.

I see many here on this thread who sat across the isle in the great exoskeleton debates, have now come to terms with the Cybertrucks "not-an-exoskeleton exoskeleton" and have seen the light, by admitting defeat to an engineering authority they know and trust.

They could of just listened to me too, but hey I'm just some hack on a keyboard living out yonder in the bush on the other side of the planet. So what do I know, huh? ?

Where's that @HaulingAss character anyways when you need someone to argue with?
Gosh this place is really going downhill when it comes to finding someone to debate with now! ?

I haven’t crossed the aisle and don’t expect to do so. I ‘want’ the entire ‘exposed’ skin to be 3 mm stainless, and I never said anything about the Z-axis load path as I never expected the exoskeleton to contribute significantly to the Z-axis load path.

I responded to this thread before watching that video. It is no wonder that this wasn’t a Munro Live posting as it is an interview by someone that doesn’t know with Cory Steuben who is not Sandy Munro. We have known since pretty much the get go that the Cybertruck would have Giga castings and a structural battery pack and that the stainless skin would be attached to them. Cory is only reiterating that and saying that it isn’t an exoskeleton because there is structural stuff on the inside. That the stainless exterior is more reminiscent of a super strong/stiff unibody design is unimportant to Elon’s statement that the Cybertruck would be super durable and impervious to normal wear and tear. If we drop the argument over the terminology can we at least agree on the durability of the truck?

I also think it would be inefficient to have multiple thicknesses of stainless on the Cybertruck so I would be surprised to see that. I hate to play the broken record but Elon has never changed his tune on the ‘exoskeleton’ or 3 mm thickness so I continue to believe and hope that is what we will receive. I do trust Sandy Munro’s expertise in general but Cory is making guesses based on one photograph so he may change his own tune later on, and Sandy may not even agree with his guesses.

 

[cvalue13]

It had an exoskeleton in the true sense of the word.

based on what?

it was a prototype, in most places using ~less than 1mm sheet metal to approximate the look

they didn’t have the breaks etc needed to form the 3mm of the entire CT into “an exoskeleton in the true sense of the word”

 

[Cybergirl]

based on what?

it was a prototype, in most places using ~less than 1mm sheet metal to approximate the look

they didn’t have the breaks etc needed to form the 3mm of the entire CT into “an exoskeleton in the true sense of the word”

So you think it was built as a body on frame with stainless steel panels?

Sponsored