Cybertruck BIW body-in-white frames with front/rear castings 🤩 [7/11/23]

[Throwcomputer]

How is crashing less often because the vehicle remains in control more, less safe for people outside the vehicle?

-Crissa

I didn't say anything about crashing less often. I mentioned that in the event of an actual crash, the interior occupants will be safer, but the exterior individuals that get crashed into will see worse injuries. That will have an effect of insurance rates.

Sponsored

 

[audi2tesla]

Back to the original post:
Does this photo negate the idea of Tesla using the "unboxed process" in manufacturing the Cybertruck?

Is it possible that the front and rear could be mostly assembled before joining them together as shown in the photo?

Certainly, the doors are subassemblies that could be added last, and the battery pack plus seats would be separate, but what else?

Couldn't the motor(s) and suspension be added to the gigacastings before they are joined?

Likewise, could the instrument panel be joined to the front before further assembly?

What about the bed and tonneau cover?

Basically, I'm wondering how much of the "unboxed process" concept from the "next gen vehicle" could be adapted to make manufacturing the Cybertruck faster and less costly.

I was thinking the same thing when looking at this picture of the CT BIW. I'm assuming that the unboxed process would be used for Model 3 Highland and Model Y Juniper, even the upcoming "$25k car".

 

[Crissa]

I didn't say anything about crashing less often. I mentioned that in the event of an actual crash, the interior occupants will be safer, but the exterior individuals that get crashed into will see worse injuries. That will have an effect of insurance rates.

But his point was that there would be fewer, and less severe, accidents.

At the point you have a car thrown at you, I don't think in many cases the internal passengers being less safe helps.

-Crissa

 

[MonkeyDeLuffy]

We shall expect shots of structural battery packs coming up soon...

 

[ricinro]

...What would be an exoskeleton, then? How would the motors and wheels connect to the body?


And what would be different in an exoskeleton design? How would the doors fit and the motors mount?

Not to put you guys on the spot here, but Cory's description is nonsensical. Yes, the underneath is like the Model Y and it's more traditional, but... how would it be different for an exoskeleton?

-Crissa

The path of forces starts where the tires contact the ground and up into the wheel castings where the suspension mounts. Loads into the bed rest directly on the castings. From the side the frame looks like a simple truss. The SS skin (panels) on the sails appears to attach to bosses that have a hole in them. These parts with the bosses appear to be attached to the rear casting and they look like smaller cast parts, probably from a supplier. There are a bosses facing inwards to the bed and externally for the SS sail panels.
So there is still the mystery of how the SS sail panels attach. Normally a welded threaded stud would work great but these leave a significant cosmetic mark on the outside surfaces. Perhaps there is welding sanding and passivating operations after cold working (stamping/forming) or a stud plate is glued to the finished panels.
I would expect some galvanic insulation. However the loads on a welded or adhered stud would only contribute a minor role in the structure which is what Cory was explaining.

 

[fritter63]

I've looked at Tesla insurance and was quoted 150% of my current Progressive policy rate. Needless to say, I wasn't favorably impressed.

my experience as well.

 

[HaulingAss]

I didn't say anything about crashing less often. I mentioned that in the event of an actual crash, the interior occupants will be safer, but the exterior individuals that get crashed into will see worse injuries. That will have an effect of insurance rates.

It's not clear what you are basing your odd opinion that the Cybertruck will more dangerous for the occupants of other vehicles. The obvious problem Crissa already pointed out, the best way to reduce injuries to others is not to crash into them in the first place.

But the Cybertruck should be more safe, not less, compared to an equivalent body on frame truck like the Dodge Ram, the F-150 or the Silverado/Sierra, even when actively crashing into another vehicle or pedestrian.

Most obviously, they have a beefy steel ladder frame, Granted, it's very twisty under torsional forces but you don't want to be in it's way when twin I-beams are coming straight at you.

Further, their very tall hoods and big vertical front ends may look masculine, but you don't want to be hit by that, it's like a vertical wall. The Cybertruck has a low sloping hood, it's wedge shaped, which can convert horizontal motion into vertical motion. The tall front ends of legacy trucks are taller than most pedestrians and are known to cause head injuries and death when hitting pedestrians.

Also, legacy trucks have big, heavy ICE engines up front that essentially have zero absorption built into them. The Cybertruck has an empty frunk (unless someone is transporting an engine block in there), LOL!

Seriously though, how did you miss these basic facts? There is nothing remotely safe about legacy trucks when it comes to ramming into others! Cybertruck will beat them by a mile. And you thought it was more dangerous? I think you have been watching too many video games that depect a Cybertruck without crumple zones. Of course it has crumple zones designed in, it's a modern vehicle. Even legacy autos design crumple zones in, at least as much as is possible with an engine block, transmission and big steel frame on either side of the engine, all in the way.

 

[Throwcomputer]

It's not clear what you are basing your odd opinion that the Cybertruck will more dangerous for the occupants of other vehicles. The obvious problem Crissa already pointed out, the best way to reduce injuries to others is not to crash into them in the first place.

But the Cybertruck should be more safe, not less, compared to an equivalent body on frame truck like the Dodge Ram, the F-150 or the Silverado/Sierra.

Most obviously, they have a beefy steel ladder frame, Granted, it's very twisty under torsional forces but you don't want to be in it's way when twin I-beams are coming straight at you.

Further, their very tall hoods and big vertical front ends may look masculine, but you don't want to be hit by that, it's like a vertical wall. The Cybertruck has a low sloping hood, it's wedge shaped, which can convert horizontal motion into vertical motion. The tall front ends of legacy trucks are taller than most pedestrians and are known to cause head injuries and death when hitting pedestrians.

Also, legacy trucks have big, heavy ICE engines up front that essentially have zero absorption built into them. The Cybertruck has an empty frunk (unless someone is transporting an engine block in there), LOL!

Seriously though, how did you miss these basic facts? There is nothing remotely safe about legacy trucks when it comes to ramming into others! Cybertruck will beat them by a mile. And you thought it was more dangerous? I think you have been watching too many video games that depect a Cybertruck without crumple zones. Of course it has crumple zones designed in, it's a modern vehicle. Even legacy autos design crumple zones in, at least as much as is possible with an engine block, transmission and big steel frame on either side of the engine, all in the way.

Lol.

 

[HaulingAss]

I've looked at Tesla insurance and was quoted 150% of my current Progressive policy rate. Needless to say, I wasn't favorably impressed.

Tesla insurance isn't for anyone. They can't magically give the safest drivers and the most dangerous drivers the lowest rates in the business. Their entire business model is based on capturing the safer drivers, the ones least likely to be in an accident, according to their data, and rewarding them with lower rates. It may also be that you have to sign up and let them monitor your safety level for a while, to see if you get lower or higher rates, I don't know. I just know I've heard from a number of Tesla drivers that have much lower rates through Tesla Insurance than their previous insurance.

This works out really well for the safest drivers, and not so well for those who are riskier. What I learned when I was trying to get a good enough driver safety score to get FSD beta activated on my Performance Model 3 was that I was in control of my driver score. It was hard, but after a few failed attempts, and learning exactly what Tesla wqs measuring, I got my "safe driver score" above Tesla's threshold for being in the FSD beta program. Success! I viewed it as a video game. Others were not so adept and couldn't get in the FSD beta program.

If you don't want to alter your driving, and you tend to be an aggressive driver, then Tesla insurance is probably not for you. And it doesn't have to work for everyone for it to help keep other insurance companies honest when insuring Tesla drivers. Because big insurance companies hate to lose any market share in the markets they serve.

 

[Rutrow]

Tesla insurance isn't for anyone. They can't magically give the safest drivers and the most dangerous drivers the lowest rates in the business. Their entire business model is based on capturing the safer drivers, the ones least likely to be in an accident, according to their data, and rewarding them with lower rates. It may also be that you have to sign up and let them monitor your safety level for a while, to see if you get lower or higher rates, I don't know. I just know I've heard from a number of Tesla drivers that have much lower rates through Tesla Insurance than their previous insurance.

This works out really well for the safest drivers, and not so well for those who are riskier. What I learned when I was trying to get a good enough driver safety score to get FSD beta activated on my Performance Model 3 was that I was in control of my driver score. It was hard, but after a few failed attempts, and learning exactly what Tesla wqs measuring, I got my "safe driver score" above Tesla's threshold for being in the FSD beta program. Success! I viewed it as a video game. Others were not so adept and couldn't get in the FSD beta program.

If you don't want to alter your driving, and you tend to be an aggressive driver, then Tesla insurance is probably not for you. And it doesn't have to work for everyone for it to help keep other insurance companies honest when insuring Tesla drivers. Because big insurance companies hate to lose any market share in the markets they serve.

If Tesla (or any other company) can skim off the safest drivers as a way to lower their rates, then the remaining insurance companies (stuck with the poor drivers) will have to raise their rates as their clientele become higher and higher risks. The best we can hope for is that bad drivers have to become better drivers to afford their insurance rates. ?? That'd be a win-win!

 

[fritter63]

If Tesla (or any other company) can skim off the safest drivers as a way to lower their rates, then the remaining insurance companies (stuck with the poor drivers) will have to raise their rates as their clientele become higher and higher risks. The best we can hope for is that bad drivers have to become better drivers to afford their insurance rates. ?? That'd be a win-win!

The only solution is FSD.....

 

[firsttruck]

If Tesla (or any other company) can skim off the safest drivers as a way to lower their rates, then the remaining insurance companies (stuck with the poor drivers) will have to raise their rates as their clientele become higher and higher risks. The best we can hope for is that bad drivers have to become better drivers to afford their insurance rates. ?? That'd be a win-win!

No, that is not the only option. Today the bad drivers might need to use Uber.

In the future the bad drivers will need to buy FSD or use Robotaxis.

 

[SSonnentag]

Tesla insurance isn't for anyone. They can't magically give the safest drivers and the most dangerous drivers the lowest rates in the business. Their entire business model is based on capturing the safer drivers, the ones least likely to be in an accident, according to their data, and rewarding them with lower rates. It may also be that you have to sign up and let them monitor your safety level for a while, to see if you get lower or higher rates, I don't know. I just know I've heard from a number of Tesla drivers that have much lower rates through Tesla Insurance than their previous insurance.

This works out really well for the safest drivers, and not so well for those who are riskier. What I learned when I was trying to get a good enough driver safety score to get FSD beta activated on my Performance Model 3 was that I was in control of my driver score. It was hard, but after a few failed attempts, and learning exactly what Tesla wqs measuring, I got my "safe driver score" above Tesla's threshold for being in the FSD beta program. Success! I viewed it as a video game. Others were not so adept and couldn't get in the FSD beta program.

If you don't want to alter your driving, and you tend to be an aggressive driver, then Tesla insurance is probably not for you. And it doesn't have to work for everyone for it to help keep other insurance companies honest when insuring Tesla drivers. Because big insurance companies hate to lose any market share in the markets they serve.

Well, I had a 100% safety score for FSDB and got it on day 1 of the release, have no accidents or insurance claims, am in my 50s, drive about 35,000 miles per year and still get quoted 150% of my current Progressive rates. I just don't think Tesla's insurance rates are competitive for good drivers in my area.

 

[Ogre]

.

How is crashing less often because the vehicle remains in control more, less safe for people outside the vehicle?

-Crissa

Maybe the person outside the car is going to kill you in the future so FSD hunts them down and kills them for their future crimes.

 

[Stuck4ger]

I am okay with some of the path sniffing or checking collision warnings or whatever... but I am not okay with neighborhood or time of day based penalties, because people commuting to work usually can't alter their habits to avoid those situations.

-Crissa

But if a driver’s commute is statistically a more dangerous route then why shouldn’t it cost more to insure than those who enjoy a safer route)?

Sponsored