Confirmed: 11,000 lbs tow rating / 2,500 lbs payload capacity (official specs)! + Shatter-resistant glass

[cvalue13]

Just for grins, I also e-shopped for a gas RAM 1500. No mention of MPG anywhere that I could find. Must be so GOOD, they don't have to say it! /s

for ICE trucks, they’re pretty good - Ram is the leader in aerodynamics amongst trucks

Mods range from the ecodiesel V6 at 22 mpg city/32 mpg highway, to the supercharged HEMI at 10 mpg city/14 mpg highway

Sponsored

 

[Coolbreeze704]

for ICE trucks, they’re pretty good - Ram is the leader in aerodynamics amongst trucks

Mods range from the ecodiesel V6 at 22 mpg city/32 mpg highway, to the supercharged HEMI at 10 mpg city/14 mpg highway

I am a big Ram fan. Their interiors are fantastic. Traded a 2019 1500 on my Lightning. I miss that fine interior and comfort but gladly give it up for the Lightning power, smooth quiet ride, frunk and full tank every morning.

 

[Crissa]

The first time I drove a pickup it was borrowed from a friend. I was startled to see that all the truck drivers of the same brand waved, while icy glares greeted me otherwise.

It's definitely a lifestyle.

First time for me, I went over a curb at work and got pulled over by a police officer for 'display of speed'.

After he saw I was like, fifteen blocks from home, he let me off with a warning to be careful of the low gears.

-Crissa

 

[teslamaniac]

And, they have to actually make it.

Well, they claim on their web site that it will be available in Fall 2024 - so approximately 1 year, and probably before Tesla will have my Cybertruck anyway. But I fear that it will be costly, and sold in only limited numbers in ZEV states.

I should have added that it will also have adjustable air suspension. No stainless steel body or rear wheel steering, but otherwise it checks most of the boxes for me.

So if I am really disappointed on the 30th, I may take my $100 reservation from the CT and put it on the Ramcharger instead.

 

[HaulingAss]

Uhh. Lightning is rotting on dealer lots right now. There is very little EV truck demand at least in the Midwest. Dealer has 10 and they can be had cheap. Like $450/mo lease cheap. Next to the $299/mo ICE variant with 200+ on the lot.

Lightning is not cheap. $450/month is 50% more than $299/month for the ICE versions! That is why they are not selling. The 300-mile version costs a lot more than the 230-mile version. And that's with Ford losing big bucks on every sale. They will move off lots if Ford was willing to lose even more money for each one they sold. And they might have to do just that to get rid of them.

It all comes down to price. Which is why Tesla works so hard to figure out how to make their models efficiently. Everyone criticized Tesla for not having more models, but that reduces volume efficiencies and makes each one cost more. With the Model Y being the best-selling car in the world for 2023, it looks like Tesla knows exactly how to offer buyers the best value. KISS.

 

[teslamaniac]

Since I'm many years out for the CT list, I just put in my $100 for a RAMcharger. I figure I might get one of those before the CT - *IF* they make more than a few per month (like Hummer). Also I could not find any mention of price or MPG when running on gas. Let the race begin - CT or RC.

Just for grins, I also e-shopped for a gas RAM 1500. No mention of MPG anywhere that I could find. Must be so GOOD, they don't have to say it! /s

It has a 27-gallon gas tank. The total range is 690 miles and an electric-only range is 145 miles. That means an extender-only range of 545 miles. So 545/27 = 20.185 MPG if my computation is correct.
But with a 145 mile fully-electric range, that would cover most driving by most people most of the time. You would only need to employ the extender for long trips or towing and such.
Edmunds estimates the price at $65,000, but I would take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Deleted member 20282]

I purchased a good amount of Li Auto at IPO. They are killing it in China with the same concept.

Gets around poor charging network while infrastructure is built out.

They are transitioning to first full BEV in February. They are also very vertically integrated like Tesla. .

Yeah. I think Edison has a better implementation model in that the generator can recharge the whole truck in 30-45 mins. So when you’re paid per mile, it means you can drive 11 hours non-stop. No impact on how the driver makes a living. No issues with a charging network. And strips around 85-90% of fuel usage out as a generator doesn’t use much diesel in 30-45 mins, especially a small engine. It’s worked well on trains for a while, so it was sort of an obvious choice but finally it exists in a truck. And it allows them to transplant it into other trucks. I will be curious to see where they go with it. It’s not Zero Emissions, but let’s face it, most of the middle of the country has dirty dirty power grids, so it’s likely a wash on emissions with a semi using 15% of it’s previous fuel foot print vs charging in the midwest. Either way, I’m excited about the tech.

 

[HaulingAss]

Why are you removing the glass from the exo components?

The glass roofs are one of the main stiffeners in tesla vehicles.

also:



They consider it part of the exo system.

Absolutely! The glass is integral to the strength of the exoskeleton, I just forgot to list it!

 

[Deleted member 20282]

Lightning is not cheap. $450/month is 50% more than $299/month for the ICE versions! That is why they are not selling. The 300-mile version costs a lot more than the 230-mile version. And that's with Ford losing big bucks on every sale. They will move off lots if Ford was willing to lose even more money for each one they sold. And they might have to do just that to get rid of them.

It all comes down to price. Which is why Tesla works so hard to figure out how to make their models efficiently. Everyone criticized Tesla for not having more models, but that reduces volume efficiencies and makes each one cost more. With the Model Y being the best-selling car in the world for 2023, it looks like Tesla knows exactly how to offer buyers the best value. KISS.

By today’s standards, $299/mo for a $60k MSRP is a dirt cheap deal, lol. $450/mo is dirt cheap in truck land. $450/mo is no brain territory for a $60k vehicle.

I suspect this is more of an issue of no one actually wants an electric truck right now, between range issues, interest rates, general geopolitical climate and overall platform issues. And Ford’s issues go well beyond the manufacturing cost, come on. They are being forced into building something no one wants to build except the federal government on an unrealistic timeline. The entire UAW wants nothing to do with electrics. The communities where the battery plants want nothing to do with them. The company is so divided that they had to reorganize Ford into Blue Ford and Ford e. Big shock, changing a large old company doesn’t happen fast. Tesla and Ford aren’t remotely comparable. Tesla has none of the headaches Ford does, it has nothing to do with engineering ability or anything of the sort. Tesla hasn’t even proven its model holds up to the level of volume Ford makes. Ford knows how to mass produce at a scale Tesla can’t fathom. Tesla is an example of blank slate, blank check engineering. Nothing impressive there. Ford’s pivoting an entire company that makes a lot more vehicle and more complex vehicles. Tesla has the easy job. They are just copying Toyota on minimal models, minimal choices and a host of other TPS take aways.

Ford losing big bucks is also an accounting difference on amortization of the capital investment. They are rolling construction costs of battery plants and stuff into the cost of every vehicle. They are also paying cash for buildings and not financing buildings. It’s so Apples to Oranges it’s a stupid measure. Yet, Ford still is sitting on a bigger pile of cash and as recovering, look at earnings. Tesla slowing, Ford accelerating. Ford Net income? Up 244%. Revenue up 11%. EPS up 30%. EBITDA up 68%. Tesla Net negative 43%. EBITDA negative 35%. Revenue up only 8%.

Lightning was a disaster launch and it reflected in the numbers but the recovery is nice. Let’s see how well Tesla fares with CT missing specs and the macro economic environment we have today. Out of 200,000+ preorders, less than 15,000 followed through on lightning and lightning delivered as promised. What will Tesla look like if CT sales never even hit 200k or even 100k?

Give them some credit. They are doing an admirable job of recovering from Covid, pivoting to EV’s and fighting every upstream current to do so.

 

[Dirt Worker]

From the sign at the San Diego Tesla store (where a Cybertruck is on display currently)!

Official specs:

11,000 lbs tow rating
2,500 lbs payload

From the sign at the San Diego Tesla store (where a Cybertruck is on display currently)!

Official specs:

11,000 lbs tow rating
2,500 lbs payload

Designed to be the worlds toughest truck and yet can't carry or tow as much as most as most half ton budget pickups. When I get my trimotor, I will be towing 12,000lbs(mini excavator), I will be loading the bed with 1.5 ton (1 yard) of gravel and I will be beating the crap out of it. 15 to 45% of all 3/4 Pickups are used commercially depending on which data you read. This will be a test bed for my fellow contractors who are on the fence on electric pickups for commercial use. I have 200k hard miles on my 09' Silverado 2500. In 2019, I was planning on purchasing a new GMC until I saw the release of the CT "estimated" in two years with a 14k tow rating and 3500lb payload. New 3/4ton Duramax 2019 $65k and now 2024 Duramax $95k. Oh yes, I will be throwing my CT in the deep end.

 

[Deleted member 20282]

Designed to be the worlds toughest truck and yet can't carry or tow as much as most as most half ton budget pickups. When I get my trimotor, I will be towing 12,000lbs(mini excavator), I will be loading the bed with 1.5 ton (1 yard) of gravel and I will be beating the crap out of it. 15 to 45% of all 3/4 Pickups are used commercially depending on which data you read. This will be a test bed for my fellow contractors who are on the fence on electric pickups for commercial use. I have 200k hard miles on my 09' Silverado 2500. In 2019, I was planning on purchasing a new GMC until I saw the release of the CT "estimated" in two years with a 14k tow rating and 3500lb payload. New 3/4ton Duramax 2019 $65k and now 2024 Duramax $95k. Oh yes, I will be throwing my CT in the deep end.

I’ll be playing in the dirt next year with mine too. Though this is just “slightly” over the tow capacity, LOL. It lifts the entire ass end of the F-350 off the ground loading the T-66.

 

[Crissa]

Uhh. Lightning is rotting on dealer lots right now. There is very little EV truck demand at least in the Midwest. Dealer has 10 and they can be had cheap. Like $450/mo lease cheap. Next to the $299/mo ICE variant with 200+ on the lot.

That sounds like a dealer that invested too heavily in inventory, period.

Designed to be the worlds toughest truck and yet can't carry or tow as much as most as most...

...Evidence not provided?

-Crissa

 

[CYBRSMTH]

EXO!

But not an exoskeleton, because it clearly says ‘EXOSEKELTON’. What’s a sekelton anyway?

 

[Deleted member 20282]

That sounds like a dealer that invested too heavily in inventory, period.


...Evidence not provided?

-Crissa

I wish it was just them. There are over 100+ in the Ford search for Lightning within 200 miles of my zip code. The dealers don’t buy them, so it’s not a lot of sweat on the dealer. Most of them don’t appear to be ordered by dealer and just allocations from Ford. As for ICE having 200+, that’s not a huge deal as they churn a lot of inventory, that’s probably less than 2-3 weeks of inventory.

But definitely have concerns about seeing the same VIN in November as I saw in August when I was there for service. Whoever does their floor planing loves the rent charge.

 

[JBee]

Anyone seriously interested in this dumb “exoskeleton” debate could, if they are bored with time on their hands, read this one post and pretty much be done with it.

One has to clarify what one means by “structural”

there’s little disagreement as to whether it’s “structural” in the sense of providing ingress protection

there’s also little disagreement as to whether it’s “structural” in the sense of providing structure upon which other items can hang (eg, the door’s window/locks mechanisms can be attached to the panel, rather than an underlying separate structure - in theory)

the rigidity you describe in the panels no doubt contributes to the two senses of “structural” above, which aren’t too controversial

the remaining sense of “structural,” is that of operational-level load-bearing - eg can the castings be lighter/less beefy, and the truck still undergo load/torsion etc., in virtue of the exterior panels

that is the controversial sense of “structure”

and it’s controversial for good reason.

Arguments that it *is* this sort of structural come in varieties of eg “Elon said so, full stop” - but close exam of anything Musk has said does NOT make explicit that Musk was talking specifically of *this* third form of structural vs the first two, uncontroversial ones, above

The *other* arguments that it’s this sort of structural go something like “there are airplanes that exist that have operationally load-bearing skin, and so the CyberTruck does too” - the logical fallacy of those assertions alone should be sufficient enough for deep skepticism. And that simply can’t be otherwise known or deduced from the armchair - it requires an understanding of exactly where, how, and to what degree the panels are attached to and across the various underlying components. Anyone claiming this line of argument is way out over their skis, unless/until they have a CT in hand, have done a tear-down, and performed some legit analysis of what the operational load-bearing capacity is both with and without the skins attached.


As for those who find it unlikely to impossible the panels will have this third, controversial, type of load-bearing structure?

Well, experts in the field (eg Munroe and others in the field) are deeply dubious that what *has* been seen of the body in black, the methods of attaching the panels, and where they attach, could amount to an engineering approach that’s anything like airplanes, etc., in this respect.

In fact, regarding this third type of “structural” one CAN from merely the armchair plus available photos winnow down the narrow extent to which any such operational load-bearing structural could be possible:

• it can’t include the windshield, glass roof, or the battery pack (those aren’t even SS panels)

• it can’t include any of the four doors, the hood, or the tailgate (those are free-hanging, articulating, panels of SS that cannot provide any operational load

• the SS trim above the doors are clipped on with basic automotive trim attachments, and are to this extent free-floating

• the two front quarter panels have more obvious and already seen attachment points that make it unlikely they are capable of being operationally load-bearing, PLUS front crashworthiness would make it unlikely Tesla would ever try for this


which, once tallied, gets us down to realizing that the entire controversy about whether the stainless can provide operational load bearing structure, is about and can really only be about? The two rear quarter-panels.

on one hand, this means the controversy is pretty trivial in respect of the truck’s overall utilization of the SS as load bearing operational structure. (And is also a pretty good indication that anyone suggesting the truck’s overall SS design provides overall airplane-like operational structure, probably doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

on the other hand, when it comes specifically to truck performance, eg payload and towing, the rear quarterpanel’s may be outsized in importance.

at the same time, there’s a strange thing here where people seem to assume that better payload and towing necessarily benefit from increased rigidity - when in fact flexibility (to a point) is a key benefit of load bearing structures.


to all this, what does Tesla have to say to date?

well, they’ve laid out pretty clearly what they mean by “exoskeleton” in their patent titled “Vehicle With Exoskeleton”.

the “Cybertruck is like an airplane” crowd conveniently overlooks the substance of the 20+ page technical document with extended discussion of what Tesla means by “exoskeleton.”

That patent describes only the first two, uncontroversial, senses of “structure” - as can be gleaned from the parent’s abstract (my emphasis):

​

“A vehicle having an exoskeleton exterior panel that provides crash resistance [ie intrusion structure] is described. The exterior panel may be formed from a monolithic metal sheet and attached to an exterior portion of the vehicle frame, and the exterior panel does not comprise an additional support structure [eg like a door] At least one component may be directly attached to the exterior panel, and the exterior panel may bear the load of the at least one component [ie structure to hang things upon]. Methods of manufacturing the vehicle are also described.”​

​

The patent then goes on to describe how adding intrusion and hanging-upon structure in this was can save manufacturing costs, compared to eg adding anti-intrusion bars inside doors, and a frame inside a door upon which to hang components.

Here is the thrust of it, from the patent:

​

“Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to vehicle architectures designed such that the exterior panels of the vehicle also contribute to the vehicle's structural performance. Such exterior paneling of a vehicle may be referred to as an "exoskeleton." FIGS. 3 and 4 are views of pickup truck embodiments with exterior panel exoskeleton designs. Some embodiments of the present disclose do away with anti-intrusion bars, and instead use a durable unitary exterior panel (e.g. door panel) to provide impact protection. Thus, the exoskeleton design described herein eliminates the inner door structure and protection system, and uses only a unitary outer exterior panel. In this design, the hinges and latches for opening and closing the door, as well as door component such as windows and motors mount directly to the exterior panel. This approach may be applied to side door, roof, hood, fender, and trunk (or liftgate) assemblies of the vehicle. The exoskeleton approach may result in significant reduction in manufacturing footprint and costs.”​

What does the patent say, if at all, about providing overall operational load-bearing structure?

It *DOES* talk about it! But there’s a catch:

​

“In another embodiment [eg another concept that *could* be implemented], other externally facing portions of the vehicle [ie other than the doors etc] would also use the exoskeleton concept. For example, in a typical conventional vehicle a welded closed vertical section between the side doors of a vehicle acts as a beam to react against side crash forces applied to the body by an impacting vehicle, resist vertical loads applied to the roof in a roll over even and react seat belt loads for the front seat passenger, among other smaller forces. In contrast, this body side structure construction would convention have a thin, cosmetic outer panel welded to a structural closed section (typically one or more inner stamped sections welded to one or more outer stamped sections). However, embodiments of the present disclosure relate to an exoskeleton construction, where the outer structural reinforcement(s) are made from a single structural panel that provide the same load advantages as the more complex conventional structure, but also serve the cosmetic functions of the customer facing areas of the vehicle.”​

Here, they are now describing a different possible utilization of the patent concept, along the lines of the “airplane” concept, and the 3rd type of “structure.”. The vast majority of the patent deals with the other two kinds of structure, and in doors, etc. So the patent DOES talk about the third type of structure.

But in the next line is the catch:

​

“As such, a vehicle having a vehicle frame is disclosed, wherein the vehicle comprises an exterior panel. In some embodiments, the exterior panel does not comprise an additional support structure.​

Here they are describing the “origami” SS frame of lore. The “not comprising an additional support structure” is patent-speak for “the exterior panel itself IS the frame and there is not any ‘additional’ under-frame to which the panel is combined.”

This same distinction - between using the SS for the first two kinds of “structure” vs the third type of “structure” - is carried through in the manufacturing discussion, for example:

​

“The monolithic metal sheet may be manufactured by providing an initial monolithic metal sheet, cutting the initial monolithic metal sheet to form a cut monolithic metal sheet, and shaping the cut monolithic metal sheet to form the monolithic metal sheet. In some embodiments, the monolithic metal sheet is in the shape of a door panel. In some embodiments, the monolithic metal sheet is in the shape of an external portion of a frame.”​

All-in-all:

• the patent LARGELY describes using SS panels to accomplish the first two types of “structure”

• the patent only BRIEFLY describes using SS to form the frame itself, which frame itself forms an “external” Frame is not “additional” to any other frame, but is itself an external frame

• and so, relative to what we see in the present production Cybertruck, we very much see another “additional” frame, to which the panels are attached, and uncrontriversially do exactly what the patent describes most: providing ingress and hangs-upon structure




So here’s the most concerted, detailed, indisputable conversation Tesla has ever had regarding what it means by “exoskeleton.” And it is almost exclusively discussing the first two types of “structure.” When otherwise the patent briefly describes anything like the third type of structure, it does so by describing a method of construction that does not square with the production Cybertruck we’ve seen.

Anyone suggesting Musk has said otherwise, hasn’t paid close attention and is hearing primarily with their hopium biases.

Anyone asserting from the armchair that “the Cybertruck” SS is operationally structural (1) is glossing over that we could only possibly be talking about the rear quarterpanels, and (2) has ZERO information that would allow them to assert this on any basis (assuming they haven’t done an tear-down and load-path tests. And meanwhile, the Tesla patent doesn’t square with these armchair assertions at all.

Instead, the patent describes what we’ve seen in the doors, hood, and tailgate of the production CT. As for the rear quarterpanels, the patent doesn’t square at all with the construction method we’ve seen.

Is it possible that, when it comes to the rear quarterpanels, Tesla has done some off-patent form of engineeering whereby - unlikely as it seems - the rear QPs are somehow attached to the cab/castings in such a way as to *contribute* to operational load bearing structure? I suppose it’s possible, but the more images we see, and when squares with what Tesla has said in the parent, it sure seems unlikely.

And in any event, the crowd of “the SS provides operational load-bearing structure” is at best overstating the point (only the rear QPs are even theoretically possible), and also asserting as fact from their armchair things they can’t possibly know, not to mention things at odds with the only information Tesla has explicitly described.

SO YES - IT’S EXACTLY THE TYPE OF ‘EXOSKELETON’ TESLA HAS DESCRIBED, INSOFAR AS TESLA HAS ONLY DESCRIBED PROVIDING INGRESS PROTECTION AND HANG-UPON STRUCTURE.

BUT NO - TESLA’S EXPLICIT DESCRIPTION OF HOW OPERATIONAL LOAD-BEARING STRUCTURE WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED, IF EVER, IS NOT EVIDENCED IN EVEN THE REAR QPs OF THE PRODUCTION CT.

IF they’ve done something here off-patent, NOBODY here has the ability to surmise it from their armchair.

Best summary of exoskeleton yet!

Really deserving of its own thread so more people see it.

Bookmarked for future reference!

? ?

Sponsored