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

[HaulingAss]

"Payload" includes passengers

That's a good point, especially on vehicles like the Hummer EV that start with only 1200 lbs. of payload. When you have 2500 lbs., over twice the Hummer payload, you can put 5 large adults in there (1/2 ton) and still have a payload of 3/4 ton remaining.

Sponsored

 

[PilotPete]

"Payload" includes passengers

Dang Gus! How fat are your friends?!?! 3500 lbs in 5 pax?

 

[HaulingAss]

Dang Gus! How fat are your friends?!?! 3500 lbs in 5 pax?

You've obviously never met a pack of polar bears! ?

 

[RVAC]

Wait, so the complaints relate to a version of the truck that doesn't exist yet, if ever? Holy crap. No wonder it's hard to have this conversation. This truck is designed to compete in the market against exactly one other truck. The F-150 quad cab short bed. That's the target.

So this is really akin to someone introducing a 9 mil handgun to take on the Glock. And then having arguments over the fact that it doesn't have the stopping power of a .45 or the low recoil of a .22 at the price point of some Eastern European knockoff.

Jfc you're dense. It's not a complaint, I replied to somebody that said the race is on for the first "HD" EV truck by saying the Cybertruck's design would not be well suited and that Tesla would be better off making something along the lines of the design they showed in 2017 for that purpose. In the follow up post I even clearly stated:

The context was an "HD" version of the Cybertruck, that would necessarily require a longer bed for it to make sense and hence be at least that length.

Is this clear enough or do you need me to draw it out for you?

The Ford Lightning has traditional sides on its bed, and Ford has sold thousands of Lightnings over the last 2+ years, so I imagine all those joyous Lightning owners are out there criss-crossing the country in their 5th wheel trailers, right?

But no, I would be surprised if one Lightning owner is using it to tow a 5th wheel trailer. That just shows how people that are making a big deal about the sail sides interfering with towing a 5th wheel are harping on an edge case so small its ridiculous. It would be like saying a Cessna 152 sucks because it can't fly coast to coast non-stop.

Give me a break!

Speaking with a brick wall yields more productive conversations, I made it abundantly clear that it's not an issue for the 1/2 ton market.

 

[Crissa]

All you need to do is look at the photo posted previously, that sail pillars would interfere with many 5th wheel trailers is self evident.

I don't see this as self-evident.

But no, I would be surprised if one Lightning owner is using it to tow a 5th wheel trailer.

https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...l-towing-with-the-lightning.10262/post-210437

I don't think this one would work with the Cybertruck. But honestly, I don't know.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...l-towing-with-the-lightning.10262/post-210437

I don't think this one would work with the Cybertruck. But honestly, I don't know.

-Crissa

That's not a Lightning, it's a 2015 5.0 liter F-150 XLT. My point was that the Lightning has sold in the many tens of thousands, and I still haven't seen one (or a photo of one) that had a 5th wheel hitch. The conclusion is that people are making a huge deal over the sail sides of the Cybertruck preventing the towing of a 5th wheel. Not only do the sail sides not prevent that, but if no one (or almost no one) is using one of the tens of thousands of F-150 Lightnings to tow a 5th wheel, why is it such a big problem for the Cybertruck?

 

[RVAC]

I don't see this as self-evident.

That's a gooseneck, I also said many not all. So, yes, you're bound to find some that would work. However even some of those, depending on the height of the neck, would impinge upon the pillars when maneuvering:

Couple the sail pillar clearance issue to that relating to chassis cabs and there would be a non trivial TAM reduction. In a segment that is ~40% fleet sales and already much smaller than that of 1/2 tons it would be quite limiting in terms of potential production volume.

That being said I'm not here to convince anyone, agreeing is not mandatory.

 

[Mr.Dee]

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.

I'm so happy that you posted this.

My day job is the structural design and analysis of aerospace structures, specifically carbon composite wings and fuselages for small airplanes. So I've had several people in my daily life ask my opinion on the Cybertruck "exoskeleton" and I have been saying exactly what you're saying here. You must be an engineer? You're the first person I've seen using all the correct terms and showing a thorough understanding of physics and basic loads path 101.

I think a major problem is peoples fundamental misunderstanding of the term "structural" and I don't think Tesla did their due diligence early on to clarify what they meant with their phrasing.

In any case, it takes about 5 seconds of looking at the latest photos to locate the edges of the flat stainless sheets and diagnose exactly what the underlying structure looks like. The stainless is likely clipped on or even adhered via 2 part epoxy resins in some areas. So it's doing nothing more than hanging off an underlying structure. It's only "structural" benefit is the out-of-plane stiffness characteristics.

But I'm excited to hear more from Munro and hope to see him peel off a few of these sheets to show us what is lying underneath.

 

[anionic1]

This is the first time since reveal we have seen anything about the glass. I am glad to see the "Shatter-Resistant Glass" as I had fears that was one of the things we might not see.

Isn’t most auto glass shatter resistant?

 

[anionic1]

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.

My only addition to all this is that Tesla is clearly trying to maximize the structural integration of anything they can to reduce weight. The structural battery is the best example. If they are structurally gluing a 3mm stainless plate on anything and not integrating it into the structural model I would be extremely surprised. I also believe that’s why we lost the sail pillar storage. I don’t even think Munro will be able to answer that question. I think he will be able to tell us how structurally connected they are but without a finite analysis model that Tesla engineers used in the design we will not really know what that structural loading heat map looks like. I have a structural engineering degree and I personally look at those sail pillars and think that’s not enough aluminum for the weight of the truck and therefore the stainless is greatly contributing to the load bearing in that area.

 

[anionic1]

I'm so happy that you posted this.

My day job is the structural design and analysis of aerospace structures, specifically carbon composite wings and fuselages for small airplanes. So I've had several people in my daily life ask my opinion on the Cybertruck "exoskeleton" and I have been saying exactly what you're saying here. You must be an engineer? You're the first person I've seen using all the correct terms and showing a thorough understanding of physics and basic loads path 101.

I think a major problem is peoples fundamental misunderstanding of the term "structural" and I don't think Tesla did their due diligence early on to clarify what they meant with their phrasing.

In any case, it takes about 5 seconds of looking at the latest photos to locate the edges of the flat stainless sheets and diagnose exactly what the underlying structure looks like. The stainless is likely clipped on or even adhered via 2 part epoxy resins in some areas. So it's doing nothing more than hanging off an underlying structure. It's only "structural" benefit is the out-of-plane stiffness characteristics.

But I'm excited to hear more from Munro and hope to see him peel off a few of these sheets to show us what is lying underneath.

I struggle to see how you can say the panels are epoxied and that they are just hanging on. Buildings are held in place by epoxy. If the panels are epoxied it’s very likely the reason for that is to transfer some load.

 

[anionic1]

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.

Interestingly, the glass is probably the most exo skeleton component of the vehicle with almost no internal support and only perimeter support.

 

[anionic1]

This contains so much BS I don't where to begin as I don't have hours to spend on this. So I'll just briefly point out each fallacy, in order.



That's a lease you are talking about and it comes with a major down payment. Also, saying "by today's standards" doesn't address the issue I was speaking to, affordability. The trucks aren't selling because the value being offered is not high enough. And a part of that is the high interest rates built into the lease payments. You can't take that out of the equation by saying "by today's standards" and there is a very specific reason for that: most new vehicle purchases are discretionary. People buy them because they are tired of driving an older vehicle and everything that entails (they don't have to buy, they buy because they want to). The sluggish sales are a direct result of current economic conditions making the price too high to entice buyers. People want the electric trucks, they just can't justify the price.



No, see above, they need to offer the new truck buyer more value to encourage them to buy. That's why Ford was selling them far below the cost to produce in the first place. But now, with higher interest rates and less money floating around, buyers need even more value offered to pull the trigger.



Again, the value offered is the problem with demand, not that people wouldn't love to get a new EV truck. Manufacturing cost is the root of that problem.



The UAW is living in dreamland if they think they can stop the EV revolution. The reason they don't want EV's is because it reduces their power and financial might by reducing the labor required to build a vehicle. This has nothing to due with the trucks sitting on lots.



Ford did not split off their EV division because the company is "so divided", they split it off because they realized that the ICE division would become a financial drag as they lose economies of scale. They want investors to see the growth of the EV division seperately, rather than see total profits declining simultaneously with sharp declines in total unit volumes. They want investors to focus on the growth of EVs, not the decline of ICE. It has nothing to do with the company "being divided".



There is no doubt Tesla has better access to hire engineers with superior talent, particularly when it comes to being adept with the latest engineering technology. Software does not run itself and Tesla gets the brightest engineers from the best engineering schools in the world that already know how to use the latest and greatest engineering tools.

Tesla also has a superior corporate organizational structure that allows complex engineering to be implented across departments in a more seamless fashion, more rapidly. Tesla's superior engineering talent and execution is why the older Model 3 is two generations ahead of the Mach-e. Two generations is a long time in the auto industry and Tesla's lead is not diminishing, if anything, Tesla is growing adept at manufacturing EVs faster than Ford. This means Ford is not catching up in their ability to offer new vehicle buyers great value.



Tesla absolutely has proven their model holds up to high volumes. Do you know what it means to have the best-selling vehicle, car or truck, gasoline or electric, in the entire world? Ford has over 100 manufacturing facilities around the world for engines, transmissions and chassis, widely spread out, that create their higher total volume, and they have not had the best-selling model globally for many decades. Tesla already does far more volume per facility than Ford, on average. To say that Ford does volumes that Tesla can't even fathom is just so wrong it's hilarious. Elon is all about high volume, which is why he didn't splinter the production systems by having 8 or 10 different models already, he's building maximum volume per model, before adding new models.



That's just false. Tesla costs capital expenditures using the same GAAP accounting rules Ford must use. They cost the buildings and equipment over the expected utility life/unit volume of those assets, just as Tesla must do. And, no, Ford does not pay cash for their new battery plants, maybe you missed the 9-billion-dollar governemnt loan to build Ford's joint venture battery plant. Ford is losing big bucks on every EV has little to nothing to do with accounting, and everything to do with inefficient manufacturing and supply chains and their inability to offer new car buyers enough value to scale profitably. They have run the numbers themselves, and even their internal, overly optimistic projections informed them they could not reach EV profitability until the end of this decade. But, by then, Tesla will have even more scale and more effciciency and be able to offer even more value to consumers.

A ship as large as Ford, with such an ingrained corporate culture and DNA, does not transform itself into a different animal in less than a decade. That is why EVs are a huge drain on Ford while being wildly profitable for Tesla. The proof is in Tesla's growing cash pile while they are simultaneously expanding production at a rapid clip and taking on new initiatives like supercomputing, AI robots developed in-house, autonomous driving that is almost ready for prime time, ramping production of Tesla Semi, Cybertruck, automating production of utility level energy storage systems, Autobidder software and rapidly expanding the world's biggest fast DC charging network. All while rapidly paying down past debt and growing cash on hand. That's proof that the difference in profitability isn't due to accounting differences.




That's a false perception caused by how hard legacy auto sales were hit during the supposed Covid parts shortages. Tesla grew production and sales through the same challenges.



If you think Cybertruck sales might not reach 100K-200K per year, then you think Tesla is making a big mistake by not cancelling production of the CT. And that's exactly what Elon would do if a rational analysis told him the venture would not be strongly profitable. The fact that he is proceeding with production tells us he believes it's headed for long-term profitability. And anyone who knows anything knows not to bet against Elon Musk. It would take some real arrogance to sit on the outside, without the benefit of everything known to Elon Musk, and tell him he was making a big mistake. My conclusion is that Cybertruck is very likely to exceed a run-rate of 200K annually, by 2025.



The fact that Ford needed to recover from Covid tells you how weak their supply chains were. That reflects poorly on management. Don't get me wrong, I like Jim Farley as a person, but it's ridiculous to think he's on the same level as Elon Musk. If he were, Ford would not still be recovering from Covid, they would be expanding production of each model above pre-Covid levels (like Tesla), and building EV's profitably (like Tesla), while simultaneously building out their own multi-billion dollar charging network (like Tesla) rather than riding on Elon's coat tail. They would also be preparing for the future by funneling some of their profits into the future of automotive, supercomputing, AI robotics, and automotive software. Instead, they will be licensing these things from Tesla, if they survive at all.

The false narrative that legacy auto could crush Tesla at will, with superior volume, superior pricing, and superior specs was crushed years ago (even though it was apparent to me by 2019 that they didn't stand a chance of competing head-to-head with Tesla). Anyone still trying to spread a narrative even close to that as 2023 draws to a close, has a serious problem with an inability to change their ingrained perceptions in the face of new (and obvious) information. The gap is widening, not narrowing.

Automaking has entered the age of automation as new technologies, driven by AI, accelerate. A few thousand robots on factory floors does not demonstrate that legacy auto is in the same realm as Tesla. Try as they may, they simply do not posess the correct DNA to morph into the modern automotive juggernaut that is known as Tesla. There is no doubt Tesla has that DNA and there is no going back. New car buyers still demand superior value and delivering it requires the correct corporate DNA. For years legacy auto tried to buy that DNA, which simply means it was never theirs to begin with. Tesla could not afford to buy that DNA, so they cultured it within. The result is clear to anyone willing to look with open eyes.

Sometimes I wonder how much letting the other manufacturers fail plays into Elon’s decision making. It’s not necessarily a good thing for Tesla if Ford completely fails. I would just be curios. I mean if Tesla is making 20 plus percent on every vehicle and does is making 5 you would think Tesla could easily just drop their margins and ford just couldn’t keep up. So why don’t they just crush them by dropping their margins and getting rid of the competition. I am just using Ford as an example.

 

[anionic1]

before anyone loses their mind on range and towing, the dual motor at the reveal was 10,000lbs towing and 300+ miles

Tri-motor is the one with 14K lbs towing and 500+ miles -- that's the one I'm waiting for.

I have a feeling like the attitude tomorrow is going to be Tesla giving us at or slightly better than promised but very much later than expected and 500,000 people are going to be pissed due to their own ignorance and faulty recollection.

 

[anionic1]

That is going to KILL their 5th-wheel owning customers (like myself) from buying. We need 3000+. Tesla's website still advertises 3500 lbs. Wonder if that sign is for that model specifically? I hope so. Sad face.

But it fits in the city slickers garage!

Sponsored