Cybertruck Engineering Innovations - Great Summary

[JBee]

Why don't you just admit your original objection to the term "exoskeleton" was just plain wrong?

You had no real basis to assert that claim to begin with.

Um because it wasn't, and still isn't?

I haven't changed my mind.

But happy to learn how that one rear skin does help, as that's a bit of the puzzle I'd still like to know.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 17810]

Thanks. That's the front fender which does nothing, and not the rear SS fender. But if the rear is the same, that backing won't transfer much load the way it came apart. In fact I'd say it's like that to avoid warping from the aluminium cast thermal expansion underneath.

I've watched Kyle's video, and even posted a bunch of photos of it along with my commentary, but I didn't find anything in that one either.

The closest we got is where the admin posted a picture of the semi-assembled CT frame, where one side of the skin was on, the otherside missing. I asked if he could walk around and take a photo of the back, but I dunno where he was getting the footage from that he was posting.

What do you mean it does nothing.

That's part of the crumple zone that disipates energy to the casting and the rest of the vehicle?

The rear panel has the same type of structure.

I mean, I don't know what to tell you, anymore.

 

[JBee]

What do you mean it does nothing.

That's part of the crumple zone that disipates energy to the casting and the rest of the vehicle?

The rear panel has the same type of structure.

I mean, I don't know what to tell you, anymore.

So, from the outset there are two distinct forms of structure in the CT.

1) Ingress protection, that makes the part fail in the process of protecting the occupants and 2) load bearing which carries the vehicle mass without failing. The doors carry no load, except themselves, but they do provide ingress structure and type 1). This is the type of exoskeleton described in the patent.

Version 2) is what the rear fender apparently does, by providing 25% of the rear torsional rigidity (twist) but it is not directly described. Hence the interest.

 

[HaulingAss]

According to Lars, adds just 25% torsional stiffness just to the bed structure using "both" the rear outside SS and internal (Steel/aluminium?) bed wall. That's it, and it's just in the rear, and just stops it from twisting as much, as predicted, and as per the patent.

Have fun trying to find the rest of the exoskeleton... or stressed skin tube, because their ain't one bud!!

I don't know why I bother, but here is some video cued to show how the front quarter panels are also structural around the front shock towers. They are definitely not just tacked on, rather they form a rigid supporting sub-frame that transfers the forces from the upper cabin/windscreen and passenger safety cage into the aluminum castings.

The construction is actually pretty interesting, there are stamped steel panels bonded directly to the backside of the stainless front quarterpanels and then this assembly is bolted to a stamped steel sub-frame which is attached directly to the castings. Note that this is not spot bonding using flexible rubber adhesives, it is continuous perimeter bonding using high strength structural adhesives to leverage the strength and stiffness of the cold-rolled stainless into the chassis.



So much for the tabs being too small and too few in number to carry structural forces. Just like I guessed, they are perimeter glued with structural adhesives.

You can continue to claim the front quarter panels are not structural all day long, but you will just look more and more foolish because the construction is exposed in the crash tested vehicles, ripped wide open for all to see in the video above.

But no worries, I still don't expect you to admit you were wrong because you will simply move the goalposts again in your dance to always be right.

Sponsored