Update from Elon: Cybertruck production starting late 2022 and volume production in 2023

[Crissa]

The model y is doing the same exoskeleton concept with 1mm steel.

No, the Model Y is a standard unibody. It has a structural battery pack which is new, but that just means strength runs through the cells rather than steel bars.

-Crissa

Sponsored

 

[anionic1]

No, the Model Y is a standard unibody. It has a structural battery pack which is new, but that just means strength runs through the cells rather than steel bars.

-Crissa

Exoskeleton is just a fancy way to say unibody. Munro did a pretty good breakdown of this. The Model Y and CT use the same structural concept. Structural battery pack with upper and lower steel diaphragm acts as a giant torsion plate connected to front and rear casting connected to a body frame with components that may or may not be load bearing. Both vehicles use an extremely similar engineering process to distribute the load. The CT is even shaped more car like with the sail pillars to accomplish it.

With the structural pack and castings and body it’s not a true unibody design it really should have a new name for it as its unique. It’s really a composite unibody.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

The model y is doing the same exoskeleton concept with 1mm steel.

Ummm….. no, no it’s not.
Model Y is a modified unibody,
Cybertruck is modified a monocoque

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Exoskeleton is just a fancy way to say unibody. Munro did a pretty good breakdown of this. The Model Y and CT use the same structural concept. Structural battery pack with upper and lower steel diaphragm acts as a giant torsion plate connected to front and rear casting connected to a body frame with components that may or may not be load bearing. Both vehicles use an extremely similar engineering process to distribute the load. The CT is even shaped more car like with the sail pillars to accomplish it.

With the structural pack and castings and body it’s not a true unibody design it really should have a new name for it as its unique. It’s really a composite unibody.

No, they are different.
Hence the different name.

Have you been involved in the engineering process of Cybertruck?

Please do tell us more about how Tesla is solving the new challenges presented by a construction technique that has never been used in a production vehicle.

How are they integrating the structural battery pack, die cast front and rear motor modules with the structural body of the exoskeleton/monocoque?

Can you explain the connection techniques for joining the dissimilar metals?

 

[Crissa]

Unibody is a meaning. It means the body moves as one.

Exoskeleton has a meaning. It means the strength is in the outer skin.

Monocoque has a meaning. It means the chassis and frame are one, with the strength in the outside.

Each at just slightly different definitions than the other. One can be all three, or just two, and maybe just one. A unibody can have non structural plastic body panels but a frame that encompasses the body. An exoskeleton could merely be a frame on the outside, and not actually have a stressed skin. Or it could have a stressed skin but not move as one, like a unibody...

Definitions are annoying sometimes; they're clouds of features and not everyone uses the same exact cloud, or same weighting of the features in the cloud...

Anyhow. You guys are arguing past each other. I don't think the Model Y uses a stressed skin, so it can't technically be a monocoque. But you could make an exoskeleton with thinner metal than the 3mm - if would just be weaker, though.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

The Honda Ridgeline does just fine as a unibody design with 1mm steel. The 3mm stainless steel is a wow factor to get to bullet proof level. They hope the fabrication will be simpler and not having to paint it will save cost but I am extremely doubtful.

The structural battery is supposed to save weight and the model y does that without 3mm stainless. That exoskeleton is surely partly why Elon said they are struggling to get the cost where it needs to be. That exoskeleton is 6x the cost of a steel body. Stainless is twice the cost and its 3x as heavy in 3mm. It has to be thicker to avoid oil canning of flat steel. During the stamping and rounding process of typical bodies a lot of strength is added to 1mm steel so it doesn’t oil can. They could go thinner on the stainless and add more internal framing, but then it losses it’s bulletproof title.

Ridgeline can’t haul 3500 pounds or tow 14,000 pounds. Also, you seem to be confusing the skin of the Ridgeline for the body. It has a 1mm outside skin. It also has a structural body inside which supports the weight. The Tesla replaces both of these with the exoskeleton.

Mostly though, you are looking at a huge difference in capability. If you wanted a Cybertruck with 5000 pounds of towing capacity, they wouldn’t need 3mm stainless.

 

[LDRHAWKE]

Ridgeline can’t haul 3500 pounds or tow 14,000 pounds. Also, you seem to be confusing the skin of the Ridgeline for the body. It has a 1mm outside skin. It also has a structural body inside which supports the weight. The Tesla replaces both of these with the exoskeleton.

Mostly though, you are looking at a huge difference in capability. If you wanted a Cybertruck with 5000 pounds of towing capacity, they wouldn’t need 3mm stainless.

i believe the new Cybertruck, with newly designed front and rear castings, will be more like this with the stainless body sitting on top. The body will structuraly strengthen it, but it is no longer the exoskeleton concept initially described if Tesla goes this way. It also solves a lot of the stainless steel to aluminum galvanic corrosion connection issues bolting the aluminum castings to a stainless steel exoskeleton. I could be wrong.

 

[Crissa]

Tho, to be honest, the Ridgeline isn't sold as a heavier-duty truck, so its cargo limit is probably more for cost than out of design limits. 1500 payload, 5000 towing. The Ford Ranger is similar in capabilities being under 1800/3500, respectively, but less wide.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

Tho, to be honest, the Ridgeline isn't sold as a heavier-duty truck, so its cargo limit is probably more for cost than out of design limits. 1500 payload, 5000 towing. The Ford Ranger is similar in capabilities being under 1800/3500, respectively.

-Crissa

The goal of the Cybertruck was the F-150. Pointing at a truck with much less capacity and saying “Look how much lighter this frame is then the Cybertruck’s frame” is entirely pointless.

You have to compare like to like. That means you are comparing the F-150 with it’s extremely heavy ladder frame to the Cybertruck, not comparing the Ridgeline with it’s crossover SUV body to it.

Those big tubes the F-150 sits on are more like 5mm thick. You have to have this frame underneath the body. That’s what is getting replaced. Not the lightweight Ridgeline body.

 

[Crissa]

The goal of the Cybertruck was the F-150. Pointing at a truck with much less capacity and saying “Look how much lighter this frame is then the Cybertruck’s frame” is entirely pointless.

You have to compare like to like. That means you are comparing the F-150 with it’s extremely heavy ladder frame to the Cybertruck, not comparing the Ridgeline with it’s crossover SUV body to it.

Yes, but the Ridgeline easily meets or beats the ladder frame trucks in its class, which I think is the point. It's not an F150 competitor that fails to match up.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

Yes, but the Ridgeline easily meets or beats the ladder frame trucks in its class, which I think is the point,

-Crissa

Maybe if there were an example truck which is in the same class as the Cybertruck which was super light we could compare it?

I just think we are talking tangerines to grapefruit here. They are similar looking but completely different beasts.

 

[Crissa]

It's just an example that exists that says, 'this isn't impossible' at least from the basic napkin test.

-Crissa

 

[Ogre]

Curious thought.

There is demand for a smaller Tesla truck. There is demand for a more traditional truck from Tesla.

Be interesting to see Tesla do a more traditional looking small truck. Without the need to pull ridiculous loads, they could push the truck in the opposite direction. Like a much more capable Maverick.

 

[Deleted member 3316]

Curious thought.

There is demand for a smaller Tesla truck. There is demand for a more traditional truck from Tesla.

Be interesting to see Tesla do a more traditional looking small truck. Without the need to pull ridiculous loads, they could push the truck in the opposite direction. Like a much more capable Maverick.

If Cybertruck is successful, I highly doubt Tesla would consider changing the design philosophy. I doubt going slightly smaller would negate the benefits of the exoskeleton/structural battery/die cast front rear….

 

[rr6013]

i believe the new Cybertruck, with newly designed front and rear castings, will be more like this with the stainless body sitting on top. The body will structuraly strengthen it, but it is no longer the exoskeleton concept initially described if Tesla goes this way. It also solves a lot of the stainless steel to aluminum galvanic corrosion connection issues bolting the aluminum castings to a stainless steel exoskeleton. I could be wrong.

Careful not to conflate body-on-frame == exoskeleton-on-platform.

IDK what to expect exiting GigaAUSTIN. First principles, car motors would be a shocker, car platform a stunner and if exoskeleton is no longer structural, that’s a showstopper.

All running gear are attached to the structural battery castings which are then mechanically integrated to the exoskeleton framework. This becomes one structural assembly fully integrated with shock towers landing at its terminus end supports.

CT structural batterypack completes the floor of the exoskeleton and castings provide terminal end mounts for the shock towers above.
edit: image structBatt

Sponsored