Another article spreading Cybertruck FUD

[Mini2nut]

This time it‘s about Cybertruck delays due to the weight of the SS skin and battery range…

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Cyber...ess-steel-bodyweight-challenges.759342.0.html

Sponsored

 

[MEDICALJMP]

Read the article. Seems to me less FUD than it is explaining the challenges of putting this revolutionary vehicle into consumers' hands.

My rhetorical question from this article -- which says that there will be no (erroneously) "bulletproof glass." Do they mean no armor glass or can't these professional wordsmiths not get it through their noggins that it never had bulletproof glass, hence it won't come with it? Nobody on this forum knows that answer and we won't until Tesla releases specifications.

 

[TBONO]

I read that article as well. I cannot comment what is real or not real on it but it seems odd that weight is not amongst the top design considerations from the get go
It makes it sound like they’re retroactively trying to take weight out after they got it on the scales and it was fatty fat - doesn’t seem viable

 

[ÆCIII]

He's written a lot of previous articles which I won't bother to read, because he conveniently has No Sources for most of his points in this one.

I don't think his weight FUD points are totally valid either, even though it's always preferable to reduce weight whenever possible. Of course we don't know the actual weight of the BIW or Stainless Steel portions, but I'd estimate the 3mm thickness sections would be roughly equivalent to the area of four each 4 by 8 foot sheets 3mm thick. I know the stainless likely comes in different dimensions from that, but this is just using a familiar representative example of surface area. Actually I think it's a little generous as the CT surface area of 3mm stainless is likely a bit less. But using that surface area for sheet stainless 3mm thick, and a Metal Weight Calculator from TW Metals, we get the following:

https://www.twmetals.com/resources/calculators.html

I don't think 622 lbs is a range killing weight for the stainless steel at all, because any body skin material is going to have to weigh something. Even if the material is reduced to half thickness, that's only 311 lbs of saved weight, which is a tangible difference, but not a major one, considering what the overall weight of the Cybertruck will be. We should remember the skin weight is likely less anyway as the estimates above were being generous.

We also have to consider this is a truck, and the weight will always vary a lot also due to cargo and passengers. Then there's the obvious point that Tesla didn't choose this material and thickness blindly, without already realizing its weight during their initial designs years ago before any of us knew even about it. The article's author attempts to paint Tesla as somehow being naive to basic engineering factors.

I believe Tesla makes up a lot of weight reduction in the castings, and they already knew about the weight of thick stainless and thick Armour Glass years ago while the CT was still in early design phases. The thickness of the side windows seen recently in the sightings at Baja, don't suggest that Tesla has 'abandoned' using thick glass all.

IMO, like the OP noted, this is but another attempt at FUD even though they're trying to include some obvious points to sound credible in the article. I think much of this type FUD will be coming out because they know the Cybertruck is about ready to launch. The competition (both legacy and startups) have more to lose as the Cybertruck scales in production.

- ÆCIII

 

[JBee]

Poorly written article with no base in facts. The CT SS skin weighs around 280kg (600lbs) in 3mm thickness, 185kg (400lbs) in 2mm. It's less than 8% of the likely vehicle mass, and mass has only about a quarter of the drag impact at highway speeds.

 

[cvalue13]

Setting aside the critiques of the article source

The CT SS skin weighs around 280kg (600lbs) in 3mm thickness, 185kg (400lbs) in 2mm. It's less than 8% of the likely vehicle mass, and mass has only about a quarter of the drag impact at highway speeds.

let’s assume the points of weight of stainless and battery/range are presenting challenges

the weight challenge could mean a lot of things, including for example: the mounting methods are proving insufficient to hold the weight of a given panel

meanwhile, if more generally they’re trying to eek max range out of the vehicle, they’d be looking to make it up all over the place, including possibly weight reduction (incremental benefit)

mall-in-all, put differently and ignoring the tone/FUD of the article, shouldn’t surprise anyone that Tesla deals with various challenges in putting together a vehicle like this.

hell, I’d love Tesla to do a post-mortem documentary along the lines of “bringing the CT to life: challenges faced and how they were solved for” - would be an educational watch!

 

[ÆCIII]

...
hell, I’d love Tesla to do a post-mortem documentary along the lines of “bringing the CT to life: challenges faced and how they were solved for” - would be an educational watch!

But the competition doesn't deserve such knowledge for free that Tesla worked so hard for, because they would squander it to slice revenue funds for MSM advertising, dealership organizations, and satisfying union demands for stagnation, instead of simply directing optimum money into the quality of the vehicle. No point in sharing good hard-earned knowledge to a faulty business model that doesn't do right by it.

- ÆCIII

 

[cvalue13]

But the competition doesn't deserve such knowledge for free that Tesla worked so hard for, because they would squander it to slice revenue funds for MSM advertising, dealership organizations, and satisfying union demands for stagnation, instead of simply directing optimum money into the quality of the vehicle. No point in sharing good hard-earned knowledge to a faulty business model that doesn't do right by it.

- ÆCIII

I mean, I guess

seems a stretch to think the interesting problems posed by the CT will be relevant to any OEM that’s not building a stainless steel polygon

then again, isn’t Tesla a humanitarian effort to spread knowledge and the proliferation of efficient electric vehicles? ?

 

[ÆCIII]

I mean, I guess

seems a stretch to think the interesting problems posed by the CT will be relevant to any OEM that’s not building a stainless steel polygon

then again, isn’t Tesla a humanitarian effort to spread knowledge and the proliferation of efficient electric vehicles? ?

I also would like to see such a documentary, don't get me wrong. But legacy auto has been given the shot for decades, and all we get from that is mainly an experience where we walk onto a dealership lot, a smug salesperson in a suit comes out and reminds us that they have the oligopoly control of prices, or that we must accept a continuing 'relationship' with service departments because they need a tap flow from our wallets.

Part of the post was venting I suppose, but there would be a lot in such a documentary series that isn't specific to polygon body structure. Tesla has had to do a lot of internal things to make it work, which would be beneficial in all vehicle types. But I think the best gift is by Example, that inspires competition to 'learn how to fish' instead of just taking shortcuts like fish out of a basket. In some cases, if competition is inspired to accomplish the same complete innovation journey on their own, I think they are actually much better for it.

- ÆCIII

 

[cvalue13]

I also would like to see such a documentary, don't get me wrong.

it’s off topic

didn’t make the comment bc I have any expectation of such a doc

was instead to emphasize that *of course Tesla has challenges building this crazy thing’* - that’s the fun of it

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

He's written a lot of previous articles which I won't bother to read, because he conveniently has No Sources for most of his points in this one.

I don't think his weight FUD points are totally valid either, even though it's always preferable to reduce weight whenever possible. Of course we don't know the actual weight of the BIW or Stainless Steel portions, but I'd estimate the 3mm thickness sections would be roughly equivalent to the area of four each 4 by 8 foot sheets 3mm thick. I know the stainless likely comes in different dimensions from that, but this is just using a familiar representative example of surface area. Actually I think it's a little generous as the CT surface area of 3mm stainless is likely a bit less. But using that surface area for sheet stainless 3mm thick, and a Metal Weight Calculator from TW Metals, we get the following:

https://www.twmetals.com/resources/calculators.html

I don't think 622 lbs is a range killing weight for the stainless steel at all, because any body skin material is going to have to weigh something. Even if the material is reduced to half thickness, that's only 311 lbs of saved weight, which is a tangible difference, but not a major one, considering what the overall weight of the Cybertruck will be. We should remember the skin weight is likely less anyway as the estimates above were being generous.

We also have to consider this is a truck, and the weight will always vary a lot also due to cargo and passengers. Then there's the obvious point that Tesla didn't choose this material and thickness blindly, without already realizing its weight during their initial designs years ago before any of us knew even about it. The article's author attempts to paint Tesla as somehow being naive to basic engineering factors.

I believe Tesla makes up a lot of weight reduction in the castings, and they already knew about the weight of thick stainless and thick Armour Glass years ago while the CT was still in early design phases. The thickness of the side windows seen recently in the sightings at Baja, don't suggest that Tesla has 'abandoned' using thick glass all.

IMO, like the OP noted, this is but another attempt at FUD even though they're trying to include some obvious points to sound credible in the article. I think much of this type FUD will be coming out because they know the Cybertruck is about ready to launch. The competition (both legacy and startups) have more to lose as the Cybertruck scales in production.

- ÆCIII

'CYBERTRUCK STORY OF THE CENTURY'
'C'est AMOUR'
Is it love or obsession?

 

[PilotPete]

'CYBERTRUCK STORY OF THE CENTURY'
'C'est AMOUR'
Is it love or obsession?

Is there a difference?

 

[EVSport7]

Notebookcheck.net is my AI written news article of choice. I give it 3 thumbs up every time

 

[JBee]

Setting aside the critiques of the article source




let’s assume the points of weight of stainless and battery/range are presenting challenges

the weight challenge could mean a lot of things, including for example: the mounting methods are proving insufficient to hold the weight of a given panel

meanwhile, if more generally they’re trying to eek max range out of the vehicle, they’d be looking to make it up all over the place, including possibly weight reduction (incremental benefit)

mall-in-all, put differently and ignoring the tone/FUD of the article, shouldn’t surprise anyone that Tesla deals with various challenges in putting together a vehicle like this.

hell, I’d love Tesla to do a post-mortem documentary along the lines of “bringing the CT to life: challenges faced and how they were solved for” - would be an educational watch!

Yeah the article is barely worth the byte it's written on.

I have often pondered "if" the SS exterior makes sense for a production vehicle.

Although I agree with the no part is the best part mantra, it's always dependant on the resulting features, and understanding if they are relevant to the product or not.

For example making the CT SS body "bulletproof" but not the glass, is not really that useful overall for making an armoured vehicle, whereas making a paintless durable exterior covering is. Now 1-1.5mm thickness will likely be just as durable as 3mm thickness in 95% of impacts, at some point 3mm will only be useful if the underlying structure can also support the impact.

This only demonstrates the amount of compromise that is required to optimise the design to the point that it still retains the "right" amount of feature for the amount of resource used to make the part.

This applies to the manufacturing process as well as to the product itself though, especially in high capex and very automated manufacturing.Deleting a paint shop in the manufacturing process, even if you produce a somewhat heavier project, but at lower overall cost per unit, is of course a no brainer, regardless of if the range is reduced.

In this context range must also under go a sensitivity analysis, in that it is also a function of battery capacity. If you have cheap battery production, you essentially can use that to more than offset the range deficit by using the savings of the paintshop, and still end up with a cheaper, higher performing product.

It sounds silly, but the paint alone, of around 2 gallons plus primer and clear coat, will cost more ($1k) than the SS panels of the CT costing $900 just for materials alone. Given that paint is not structural in any way for crash or impact protection and ingress, it's a no brainer which way this compromise falls.

Now if they had pulled off a real full exoskeleton structure, it would of really knocked the competition out of the park. I expect that the "next-gen" vehicle will accomplish more of this, by not conforming to a common vehicle class, rather by making a class of it's own to avoid the pitfalls of irrelevant features, in a effort to maximise the parts it has for the intended task.

Sponsored