Deleted member 20282

Guest
I don’t see the CT getting that over the Lightning. Since lightning and f150 have a lot of common ecosystem components. Salt spreaders, toolboxes, transfer tanks, bed lockers, ladder racks, glass carriers, etc. lots of random shit will just work on Lightning. Don’t think it was smart to try to reinvent the truck.
Sponsored

 

Coolbreeze704

Well-known member
First Name
Bruce
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Threads
15
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
3,726
Location
Troutman,NC
Vehicles
2022 Model Y, 23 Lightning, CyberTruck (someday)
Occupation
GM Manufactured Homes
Country flag
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.
Tesla Cybertruck Confirmed: 11,000 lbs tow rating / 2,500 lbs payload capacity (official specs)! + Shatter-resistant glass kondus_nGkcS3yy (1)
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,122
Reaction score
13,701
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
🤣exactly, it is simultaneously an exoskeleton in exactly two ways Tesla has described, and also not an exoskeleton that contributes to the operational load-bearing structure of the vehicle (in the third way Tesla has also described)

which is JUST the sort of nuance that is the stuff of Internet forum debate
 

Mini2nut

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Threads
83
Messages
2,026
Reaction score
3,844
Location
CA
Vehicles
2019 Tacoma TRD Pro
Country flag
Similar to “Beast mode” and “Ludicrous” the term exoskeleton is more of a marketing term than anything else. Nobody does marketing better than Mr. Musk.

I predict that next Thursday’s event will include demos of the “shatter resistant” side glass and the “ultra tough” SMC truck bed. Tesla’s engineers have had 4-years to perfect the glass formula.

Tesla Cybertruck Confirmed: 11,000 lbs tow rating / 2,500 lbs payload capacity (official specs)! + Shatter-resistant glass B63773CA-C735-43C1-A13B-BA270F251A57
 
Last edited:


Kahpernicus

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2023
Threads
5
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
1,919
Location
Florida
Vehicles
Tacoma
Country flag


• 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

Why are you removing the glass from the exo components?

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

also:

EXOSKELETON
Cybertruck is built with an exterior shell made for ultimate durability and passenger protection. Starting with a nearly impenetrable exoskeleton, every component is designed for superior strength and endurance, from Ultra-Hard 30X Cold-Rolled stainless-steel structural skin to Tesla armor glass.
They consider it part of the exo system.
 

teslamaniac

Active member
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Threads
0
Messages
31
Reaction score
37
Location
Utah
Vehicles
Honda CR-V
Country flag
For comparison:

F150 Lightning– 10,000lb max tow capacity, 2235lb payload
Rivian R1T- 11,000lb may tow capacity, 1764lb payload
Silverado EV WT- 10,000lb max tow capacity, 1400lb payload
For another comparison:
2025 Ramcharger -
payload capacity: 2625 lbs.
towing capacity: 14,000 lbs.

Range (with range extender): 690 miles
Horsepower: 663
Torque: 615 ft.-lbs.

And, as a bonus, it has locking cargo compartments on the outsides of the left and right bed walls.

I hope Cybertruck can keep up with its competition.

(And BTW, shatter-proof glass is mandatory in all US automobiles and has been for ages.)
 

Bill837

Well-known member
First Name
Bill
Joined
Sep 21, 2023
Threads
5
Messages
248
Reaction score
521
Location
Southern Maryland
Vehicles
2020 Z4, 2015 Cherokee Trailhawk, 2008 R1200RT
Occupation
Aviation Weapons/Systems
Country flag
For another comparison:
2025 Ramcharger -
payload capacity: 2625 lbs.
towing capacity: 14,000 lbs.

Range (with range extender): 690 miles
Horsepower: 663
Torque: 615 ft.-lbs.

And, as a bonus, it has locking cargo compartments on the outsides of the left and right bed walls.

I hope Cybertruck can keep up with its competition.

(And BTW, shatter-proof glass is mandatory in all US automobiles and has been for ages.)
The thing about the Ram is at what cost in money and weight all of that comes. You are paying for a pretty large battery, and a gas engine to boot.
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,122
Reaction score
13,701
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
Why are you removing the glass from the exo components?

The glass roofs are one of the main stiffeners in tesla vehicles.
I’m removing it only from the discussion around the 3mm SS panels, and their specific role in any of the various senses of “exoskeleton” and “structural”


At the same time, having glass designed to and inserted *within* the frame of a vehicle as additional structural support is neither novel nor very interesting - eg, across all modern vehicles Tesla or otherwise the windshield in a front end collision provides up to 45% of the structural integrity of the cabin of the vehicle and in a rollover, up to 60%. Glass roofs, Tesla or other, the same.

And this is in part because the glass itself is inserted “into” the load paths of the frame, designed to mate within the load path of the frame, like a brace. The glass itself becomes the load path. (Similar deal for the ‘structural pack’ underneath).

Put differently, when it comes to both ingress protection structure and operational load-bearing structure, the glass of all modern vehicles performs the same “exoskeleton” function as in the Cybertruck (setting aside whether the CT incorporates ‘more’ or ‘stronger’ glass).



Which, in other words, is why the Tesla patent for the “exoskeleton” vehicle doesn’t include any discussion of glass. (And the separate Tesla patent for the windshield is a design and manufacturing process patent - which never uses the word ‘exoskeleton.’)
 

CHC

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Threads
23
Messages
195
Reaction score
745
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicles
F150, Model X
Country flag
I heard from an insider today that the pack will be 122kw (unsure if usable or total), unconfirmed EPA range would be about 305 tri (on A/Ts) and 340 dual (with road tires). Take that with a grain of salt. @JBee
 


Deleted member 20282

Guest
For another comparison:
2025 Ramcharger -
payload capacity: 2625 lbs.
towing capacity: 14,000 lbs.

Range (with range extender): 690 miles
Horsepower: 663
Torque: 615 ft.-lbs.

And, as a bonus, it has locking cargo compartments on the outsides of the left and right bed walls.

I hope Cybertruck can keep up with its competition.

(And BTW, shatter-proof glass is mandatory in all US automobiles and has been for ages.)
The ram charger is an interesting approach to range anxiety and towing capability.

It’s one of the draws to Edison motors as an BEV Semi alternative too. Other than being impressed by what a team so small has built, I like the approach as it allows 100% uptime with a massive reduction in emissions and fuel consumption. But it also supports retrofit possibilities, which I think is a great approach to adoption without forcing truckers to buy all new trucks.
 

thefozz

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Threads
0
Messages
5
Reaction score
14
Location
Ontario, Canada
Vehicles
Tesla Model 3
Country flag
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.
@cvalue13 Thank you for distilling all that patent language down into something that makes sense!
 

Chip Geek

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Threads
1
Messages
61
Reaction score
135
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Vehicles
Chevy Volt [CT3] On order: Tesla MS-LR
Country flag
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
Sponsored

 
 




Top