Cybertruck Engineering Innovations - Great Summary

[MiguelAznar]

I could have lived without the rear steering. Save the price and complexity. Or make it an optional model.

How would AP and FSD handle two different steering models? Would it require separate development so that neither model gets as much training data?

Sponsored

 

[Mini2nut]

I found it interesting how they “air bend“ the SS panels to avoid causing cosmetic damage to the SS.

In an interview Tesla execs said the panel is laid over an air hockey type of production machinery. I would love to see the process in action.

 

[Gurule92]

I found it interesting how they bend the SS panels. In an interview Tesla said the panel is laid over an air hockey type of production machinery. I would love to see the process in action.

"airbending"

 

[cvalue13]

Bidirectional charging - Tesla calls this Powershare, the on-board plugs can output 9.6 kW (same as F-150 Lightning), and will also support up to 11.5 kW of power output for V2H to power your home. This will require a Powerwall. Similar to F-150 Lightning Intelligent Backup but with higher total output and less integration equipment required (provided you have a Powerwall). It's unknown whether Tesla will allow the Cybertruck to operate in V2G mode with Autobidder software and sell power back to the grid when it's profitable. If this were possible you could make hundreds of dollars per month, since the Cybertruck has the capacity of 9x Powerwalls.

i enjoyed the list generally, but take some exception to this entry

that Tesla is doing this while requiring a powerwall seems not a step forward, but a step back, compared to the Lightning

the Lightning can be used to power a home, yes ‘autimatically’ with the Ford Charge Station Pro - but also / instead using the same sort of genny-plug setup one would use with a generator. (Sure, it’s not quite as ‘automatic’ as the FCSP, but since the car has to be both home AND plugged in, the notion of ‘automatic’ is a bit empty to me.)

Meanwhile, right around the corner from now are a few 3rd party companies bringing some pretty cool and cost effective V2H/V2G systems to market that will be game-changers.

Meanwhile, with Tesla my suspicion is the truck may not play so nice with a basic genny-plug set up, or these 3rd parry systems.

Which is all to ask: what exactly about the Tesla system is so ground braking? I’m maybe just missing something

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

i enjoyed the list generally, but take some exception to this entry

that Tesla is doing this while requiring a powerwall seems not a step forward, but a step back, compared to the Lightning

the Lightning can be used to power a home, yes ‘autimatically’ with the Ford Charge Station Pro - but also / instead using the same sort of genny-plug setup one would use with a generator. (Sure, it’s not quite as ‘automatic’ as the FCSP, but since the car has to be both home AND plugged in, the notion of ‘automatic’ is a bit empty to me.)

Meanwhile, right around the corner from now are a few 3rd party companies bringing some pretty cool and cost effective V2H/V2G systems to market that will be game-changers.

Meanwhile, with Tesla my suspicion is the truck may not play so nice with a basic genny-plug set up, or these 3rd parry systems.

Which is all to ask: what exactly about the Tesla system is so ground braking? I’m maybe just missing something

Drew says Powerwall NOT required.....that there is a small cost saving.
Optionally, Tesla's Universal Wall Connector ($595) and Gateway ($1800)

 

[CyberCowboy]

I found it interesting how they bend the SS panels. In an interview Tesla said the panel is laid over an air hockey type of production machinery. I would love to see the process in action.

I too, would love to see the process in action! Please let me know if you find anything relevanT!!!

 

[cvalue13]

Drew says Powerwall NOT required.....that there is a small cost saving.
Optionally, Tesla's Universal Wall Connector ($595) and Gateway ($1800)

cool, if that’s the case then back to ~even with other options out there (or soon to be), and curious if Tesla will play nice with them

 

[RandyS]

Drew says Powerwall NOT required.....that there is a small cost saving.
Optionally, Tesla's Universal Wall Connector ($595) and Gateway ($1800)

I learned a lot by reading Drew Baglino's Twitter postings...I hadn't thought about this before, but the NEMA 14-50 receptacle on the truck is powered at 240v with two hot conductors, but per charging standards there is no neutral or center tap that would allow 120v as well from that feed. Therefore, the Tesla truck output can't directly connect to your home panel that contains both 240v and 120v loads. That's why you need the additional equipment on the house side...

Because I am interested in a "vehicle-to-extension cord" backup solution, I tweeted Drew (with no response yet) on what the 120v receptacle max ratings are and whether the two are fed independently or whether there is (for example) just 15 amps available for both simultaneously...

 

[Crissa]

I learned a lot by reading Drew Baglino's Twitter postings...I hadn't thought about this before, but the NEMA 14-50 receptacle on the truck is powered at 240v with two hot conductors, but per charging standards there is no neutral...

What charging standards apply to the 14-50 in the bed? Why would you give a 14-50 and violate the NEMA standard and have a blank neutral?

This definitely has a neutral pin.

You need a gateway because houses aren't designed to be powered with just 50 amps. (Well, most houses. The little red cabin by the beach my spouse lived in when we became partners had two 20a circuits for the whole house... it had been built in 1887 and still had (disconnected) edison style wiring in the attic).

Now, just using the NACS connector clearly will need a transformer to step down the voltage to break the two phases to use in the house, but that doesn't stop the truck's 14-50 from having its own.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Look at that, right from the mouth of the lead engineer. The body panels are so strong they are actually carrying structural load! How is that possible? What about the load paths?

Who would have thunk?

Dude I've been chasing you all around the forum about this and you just ignore me!

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!!

 

[HaulingAss]

Dude I've been chasing you all around the forum about this and you just ignore me!

Huh? That's pretty funny. I don't read the entire forum, I do try to keep up on direct replies and will reply to any post worth replying to.

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.

Wow! That's great to get it straight from Lars' mouth! This is the main problem with 1/2-ton trucks that have a ladder frame and no exoskeleton, they turn into flexy flyers when towing heavy loads.

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

Huh? The entire chassis and passenger compartment (including the glass) is part of the exoskeleton, it's unibody construction, not body on frame. That glass would break if the frame was not torsionally rigid. This is what you have failed to grasp all along while denying that exoskeleton should apply. Now that the cat is out of the bag, you are trying to twist it around and pretend like the truth on the ground is what you have been saying all along. Which is of course false.

What I would like to know is why the engineers at Tesla are wrong to term the Cybertruck's structure as "exoskeleton" and why you know more about how it works than the people who engineered (and named) the structure to begin with?

That 25% more torsional stiffness is huge when held up next to the GVWR because the Cybertruck's 2500 lbs. payload capacity is only about 27% of it's GVWR. Of course there are the additional complications of dynamic loading, etc. but this does show in a back of the napkin way how the Cybertruck would be crippled as a vehicle without the structural skin.

Your argument was that the skin was not structural except in a crash. And it looks like you still fail to appreciate how the skin becomes load bearing when it resists torsional forces.

It's just as I predicted, when the actual engineering was revealed, you would pretend you were correct all along. The key word here is "exoskeleton". Yes, Cybertruck has a structural exoskeleton, F-150, Ford Lightning, Ram and Silverado/Sierra do not.

 

[JBee]

Huh? That's pretty funny. I don't read the entire forum, I do try to keep up on direct replies and will reply to any post worth replying to.



Wow! That's great to get it straight from Lars' mouth! This is the main problem with 1/2-ton trucks that have a ladder frame and no exoskeleton, they turn into flexy flyers when towing heavy loads.



Huh? The entire chassis and passenger compartment (including the glass) is part of the exoskeleton, it's unibody construction, not body on frame. That glass would break if the frame was not torsionally rigid. This is what you have failed to grasp all along while denying that exoskeleton should apply. Now that the cat is out of the bag, you are trying to twist it around and pretend like the truth on the ground is what you have been saying all along. Which is of course false.

What I would like to know is why the engineers at Tesla are wrong to term the Cybertruck's structure as "exoskeleton" and why you know more about how it works than the people who engineered (and named) the structure to begin with?

That 25% more torsional stiffness is huge when held up next to the GVWR because the Cybertruck's 2500 lbs. payload capacity is only about 27% of it's GVWR. Of course there are the additional complications of dynamic loading, etc. but this does show in a back of the napkin way how the Cybertruck would be crippled as a vehicle without the structural skin.

Your argument was that the skin was not structural except in a crash. And it looks like you still fail to appreciate how the skin becomes load bearing when it resists torsional forces.

It's just as I predicted, when the actual engineering was revealed, you would pretend you were correct all along. The key word here is "exoskeleton". Yes, Cybertruck has a structural exoskeleton, F-150, Ford Lightning, Ram and Silverado/Sierra do not.

It's not 25% more, it's 25% of the total torsional "bed" stiffness. That means 75% is NOT from the double skin bolted to the rear sail cast.

Not the whole vehicle.

But feel free to make up whatever you want, I at least brought you "some number" you are still just bringing fluffy pillow talk. I know you can't stop being the exoskeleton whisperer, but at some point you'll need to put this to bed.

How bout them prices though huh? lol

 

[HaulingAss]

It's not 25% more, it's 25% of the total torsional "bed" stiffness. That means 75% is NOT from the double skin bolted to the rear sail cast.

Not the whole vehicle.

But feel free to make up whatever you want, I at least brought you "some number" you are still just bringing fluffy pillow talk. I know you can't stop being the exoskeleton whisperer, but at some point you'll need to put this to bed.

How bout them prices though huh? lol

I was 100% wrong on the prices (as I've already admitted).

The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to just admit it when I'm wrong while you twist logic to try to say you were right all along. Just as I predicted, you would not admit it when you were proven wrong. Why am I not surprised?

 

[JBee]

I was 100% wrong on the prices (as I've already admitted).

The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to just admit it when I'm wrong while you twist logic to try to say you were right all along. Just as I predicted, you would not admit it when you were proven wrong. Why am I not surprised?

I have a few threads of discussion where I've said what parts are actually "exo".

The rear fender is the only one I said it might have some "meaningful" ss skin contribution to torsional stiffness. Which btw is not the same as payload carrying, as this only occurs at full wheel articulation.

Sponsored