Cybertruck engineers bend upper control arm in testing

[Mini2nut]

The Tacoma TRD Pro OEM upper A arms look substantial. Toyota even went to far as to emboss the TRD logo and paint them red.

Sponsored

 

[cvalue13]

If we’re collecting, the Raptor’s forged steel and TRX’s aluminum uppers

the welded steel wishbones are found on normal F150s

of course, at normal F150 prices

 

[Crissa]

I think it's an optical illusion because the cylinder in the background is so much thicker.

If I recall what Munro said was something like, 'we haven't seen anything this substantial on a factory vehicle'

I don't actually know anything about the part, just that no one here has actually taken calipers to it or knows what the metal is.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

I think it's an optical illusion because the cylinder in the background is so much thicker.

If I recall what Munro said was something like, 'we haven't seen anything this substantial on a factory vehicle'

I don't actually know anything about the part, just that no one here has actually taken calipers to it or knows what the metal is.

-Crissa

Is it your claim that Tesla engineers actually engineered this part to a standard they felt would perform admirably under rugged usage?

Oh, wait, yeah, that would make sense, wouldn't it.

I can always get a good kick out of the armchair quarterbacks here that, without knowing the grade or thickness of the metal, or the design parameters, can tell better than the engineers who built and tested it, that they screwed up, just by looking at a photo. If we let people like this engineer the Cybertruck, we would be in a world of hurt.

Always worth a good chuckle.

 

[PilotPete]

Is it your claim that Tesla engineers actually engineered this part to a standard they felt would perform admirably under rugged usage?

Oh, wait, yeah, that would make sense, wouldn't it.

I can always get a good kick out of the armchair quarterbacks here that, without knowing the grade or thickness of the metal, or the design parameters, can tell better than the engineers who built and tested it, that they screwed up, just by looking at a photo. If we let people like this engineer the Cybertruck, we would be in a world of hurt.

Always worth a good chuckle.

In an aircraft's flight manual, there is a chart that tells you under different conditions, how much runway you need to land. This chart is very detailed, to the point where they list "standing water" like during a heavy rain. There are differences between 0.1" and 0.2" of standing water. Now, when you're approaching the airport, no one tells you how much standing water there might be, if at all. So how can you tell the difference between 0.1" and 0.2" of standing water? For the FAA it's real easy. If you stop on the runway, you got it right. If you slide off the end of the runway, then they write you up because you got it wrong.

Kinda like some of the armchair QBs here...

 

[Newton]

IMO its bent, are we still arguing that? the design at the end is pretty bad.
the control arms on my old 89 yota pickup look beefier and better designed than this.
perhaps tesla opted for the lower end of the "whats necessary" scale when engineering this. (probably to save money)

 

[HaulingAss]

IMO its bent, are we still arguing that? the design at the end is pretty bad.
the control arms on my old 89 yota pickup look beefier and better designed than this.
perhaps tesla opted for the lower end of the "whats necessary" scale when engineering this. (probably to save money)

People have a misunderstanding regarding which direction the upper control arm is loaded when driving over rugged terrain with maximum load. The upper control arm is extremely beefy in that direction (but you can't easily tell, because of the direction of the line of sight of the photo). Armchair quarterbacks are also uninformed about the grade and thickness of the metal.

When it comes to whether there is damage to one of the prototypes, the armchair quarterbacks are ignorant as to:

1) Whether it's actually damaged or an optical illusion.
2) If it's damaged whether it's due to normal operating conditions or purposeful destructive testing.
3) If it's actually damaged, whether that was due to a large rock or limb wedged in there at speed or happened organically.
4) Whether the upper control arm is a production intent control arm or a lighter one designed to identify potential weaknesses in the design of the production intent version. You can learn a lot, very quickly, by breaking things, that's how SpaceX learned to land rockets in record time.

The upper control arm must withstand the maximum forces realized during peak loads while driving, any strength beyond that actually reduces performance of the suspension by increasing mass and momentum. The peak primary forces incurred by the upper control arm happen in a plane that is roughly parallel to the ground, not in a vertical direction, a fact missed by most non-engineers.

Good engineering understands not only the magnitude of the forces, but also the directions those forces are applied. The beefy (looking) tubular control arm that an armchair engineer previously posted a picture of demonstrates a complete lack of engineering, because it's strength does not contemplate the direction of force, it's engineered using back of the napkin guestimation and is not optimized for the actual useage.

Tesla engineers are the most skilled in the auto industry, they have engineers that are fully adept at doing complex engineering in all dimensions and knowing how to validate that engineering in the real world. In short, a dweeb in his chair, looking at a photo, doesn't know shit compared to the most skilled engineers in the industry. Tesla has been getting their pick of engineers from the best engineering schools in the world for many years now. These engineers have a lot of fun breaking things in the lab and in the real world, Tesla encourages it. Tesla also has the best materials scientists; it wouldn't surprise me to learn that control arm is made from superior materials for that application. A photo cannot tell you what it's made of or whether that is the production intent control arm.

Sure, a Ford, GMC or Ram truck is going to have control arms that probably won't be damaged in normal use either, because they rarely change their designs more than incrementally and their designs are proven by millions of users. A Tesla is going to have control arms that probably won't be damaged in normal use because they are well engineered and validated with destructive testing in the real worlld, and in the lab. If they are wrong, they have a hell of a recall on their hands. If you want a car to drive like a Ford or a GMC, then buy a car with "good enough" engineering, if you want a car to drive like a Tesla, then buy a car with superior engineering, engineering that is designed to not only not fail, but also to optimize the driving dynamics by being tuned for the force vectors it is actually subject to, with a margin of safety designed in.

What a neophyte engineer shouldn't do is look at an Internet photo, and without knowing any of the details, think they know more than the knowedge gained through the entire design process, using the best engineers in the industry.

Tesla engineering, like all engineering departments on the planet, is not perfect, but it's better by more than a factor of 100, compared to an idiot in an armchair looking at a photo. And if Tesla gets it wrong, they have a very expensive recall on their hands that cannot be fixed with an over-the-air update. While no manufacturer is immune to recalls, Tesla has a long history of fewer physical recalls than legacy makers with over a century of experience engineering cars. It turns out, legacy autos century of experience is a net negative in a modern world with revolutionary engineering and design tools, and knowledge that travels at the speed of light. Fewer recalls equal higher profits. If you want to armchair quarterback, the grass is a lot greener over at Ford and GM.

So, to all of those who have acted like they know more about the design of the rolling chassis of a vehicle than Tesla engineers, let's stop it with the ridiculous demonstrations of ignorance and poor analysis without any tools at one's disposal, except for a photo of something you know nothing about. It's like the comedy club, especially when I see how many easily fall victim to such a ridiculous narritive, unsupported by any credible facts. It makes me worry for the future of humanity.

 

[Crissa]

In an aircraft's flight manual, there is a chart that tells you under different conditions, how much runway you need to land. This chart is very detailed, to the point where they list "standing water" like during a heavy rain. There are differences between 0.1" and 0.2" of standing water. Now, when you're approaching the airport, no one tells you how much standing water there might be, if at all. So how can you tell the difference between 0.1" and 0.2" of standing water? For the FAA it's real easy. If you stop on the runway, you got it right. If you slide off the end of the runway, then they write you up because you got it wrong.

Kinda like some of the armchair QBs here...

You are allowed to ask the field/tower for that information, ya know.

I'm just amazed pilots manage getting us out of the air in those conditions whenever I fly. So much information to deal with.

-Crissa

(Also the student pilot I roomed with back in university was the worst at X-Wing which amused me greatly)

 

[Newton]

People have a misunderstanding regarding which direction the upper control arm is loaded when driving over rugged terrain with maximum load. The upper control arm is extremely beefy in that direction (but you can't easily tell, because of the direction of the line of sight of the photo). Armchair quarterbacks are also uninformed about the grade and thickness of the metal.

When it comes to whether there is damage to one of the prototypes, the armchair quarterbacks are ignorant as to:

1) Whether it's actually damaged or an optical illusion.
2) If it's damaged whether it's due to normal operating conditions or purposeful destructive testing.
3) If it's actually damaged, whether that was due to a large rock or limb wedged in there at speed or happened organically.
4) Whether the upper control arm is a production intent control arm or a lighter one designed to identify potential weaknesses in the design of the production intent version. You can learn a lot, very quickly, by breaking things, that's how SpaceX learned to land rockets in record time.

The upper control arm must withstand the maximum forces realized during peak loads while driving, any strength beyond that actually reduces performance of the suspension by increasing mass and momentum. The peak primary forces incurred by the upper control arm happen in a plane that is roughly parallel to the ground, not in a vertical direction, a fact missed by most non-engineers.

Good engineering understands not only the magnitude of the forces, but also the directions those forces are applied. The beefy (looking) tubular control arm that an armchair engineer previously posted a picture of demonstrates a complete lack of engineering, because it's strength does not contemplate the direction of force, it's engineered using back of the napkin guestimation and is not optimized for the actual useage.

Tesla engineers are the most skilled in the auto industry, they have engineers that are fully adept at doing complex engineering in all dimensions and knowing how to validate that engineering in the real world. In short, a dweeb in his chair, looking at a photo, doesn't know shit compared to the most skilled engineers in the industry. Tesla has been getting their pick of engineers from the best engineering schools in the world for many years now. These engineers have a lot of fun breaking things in the lab and in the real world, Tesla encourages it. Tesla also has the best materials scientists; it wouldn't surprise me to learn that control arm is made from superior materials for that application. A photo cannot tell you what it's made of or whether that is the production intent control arm.

Sure, a Ford, GMC or Ram truck is going to have control arms that probably won't be damaged in normal use either, because they rarely change their designs more than incrementally and their designs are proven by millions of users. A Tesla is going to have control arms that probably won't be damaged in normal use because they are well engineered and validated with destructive testing in the real worlld, and in the lab. If they are wrong, they have a hell of a recall on their hands. If you want a car to drive like a Ford or a GMC, then buy a car with "good enough" engineering, if you want a car to drive like a Tesla, then buy a car with superior engineering, engineering that is designed to not only not fail, but also to optimize the driving dynamics by being tuned for the force vectors it is actually subject to, with a margin of safety designed in.

What a neophyte engineer shouldn't do is look at an Internet photo, and without knowing any of the details, think they know more than the knowedge gained through the entire design process, using the best engineers in the industry.

Tesla engineering, like all engineering departments on the planet, is not perfect, but it's better by more than a factor of 100, compared to an idiot in an armchair looking at a photo. And if Tesla gets it wrong, they have a very expensive recall on their hands that cannot be fixed with an over-the-air update. While no manufacturer is immune to recalls, Tesla has a long history of fewer physical recalls than legacy makers with over a century of experience engineering cars. It turns out, legacy autos century of experience is a net negative in a modern world with revolutionary engineering and design tools, and knowledge that travels at the speed of light. Fewer recalls equal higher profits. If you want to armchair quarterback, the grass is a lot greener over at Ford and GM.

So, to all of those who have acted like they know more about the design of the rolling chassis of a vehicle than Tesla engineers, let's stop it with the ridiculous demonstrations of ignorance and poor analysis without any tools at one's disposal, except for a photo of something you know nothing about. It's like the comedy club, especially when I see how many easily fall victim to such a ridiculous narritive, unsupported by any credible facts. It makes me worry for the future of humanity.

most of this is true but also take chill pill, were on an internet forum saying our 2 cents.
maybe 1 thing i said wrong....
IMO its bent, are we still arguing that? the design at the end is pretty bad.
this is my opinion, a question,and the design at the end is pretty bad. (i guess this could be argued)

the control arms on my old 89 yota pickup look beefier and better designed than this.
they LOOK beefier and better designed also true IMO

perhaps tesla opted for the lower end of the "whats necessary" scale when engineering this. (probably to save money)
another of my opinions of what maybe tesla did.

and i did study engineering, and have some experience with suspension loading.

 

[Crissa]

I still say it's an optical illusion; the cylinder is bigger, so other parts would look smaller in comparison.

And the angle of the photos hides the curve in the 'not bent' photo.

-Crissa

 

[SlightlySinged]

Also, "looking beefier" really does not mean anything in an engineering context.

 

[cvalue13]

Also, "looking beefier" really does not mean anything in an engineering context.

taken generously, I think that’s just shorthand for ‘not the sort of materials and thickness one would expect for anything more than a standard 1/2 ton truck”

Bent or not, that’s as fair an observation as any.

and here venturing towards tongue-in-cheek: I mean, 3mm hardened SS would appear more substantial materials choice.

 

[PilotPete]

You are allowed to ask the field/tower for that information, ya know.

I'm just amazed pilots manage getting us out of the air in those conditions whenever I fly. So much information to deal with.

-Crissa

(Also the student pilot I roomed with back in university was the worst at X-Wing which amused me greatly)

Yes, you may ask. However, you are assuming they know. An Air Traffic Controller is not given field conditions like standing water depth, only the braking conditions of a contaminated runway. And at a non-towed field, they will not tell you water depth other than reporting "standing water" and braking action. Additionally, you can ask for the last pilot report on braking action. Things like Mu values are no longer provided. However, NONE of that changes that if you go off the end, the FAA will charge you with an incorrect stopping distance calculation.

Crissa, you have no idea what you're talking about in this area. Even worse, you have no idea of my CV and the level of experience in aviation you are trying so hard to correct. There are a number of pilots on here, many I've PM'd. They'll correct me if I step out of line. Now, if you have an honest question, like "Couldn't you ask the tower or unicom..." I, or one of the other pilots on here, will gladly explain what is and what isn't available to a pilot in the way of landing.

And don't be amazed that we get you out of the sky. We've never left one up there yet!

 

[Crissa]

Crissa, you have no idea what you're talking about in this area. Even worse, ...

...Even worse, you confirmed that what I said was correct but you just had be an asshole about it.

You're mad about what you think I wrote, but what I wrote is right there for everyone to see. I didn't contradict you.

-Crissa

 

[PilotPete]

...Even worse, you confirmed that what I said was correct but you just had be an asshole about it.

You're mad about what you think I wrote, but what I wrote is right there for everyone to see. I didn't contradict you.

Well, let's see. you said;

You are allowed to ask the field/tower for that information, ya know.

And the information I discussed in the post you quoted pertained to the depth of the contamination on the runway. Your statement that a pilot is allowed to ask the field/tower for "that information", while basically true, is worthless, as you would be asking for information they don't have. So why would anyone ever ask for information that you know they don't have? Kinda pointless. So the implication is that you would ask and that information would be provided. Especially in light of my original comment that the way the government determines if you get it wrong, is you go off the runway and they write you up for it. But, you want to duck and dodge. Fine

I'm being an asshole? Wow. Let's look at that for a moment. I've never called anyone a name, and by the way, that includes you. But I guess of you are losing, you throw up a hail mary and hope for the best. If you're losing, attack the person. If that is all you got, then might I direct you to a long and distinguished line of others who might share your opinion of me. But, seeing as I don't know you, I can hardly put any value in your opinions of me or anything else. So that puts you to the back of that line. It also means I'm far from mad or angry. I'd have to care about you at some level to stir that kind of emotion.

Good luck, have fun, be well, seek happiness.



Or don't.

Sponsored