cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
13,747
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
All of this is just my opinion, of course, and is simply based on the thousands of wrecked cars, SUVs, trucks, buses, tractors, trailers, and RVs that I've inspected over the past 18 years.
that’s all I got?

thanks for the views
Sponsored

 

scottf200

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
2,487
Location
Chicagoland
Vehicles
Tesla Model X
Country flag
This does not really answer the question. He is talking about the early prototype where they used a lost-foam casting technique. I think @Frank Mendez was asking about the production casting. Do we know how many pieces it is?
Rear is the same tho and at the end he explicitly said it will be 5 castings welded together.

 


scottf200

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Threads
39
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
2,487
Location
Chicagoland
Vehicles
Tesla Model X
Country flag
ok I will defer to you. Outside my expertise for sure.
No worries. Definitely outside my expertise too but for many things I listen to the folks at Munro as they have so much experience.
 

cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
13,747
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
No worries. Definitely outside my expertise too but for many things I listen to the folks at Munro as they have so much experience.
i haven't rewatched, but i seemed to remember the suggestion that this proto appeared to be a a mock up, and left it indeterminate as to how many pieces the ultimate production casting would have

more recent shots of an RC, appear to suggest that - at least in these builds (still might not be final production parts), there are:

  • a bottom casting (includes both wheel wells and the cross-beam)
  • over each wheel well, a second and third piece (attaching cab to wheel well top)
  • at the tail end, a fourth and fifth piece rising upwards to the level of the bed
  • still at the tail end, a sixth and seventh piece attached to the above and rising upwards into the sail
folks have noted that the items highlighted in blue above, in the photo below appear to possibly be not casted, but of a different material (notice sheen and silver tone) and construction



Tesla Cybertruck Cybertruck frame / casting / chassis / body structure in plain sight outside Giga Texas 🧐 1697565760430



but for all we know, these are parts that were purpose-built for completing certain RCs, pending and until final production parts/processes were finalized
 

Setok

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2023
Threads
4
Messages
269
Reaction score
438
Location
Finland
Vehicles
Land Rover Defender
Country flag
I’ve said before that *if* this is what Mysk meant at unveil, Tesla very intentionally avoided the use of the word ‘unibody’ - because it’s become a dirty word, especially in the pickup truck world.

on the other hand, all these *bleep* *bleep* discussions skip over a central point common to every view:

nobody knows what what in Musk/Tesla’s mind at unveil, because Musk’s comments were so vague and indeterminate that many interpretations are equally possible - but we’ll never know which was intended (if any at all)

the EQUALLY viable possibilities interpretations range from:

• what you’ve just described

• how Munro and other very experienced automobile designers interpreted Musk’s comments

• (the most overlooked) Musk didn’t have a concrete plan On the deep engineering, aside from the mandate to use SS panels however best would result in truck functionality, based on a half dozen engineering possibilities floating around inside Tesla at the time

regarding this last possibility, fanboi’s will fly in to say Musk is a prescient genius who never speaks without seeing the 4th dimension - but that idolization runs contrary to Musk’s history (his genius isn’t that), as well as the info about the CyberTruck gleaned from Musk’s new biography: there was an internal foam mock-up late Summer if 2019, key engineers hated it, and then early November 2019 Musk ordered that a rolling pro type be ready to be driven on stage at unveil a few weeks later (which was built on a Model X chassis).

If folks have any dilutions of certainty that in that environment the CT’s deep structural engineering was settled, they’ve not been been close enough to product development (and are ignoring the fact that it’s taken 4 years to get to manufacturing confirmation units).

Which is all to say:

• anyone saying ‘Musk never said it would be a pure exoskeleton’ is also saying professional vehicle engineers like Munro know less than you (seems a precarious and unpersuasive position)

• anyone saying ‘Musk unequivocally did say it would be a pure exoskeleton’ will not be able to find or produce any explicit support for this, and now have to contend with the reality of the vehicle in front of us that suggests otherwise

Which to me means that all these forum posts that assert things like “it’s clear what Musk meant at unveil, and no plans have changed” are way out over their skis for EITHER interpretation




That doesn’t mean we can’t now consider in which ways, and to what extent, the actual production CT turned out to have exoskeleton-like features.

Nobody could dispute that, when it comes to occupant protection, the SS continues to provide this sort of ‘structure’ to the CT.

The only arena disputable is whether the SS panels provide additional load-bearing ‘structure’ to the CT. That dispute, really won’t and can’t be settled until Munro and others do a tear down and describe exactly how and where the SS is attached to the unibody underneath.

But even before all that: here are the parts of the CT SS** that are absolutely, indisputably, unable to add load-bearing structure to the CT:

• the hood
• the tailgate
• all 4 doors
• the longitudinal trim piece above the A1/A2 and B pillars

which leave as contenders only the front two quarterpanels, and rear two quarterpanels

and when it comes to crashworthiness, anyone should be shocked to find the front twoquarterpanels are performing any (or material) load-bearing structure (nor should they really need to, from perspective of where trucks experience load stress issues).

And if the front quarterpanels don’t, we’re down to:

the rear two quarterpanel’s may or may not provide load-bearing structure, and we’ll not *really* know until Munro et al do a breakdown and determine exactly where and how they are attached to the unibody


Which means everyone here saying the SS is obviously structural are assuming information they don’t know, and glossing over that we’re now down to talking about at most the4 quarterpanels and likely only the rear two quarterpanel’s.


**glass and pack are obvious structural, but that’s true on any Tesla with a structural pack
Doors could be self-structural though. I mean that traditionally doors will have some kind of internal frame, which takes space and maybe weight, but it may be that with thick stainless steel as a door exoskeleton they may be able to avoid some of that internal structure.

(pure speculation)
 

wtibbit

Well-known member
First Name
Wayne
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
441
Reaction score
887
Location
DFW
Vehicles
Mercedes sedan, Corvette coupe, Yukon XL
Occupation
Retired Engineering Program Director
Country flag
You should expect that this will be the safest production vehicle ever built and will likely remain so for quite some time.
Good thoughts and a nice collection of photos in that post, SKUUT.

You may be right about the Cybertruck being the safest production vehicle when released, but I don't think we'll ever be able to know that.

I tried to find the current "safest production vehicle" and couldn't. The NHTSA safety ratings a "stars" system with five stars being highest. There are 32 five star vehicles listed for the testing performed just in 2022. Every previous year back to 2011 saw more rating to add to that number.

Bottom line; there is no objective testing process to determine the "safest production vehicle" ever built, or even just built in one year. It's pretty easy to make such a claim, but impossible to objectively defend it.

So,

I claim my old 1980 Miata was the safest vehicle ever built. (I would say "prove me wrong", but I hate it when others do that....). Oh! and here's this -> /s
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
127
Messages
16,574
Reaction score
27,595
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Doors could be self-structural though. I mean that traditionally doors will have some kind of internal frame, which takes space and maybe weight, but it may be that with thick stainless steel as a door exoskeleton they may be able to avoid some of that internal structure.

(pure speculation)
It's not pure speculation, as the Tesla patents indicate that is their intent.

Patents don't mean it works, tho.

-Crissa
 


cvalue13

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Threads
74
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
13,747
Location
Austin, TX
Vehicles
F150L
Occupation
Fun-employed
Country flag
Doors could be self-structural though. I mean that traditionally doors will have some kind of internal frame, which takes space and maybe weight, but it may be that with thick stainless steel as a door exoskeleton they may be able to avoid some of that internal structure.

(pure speculation)
no need to speculate!

Tesla’s only patent discussing ‘exoskeleton’ features is their patent for the CT doors - and it contemplates just what you describe. If the parent reflects what they’ve done, there it is

I’m with you, RE doors

but as relates to the operational load bearing structure of the truck (which effect eg payload, towing, torsional forces, etc.) the doors are bright here nor there
 

anionic1

Well-known member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Threads
29
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
1,982
Location
California
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
Estimator
Country flag
Precisely. Just too many impatient naysayers around here trolling. 😇😅
There were many people, I think Crissa included, that for a couple years argued that there wouldn't be any interior painted steel components to the body. I participated in many heated debates where people were beside themselves when it was mentioned that there would be a substantial interior steel body structure.
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Threads
127
Messages
16,574
Reaction score
27,595
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
There were many people, I think Crissa included, that for a couple years argued that there wouldn't be any interior painted steel components to the body. I participated in many heated debates where people were beside themselves when it was mentioned that there would be a substantial interior steel body structure.
No.

Besides, even stainless is dipped and washed to be passivated. Every piece of metal will be corrosion-treated.

-Crissa
 

TheLastStarfighter

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Threads
8
Messages
1,376
Reaction score
3,503
Location
Canada
Vehicles
Dodge Challenger, Tesla Model 3
Occupation
Industrial Engineer
Country flag
I’ve said before that *if* this is what Mysk meant at unveil, Tesla very intentionally avoided the use of the word ‘unibody’ - because it’s become a dirty word, especially in the pickup truck world.

on the other hand, all these *bleep* *bleep* discussions skip over a central point common to every view:

nobody knows what what in Musk/Tesla’s mind at unveil, because Musk’s comments were so vague and indeterminate that many interpretations are equally possible - but we’ll never know which was intended (if any at all)

the EQUALLY viable possibilities interpretations range from:

• what you’ve just described

• how Munro and other very experienced automobile designers interpreted Musk’s comments

• (the most overlooked) Musk didn’t have a concrete plan On the deep engineering, aside from the mandate to use SS panels however best would result in truck functionality, based on a half dozen engineering possibilities floating around inside Tesla at the time

regarding this last possibility, fanboi’s will fly in to say Musk is a prescient genius who never speaks without seeing the 4th dimension - but that idolization runs contrary to Musk’s history (his genius isn’t that), as well as the info about the CyberTruck gleaned from Musk’s new biography: there was an internal foam mock-up late Summer if 2019, key engineers hated it, and then early November 2019 Musk ordered that a rolling pro type be ready to be driven on stage at unveil a few weeks later (which was built on a Model X chassis).

If folks have any dilutions of certainty that in that environment the CT’s deep structural engineering was settled, they’ve not been been close enough to product development (and are ignoring the fact that it’s taken 4 years to get to manufacturing confirmation units).

Which is all to say:

• anyone saying ‘Musk never said it would be a pure exoskeleton’ is also saying professional vehicle engineers like Munro know less than you (seems a precarious and unpersuasive position)

• anyone saying ‘Musk unequivocally did say it would be a pure exoskeleton’ will not be able to find or produce any explicit support for this, and now have to contend with the reality of the vehicle in front of us that suggests otherwise

Which to me means that all these forum posts that assert things like “it’s clear what Musk meant at unveil, and no plans have changed” are way out over their skis for EITHER interpretation




That doesn’t mean we can’t now consider in which ways, and to what extent, the actual production CT turned out to have exoskeleton-like features.

Nobody could dispute that, when it comes to occupant protection, the SS continues to provide this sort of ‘structure’ to the CT.

The only arena disputable is whether the SS panels provide additional load-bearing ‘structure’ to the CT. That dispute, really won’t and can’t be settled until Munro and others do a tear down and describe exactly how and where the SS is attached to the unibody underneath.

But even before all that: here are the parts of the CT SS** that are absolutely, indisputably, unable to add load-bearing structure to the CT:

• the hood
• the tailgate
• all 4 doors
• the longitudinal trim piece above the A1/A2 and B pillars

which leave as contenders only the front two quarterpanels, and rear two quarterpanels

and when it comes to crashworthiness, anyone should be shocked to find the front twoquarterpanels are performing any (or material) load-bearing structure (nor should they really need to, from perspective of where trucks experience load stress issues).

And if the front quarterpanels don’t, we’re down to:

the rear two quarterpanel’s may or may not provide load-bearing structure, and we’ll not *really* know until Munro et al do a breakdown and determine exactly where and how they are attached to the unibody


Which means everyone here saying the SS is obviously structural are assuming information they don’t know, and glossing over that we’re now down to talking about at most the4 quarterpanels and likely only the rear two quarterpanel’s.


**glass and pack are obvious structural, but that’s true on any Tesla with a structural pack
I don't think Musk or anyone said the skin was load bearing. I remember him saying pushing mass to the exterior, like a modern plane, but never that the skin was carrying cargo. And as I posted, they did show the frame looking pretty much like the final, and they have been open about using front and rear castings, etc. I tend to think of the "skin as load bearing" aspect being people drawing baseless conclusions, including old Munro. When I heard "exoskeleton", I assumed they were getting rid of the traditional truck "endoskeleton", the ladder frame, which is what they did.
Sponsored

 
 




Top