Cybertruck suspension & underbody closeup pics (from broken down prototype spotted roadside)

[Jhodgesatmb]

Why? Things like brake by wire, steer by wire are concerns that could end up being a deal breaker for me (ie complete reliance on computers doing their thing). No physical drive selector is another potential deal breaker.

I think that hydraulic lines, master cylinders, pistons, and the like are a century-old technology that is messy and complicated. Eliminating all hydraulics would make for a simpler and more reliable design and build in my opinion. And easier to diagnose, maintain, and repair.

If you don’t like computers you better not buy ‘any’ car anymore. We have different points of view obviously but that is ok. It isn’t a deal breaker for me though.

Sponsored

 

[AlDente]

Plane Trains and Automobiles, my favorite Thanksgiving movie and we watch it every year.

 

[WHIZZARD OF OZ]

I grew up in NZ. The ruggeds that Wiz of Oz is talking about is no more rugged than what you’d find in the US. So I’d say most of the off road testing has been done in the US. They’ve only got them in NZ winter time now because the timing of winter there and CT release happened to coincide.

On a COLD night in the 'ruggeds' of NZ, l can imagine being 'all_rug_ed_up' to the tune of 'TooSheep'
New Zealand wool ROCKS (SOCKS)

 

[PilotPete]

Why? Things like brake by wire, steer by wire are concerns that could end up being a deal breaker for me (ie complete reliance on computers doing their thing). No physical drive selector is another potential deal breaker.

Do you ever fly on an airline?

 

[Setok]

Do you ever fly on an airline?

You mean on an airline with planes that are dozens of times the size of a Cybertruck, with meticulous test and maintenance schedules, flown by professional pilots, where steering feedback is not a concern, which do actually have physical direction controls, and where, despite all that, the lack of a mechanical connection was a factor in at least one major accident?

Sure, I've flown on an airline.

 

[PilotPete]

You mean on an airline with planes that are dozens of times the size of a Cybertruck, with meticulous test and maintenance schedules, flown by professional pilots, where steering feedback is not a concern, which do actually have physical direction controls, and where, despite all that, the lack of a mechanical connection was a factor in at least one major accident?

Sure, I've flown on an airline.

dozens of times the size of a Cybertruck? Hasn’t anyone told you, size doesn’t matter?
Steering feedback is not a concern? Yes it is.
Physical direction controls? Not all!
a factor in at least one major accident? Which one?

The truth is, if you read the papers on true SBW, then you better understand this isn’t a system without a backup, just like on the aircraft. And non-mechanical connection/digital connection systems have been in cars for more than 2 decades. None linked to any massive accidents. And they don’t get phase check maintenance either. I’ve seen massive accidents and recalls over the years in mechanical vehicle control systems. No one seems too worried about those…

I’m not saying you or anyone else has to love SBW, but if you’re going to be a detractor, at least know why. Too many people (and you may not be one of them) are afraid of systems just because they don’t understand. A mechanical link isn’t always the best “safeguard” or backup.

I’ve flown “very fast” and “very low” in a FBW aircraft. I’ve been involved in investigations of aircraft accidents, where automation might have contributed to the accident (Spoiler: It’s generally someone who doesn’t fully understand the system and misuses it) and I don’t have an issue with the systems I’ve seen proposed for SBW.

 

[Setok]

dozens of times the size of a Cybertruck? Hasn’t anyone told you, size doesn’t matter?
Steering feedback is not a concern? Yes it is.
Physical direction controls? Not all!
a factor in at least one major accident? Which one?

Size does matter in the sense that the bigger the vehicle, the more difficult it is to have mechanical connections.
I'm happy to be corrected on steering feedback. I can understand for small aircraft (where I would definitely want a physical link and strong feedback), but imagined it's not important for large aircraft.
The main direction controls are with physical controls. I would consider D/N/R to be key direction controls, so faffing around with a touch screen for them sounds like a right nightmare (it already was with Model 3 wiper controls, and these controls are much more important).
The report on the AirFrance accident talked about how the pilots weren't aware of what each was doing as the aircraft did not have a physical link between the two controls.

 

[PilotPete]

Size does matter in the sense that the bigger the vehicle, the more difficult it is to have mechanical connections.
I'm happy to be corrected on steering feedback. I can understand for small aircraft (where I would definitely want a physical link and strong feedback), but imagined it's not important for large aircraft.
The main direction controls are with physical controls. I would consider D/N/R to be key direction controls, so faffing around with a touch screen for them sounds like a right nightmare (it already was with Model 3 wiper controls, and these controls are much more important).
The report on the AirFrance accident talked about how the pilots weren't aware of what each was doing as the aircraft did not have a physical link between the two controls.

As to size, the B747 has hydraulic assisted (boosted) flight controls. The Lockheed C5 has the same. The F16 is FBW, as is the A320 series, the Dassault Falcon 7X, and the F35 (Among many others) The biggest reason you don’t see it in small private aircraft is the cost It would add to the plane. For small trainers, it could be a safety improvement. But the cost is way too high. Seriously though, size doesn’t matter.

Caution: I teach upset prevention and recovery techniques in jet aircraft from time to time. This accident is part of the curriculum I use in the class and simulator. If you’re not interested in the accident, now’s a good time to move on, as I’m about to geek out.

You are correct that the Airbus doesn’t have a physical link between the two side sticks. And it is correct that neither knew what the other was doing. There also was an EygptAir B767 accident (the 767 has standard hydraulic boosted controls) where they were both fighting in different directions, and as I recall, the two sides disengaged due to a system that was designed for a jammed control recovery. However, both of the AirFrance pilots were fighting the controls at the same time. That is NEVER supposed to happen. Only one pilot is to be supplying control inputs at a time, but they panicked. The captain was not in the cockpit, nor in his rest bunk when the whole thing started, but was assumed to be back in the cabin with his girlfriend. The main cause of the accident was the crews’ inability to recognize the indications of the status of the aircraft, and their incorrect actions causing a deep stall at altitude. The stall was caused by or exacerbated by; their confusion of the flight indications (even after all indications were normal) Incorrect and inappropriate control inputs (regardless of the phase of flight) incorrect crew coordination, failure to utilize basic airmanship skills, lack of awareness of secondary flight status indicators, tunnel vision, and lack of experience in the aircraft. Additional factors include; crew resource management failures, the Captain’s decision as to when he took his rest break, one or more crew members‘ lack of systems understanding, and failure of the training procedures. There was also a potential lack of rest component, distraction from duties, and possible physical impairment issues. The incident started just above 39,000ft. According to AirBus, they had gotten the aircraft in a condition that was so bad, by the time they passed through 21,000ft, there was insufficient altitude left to recover the aircraft. Given the same reaction by the crew, the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of the aircraft flown. In the final analysis, the FBW system of the AirBus was not a contributing factor in the accident.

Course Legal Disclaimer:
(Note: This is based on the analysis of multiple pilots and engineers in the US utilizing multiple AirBus simulators along with sims from other models and other makes. These conclusions are independent of the official accident final report and may or may not agree with that report. We thank the British Aviation Authority for their assistance along with FlightSafety International, Boeing, AirBus, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Thales, and the FAA. )

 

[fhteagle]

Spoiler

" Spoiler" alert in a loss of control accident. How amusing.

 

[Setok]

As to size, the B747 has hydraulic assisted (boosted) flight controls. The Lockheed C5 has the same. The F16 is FBW, as is the A320 series, the Dassault Falcon 7X, and the F35 (Among many others) The biggest reason you don’t see it in small private aircraft is the cost It would add to the plane. For small trainers, it could be a safety improvement. But the cost is way too high. Seriously though, size doesn’t matter.

Caution: I teach upset prevention and recovery techniques in jet aircraft from time to time. This accident is part of the curriculum I use in the class and simulator. If you’re not interested in the accident, now’s a good time to move on, as I’m about to geek out.

You are correct that the Airbus doesn’t have a physical link between the two side sticks. And it is correct that neither knew what the other was doing. There also was an EygptAir B767 accident (the 767 has standard hydraulic boosted controls) where they were both fighting in different directions, and as I recall, the two sides disengaged due to a system that was designed for a jammed control recovery. However, both of the AirFrance pilots were fighting the controls at the same time. That is NEVER supposed to happen. Only one pilot is to be supplying control inputs at a time, but they panicked. The captain was not in the cockpit, nor in his rest bunk when the whole thing started, but was assumed to be back in the cabin with his girlfriend. The main cause of the accident was the crews’ inability to recognize the indications of the status of the aircraft, and their incorrect actions causing a deep stall at altitude. The stall was caused by or exacerbated by; their confusion of the flight indications (even after all indications were normal) Incorrect and inappropriate control inputs (regardless of the phase of flight) incorrect crew coordination, failure to utilize basic airmanship skills, lack of awareness of secondary flight status indicators, tunnel vision, and lack of experience in the aircraft. Additional factors include; crew resource management failures, the Captain’s decision as to when he took his rest break, one or more crew members‘ lack of systems understanding, and failure of the training procedures. There was also a potential lack of rest component, distraction from duties, and possible physical impairment issues. The incident started just above 39,000ft. According to AirBus, they had gotten the aircraft in a condition that was so bad, by the time they passed through 21,000ft, there was insufficient altitude left to recover the aircraft. Given the same reaction by the crew, the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of the aircraft flown. In the final analysis, the FBW system of the AirBus was not a contributing factor in the accident.

Course Legal Disclaimer:
(Note: This is based on the analysis of multiple pilots and engineers in the US utilizing multiple AirBus simulators along with sims from other models and other makes. These conclusions are independent of the official accident final report and may or may not agree with that report. We thank the British Aviation Authority for their assistance along with FlightSafety International, Boeing, AirBus, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Thales, and the FAA. )

I mentioned size just because I would imagine that in a vehicle much larger, it gets increasingly complex to have physical linkage, so the argument for not having it seems to have won for Airbus.

This probably isn't the place to debate the AirFrance accident, or others, other than it was mentioned in the report as a contributing factor. Humans are humans, so they panicked. People are generally effective at reacting to physical feedback, and the lack of that meant, in this case, bad things happened. It's just an indication of how important that can sometimes be. I admit, I very much like to feel the road when I drive, and it can be increasingly frustrating when we lose that.

For the record, if the Cybertruck has backup physical linkage for steering and brakes, that would put some of my personal concerns to rest. I just really don't want to be hurtling down the road and realising that lovely, the software is bugging or electricity is lost and steering is bye bye. From the pictures of the bulkhead it appeared there were cutouts for a steering rack to go through, so I would assume there is still some physical connection. Then my next concern would be how well the 'by wire' system gives feedback.

 

[AlDente]

Plane Trains and Automobiles, my favorite Thanksgiving movie and we watch it every year.

You are a good sport and sorry for the temporary diversion. Now back to the regularly scheduled speculation. After nearly 4 years of impatiently waiting, this thing is a reality and it's looking good that the launch event is very near. Once production starts the speculation will end (for the most part). It will be great to see them in the wild outside of Texas and California.

My speculation of the day is that like all of the other Tesla models, California will be the largest CyberTruck market, by a lot. Unlike peoples general perception, most of California is wild, wide open spaces and off roading and adventure travel are a big deal. As proof, Rivian HQ is here and we see a lot of them on the road every day. The Cybertruck will be outselling the R1T very soon. God's speed Giga Texas.

 

[TyPope]

Why? Things like brake by wire, steer by wire are concerns that could end up being a deal breaker for me (ie complete reliance on computers doing their thing). No physical drive selector is another potential deal breaker.

LOL. That's funny. There's a 100% guarantee that there won't be a physical connection from the drivers' seat to a gear box. Now, there may or may not be a stick to waggle to select a gear but if there is, it'll be electronic. Every aspect of every tesla is electronic unless you include the manual release for the doors, the manual release for the charge port, and the lug nuts.

 

[CyberGus]

Plane Trains and Automobiles, my favorite Thanksgiving movie and we watch it every year.

On Groundhog Day, you watch Groundhog Day
On Independence Day, you watch Independence Day
On Christmas Day, you watch Die Hard

Thanksgiving is for football

 

[Setok]

LOL. That's funny. There's a 100% guarantee that there won't be a physical connection from the drivers' seat to a gear box. Now, there may or may not be a stick to waggle to select a gear but if there is, it'll be electronic. Every aspect of every tesla is electronic unless you include the manual release for the doors, the manual release for the charge port, and the lug nuts.

I don’t have an issue with there not being a mechanical connection between the drive selector and the drive (indeed having one wouldn’t make much sense). But I do have an issue with not having a physical control to control it (stalk, lever, or similar). Even operating wipers on a Model 3 is a PITA with no physical control. That’s much worse if the same is applied to drive selector.

 

[TyPope]

I don’t have an issue with there not being a mechanical connection between the drive selector and the drive (indeed having one wouldn’t make much sense). But I do have an issue with not having a physical control to control it (stalk, lever, or similar). Even operating wipers on a Model 3 is a PITA with no physical control. That’s much worse if the same is applied to drive selector.

Yeah, I haven't had to try that out yet. Our Model Y has the sticks. I wonder how long it'll take to get used to just swiping up or down to shift. The Maverick I ordered to fill the gap until my Cybertruck gets built has a dial to change gears. I don't suppose it'll be much different learning to use the dial than to swipe. We'll see in a month or two when I get it, I suppose.

Sponsored