First Cybertruck down while offroading! Rear steering tie-rod broken @ KOH (by Unplugged Performance)

[SolarWizard]

How much do you think ball joints and tie rods cost? I think you're really blowing the cost way out of proportion.

with labo? an actual high quality ball joints $4-800 per pair plus $250-350 labor. HQ tie rods $3-650 per pair

Sponsored

 

[SolarWizard]

A good reminder that only the Cybertruck breaks, no other trucks, specially EV ones ever broke, sometimes in way less punishing situations ?

Slick rock is applying much more strain that loose dirty is

 

[BannedByTMC]

with labo? an actual high quality ball joints $4-800 per pair plus $250-350 labor. HQ tie rods $3-650 per pair

I'm talking about Tesla's cost at the factory, i.e. how much it added to the total cost of the vehicle to produce not some overpriced aftermarket stuff.

 

[SolarWizard]

I'm talking about Tesla's cost at the factory, i.e. how much it added to the total cost of the vehicle to produce not some overpriced aftermarket stuff.

Seems overpriced till your high torque 7000lb truck is stuck in the desert

 

[JBee]

I hate to break it to you but he rear end needs to be way beefier than the front due to payload. That’s part of the design conundrum.
I am really just making the point that while nice, it adds a good amount of cost and complexity. And if you tend to drive trucks well over 100k miles, with some time spent on gravel roads or off roads, you will have to do some front end maintenance. Ball joints, tie rod ends, etc. Well now there’s twice as many ball joints, tie rod ends, etc.
I just wish it was optional. That way we could have stayed closer to original pricing, with a less nimble, but more durable truck.

You started at a "monster truck" level of performance, now we are down to payload differences between the axles? You do know that most of the braking, and therefore force, is applied to the front axle? Payload is a static load, dynamic loads are assessed with a 3x margin.

They need tie rod ends and ball joints, and CVs for suspension travel alone, even without rear steering.

The only difference is the range of motion of these linkages and the wheel knuckle upright, that needs to pivot a mere 10degrees. Other 4WS cars do that passively without a steering knuckle at all.

Re prices: these are all wholesale at manufacturer cost if they make their own, mean single digit dollars extra for the extra design capabilities to make it pivot 10 degrees. It nearly does 60degrees for suspension travel already, so adding this extra dimension to a ball joint is meaningless.

All the other ppartsexcept the rear rack, are just customised existing parts to allow the steering movement. You should look at how many parts a multi link rear has on a passenger car in comparison.

The main cost is the extra rear steering rack and cable to the MCU (there is no physical connection to the steering wheel, not even the front has that which is also a cost reduction). This is also the same part as half the front steering rack, with all three being identical parts, meeting the "best part is no part formula".

EM never said the best part is no part "whatsoever", rather that by "reducing" part count you reduce your risks and costs. So either make one part do more things to get rid of assemblies (like the casts) or reuse the same parts as needed (like the steering rack, Induction and PM motors using the same enclosures, inverters, differentials, driveshats etc.)

Otherwise the Cybertruck would just be the delivery of a large cardboard box, with absolutely nothing in it except for lots of hot air.

 

[Space monkey]

You started at a "monster truck" level of performance, now we are down to payload differences between the axles? You do know that most of the braking, and therefore force, is applied to the front axle? Payload is a static load, dynamic loads are assessed with a 3x margin.

They need tie rod ends and ball joints, and CVs for suspension travel alone, even without rear steering.

The only difference is the range of motion of these linkages and the wheel knuckle upright, that needs to pivot a mere 10degrees. Other 4WS cars do that passively without a steering knuckle at all.

Re prices: these are all wholesale at manufacturer cost if they make their own, mean single digit dollars extra for the extra design capabilities to make it pivot 10 degrees. It nearly does 60degrees for suspension travel already, so adding this extra dimension to a ball joint is meaningless.

All the other ppartsexcept the rear rack, are just customised existing parts to allow the steering movement. You should look at how many parts a multi link rear has on a passenger car in comparison.

The main cost is the extra rear steering rack and cable to the MCU (there is no physical connection to the steering wheel, not even the front has that which is also a cost reduction). This is also the same part as half the front steering rack, with all three being identical parts, meeting the "best part is no part formula".

EM never said the best part is no part "whatsoever", rather that by "reducing" part count you reduce your risks and costs. So either make one part do more things to get rid of assemblies (like the casts) or reuse the same parts as needed (like the steering rack, Induction and PM motors using the same enclosures, inverters, differentials, driveshats etc.)

Otherwise the Cybertruck would just be the delivery of a large cardboard box, with absolutely nothing in it except for lots of hot air.

Well my friend, that’s a nice long argument but the proof is in the pudding. The RWS broke in the field. And the truck is unaffordable to most.
Like I said, affordability, agility, durability. You probably can’t get all three.

 

[BannedByTMC]

And the truck is unaffordable to most.

Which has nothing to do with the RWS components. Even if you pretend they cost $2K, (not even close to that in reality), that amount doesn't suddenly make the truck affordable to people who can't afford it now.

 

[Space monkey]

Which has nothing to do with the RWS components. Even if you pretend they cost $2K, (not even close to that in reality), that amount doesn't suddenly make the truck affordable to people who can't afford it now.

It doesn’t help. Just saying, it would have been better as an option.

 

[JBee]

Well my friend, that’s a nice long argument but the proof is in the pudding. The RWS broke in the field. And the truck is unaffordable to most.
Like I said, affordability, agility, durability. You probably can’t get all three.

You haven't seen a long argument from me yet...

But none of the points you bring up are proof in anyone's pudding, not even your own.

It's much harder to believe that 4WS was the primary cause for the price increase (as described above), rather it was mostly a general market adjustment, because of demand. It's also unclear why the 4WS "bolt" broke in this situation or what the extent of the "test" was.

Neither of these prove anything you say, rather only that you are working from flawed assumptions, resulting in faulty conclusions.

 

[JBee]

It doesn’t help. Just saying, it would have been better as an option.

A $500 option, that would severely impede the consistency of driving behaviour between Cybertrucks? Selling less 4WS increases the cost per 4WS unit. Mass production means scale reduces cost, and doesn't increase it. Options means more costly and complex assembly lines, and TWO sets of parts. Now you're not a fan of "no part"?

You do know that entire Tesla drivetrains cost less than $1k, and that front and rear casts are less than $100 each, or that all the Stainless is less than $900?

Are you suffering from hyperinflation?

There is no correlation between manufacturing costs and sale price, on a per component scale.

The current price is simply what the current market will pay. If demand drops, so will the price.

 

[BannedByTMC]

I'd expect a large part of the higher than first announced prices relate directly to the slower ramp and lower than expected energy density of the 4680 cells.

 

[JBee]

I'd expect a large part of the higher than first announced prices relate directly to the slower ramp and lower than expected energy density of the 4680 cells.

Possibly, but we have heard in one of the calls that batteries have met their targets. What exactly that means we are not sure.

There is a clear difference between vehicle component cost and capital expenditure required to assemble and manufacture the product. The latter is obviously a large amount of money Tesla has to pay up front which will only break even over a period. Hence EMs comments saying the CT will only be profitable with the CT sometime next year is in fact incredible, given that the model and factory could run for multiple years off existing orders alone, and is likely to run for decade or more.

The key thing to consider here is that Tesla is under no obligation to make it profitable in such a short timeframe and could easily afford to recoup capex over a much longer period, which in turn would immediately make the CT cost less per unit made now.

Instead, they have chosen to sell the FS, to cater to the people who can afford the higher price first, and get them their vehicles before the standard pricing, and by doing so, bring back the capex sooner because the market will allow it atm and the perceived extra value of including FSD costs them nothing.

As soon as that top end teir of customers dries up, which will take a while, seeing the price is still "competitive", then they can stretch the capex repayment as needed, but will have created a buffer for any variability in the meantime.

In conventional ICE manufacturing its actually common to break even very late, and sometimes not at all, in the model cycle, with profitability only being achieved in spare sales. This has been commented on by EM a few times, in that EV's tend not to have a repair and maintenance market because their drivetrains are simple and robust, so they can't afford to do the same thing, and must produce vehicles below sale price the market can handle, because there is no spares market to recoup capex/profits with.

 

[BannedByTMC]

Possibly, but we have heard in one of the calls that batteries have met their targets. What exactly that means we are not sure.

Maybe revised targets of production volume but certainly not energy density. I don't think when they announced the original 500 mile version they planned to put batteries in the bed, and now they can't even hit that range goal when taking up more than 1/3 of the bed volume with the extra pack. So far the 4680 cells have fallen far short of their initial targets.

 

[JBee]

Maybe revised targets of production volume but certainly not energy density. I don't think when they announced the original 500 mile version they planned to put batteries in the bed, and now they can't even hit that range goal when taking up more than 1/3 of the bed volume with the extra pack. So far the 4680 cells have fallen far short of their initial targets.

Possibly.

The statement is fairly vague to begin with, but the critical thing here is cost, not necessarily energy density, although they are partially inter-related.

There is more space available in the CT floor for more cells, but this was not required to reach the 300mile target for both AWD and CB, that they set well after the reveal. The model range was internally changed on multiple occasions, and final release specs only completed before the delivery event.

There are multiple things that needed to occur technically to achieve this including:

1) CB required peak battery output to achieve the desired performance - this was achievable with a 123kWh pack using 4680 cells (Probably with a 20-30% or so margin) AWD and RWD didn't have this problem with the same pack as the peak is considerably less.

2) 123kWh was enough for both CB and AWD to achieve there goal over 300mile EPA range

3) Making one pack size greatly simplifies production ramp and any resulting issues

4) Making one pack makes the "structural" part a fixed element in the design and assembly (different pack sizes in a structural pack would have different load capabilities that would affect payload and cast integration etc)

5) Having the smallest pack possible meant that they had more cell capacity to make more CT's overall, regardless of specification, whilst maintaining CB/TM customers as well, and overcome any cell production constraint, or potential long term reliability issues and resulting liabilities

6) Customers that "think" they need the extension pack are retained and are given the option to "upgrade" when they have enough cells available at a much later date.

7) It is not possible to "upgrade" the underfloor structural pack, but placing something in the bed and providing a connection for it, is fairly trivial, and they can charge a premium for it (read you get less for your money than a higher range CT)

8) Adding the extension pack allowed both AWD and CB to add a pack, whereas previously only the TM/CB was going to be long range

9) EM/Tesla are generally pushing back on "range anxiety" as the charging network grows. (under 300mile seems to be the target) People don't instinctively see the correlation between the two, in that they want more range and more chargers, to offer them the same flexibility and availability as ICE and fuel. It's only possible to do this in areas where Superchargers are prevalent, and there is enough population to make the charger install viable.

Now in saying all this, it is clear that the CT was revealed prematurely before these issues were addressed. Some were foreseeable, others not.

For one I'm not actually much a fan of the extension pack being in the bed and taking up what limited bed space there is, since the overall dimensions were condensed. I'm also not a fan of the vault cover (sliding solar glass would of been better), the air compressor storage and performance (which space could of been used for underfloor extension pack), the fixed seating (floor rails?), huge casts, the lost sail space and small frunk, huge dash and blindspots, the suspension articulation and resulting off-road performance to date, that are all poor design choices in the grand scheme of things, and that could of all benefited from some more testing and development, prior to releasing a reveal that was dictated by and locked in it's non-conforming triangular shape.

I'm also swinging away from the overall edgy-ness of the design, mostly because of the pedestrian and customer safety aspects of the SS flat sheet, hard angular design, and because of the compromised aerodynamics because of it. The "exoskeleton" advantages did not eventuate as anticipated, leaving the justification for SS half baked, with only the bullet proofness and scratch/corrosion resistance as positives. Also I believe the truck formfactor is not an ideal format for a commercial or personal type vehicle, that the design is meant to address.

Overall a van design would offer the capacity to NOT have to tow at all in most cases, because things could be placed in the vehicle directly, and therefore would have insignificant range loss because of the extra mass, because things in the vehicle have no extra aerodynamic drag. Further a van profile would also offer much better towing range, as the aerodynamics of the van would offset the airflow around the blunt aerodynamics of trailers.

Put simply, if you are going to have the frontal area and aerodynamic co-efficient of a low roof Sprinter/Crafter van already, then at a minimum it should offer the same payload volume and lengths of such a vehicle too, in the same floor footprint, which in turn negates many other problems associated with a truck format. I can get over the shape, or various individual compromises in the design, but the combination of these leaves me wondering if the design priorities and production capabilities resulted in the best possible product.

That's my current view from my armchair at least.

 

[BannedByTMC]

The statement is fairly vague to begin with, but the critical thing here is cost, not necessarily energy density, although they are partially inter-related.

Directly related really. If you double the energy density you basically halve the cost. Same amount of material providing twice the energy storage.

I'm also not a fan of the vault cover (sliding solar glass would of been better),

Better in what way? It would add significant cost and only a tiny amount of additional range even in ideal conditions.

Overall a van design would offer the capacity to NOT have to tow at all in most cases, because things could be placed in the vehicle directly

Only relatively small items that wouldn't be towed anyway. Unless you are considering a much longer overall vehicle which would cost more and weigh more.

Sponsored