Offroad Video By Normal Guy

[Woodrick]

This entire locker thing is going to disappear one day when they update the software with the capability soon. This is much ado about nothing.

This happens times after time with Tesla.

Sponsored

 

[JBee]

There is absolutely no reason to have lockers for that situation, especially if the Subaru did it without them. The longer wheelbase geometry actually helps here if anything.

It's quite simply those huge anti sway bars that the CT has up front that is destroying the amount of wheel articulation the Cybertruck has, and the air suspension setup.

The whole point of a sway bar is to inhibit side to side roll motion when cornering.

But when you are offroad you actually WANT the suspension to allow roll.

That is why they invented sway bar disconnects many decades ago.

My 2001 Land Rover Discovery done one better: it had hydraulic ram activated sway bars that would allow it to roll against the corner, to reduce g-forces on passengers and it would roll upwards towards a slope offroad AND allow for absolutely unencumbered wheel articulation offroad as required, all in real-time over bumps.

Simply, you don't need traction control or differential locks AT ALL if you have similar amounts of traction on each wheel, because they are also touching the ground with enough wheel articulation.

Further, it still appears that the Cybertruck is NOT cross linking the airbag suspension, which means that this is also stopping the wheels from articulating as well. The joke is the silly "offroad mode" is making it even worse, in that the airbags are being operated at higher pressure to keep the CT higher off the ground, and is also why the suspension can't compress enough to put the other wheels on the ground.

If they have independent realtime airbag pressure control (I hope they do), then they can simply deflate the high articulation side to the low side, and then both sides would touch and have enough ground pressure to have traction.

I have highlighted this time and again, but it seems to still be ignored.

Just rent a Land Rover Discovery or a Range Rover for a day to see how it SHOULD be done.

This type of performance is a joke and frankly embarrassing now, seeing that it hasn't changed in two months since we saw the test mules going up that track, every other vehicle done without a fuss.

 

[JBee]

Torque is not a concern here, it's easy to control torque in realtime with the motor inverter. Depending on the type of locker used, lockers will only be allowed to engage if wheel rpm is within a range or the same, or when stationary.

Once the locker is engaged the motor will regulate torque as normal and won't be able to differentiate which wheel has more traction.

Hopefully they also reduce torque with high wheel articulation to avoid destroying CVs.

But in saying that dual range off road ICE vehicles also produce serious amounts of wheel torque. So it shouldn't be that hard to make work.

 

[Coolbreeze704]

There is absolutely no reason to have lockers for that situation, especially if the Subaru did it without them. The longer wheelbase geometry actually helps here if anything.

It's quite simply those huge anti sway bars that the CT has up front that is destroying the amount of wheel articulation the Cybertruck has, and the air suspension setup.

The whole point of a sway bar is to inhibit side to side roll motion when cornering.

But when you are offroad you actually WANT the suspension to allow roll.

That is why they invented sway bar disconnects many decades ago.

My 2001 Land Rover Discovery done one better: it had hydraulic ram activated sway bars that would allow it to roll against the corner, to reduce g-forces on passengers and it would roll upwards towards a slope offroad AND allow for absolutely unencumbered wheel articulation offroad as required, all in real-time over bumps.

Simply, you don't need traction control or differential locks AT ALL if you have similar amounts of traction on each wheel, because they are also touching the ground with enough wheel articulation.

Further, it still appears that the Cybertruck is NOT cross linking the airbag suspension, which means that this is also stopping the wheels from articulating as well. The joke is the silly "offroad mode" is making it even worse, in that the airbags are being operated at higher pressure to keep the CT higher off the ground, and is also why the suspension can't compress enough to put the other wheels on the ground.

If they have independent realtime airbag pressure control (I hope they do), then they can simply deflate the high articulation side to the low side, and then both sides would touch and have enough ground pressure to have traction.

I have highlighted this time and again, but it seems to still be ignored.

Just rent a Land Rover Discovery or a Range Rover for a day to see how it SHOULD be done.

This type of performance is a joke and frankly embarrassing now, seeing that it hasn't changed in two months since we saw the test mules going up that track, every other vehicle done without a fuss.

I had a 06 LR3. Some of the most fun I have had off-road particularly in snow. Miss that vehicle. Just cost to much to keep it running.

 

[JBee]

I had a 06 LR3. Some of the most fun I have had off-road particularly in snow. Miss that vehicle. Just cost to much to keep it running.

I had mine for 3 years and got rid of it before things started playing up. This was around the time BMW was running them, and that sway bar tech was from a M5, so they improved after that a bit. But still had shoddy electrical, and the airbag suspension worked well until it didn't. Reliability was not high, but functionality and performance was at the time.

 

[GhostAndSkater]

Further, it still appears that the Cybertruck is NOT cross linking the airbag suspension, which means that this is also stopping the wheels from articulating as well. The joke is the silly "offroad mode" is making it even worse, in that the airbags are being operated at higher pressure to keep the CT higher off the ground, and is also why the suspension can't compress enough to put the other wheels on the ground.

On rock crawl mode it is supposed to cross link the airbags

If I were to guess, I would say the off road modes are doing nothing right now other than change suspension height

A random person that supposedly talked to a Cybertruck engineer that is working on that section of Cybertruck said a update should come in a bit more than a month that will enable lockers, maybe more if my theory above is correct

If you guys go back a little, when Rivian launched while traction control worked, there were many issues and quirks that they steadily improved, it's not perfect and likely will never be due to the lack of lockers, but it's miles ahead from what it was

 

[JBee]

On rock crawl mode it is supposed to cross link the airbags

If I were to guess, I would say the off road modes are doing nothing right now other than change suspension height

A random person that supposedly talked to a Cybertruck engineer that is working on that section of Cybertruck said a update should come in a bit more than a month that will enable lockers, maybe more if my theory above is correct

If you guys go back a little, when Rivian launched while traction control worked, there were many issues and quirks that they steadily improved, it's not perfect and likely will never be due to the lack of lockers, but it's miles ahead from what it was

I hope that's true that it can be cross linked, and I'm grateful for the lockers being there in hardware, as it was mechanically obvious something had to be done there to give it some capability.

But, I honestly believe that they have dropped the ball here, in that the front and rear stabilisers don't have a disconnect. You can't "program" a disconnect so the problem will primarily remain until the hardware is changed and retrofitted. Thats not a good look, either way.

To me this means that Cybertruck testing and the engineers involved in its offroad capability, never got as far as addressing this head on, and have simply installed sway bars like any other road going Tesla and tuned it for good onroad handling. This might of been due to various factors, but likely because of the lack of experience in terrain modeling and its dynamics on suspension components. This is the reverse process of designing to constraints, or by first principles for that matter, if by their own accord, they simply designed the hardware that is installed on a customer vehicle, without even testing it to full suspension travel, as will always be the case when a customer takes it offroad.

Every bit of suspension lift created by the sway bar and air bags is reducing overall traction. Using the lockers, or traction control to compensate for it is the worst way to fix it, and brings about a whole host of other drivetrain issues and lack of steering capability which in turn is crucial in those situations.

Simply the current suspension design is reducing traction and vehicle stability, and usinh countermeasures to compensate for those failures, is poor form to say the least.

In saying that I admit however, that a mechanical sway bar disconnect is a simple affair to retrofit, but that only highlights the omission of one in the first place even more.

A simple suspension test mule would have highlighted these problems on any company off-road test track or simulator stand. They had 4 years to solve this, and how to enable diff locks without wrecking something as well.

Ideally they'd install a Kinetic/KDSS type setup, as this is idiot proof and needs no driver interaction, and could be installed by simply replacing one of the linkages at the end of each front and rear sway bar, and running two hydraulic hoses between the actuators. Thats probably the best passive system, but active ones are also possible but would likely cost more.

 

[GhostAndSkater]

I hope that's true that it can be cross linked, and I'm grateful for the lockers being there in hardware, as it was mechanically obvious something had to be done there to give it some capability....

A bit uncertain on the language if it means connecting front right and left or one side front to rear, first option is more likely

Although I agree with your take, I think it's simply, how many people will take if off road to the point it requires a sway bar disconnect? The answer is probably a tiny tiny portion of buyers, a lot of it's features are geared to what the majority need, not solving every need a small group of people would want

For those that want it, they can buy already

https://unpluggedperformance.com/pr...ont-rear-sway-bar-quick-disconnect-end-links/

 

[scottf200]

and have simply installed sway bars like any other road going Tesla and tuned it for good onroad handling.

For those that want it, they can buy already
https://unpluggedperformance.com/pr...ont-rear-sway-bar-quick-disconnect-end-links/

Nice input.

 

[SlegMD]

It’s like the alleged off-road designer had minimal contribution or input during development, they simply designed the CT like the SEXY squad.

Aftermarket suspension upgrades should have been expected though. Hopefully the suspension proves to be functional rather than…. For illusion funzies?

 

[Woodrick]

But, I honestly believe that they have dropped the ball here, in that the front and rear stabilisers don't have a disconnect. You can't "program" a disconnect so the problem will primarily remain until the hardware is changed and retrofitted. Thats not a good look, either way.

This is Tesla, they haven't dropped the ball, they just haven't picked it up yet. That's the way Tesla operates. Give them a little time to pick the ball up.

 

[cvalue13]

This is Tesla, they haven't dropped the ball, they just haven't picked it up yet. That's the way Tesla operates. Give them a little time to pick the ball up.

jebus, the semantic acrobatics of apologism

you conveniently leave out Tesla touting the vehicles competition-crushing capabilities

If, as you allege, the company’s ‘plan’ and ‘history’ is to “fix it later,” if nothing else it doesn’t explain away the “but market it first”

not that I agree with these apologist acrobatics in the first

Way I see it, at best you have a choice: admit there are MANY ways in which the CT evidences that building a capable truck isn’t as easy as Tesla anticipated, OR they are knowingly trying to get away with selling a thing that it isn’t

I think the former is the fairer critique

 

[Woodrick]

jebus, the semantic acrobatics of apologism

you conveniently leave out Tesla touting the vehicles competition-crushing capabilities

If, as you allege, the company’s ‘plan’ and ‘history’ is to “fix it later,” if nothing else it doesn’t explain away the “but market it first”

not that I agree with these apologist acrobatics in the first

Way I see it, at best you have a choice: admit there are MANY ways in which the CT evidences that building a capable truck isn’t as easy as Tesla anticipated, OR they are knowingly trying to get away with selling a thing that it isn’t

I think the former is the fairer critique

Or as you, "not a Tesla owner", don't seem to understand, that's just not the way Tesla rolls. Pretty much every one of their big features tend to come to existing cars. And even the features that only came with a new vehicle, like Plaid, if I remember correctly, was further enhanced after the vehicle was shipped.

I am not apologetic, I'm a realist. My first Tesla didn't have the ability to turn the rear seat heaters on, it came in a release or two later. Not a big deal.

I'm pretty sure that once the software team has a chance to get the truck in front of some of the experts in the field and start better understanding the detailed requirements, that we'll see some pretty awesome stuff coming out in new releases.
It's pretty much EXACTLY what Tesla did with Track Mode. They heard the input, then studied and understood the requirements, and they came out with an industry leading solution. Was it that way when the car shipped? No.

Sponsored