PSA: Cybertruck body shell exoskeleton is not one contiguous piece of bent steel

[RVAC]

Gap on the C pillar hopefully due to sail storage and that on the A pillar likely necessary for crash worthiness.

Sponsored

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

The Exoskeleton will need to be Stainless Steel Origami to qualify as such. Our faith that they can accomplish that doesn't make it so. Tesla is know to stretch with their descriptions and FSD is another good example. FSD is NOT ready for primetime and should continue in BETA test until more "edge cases" are resolved. Calling it Advanced Auto Pilot and ongoing Beta Testing by high safety score drivers would be a better way of addressing the Robo Taxi goals.

I do not understand why you are taking a discussion about hardware and going orthogonal to FSD. Yes, Tesla has been way off in their predictions about when FSD will be ready, but they can build cars and have never failed in that regard. I have 100% faith that they will have an origami-style exoskeleton made from 3mm stainless and that they will start production in the next quarter or so. I still do not have faith that they will have a Level 5 self driving vehicle in the next 5 years, but it will be good enough by the time the CT comes out that it will be worth the $7K I am paying for it. I have no personal interest in robotaxis.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

The point of the sledge hammer demonstration is to show the stainless steel will not dent as easily ...

It was both: to show what happens with a traditional door and what doesn't happen with a CT door.

 

[HaulingAss]

Dude you can't just say stuff as if it was so without any evidence, let alone provide evidence directly contrary to your own statements to make your point. Make up your mind which way you want it first.

So is an exoskeleton by definition "covered" or not? Explain.

BTW Those car images you showed (ariel etc) are just simple tubular 3D space frames, which is the same structure as the CT cabin (as other cars have too like the M3/MY), but has nothing to do with exoskeleton, regardless of what someone, or EM wants to call it.

You can believe what you want but an exoskeleton does not have to be skinned to qualify as an exoskeleton, the supporting structure merely needs to be on the exterior instead of the interior.

The fact that Elon said the Cybertruck has an exoskeleton has really upset you, I can see that. What I don't understand is why such an accurate terminology has upset you so much. I can only guess that you have a funny idea of what qualifies as an exoskeleton and can't let it go.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Classically, the term applied to animals: endoskeleton like us vs exoskeleton:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exoskeleton

With respect to cars and other vehicles it is similar. The approximate equivalent to the endoskeleton is the body on frame design. Somewherein the middle is a unibody design. The Cybertruck is pretty close to an exoskeleton design, where the skin is load carrying (no matter hid it is made). The only way to achieve this without being a unibody is with a very strong/rigid material, and the 3mm steel achieves that (according to Tesla). Then there are other attributes that are beneficial.

this is my understanding at least. I do not think it matters how many pieces are involved. If you look at an ant, for example, there are multiple sections but each one is an exoskeleton design.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

A standard vehicle door structure is made of two separate layers of steel (exterior panel, raised interior panel), hinge reinforcement plates, latch/lock reinforcement plate, and body intrusion reinforcement beams and all this is welded together. Each steel layer might be 0.7mm to 0.9mm. The outer panel is high carbon steel while the intrusion reinforcement beam might be ultra high strength steel. So in the width dimension the door is two layers of steel (outer panel, interior frame) and in some places 3-4 layers with hollow space between most of the outer panel and interior frame. Within the steel structure hollow space are mounted the exterior handles, interior handles, window mechanism, latch, hinges, speakers, etc. The exterior panel is painted to match body while interior is covered with plastic trim cover panel.

The Cybertruck 3mm cold rolled stainless looks like it is excessive but it actually is doing the job of multiple components of a standard door while being stronger, less complex to build and probably overall be lighter. No body intrusion reinforcement beams and their welding. No reinforcement plates and welding. No interior steel frame. Some mechanisms will be anchored directly to the 3mm cold rolled stainless outer panel while other mounted to plastic inner panel. Plastic panel interior cover. With the Cybertruck all the steel is on the outside panel instead of the standard door which made mostly from thin mild steel formed into a tall & wide but narrow box.

8

-----------------

Body Structures - Made by MAGNA
https://www.magna.com/products/product/body-structures

-----------------

Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS) for Stronger, Lighter and Safer Cars
By NS Nina Samodajev on June 3, 2019
https://matmatch.com/resources/blog/advanced-high-strength-steel-stronger-lighter-safer-cars/

--------------------------------------

SMDI: More than 65 advanced high-strength steel vehicles debuted in 2018
By John Huetter on January 8, 2019
https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/...high-strength-steel-vehicles-debuted-in-2018/

--------------------------------------

How It's Made - Car Doors
Discovery and Science Channel's How It's Made Car Doors episode.
2011
Panos Egglezos


-------




--------------------------------------

Robotic Car Door Manufacturing Line built by Machine Dynamics for Ford Australia
Sep 18, 2012
andrewdonalddesign


--------




--------------------------------------

I suspect that there will still be a metal inner door for mounting the window system as I am unsure whether plastic could handle that over a lifetime. Composite could but that might be too expensive/time consuming. I don’t know. But yes, there won’t be all those other pieces. I am not sure how the door lock and opening mechanism will be mounted.

 

[RMK!]

I do not understand why you are taking a discussion about hardware and going orthogonal to FSD. Yes, Tesla has been way off in their predictions about when FSD will be ready, but they can build cars and have never failed in that regard. I have 100% faith that they will have an origami-style exoskeleton made from 3mm stainless and that they will start production in the next quarter or so. I still do not have faith that they will have a Level 5 self driving vehicle in the next 5 years, but it will be good enough by the time the CT comes out that it will be worth the $7K I am paying for it. I have no personal interest in robotaxis.

If Tesla is embroiled in controversy and lawsuits due to a premature release of Full Self Driving (FSD) to everyone, it could be very bad for Tesla and, obviously the CyberTruck.

Apparently, you don't own a Tesla but believe me, FSD is not there yet and should NOT be released to all people. It will be a disaster if they do and that will impact all of Tesla. .

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

If Tesla is embroiled in controversy and lawsuits due to a premature release of Full Self Driving (FSD) to everyone, it could be very bad for Tesla and, obviously the CyberTruck.

Apparently, you don't own a Tesla but believe me, FSD is not there yet and should NOT be released to all people. It will be a disaster if they do and that will impact all of Tesla. .

I own 2 Teslas and am in the beta program. I happen to agree with you about FSD maturity. I have a pretty good-sized list of things they need to fix/improve for FSD to gain my trust. That said, I do not think that 'any' lawsuit against Tesla over FSD will prevail. They have good documentation about how FSD is to be used during the beta and anyone that screws up with it has themselves to answer to. I do not expect anything relating to FSD to have an impact on Cybertruck production.

 

[JBee]

Sure.

You can believe what you want but an exoskeleton does not have to be skinned to qualify as an exoskeleton, the supporting structure merely needs to be on the exterior instead of the interior.

The fact that Elon said the Cybertruck has an exoskeleton has really upset you, I can see that. What I don't understand is why such an accurate terminology has upset you so much. I can only guess that you have a funny idea of what qualifies as an exoskeleton and can't let it go.

Sure sure, anything you say.
So lets try it your way then:

1) is the cabin frame inside or outside the skin covering?
2) are the front and rear casts inside the skin covering?
3) is the structural pack inside of the skin?

What loads do you think are left for the skin or "exoskeleton" fenders to carry?

Remember inside is the opposite of outside, so things that are inside the skin covering are "endoskeleton" and things that use the outside skin covering for load bearing purposes are "exoskeleton".

Hence my position that you, not EM, are flip flopping between different components and calling them the same thing, whereas in reality they are not and have different names. EM at least uses the term loosely "like an exoskeleton" for marketing reasons, but it seems you want to turn it into scripture by taking the rest of the structure out of context and applying the theology across everything CT.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Sure.


Sure sure, anything you say.
So lets try it your way then:

1) is the cabin frame inside or outside the skin covering?
2) are the front and rear casts inside the skin covering?
3) is the structural pack inside of the skin?

What loads do you think are left for the skin or "exoskeleton" fenders to carry?

Remember inside is the opposite of outside, so things that are inside the skin covering are "endoskeleton" and things that use the outside skin covering for load bearing purposes are "exoskeleton".

Hence my position that you, not EM, are flip flopping between different components and calling them the same thing, whereas in reality they are not and have different names. EM at least uses the term loosely "like an exoskeleton" for marketing reasons, but it seems you want to turn it into scripture by taking the rest of the structure out of context and applying the theology across everything CT.

Have you seen the two or more videos that talk about the exoskeleton and how it affects rigidity? They also ask the same[reasonable] questions that you raise, and they answer them - quite clearly. One of them was, I believe, by ‘The Limiting Factor’ and another was by ‘Connecting The Dots’. The short story is that the exoskeleton dramatically increases torsional rigidity beyond any other design. I encourage you to take a look and see what you think.

 

[JBee]

Have you seen the two or more videos that talk about the exoskeleton and how it affects rigidity? They also ask the same[reasonable] questions that you raise, and they answer them - quite clearly. One of them was, I believe, by ‘The Limiting Factor’ and another was by ‘Connecting The Dots’. The short story is that the exoskeleton dramatically increases torsional rigidity beyond any other design. I encourage you to take a look and see what you think.

I don't have a problem with the performance of the physical structure only with the false nomenclature.

What is inside can't be outside, so any term with "exo" can only be outside, and "skeleton" can't be inside of it if it's an exoskeleton. Structurally the cabin is a space frame, the casts, well casts, and the structural pack a sandwich panel. The fenders could be classified exoskeleton under the definition but don't facilitate meaningful additional structure, but are not the same as the other frames.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

In neither of these are the castings or battery pack considered as part of the skeleton (inside as you say). Anyway, I see now that your beef is entirely terminological and not structural. Since I do not give a whit for the terminological provenance but only the structural significance, I am not done. It would be silly to argue over names. It is like giving oxygen to the argument against FSD as not “full self driving” or against AP, EAP, and NoAP as not being “auto pilot”. Again, arguing over the names is a lost cause. I acknowledge your right to challenge the naming but it is a position without merit.

and just for the record, I was educated as an aerospace structural engineer as well, not as a linguist or a philosopher.

 

[JBee]

In neither of these are the castings or battery pack considered as part of the skeleton (inside as you say). Anyway, I see now that your beef is entirely terminological and not structural. Since I do not give a whit for the terminological provenance but only the structural significance, I am not done. It would be silly to argue over names. It is like giving oxygen to the argument against FSD as not “full self driving” or against AP, EAP, and NoAP as not being “auto pilot”. Again, arguing over the names is a lost cause. I acknowledge your right to challenge the naming but it is a position without merit.

and just for the record, I was educated as an aerospace structural engineer as well, not as a linguist or a philosopher.

I can agree that sometimes it's unnecessary to define things as an analogy to get a point accross, but I draw the line when some people name things a certain way and then proceed to give those things they have mislabelled, properties they absolutely do not have.

Either call it what it is or change what it is to meet the definition. Sadly, I'd have to bundle AP and FSD in the same group of vague "marketing terminology" in an effort to extract funds before they are complete. I admire the development progress but take the salesmanship with a grain of salt. There's only so much "future" promises I'm willing to buy.

As for the CT design I have always been a fan of the design and still am, with many conversations about how good it isyears ago , but I don't care much for fan based pseudonyms that distort what it actually is, or lack defining the different things it is made of.

Happy to discuss the structure in detail as per my previous link to my other post instead though.

 

[ÆCIII]

I never saw or heard anyone say it was ("...one contiguous piece...) ever - except for the OP with this thread (and I'm not going to take the time to read through all the replies of it either). Most people I know realize the CT has a frunk, doors, and a tailgate all of which do open and close. Who said otherwise again? The word "many" does not qualify as any viable concise reference. I think my teacher told me that in the third or fourth grade.

 

[RMK!]

I own 2 Teslas and am in the beta program. I happen to agree with you about FSD maturity. I have a pretty good-sized list of things they need to fix/improve for FSD to gain my trust. That said, I do not think that 'any' lawsuit against Tesla over FSD will prevail. They have good documentation about how FSD is to be used during the beta and anyone that screws up with it has themselves to answer to. I do not expect anything relating to FSD to have an impact on Cybertruck production.

My comments are related to the general release of FSD essentially ending the Beta program. They even removed the incident report button on the most current software release.

My wife is anxious to get FSD on her Model 3 but her expectation is that the car will indeed be Full Self Driving and at this juncture, that is clearly NOT the case. If you don't see this as potentially litigious well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. FUD impacts Tesla every day and this foolish FSD move will only compound that perhaps exponentially.

Sponsored