Hacker News Reader

Comment by ortusdux | Hacker News Reader

I did not realize that they backtracked on the exoskeleton design.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-went-fro...

"In its Q1 2023 Update report, Tesla disclosed images of the Tesla Cybertruck pilot production line. They were enough for Cory Steuben, from Munro Live, to clarify that the Cybertruck does not have an exoskeleton. The engineer candidly shared in an interview that we are in front of a unibody structure. In other words, it "will be more like a Honda Ridgeline" or "a big old Model Y." Towing and transporting stuff in the bed will face massive challenges due to the way the truck will be built."

View on HN

I wonder why they didn't update their product order page if they moved away from exoskeleton.

https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck

The CyberTruck's shape already precludes it from being used as a serious work vehicle. Clearly the truck can't be used to tow fifth wheels or goose neck trailers due to the triangular sloped sides. That's fine, I suppose. This is more of an SUV competitor than a truck competitor anyways.

Or what Australians call "UTEs"[0]. Which is a class of vehicle regaining popularity in the US with the Ford Maverick and Hyundai Santa Cruz (which incidentally has a very similar shape/problems).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)

The shape makes it hard for me to take it as anything but a joke.

I'm sure it's not, though.

What's the significance of this for someone unfamiliar?

i believe the original design was a patented concept that promised to streamline production, sounds like they flipped back to a standard chasis design to me?

IIRC, part of the goal was weight reduction, which is a significant consideration with EVs. If you can convert the cosmetic body panels into structural elements, you can reduce the overall bill of materials.

They have since aggressively pursued large cast aluminum frame technology. This reportedly reduced the complexity of their car's frames from 100+ pcs down to 1 or 2. My guess is that they switched the trucks fully over to these Al frames as a way to homogenize their production lines. Purely conjecture, but they probably held off under the assumption that they could not produce the Al frames fast enough, but a sales slump freed up the production capability.

appreciate the additional info here. thanks

Does that mean they binned the design they did on a 386?

Unibody design are so costly to repair if in the slightest accident/fender bender.

Tesla has never been concerned with post-sales support or maintenance.

I can't imagine an exoskeleton vehicle would have fared any better. That was one of my biggest concerns - would a dented side panel count as frame damage?

Yeah I cant imagine what repairs on that would be. It sounded like the structural integrity was pushed to the panels? So maybe it would be easier to repair but unlikely?

During the launch they bragged about the fancy alloy they were going to use for the exoskeleton, going so far as to hit it with a sledge hammer on stage. The alloy gets its strength from fancy hardening methods, which are undone by high heat, so welding weld repairs are not an option. I would guess that the exoskeleton idea was engineer driven, but had to be walked back by other departments.

You mean Musk hype driven walked back by engineering reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com