Cybertruck Is Already a Production Nightmare for Tesla | Hacker News Reader

Cybertruck Is Already a Production Nightmare for Tesla

bloomberg.com

43 pointsmfiguiere166 comments

Stainless steel is a very difficult material to work with and solves no problem not already solved more easily and cheaply. All I can say is woe be to you should you get into any kind of accident - very few auto repair shops can work with stainless steel and you're going to be gobsmacked by the cost of repair. That's going to lead to insane insurance rates for these vehicles.

It'll be interesting to see how quickly Tesla brings out another truck to replace this model. Like the Model X, they'll have learned a lot that they can apply on their next truck.

> It'll be interesting to see how quickly Tesla brings out another truck to replace this model.

That seems unlikely given how much of Elon's ego is tied up in this thing. It'd be the sanest thing for them to do, but I just don't see it happening.

I'd be overjoyed by an electric minivan.

> I'd be overjoyed by an electric minivan.

https://www.vw.com/en/models/id-buzz.html

A fan favorite for sure. Still no word on range or price from the looks of it though. That will be the deal breaker for most.

Yeah, I've been waiting on updates for a while now. A friend saw one in Europe and said it was smaller than he expected, particularly in width. I'm also not looking forward to a vehicle made entirely of Volkswagen-quality wiring given my past experiences.

Well the Euro model is a 2-row and the US is a 3-row so like many things, it's bigger in the US.

~65k EUR before incentives, 400km range based on the European rating system. You’d assume the US version will be similar. Definitely on the expensive side.

I would encourage everyone to remember Volkswagen deliberately and systemically cheated on their environmental emissions, at the direction of the highest levels of the company.

Corporate accountability is consumers not forgetting the bullshit they pull, and making and standing by statements like “Because of their deliberate hostility towards consumers, regulators, and the environment, I will never buy a Volkswagen vehicle and have less respect for anyone who does”.

There are many vehicle manufacturers out there. No one needs a Volkswagen. They’re not even good cars or particularly economical.

True. But: they also are trying pretty hard to recover from that and in spite of what you are saying they are pretty good cars and pretty economical.

I think a matte black version would work with the vibe they are going for, and it would solve a ton of the problems discussed here.

I think the vibe is explicitly DeLoren tho (right down to the market failure apparently).

It won't have a high production rate in the beginning anyway, so we'll have time to see how it goes.

I personally think it's great that they are attempting to build such a thing.

EDIT: Media sure tries to put negative stories out around launch time.

The media often puts out negative stories around the launch of bad products. Remember Juicero?

Juicero was a totally fine product except for everything, but media of course hated on it. The owners were very socially-oriented people and imagined homeless people could now have one juice per day at only 10$ a pop at a bar near their favorite sheltering spot, but no, media hated it. They even thought about maintaining brand image and value so they chose to go for 100% vendor lock-in. You can't have more than 100% right but the media, of course, hated on this fine product. The sad but at this point predictable failure of this business is only the down to the media. /s

I commend them for trying, but it should've stayed a concept car or limited collector's item, instead they're trying to mass produce it, they bet a lot on it.

Most popular car company is trying to make most popular car shape. Failure imminent.

> I personally think it's great that they are attempting to build such a thing.

Why? It seems like a novelty and crumple zones were added to cars for a reason - a feature stainless steel likely cannot replicate.

>>> Why? It seems like a novelty and crumple zones were added to cars for a reason - a feature stainless steel likely cannot replicate.

I think it's unlikely that a company that has launched 3 wildly successful, completely new cars already has gone this far with the cybertruck and hasn't thought of crumple zones.

Stainless steel is easy to repair as long as you don't try and preserve its finish. Myself I think it looks better once it has developed an interesting patina, but I don't think my tastes are common.

another good point -- what's the cybertruck gonna look like in 10 years?

patina as a sign of virtue and long ownership?

Yes. Also when I drive I don't really care how my car looks. Practicality mattes much more - I don't wanna fix every scratch or dent and steel is far more resistant to this.

I don't get it how people don't understand this.

Someone who spent $500k on a lambo cares about how their car looks.

How about g wagon?

A G wagon is an overpriced piece of junk, you'd be better off buying the original 60's Land Rover if you can find one. It will run circles around the G wagon everywhere except for the highways. But if you lean towards golden chains around your neck then maybe a G wagon is just the ticket.

Confirmed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtwKO3jIAdk

Cars are status symbols as well as tools. As a tool, a car’s function is not impacted by scratches. As a status symbol, it will become less impactful due to scratches, dings, and dents.

Unless Tesla figures out how to sell these scratches & dents as Wabi Sabi.

My understanding was that the whole design was based on a radical exoskeleton concept in order to reduce production cost. But in development that didn’t work out (NVH was a nightmare among other things) and so it’s a conventional structure with the weird design and stainless steel panels on top. It seems to me that they should have completely redesigned the truck when they found they had to stop pursuing the original concept, but they kept the exterior they originally showed. I think it’s great that they tried something different, but I’m worried that they now have a compromised design, inheriting the compromises of the original design, with the cost, weight, and complexity of underpinning it with a traditional unibody.

It will be interesting to see how the cybertruck turns out.

As they say in the metalworking world: stainless steel isn't hard, it's just hard.

Isn’t this similar to how a number of their models began? Or are there specific reasons this time is different?

Bigger picture, I just like seeing attempts at stuff that is quite different. It feels like we’ve become incredibly risk averse.

Yeah me too. What prevents that is all the cynicism. Also clickbait garbage headline.

Cars are risk adverse for a reason: people's lives are at stake.

steel is stronger than aluminum, in theory that should improve outcomes, all other variables held

Tesla vehicles also have some of the highest safety ratings around. Metal choice is also probably less of a factor than the shape of the pieces, so if they can do it with aluminum, steel is probably not that much different

edit...

It seems most vehicles are primarily made of iron and steel. So do these points made still hold up? Is your vehicle chassis made of aluminum or steel... the answer might surprise the commenters here

https://www.statista.com/statistics/882580/us-and-canadian-b...

Unless you're on the other side of it

metal choice is such a small factor for crash outcomes... what if the other side is a semi truck?

Citation on that statement?

Materials matter a lot.

Speed(ing) seems to be the most determinate factor in crashes, which makes sense since it's half of the formula

https://www.demandthelimits.com/what-is-the-biggest-factor-i...

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/linear-momentum/...

Also consider that existing vehicles are mostly steel today, this is just the body, which can be thinned out, as it does not serve as a major structural component

Sure the car will come out less damaged, but the pedestrians will be far more likely to die.

Do you really think if a vehicle hits a pedestrian, that metal choice will make a difference? Wouldn't speed be a more important factor?

There are aluminum vehicles that weigh more, it's really momentum rather than gross weight

Body panel angles and speed are the big ones.

Or, to put it another way, can a soft body deform around the vehicle and be thrown away from the impact? The sharp wedge shape from the front grille to the hood kinda says "No" to me.

Regardless, it will be good to see what comes out of testing.

It's angle. But we'll see, European crash test are a lot less permissive than the US ones, as regulator don't think 'killing people in older cars, on bike or on foot is a feature!'. If it isn't sold in the EU, it isn't safe.

Once again today i'll be fair to Elon, most new US SUV/pickups don't pass EU crash tests.

Pretty sure we have more sophisticated materials science now, so we don't simply have to use such a heavy metal; better to use a lightweight alloy, with the usual crumble zones and strength from design integrity, not basic material strength.

Manufacturers learned decades ago that aluminum is safer for driving, more efficient, and easier to manufacture.

You say it like it's dumb to explore new designs because apparently we've already known for decades everything there is to know.

Stainless steel has been around longer than cars. I'd say it's fairly safe to assume that some R&D department has done exactly that. Their criteria was probably slightly different than Tesla's, but reduced costs (pennies matter when building things at scale) and increased safety (fewer fines, recalls, etc) are going to be the same.

The manufacturing process and design was entirely different though.

> design was entirely different

Frankly, I have doubts. Being entirely different from the rest of the players in this multi-billion dollar industry is a pretty high bar to cross. Especially when some of them have been working in this industry (and had access to the same materials) for over a century.

Yet Tesla has tried different things and now we see the larger auto industry singing a new tune. The most visible example of this is the GigaCast. The Old Auto companies never thought this was a viable path until Tesla showed how superior it actually is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNWYk4DdT_E

Sandy Munro is a leading expert in the auto industry, tears down all the vehicles and consults with all the major manufactures. He has many great videos on the trends. One thing he consistently points out is how adverse "old auto" is to new ideas or change of any kind, that they don't know how to innovate

Another example are the 4680 battery cells.

That is fascinating, thank you.

>The manufacturing process and design was entirely different though.

I used to work in automotive assembly, specifically in body panel stamping as a controls engineer (ie programming the robots). The big presses were set to accept both aluminum and steel. For example, the robots could use magnets for the steel or suction for the aluminum to move the parts, but the basic manufacturing used the same assembly lines. It was common to run both in the same shift.

Steel bodied cars are not a new design.

We have learned a lot since they were common. Does our increased understanding over several decades factor in?

How does this logic hold up for another application, like the distributedness of the internet? It started out very distributed, but the last ~20 years we have seen a significant centralization. Yet we now see people trying really hard to re-decentralize major services. Should they not try based on your rationale, analogized?

We are not talking about any of that other stuff. It's irrelevant. We are talking about the Cybertruck, which Tesla has put into production and taken orders for. It is not an R&D prototype. So this is something very concrete.

Do you or Tesla have any data or studies or announcements that point to some unknown advancement with one of the oldest industrial materials in one of the oldest industries? This isn't some hypothetical discussion. You should have something to point to.

The fact of the matter is that there isn't a known advancement to point to. This is a production vehicle that goes against several well-known, established for decades design principles in car design. It will not absorb energy in a crash like every other modern car with crumple zones. It will deliver energy both to the crash target and to the inhabitants.

If Tesla had made some magic advancement, do you not think they would share it?

You keep implying towards some ethereal advancement and arguing with people based upon known, existing facts. Until there's something different, you're just speculating without basis and on a product made by a company well-known and infamous for lying and overhyping product features and advancements.

I'm not implying some ethereal advancement, rather that the commenters here are stuck in their opinions and ideas. People just want to hate on it, so it goes...

You keep implying it is impossible to build a crumple zone with a steel body, I just don't buy into the impossibility. Either way, despite orders and production, the vehicle will only be allowed on the roads of it meets safety standards. So either they will make it work or have to change things.

I'm sure you, as an expert, shall point out how I'm wrong yet again

The material is not new but the design very obviously is.

Please tell me which other car has a steel gigacasted frame.

Not if you plough your 10(?) tonnes vehicle into another one.

That's not really how crumple zones and modern automotive safety works.

There are videos of old cars vs. new in crash safety tests. The old cars are "stronger" and hold their shape better, but that doesn't help the occupants at all. It only transfers more energy into the humans inside.

what prevents similar crumple zones with steel? You don't think we can apply the lessons learned from the last 50 years to a steel body vehicle today?

It's not like the strength needs to be consistent everywhere. For example, you might want stronger frame around the battery while still having a crumple zone. Again, I don't see the metal choice as a determinate factor here, you can always make a steel part that underperforms an aluminum one, vice versa too

Straight steel is tough AF, it doesn't crumple the way modern vehicle metal alloys do. Teslas do have those titanium frames that protect the major areas of the vehicle (passengers and battery mainly), but the rest of the car can be crushed to smithereens and you'd most likely survive.

Some parts of cars are steel, which is fine. But having the entire body of the vehicle be steel is where you lose any benefit. What's going to crumple when there are no crumple zones? Most likely your spine...

> What's going to crumple when there are no crumple zones?

So you posit that it is impossible to make crumple zones with steel? That we cannot design a steel part that has crumple features? (or in Tesla's case, a single cast rather than numerous parts bolted or welded together)

Mild steel is used in crumple zones. Stainless steel (like the Cybertruck) is not. Mild steel is much more malleable and provides a much better crumpling. As well as a whole lotta engineering behind the scenes to optimize the type of crumpling. Since stainless steel has chromium in it, it's much tougher when impacted. Which is great for being bulletproof, but is absolutely not the best choice when it comes to prioritizing passenger safety.

EDIT: this isn't me being some contrarian cuz I don't like Elon. This is thousands of scientists' discoveries, research, and data over the course of almost 100 years at the tops of their fields in material sciences. If stainless steel could make a good metal to ensure passenger safety, we'd be using it by now.

How about we wait for the actual safety tests before claiming it will be better or worse for passengers? I suspect Tesla will continue their industry leading safety ratings.

Tesla can't wish away physics and material sciences. Good luck!

The mechanical properties of steel are the reason why it's harder to make effective crumple zones. So yes, the material does matter a lot.

I can design both steel and aluminum parts that I can or cannot bend, there's far more to it than the raw material choice

harder does not mean impossible, any vehicle will have to go through the same safety review, and with Tesla's above average safety ratings, this all seems moot to me

>Tesla vehicles also have some of the highest safety ratings around.

According to the IIHS, the Model Y is the only Tesla that made the safest cars list out of nearly 50 vehicles.[1]

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/the-safest-n...

Strength in vehicles has to do with directing force more than with deflecting it and for that to work you need to allow for deformation. A 'stronger' body by your definition may well be better at deflecting impact but it ends up being unsafe because a larger amount of the energy involved in the collision gets passed on to the interior of the car. Aluminum or steel isn't the question, the question is how does the chassis deform under various loads and impacts and what compromises do you have to make while engineering such a solution to achieve an acceptable outcome. The materials are different enough that you'd take a completely different approach for each, but you could still end up with a functional equivalent, and when all is said and done I'd expect the Aluminum version to be more expensive, a little bit lighter and harder (or even impossible) to repair after a collision.

It is similar in that other models - especially the Model S and Model X - struggled with production and quality issues.

It's different in that the Cybertruck is attempting to do things (stainless steel body design, for example) that conventional cars never do (for good reason) so it's not just a matter of Tesla learning to do what other car manufacturers can already do. It's a matter of building out a whole new set of manufacturing capabilities.

Whether they succeed at that remains to be seen.

The article was paywalled, but I'd imagine it's two main difficulties. One is fairly normal for early-production, but the other is much more fundamental to the design:

* The battery - Tesla is using some new battery technology on this model, which they haven't done at scale before. This will come together with time, as it did on the S, 3, Y, etc.

* The body - Unlike practically every car on the road, the CT is made out of stainless steel. Instead of stamping typically used on body panels, they have to be bent on very precise folding machines. The higher strength causes a lot more wear on the dies used for stamping. The only other production car to be made with stainless was the Delorean, which was also a mass-production nightmare.

https://wisconsinmetaltech.com/why-dont-we-see-more-stainles...

Just to add a little detail about working with stainless: contamination. You have to use separate tools between carbon steel and stainless steel, and even dust contamination between carbon steel work areas and stainless steel work areas can cause contamination on the stainless steel, which leads to rust.

I have no idea how they're going to keep the stainless from corroding in states that use salt for the roads in the wintertime. I was a project manager on many jobs fabricating stainless steel pipe, and we had to go to great lengths to prevent contamination, including shrink-wrapping every piece, in addition to using covered loads to prevent contamination from road salts. That's tangential to the manufacturing difficulties, but I have no idea how Tesla will respond to owners' rage over rust on their cybertruck after one winter.

> Bigger picture, I just like seeing attempts at stuff that is quite different. It feels like we’ve become incredibly risk averse.

That's a good point. Seeing this headline immediately filled me with schadenfreude, and I bet I'm not the only one. Instead it's worth it to take a step back from all that and just say, "Damn. I hope this weird truck gets made and helps change what a truck is."

I get this sentiment, and can even echo it a bit, but I don't believe this is a positive direction for trucks to be taking.

It's still too large, not functional enough as a truck, and focuses more on status an a "look" than usability. Can you imagine pulling into a quarry and getting a yard of rock in the bed? It would be a disaster. Or, how about getting a load of bricks or lumber from a big-box hardware store? They already have to put up signs with disclaimers that the truck bed might be damaged on loading... And forget about taking a load of trash to the dump.

I think my biggest fear would be that stainless steel is not uniformly protected. There's a thin layer of chromium oxide that forms on the surface which provides the protection. If you scratch through or damage that layer, you expose normal iron which can start to rust. It should mostly be cosmetic, but damaged stainless steel can still corrode.

And yes, I have a highly utilitarian view of what kinds of pickup trucks we really need on the roads.

Real question because I have a vested interest in a cheap, reliable, straightforward pickup truck* (which would most-efficiently be an EV): Why do you like seeing attempts at stuff for the sake of it being "different", when we haven't even gotten "plain" yet? Why is it "good", in your opinion, that companies try to do something 'outside the box' rather than fill a hole in the market with such an excellent product that they can afford to experiment both iteratively and in green-field situations?

I get not being mad at the company. It's their money, they can do whatever they want with it. I get not hating the product - everyone's milage may vary. But I sincerely do not understand defending the company from the very valid criticism that they are engaging in a boondoggle? They are. It's not a good thing. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not a reasonable endeavor. It's self-appeasement, plain and simple. Again, understandable not to condemn; but what is there to defend?

*please don't bother with recommendations; nothing on the market or in the near future is a chevy S10 (isuzu pickup/ford ranger/etc) with an electric engine and sodium batteries, so I honestly do not care about whatever somebody thinks is 'almost like' what I'm looking for. Yes; I know about the wheelbase EPA bullshit that makes those trucks invalid for ICE.

>It feels like we’ve become incredibly risk averse.

I understand (and agree) with this sentiment, but I think there's an important nuance. What we want is good risk-informed decision-making, not simply a higher risk tolerance. Just increasing risk tolerance doesn't automatically increase good decision-making. I don't give bonus points for just being different, I value being different for good reasons.

Working at a Production company (raw earth materials to working widgets that meet legal certifications) has taught me that it is difficult, complicated, and impressive that anything gets built at scale.

Everything is easy until you scale.

They very publicly broke their prototype with a hammer

that was a window, a part, not really a prototype

they did do an RCA on it iirc, it was the hammer to the door that pre-damaged the window before the ball

> they did do an RCA on it iirc, it was the hammer to the door that pre-damaged the window before the ball

well, maybe.

This is also the company that claimed a driver killed by autopilot had been warned for inattention while omitting that the warning had been 17 minutes prior to the crash. It's the company that promised their cars would be able to self drive from LA to the east coast by 2016. It's (basically) the company that claimed they had a production solar shingle that was actually fake.

Like, the list of lies and misleading statements goes on and on. And it's not like just big lies, they lie about small or inconsequential things too. Like, why would you trust them on the claims of their RCA?

Do you remember Diesel Gate? The Pinto? Toyota Airbags? Government Motors?

All big corporations lie, nothing new here

https://www.hotcars.com/carmaker-caught-in-embarrassing-lies

Do you think the current claimed reasons from old auto about EVs not being viable are truthful reasons?

Does this mean that all future ones will also break?

Also it was a ball, not a hammer.

It means the problem is not just 'things are hard at scale', like the parent comment suggested.

The level of excuse-making for Musk's bullshit gets really tiresome in these threads. Production car looks like a Pontiac Aztek rendered on a Commodore 64? New things are hard at scale! Prototype breaks when you hit it at launch event? New things are hard, this is fixed in the new model!

There's nothing cynical or malicious in being tired of a pathological level of lies and hype from a person who has real achievements to boast about, if he could just control the need to promise the sun and stars to everyone in Q2 of next year.

"a pathological level of lies and hype from a person who has real achievements to boast about, if he could just control the need to promise the sun and stars"

Can these things be separated? Can someone be reasonable and realistic and also achieve huge things?

I'm sure there are a few examples, but I wonder whether those other high-achievers just seem more reasonable because they aren't on Twitter/X.

>> "a pathological level of lies and hype from a person who has real achievements to boast about, if he could just control the need to promise the sun and stars"

> Can these things be separated? Can someone be reasonable and realistic and also achieve huge things?

Yes, of course they can. "Achieving huge things" does not require "a pathological level of lies and hype." As evidenced by every person who wasn't a twisted salesman who ever achieved something.

I saw one of these the other day driving around Santa Cruz. The guy I was with and I both said out loud how crappy it looked, build quality etc. Also the size is weird.

Agreed on the size aspect. IMO, the Cybertruck would look much cooler if it was like 80% of the size, and marketed as something more compact.

It looks cool in renderings with nothing near it for scale, but IRL the Cybertruck seems almost comically large.

Comically large yet you can't fit a mountain bike in the trunk.

Eh? The truck bed is 2m long, what mountain bike is 2m long?

https://twitter.com/DriveTeslaca/status/1724304381938679915?...

https://twitter.com/thisistechtoday/status/17248927974284535...

Big difference though is that when a pickup truck does that, there's still a bunch of space in the bed. Here, the bike barely fits, even with the bike's front hanging out the back.

Pretty sure that's an optical illusion. All reports indicate the bed is 2m long, which means something is up.

The cyberbike!

At least in the US, the 'real' test for a truck is if you can fit a 4x8 piece of plywood in the back.

Has anyone seen any pic/vids of this thing with a 4x8 plywood board in the back?

(Yes, I know, many 'trucks' on the road today cannot do this as is. But that's not my question.)

It seems weird to me to evaluate the build quality when they're not being mass produced yet?

Also "weird" and "crappy" could be more specific/informational. Do you mean you didn't like the appearance?

I've seen a pre-launch test mule EV in the wild from a "legacy" automaker. Aside from the weird paint job they always have, it looked absolutely fine.

This close to launch, we should not be seeing the kind of build issues we're seeing with the Cybertruck.

Deliveries are slated to happen in less than two days. These are "production" units. Worse still, they're the cherry picked, extra attention, showcase examples to be paraded around. And they're terrible.

There are numerous comments that seem to believe this is some sort of example moonshot that demonstrates Tesla greatness. Yet the core, foundational issue with this vehicle is that they decided to make it with stainless steel for zero rational reason beyond apparently that Elon was infatuated with the Delorean that was a cool car in his youth. The benefits of stainless steel are very limited, and the detriments are enormous. For instance the horrendous angular design is courtesy of the horrible fabrication qualities of that material. This carries over into fit and finish problems that are going to curse this vehicle until it is axed in the near future.

The gigantic wiper. The abhorrent visibility out of the front of the vehicle. The pedestrian killing facade. The complete and utter impracticality that makes it useless as a "truck", and deficient as a car. If Tesla had any sort of functioning management this abomination would never have continued so long.

> Yet the core, foundational issue with this vehicle is that they decided to make it with stainless steel for zero rational reason beyond apparently that Elon was infatuated with the Delorean that was a cool car in his youth.

Online opinions don't matter though. The only "issue" that matters is how many Tesla sells and what is the satisfaction of the owners over the long-term.

For some reason it seems that the negativity surrounding this vehicle is especially ignorant and critical to something that hasn't even been released yet.

The number of super negative words you use like "horrendous", "foundational" "zero rational", "cherry picked", "terrible", "moonshot", "detriments", "fit and finish problems", "curse", "axed", "abhorrent", "pedestrian killing", "complete and utter impracticality" is... how should I put this: literally unbelievable.

The vehicle has not even begun to be sold and people are saying things like this. This is not a believable, rational comment.

The more people are negative about it leads me to believe that it will be a huge success.

I hope commenters like you aren't the legacy automakers trying to slow down the competition for their most profitable segment.

> These are "production" units.

Really? They are driving around "production" units before they have begun to be delivered? How do you know if "these" are "production" or not?

"Online opinions don't matter though"

There is overwhelmingly negative sentiment about this vehicle. I have absolutely no doubt that the True Believers will buy it. Contrarians and attention seekers (e.g. cryptoscammers and MLM sorts are going to have one on their socials in no time) will buy it. That will account for a minuscule number of orders. The "pre-orders" that turn into actual orders will be low single-digit percentages.

"This is not a believable, rational comment."

Am I a bot? Am I just an Elon-hater? I mean, I do think he's a manchild who seems to be succumbing to some sort of severe brain rot, however my analysis of the vehicle is based upon all of the details we have before us. I mean...you know we can actually see it, right? We can see the pictures of the catastrophic (earned negative words) design and the compromises that entails. We can see the spectacularly impractical vehicle Tesla is pushing out. This is, in every way, The Homer. Actually The Homer had some benefits.

"How do you know if "these" are "production" or not?"

You have no idea how any of this works. If production was two years out these rather ridiculous excuses could fly. I mean...even then they wouldn't and prototype vehicles are usually especially stellar, for obvious reasons.

>The more people are negative about it leads me to believe that it will be a huge success.

Is this a rational statement? What, exactly, is this sentiment based on?

> The benefits of stainless steel are very limited, and the detriments are enormous. For instance the horrendous angular design is courtesy of the horrible fabrication qualities of that material.

I like the flat/angular design. When I look at it I see it twenty years down the road, covered in trail stripes, with repaired panels welded on in a couple of places, aftermarket "armor" around the bottom, rock sliders, wider wheels, and off-road tires.

> This carries over into fit and finish problems that are going to curse this vehicle until it is axed in the near future.

I think you're right. The best outcome I see is that it will end up being the truck version of the Roadster - produced for a while, replaced by more mature models, and selling for a premium on the used market because of the cult following.

I'm seriously considering buying a Cybertruck in expectation that it will become a collectible vehicle a few years from now.

>I'm seriously considering buying a Cybertruck in expectation that it will become a collectible vehicle a few years from now.

Totally, it's going to be just like the DeLorean story. The other solid bet is to invest in any movie deals that come your way that involve time travel

> The pedestrian killing facade

I wonder if this abomination gets approval in any European country.

It looks hellishly dangerous for just about anybody not sitting in this thing. And frankly, I'm not even sure about this.

I’d wonder if they’ll even bother trying tbh; most European countries don’t have a large market for pickup trucks of any sort, and what market there is is mostly commercial. Also it sure sounds like even in the US this won’t be generally available for a while.

I'm not a car journalist, just a random idiot on the internet recalling an experience I had. If I were to use different language my recollection would have been inaccurate because what I wrote above was literally what we said to eachother in the moment. editorializing it after the fact is both dishonest and not helpful. I owe you nothing.

No, I'm a lifelong car guy and hardware designer/mechanical engineer. I've been to Monterrey car week, countless car shows with many concept cars, I've driven cool cars on some of the coolest tracks in the US, I've been around, worked on and built cars my whole life. It looked like a crappy kit car. It looked like a poorly restored lotus Europa or Pantera. It didn't even look as good as a concept car, let alone something that was announced for production years ago and has been taking deposits for years. Other car companies sell yoi a car within a year if you put a deposit down.

Why not make body panels out of bare aluminum instead of PITA stainless? The look would be similar, it would be lighter, and cheaper/easier to repair.

I think it's because Starship is made out of stainless steel and Musk grew enamored with the material.

My first thought is that galvanic corrosion could be a real issue in humid areas with bare aluminum attached to a (presumably) steel subframe. I looked it up, though, and the difference in anodic index between iron or carbon steel and stainless steel is larger than that of aluminum - so it it is an issue, it'll be worse with stainless, unless Tesla doesn't use any steel frame or subframe components at all.

That aside, 304 stainless steel has a Rockwell hardness (B scale) of 88, while aluminum is only 20 to 40, depending on the specific alloy. It should be substantially more resistant to scratches. That also means scratches are correspondingly harder to buff out, of course.

The only true advantage I can think of is that "door dings" should pretty much be eliminated by using stainless.

All of that said - I'd be willing to pay a premium for stainless steel body panels in general; doubly so if those body panels are largely flat and angular. That should make repair and replacement significantly easier for my own potential use case.

I think the Cybertruck has the potential to be an excellent, long-term "rural/agricultural utility vehicle". There are several "ifs" to that statement: if the batteries have sufficient range and life span, if the suspension is simple and rugged, if the cargo capacity (weight) is high enough to be useful, if the bed is large enough to carry low-density stuff, if the towing capacity is sufficient, etc.

I've not yet seen one in person, so I can't say if the Cybertruck would be at all suitable. Maybe it meets half of the above requirements, and could be built into a capable off-road vehicle. I'd love to have one to use like a beater Jeep - sort of like a modern, electric International Scout.

It's a shame they're so expensive. I'm really hoping that some of the features of the Cybertruck - including the stainless steel body panels and flat/angular aesthetic - eventually end up finding their way into a less expensive model. I may end up buying a Cybertruck, but what I'd really like is a "Model 3, truck version".

Alternatively, maybe the Cybertruck will have end up successfully scaling production, develop a healthy aftermarket for parts and modifications, and they'll be available on the used market for much less. I'm not holding my breath, though :)

> Alternatively, maybe the Cybertruck will have end up successfully scaling production, develop a healthy aftermarket for parts and modifications

This. Since 3 and Y are so insanely popular there are tons of 3rd party mods. My guess this is going to be even more popular with Cybertruck.

The Starship and Cybertruck programs could eventually share a vertically (potential pun) integrated supply chain. Perhaps a different alloy? Such a learning curve is the initial growing pain to scale across multiple domains.

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/electric-vehicl...

Sincere question, why in the world is it made of out of steel?

A WSJ article I read suggested, though they admitted it was only rumor, that Musk initially wanted the car to be bullet proof.

I suspect in the end, since they're not advertising this "feature", the Cybertruck is likely more-resistant-than-average to bullets, but nothing that could be legally advertised.

edit: Not a rumor after all, Musk specifically mentions in this clip: https://youtu.be/25ZuKkbHdqM?t=167

They have planned for bullet proof glass, but have abandoned it for now.

They have talked about it on the keynote.

"Bullet proof" glass would likely add a ton of additional weight and cost and be impractical with how thick it would have to be to be described as bullet proof. I also think you would likely have to re-engineering the power windows mechanic.

The body panels are evidently actually bulletproof https://electrek.co/2023/10/20/tesla-shot-tommy-gun-cybertru...

"The stunt by Tesla by shooting a .45 caliber bullet at the cyberpunk doesn’t prove it’s bullet proof.

A 45 is a low-velocity round with a very large blunt nose.

If they shot it up with an ak47 round or a 5.56 out of a AR15, they would have made Swiss cheese out of that door panel.

There are many high-velocity pistol rounds that would do this also. One is a 5.7mm or a .22 magnum."

from that same article

That's a pretty odd rumor- for one thing, stainless steel isn't used in any bullet shields or vests that I'm aware of. Kevlar, ceramic plates and layered "glass" are the go-to materials. If he wanted bullet proof, it'd be easy to line the door panels with something rated for any pistol rounds.

When metal is used, it is typically in a thick plate. Even thinner plate used for small round target practice is usually painted- stainless would be an odd choice even at the right thickness.

Turns out it's not a rumor, when Musk did a drive with Jay Leno in 2021 he specifically mentions the stainless steel at being used to make the doors bullet proof [0].

0. https://youtu.be/25ZuKkbHdqM?t=167

No, he mentioned that the stainless steel happened to be bullet proof, which is badass and cool.

That's not the same thing as specifically choosing stainless steel to make it bullet proof. He's using bullet proof to help sell the stainless steel, not the other way around.

It's a tiny distinction, but an important one IMHO.

Doesn't Musk saying it make it a rumor?

The windows aren't bullet proof. I wouldn't be surprised if the non-window parts are in fact bullet proof, but bullet proof windows look a lot different (and worse) than what the Cybertruck has.

Alluded to in the article, but Starship is made from the same quality of steel, so perhaps it’s a price break on a higher order quantity?

The intent was to transfer the load to an exterior, rigid structure. Rust is also a significant concern is some climates for non-stainless steel.

There was some talk from Elon at the time about how much it cost to paint cars.

If you scratch it, no problem, it's steel all the way down. Most other cars seem to require a paint job in order to protect the car from the elements, which means if you scratch and don't repair you'll get rust. I would assume this will be less of an issue with stainless steel.

It's strong enough that you can hypothetically use the body for all your structural needs, and therefore don't need any sort of chassis. An extension/continuation of what Tesla has been doing with their "structural battery packs".

It won't dent as easily.

You can drive and park like an asshole and worry less about being keyed.

It looks cool.

> If you scratch it, no problem, it's steel all the way down.

But, and it's a big but, it's not stainless steel all the way down. Scratched stainless steel can still rust once you've removed the chromium oxide protective layer. The protective layer can re-form as you remove the iron from the mix, but not over rust.

I can't find an article on it but I swear he mentioned way back before it was officially released that his plan was for it to be used as the mode of transportation when SpaceX sends humans to Mars. Ergo the bulletproof body and windows, and since Teslas already have that bioweapon defense mode, he's probably aiming to make it pressurizable as well.

If its planned for use for humans on Mars, pressurizable is probably more valuable than bulletproof.

Unless one anticipates a lot of conflict in the colony...

DMC DeLorean had stainless steel body panels. Guess they wanted to imitate that look.

Memories fading with time of what a disaster the Delorean was, perhaps?

This is why Tesla will continue to lead as they are doing the hard stuff that nobody seem to want to do first

Why would anyone want a "stainless steel" pickup truck?

Big steel truck look fun

Exactly, every other manufacturer is going to aluminum bodies. Stainless is a very poor choice for several reasons

Of all the questionable things Musk has done in the last few years, trying to sell a stainless steel electric truck doesn't even make the top 25.

It gets rusty real quick if you use non-stainless steel.

That is odd, never really seen rust on any of the non-stainless steal cars I encounter in my day to day life. Not unless they are really old and damaged in significantly other ways.

New cars are not in steel, but in aluminum, which does not rust (hence why metallic boat parts are in aluminum).

That was my point. Most cars don't have this issue because they use materials that don't rust as is. Why is Tesla choosing to use something that is hard to work with.

I mean, the obvious alternative would be to use aluminum, which doesn't rust at all and has twice the strength-to-weight ratio.

Yes, I know, it was just a poor joke :/

Stainless is extremely prone to rust when exposed to salt (i.e. near an ocean, or worse, on salted roads in the winter time.)

Longevity / resistant to ocean air, strength compared to plastic, and its neat that it's bulletproof?

How is it resistant to ocean air? Salt is the kryptonite of stainless. Salt quickly causes corrosion in stainless steel...

Less so than many other forms of steel previously used in automotive, no? If you want to compare to other materials like composites and plastics then sure, but those will have their own drawbacks as well. No material is perfect but for some cases where you do want an alloy body, stainless is going to have benefits over non-stainless steel.

> Less so than many other forms of steel previously used in automotive, no?

Perhaps, but those aren't the exclusive, or even main, alternatives today.

The toughness of a pickup truck has been watered down and Musk is trying to build a vehicle that can stand to the definition of tough. That's what I gleam from his talks and publicly available information. For instance - the bulletproof exterior, now I don't know why anyone would want a bullet proof exterior when your windows are not bulletproof. Then I think may be it is to stop some accidental bullets when you are out on a hunting expedition. Just taking a wild ass guess here.

Other than the toughness, I can't find a single reason why he would go with stainless steel.

Sitting here in India and contemplating about the CT, I would buy this vehicle in a heartbeat. It is so menacing, that it would give me peace of mind while driving on Indian roads. The vehicle by itself is an insurance against road rage :).

> Sitting here in India and contemplating about the CT, I would buy this vehicle in a heartbeat. It is so menacing, that it would give me peace of mind while driving on Indian roads. The vehicle by itself is an insurance against road rage :).

Sure, but if you do get hit, good luck finding someone who can repair it and paying their price...

I think it's ugly but there are plenty of people who want to buy it.

The stainless steel construction is perfect for the flux dispersal

"Tesla to introduce new Model C made entirely out of grated cheese, a feat never even tried before. Ecstatic fans lauding a 'masterful gambit' from Musk"

like another comeback of yours could be Apple innovates by creating iphone out of water and is like one of those kids toys with little balls in there floating as numbers and apps

I mean if no one wants to do it there may be a valid reason behind it...

There are good challenges and bad challenges

800V charging? Great hard problem, strategic advantages

Stainless Steel body? Bad hard problem. No advantage in inventing expensive new precise manufacturing techniques, specifically to use a more expensive material for this one model. The market doesn't really value bulletproof body panels and stainless brushed appearances could be replicated.

Model 3 and Y are why Tesla is worth anything - solve a market need efficiently and effectively. X and S, Elon's passion projects, were terrible for the business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com