Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

motortrend.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#61

Post by ziftface »

tshannon wrote: post #60
ziftface wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please explain how it affects those things? I'd be very interested in learning about that.

I can't speak towards repairablity and legality, but I know cars are safer now than they used to be back when they were made of steel, because they crumple which absorbs the impact of crashes. Rigid steel transfers the impact to it's occupants. I'm eager to see how this thing performs in crash tests.

Ah that makes sense. I'm interested to see how it performs there too

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#62

Post by Jamwinner »

fdswefsad wrote: post #55
hobofan wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need an SUV in urban areas?

Because some of us are tall. I commute with a 2.5L Golf, I get 25 mpg in urban mountain driving. Stick shift, it's a blast to drive. However, it's also a massive pain in the ass to get in and out of. Especially since my recent abdominal surgery. When I slip into my SUV I really appreciate the extra space. When I load all the crap modern children have (car seats, strollers, pack and play, ect) and lug them 300 miles t…

Station wagons, being lower and not outfitted for 4wd, have taller cabins than most suvs. The physics are pretty clear cut. You have not done your due dilligence and are talking without knowledge of wagons.

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#63

Post by netfl0 »

new_realist wrote: post #4
netfl0 wrote: post #2

This was the most compelling explanation of the visuals. They are saying that Telsa put function radically over form to reduce manufacturing complexity and efficiency. This is a purely utilitarian approach that is not self-evident. I hope Telsa will put together a better presentation to explain this to the public. This is the sort of technical progress you'd like to see in other domains.

These are mostly old manufacturing ideas which affect crash safety; repairability, an street legality.

Yes they affect them, not all in a negative way.

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#64

Post by bonestamp2 »

Someone wrote: post #57
bonestamp2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason they wouldn't just make those independant panels and weld those joints? It's a little slower than stamping, but cutting and welding panels like this is well within the capabilities of their existing robots.

From what I understand, the outside of this car is bare stainless steel. Can humans or robots make welds that don’t show Up as ugly warts on the outside? If so, can it be done cheaply enough?

Fair enough. I supposed the structural weld could be on the inside to hide the bulge. But you'd need some tight tolerances for that to look good from the outside.

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#65

Post by double0jimb0 »

fiter wrote: post #22
LoSboccacc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah but that doesn't make really sharp angles and controlling the curve where it bends precisely is hard, fighting that is going against the claim it's about manufacturing efficiency

Point well taken. There are multiple dimensions to manufacturing efficiency, though, right? I have no appreciation for the cost of a couple dies and a machine for stamping versus the cost of a CNC break with one die, but it may play a part based on the number of units they think they will sell. (1,000? 10,000? 100,000?)

If starting with super hard cold rolled steel, it’s most likely impossible to “stamp” using traditional progressive stamping dies. The deformation has to exceed the final shape and via springback the final shape is produced.

Springback is possible on a press brake when folding along a single straight line. If panel needs a 30 deg bend, then bend it to 40, and it pops back 10 when off the press brake. As an example.

That quickly gets impossible to do when you start bending around complicated 3D contours.

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#66

Post by double0jimb0 »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #34
LoSboccacc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unconvinced. long, precise, sharp angles are expensive to stamp on thick steel plates. so I've checked around the pictures, apparently the marketing material has seams along the angle, but the car in the presentation has angled plates. something doesn't add up https://imgur.com/a/HO1HnGC

Is there any reason they wouldn't just make those independant panels and weld those joints? It's a little slower than stamping, but cutting and welding panels like this is well within the capabilities of their existing robots.

Order of magnitude cheaper to start with flat sheet, lasercut/waterjet/stamp out final shape, and bend.

They are starting the cut and bend operations with the fully hardened steel, so there is no post stress relieving / aging / finishing. It's about as simple as it can get for metal fabrication.

Welding also fundamentally changes the underlying steel properties. I'm not up to speed on full hard 301 SS, but most likely any thermal operation will degrade it's mechanical and chemical grain structure.

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#67

Post by double0jimb0 »

tzs wrote: post #30
ZenModeRy wrote: post #5

This is the truck Howard Roark would build. Function over form for good reason and to hell with the critics. I for one absolutely love it.

It looks like in a couple of ways, though, they maybe did go with form over function. 1. It looks the roof over the passenger compartment peaks over the heads of the people in the front seats, and then lowers towards the back. (See photo 42 of the first gallery in the article, or photo 22 of the second gallery, or photo 10 of the third gallery, or the second photo in the Ars article [1] gallery). This could get annoy…

Tesla missed opportunity to describe headroom in backseat. A 6'5" man sat in back seat when asked how much leg room, he said "I have days" [1] and his head doesn't appear to touch glass ceiling.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=105&v=-oW-BVxoQF...

Re: Tesla's Cybertruck Approach on Auto Manufacturing and Engineering

#68

Post by double0jimb0 »

serf wrote: post #39
beat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Working pickups in the wild are subject to lots of sharp impacts that regular cars do not normally get. Glass is a big problem.

>Working pickups in the wild are subject to lots of sharp impacts that regular cars do not normally get. realistically this vehicle has very few of the traits needed in a work pickup. Expensive and remote repair, lots of gadgets to break, difficult to remotely fuel, very likely costly compared to the cheapest alternatives. It's like an anti-Jeep. This seems to me to be like an electric Honda Ridgeline; a truck made f…

> Expensive and remote repair, lots of gadgets to break, difficult to remotely fuel, very likely costly compared to the cheapest alternatives.

I really don't understand this argument. Ford/GM/FCA 1/2 ton trucks are in a gadget/gimmick arms race and pretty terrible at executing it. The new 2019 Dodge Ram has been a disaster for new owners. I won't provide references because it is a simple google search. (For bonus points research the ongoing 2020 Ford Explorer debacle). Objective observers give Ford the nod for reliability of the big 3, and that's why Ford can charge about a 10% premium.

And that Ford/GM/FCA builds gadget-full and reliable pickup trucks seems to be a collective delusion of the truck enthusiasts. Toyota Tundra hasn't been meaningfully updated in 10 years and still sells like crazy. Toyota hasn't had to update it with gadgets because it is reliable like all Toyotas. It correspondingly has significantly higher new price (for given features) and resale value than any of the other 3 brands.

Tesla's electric motor drivetrain formula is already proving to be lower total cost of ownership [1].

As for the Tesla truck, airbag suspension is a notorious reliability item from any mfg, they all source from similar Tier 1 suppliers. So maybe Tesla decides to insource this? And that retractable bedcover looks prone to breaking. But besides those, everything else are things Tesla has already proven to be more reliable than ICE alternatives.

As for difficulty to remotely fuel, are there more power outlets or gas stations in the world? Motivated people find solutions to EV logistics and it is getting easier every year.

Tesla has also said the Cybertruck will come with a solar panel option that can add 10-30 miles per day given configuration.

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-math-shows-teslas-mod...

Post reply on HN