Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in
  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Tesla Cybertruck.... engineeers opinions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
davidinindy

davidinindy

Industrial
Jun 9, 2004
695
I'm not an automotive engineer, but am a car guy... I think it's hideous, and impractical. Those flat panels won't resist dents and dings at all. May also cause reflective glare to other vehicles. Is there and type of crumple zones? Front headroom is probably good. What about rear?
Range is one thing... What about the range when pulling a camper or other trailer?

The laughable points?
The "bulletproof glass" breaking with a hand tossed steel ball.
The guy heaving the tailgate up and down.
Thinking that extendable tailgate will hold up to repeated loading and unloading of law tractors or that quad...
Would only take a few clumps of mud and gravel to lock it up probably.

David
Connect with me on LinkedIn. Quote: "If it ain't broke, I must not've fixed it good enough"
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
Non-conformances with FMVSS that I can see: Headlights too high and possibly too small, unknown/invisible turn signals and side markers and reflectors, no outside rear view mirrors, no windscreen wipers (not even any provision for where to park them in the stopped position that I can see - and with the windscreen raked back that far, the wipers will have to be huge!), bumper height non-confoming (look at the side profile - now back up - what's the first thing to hit a vertical obstruction? The top edge of the tailgate.) If the front seating is to be three-across (which it's supposed to be), then the center seating position needs an airbag in front of them ... not a TV screen.

Impracticalities that I can see: No easy access into the bed from the sides, particularly towards the front. Have fun reaching the front tie-down hook points for securing that ATV that they drove into the bed. Narrowing the bed so that there are no wheel-arch intrusion removes flexibility for how that space is used. Wide wheels plus clearance to the vehicle structure plus the stated bed width (57") adds up to a very wide vehicle. Means it probably will need the wide-vehicle top-of-roof clearance and marker lamps, amber to the front, red to the rear.

Aerodynamics are sure to be a mess. I understand the desire to make the "hood" and windshield one line from the point of view of aerodynamics. But that sharp peak in the roof can't be good, and the squared-off projecting wheel skirts are certainly not good. Largely-exposed wide tires with aggressive tread pattern won't be good for either aero or rolling resistance - both of which are of crucial importance for an EV to have a long range.

I don't think it has seen the inside of a wind tunnel.

I don't think it has seen crash testing. Those thick exterior panels don't seem to be the way to go in terms of crumple zones ... or pedestrian impact.

I don't quite understand his "exoskeleton" concept, and how this differs from what I would call a "unibody".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I pretty much ignore the modern Tesla stuff.

I will casually ask if the GVW was mentioned, and if a tow rating is among the spex. All atuff likely to be properly affect "range".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IRStuff,
Yes. I read and commented in that one, but was curious as to what responses it would get here. I think Pats Pub is a very small audience.

David
Connect with me on LinkedIn. Quote: "If it ain't broke, I must not've fixed it good enough"
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Most everybody I've discussed this with believes it to simply be another publicity stunt albeit one that backfired, not an actual vehicle nor intention to build an actual vehicle. The specs are wishful thinking, it completely ignores FMVSS, the claimed applications of it don't make sense given the design, and even to the layman it looks silly. The presentation even reminded me of a B-movie, is there such a thing as a B-presentation? Tesla's famous for terrible, ignorant design mistakes but this is another level of silliness if they're serious about this. I find it difficult to believe Musk doesn't realize all of this so I'm rather confused as to his objective. Make the fanboys look ridiculous? Raise a few million more? Is Musk shorting his own stock now? Given their financials, quality, and reputation I'd say this is some sort of hail-mary.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As I just mentioned in the pub, the steep angled windows are hard to see out of because you're actually looking thru lots of glass and plastic lamination, getting thrashed by the optics, and any dirt or condensation is very problematic.

I had a 70's Chevy Impala that had a rear window slanted less than the Cyberpuk windshield and you pretty much couldn't see out of the rear window between Nov and April.

Are there any rules for driver visibility on vehicles?

Keith Cress
kcress -
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Each OE will have its own standards for visibility, blind spots, etc, but I'm rather confused by your comment otherwise. If the glass is decent quality there shouldn't be any distortion or concerns otherwise.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I also don't see the point. I thought that Tesla's mission was to produce efficient and practical vehicles for every day use and making EV more common. This is heavy and not practical. Everything goes in the other way the EV should go, but we are used to that with Musk and his team. As BrianPetersen mentioned, pedestrian impact should be interesting, but not for pedestrian himself [surprise].

Maybe one more thing Musk needs for driving on Mars [bigsmile].
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Seems that ANCAP is openly questioning the design. Good. (I share his concerns, but I'm a nobody.)


Elsewhere there has been speculation that (in North America) since this is practically certain to be beyond 8500 lbs GVWR, the light-duty-vehicle crash standards in FMVSS/CMVSS won't apply, so it won't matter that it is unlikely to pass them. If so, that's bollocks. My company van - Fiat Ducato a.k.a. Ram ProMaster - is also over 8500 lbs GVWR, but it has frontal and side-impact airbags, and looks to have a pretty sturdy cage around the passenger compartment, and bumpers that are of compatible height to other vehicles on the road, and it appears to have had at least some consideration paid towards crumple zones, pedestrian safety, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A video has surfaced of the prototype Cybertruck on the road with other vehicles around it.


Now, I *really* question crash-structure compatibility with other vehicles ... and pedestrian-impact safety. And headlight height.

The top front corner of the blunt nose (where the "headlight" is) is roughly just below the roofline of the Toyota Corolla in the next lane at the start of the video. As it drives by, I see no substantial structure below roughly grille height on that Corolla. If this were to collide head-on with that Corolla, it would completely override the car and probably obliterate the windshield (and the driver).

In oncoming traffic, the headlights are above the driver's head of the Corolla. In other words, they would be shining directly into the Corolla driver's eyes.

Conveniently, there is also a pedestrian in the video. If this truck were to strike a pedestrian, it would be a blunt impact with the pedestrian's torso. The design intent with vehicles properly designed for pedestrian impact is normally to strike the pedestrian's legs and then arrange for as glancing and cushioned a blow as possible with a deformable hood and windshield.

If another vehicle were to strike the side of the Cybertruck, it's likely that its crash structure would underride the side of the Cybertruck.

I know that most people who buy vehicles in this class don't give the slightest concern to what happens to people outside their own vehicles. Maybe we should.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Doing some more digging. Evidently there are voluntary standards for crash structure compatibility that light trucks are supposed to meet. There is no way the Cybertruck is in compliance.


Other manufacturers pay attention to this stuff:
Honda: Volkswagen:
I found a Transport Canada "memorandum of understanding"
... unfortunately, it's only applicable to <8500 lb GVWR, and I think the Cybertruck is going to be more than that. Making the vehicle have an obnoxiously high GVWR is a poor excuse for skirting crash-compatibility standards for a vehicle that is being marketed for personal use.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pffft.... unless we're talking about a little pup truck, most of the trucks I encounter already have headlights that shine right into my rearview mirror, and a good portion of them would roll right up and over me if they ever struck me from the rear (this includes my wife's Ridgeline, too).

I don't like it, but it's nothing new if you consider what's currently on the road.

Dan - Owner
Footwell%20Animation%20Tiny.gif
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
most of the trucks I encounter already have headlights that shine right into my rearview mirror, and a good portion of them would roll right up and over me if they ever struck me from the rear..

I don't like it, but it's nothing new if you consider what's currently on the road.
Click to expand...

Unless you're in a lowered car, headlights shining in your rearview mirror are pretty far out of adjustment which makes them eligible for a $100+ ticket in most states. Bumper heights and deflection are also regulated via FMVSS for both collision and pedestrian safety to prevent trucks climbing up/over as mentioned. Cybertruck isn't even close to being street legal, any LEO willing to risk the political fallout could pretty easily write a few pricey tickets and require it be towed or impounded. I wouldn't be overly surprised if the driver could be arrested in CA.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The aforementioned Ridgeline has bumpers (and underlying crash structures) between 16 and 20 inches (400mm and 500mm) above ground level at nominal ride height, for crash compatibility purposes. I think it will be found that late model cars or trucks <8500 lb GVWR will practically all have crash structures within that height range. I just checked my company van (Ram Promaster aka Fiat Ducato) and the front covers that entire range, and the rear is at the top of the range unloaded, which makes some sense because a heavy load would put it into the range. And that van is over 8500 lb GVWR - it complies anyhow.

Aftermarket ride height modifications can certainly put vehicle crash structures outside that range. That there is scant enforcement of bumper/ride/headlight height in the field is not the fault of the federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I realize that some of the heavy duty pickups (>8500 lb GVWR) have bumpers, particularly rear bumpers, that are too high, as the truck is built from the factory. The standards aren't applicable to >8500 lb GVWR. It's a recognized issue, although it seems like little has been done about it yet.

Making the vehicle >8500 lb GVWR is still a crap excuse for escaping some of the FMVSS requirements and to escape what little recommendations are in place for crash structure compatibility.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
On the matter of headlight heights for pickup trucks . . . scaling from Ford's own picture of their F150 (meaning stock tire size and stock ride height) it looks like headlight height is at least 38" above the ground. That's right at outside mirror height for a stock ride height sedan.


Norm
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yep, as I said... trucks beam right into my rearview mirror, despite what any regulations might say. And no, you can't convince me it's just a random truck here and there.

Dan - Owner
Footwell%20Animation%20Tiny.gif
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Everyone else getting it wrong shouldn't be an excuse for getting it wrong yourself.

Low beams should be low on the front of the vehicle to cut down glare to other drivers. High beams can be wherever. If North America would get with the program and allow adaptive headlights that automatically cut down glare to other drivers, that would sure help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Brian Malone
  • Question
Tesla Cybercab reveal 1
2
Replies
21
Views
853
IRstuff
IRstuff

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top Bottom