[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Talk:Tesla Cybertruck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Customer-reported problems

[edit]

The numerous and well-documented issues that cybertruck owners are reporting with these vehicles (reliability, quality, design flaws, and so on) would seem to warrant a section all to itself. 136.56.27.70 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add content to the article, with good sourcing as to whatever you think is needed. After all, on Wikipedia, WP:ANYONECANEDIT. N2e (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chassis info

[edit]

There appears to be disagreement over the presence of chassis info at the beginning of the exterior section, what do others think, keep? Or remove?

The Cybertruck is, was, and always will be an exoskeleton design. Period. It's even backed up by the US patent office. Most talking heads haven't even seen a Cybertruck yet. Anyone calling it an unibody at this point is simply lying.
Either call it an exoskeleton or remove all mention of the chassis if reality bothers you that much. UltimaRex (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone calling it an unibody at this point is simply lying."
Care to elaborate?
The MotorTrend source says: "The stainless steel exterior panels of the Cybertruck are not load-bearing" "The stainless steel panels are "hung" on this supporting chassis, just like body panels are hung on the unibody chassis of most consumer vehicles"
Can you provide something that could debunk this claim? The patent, as I said, provides absolutely no indication that it is being used.
Because I believe it is obvious that the body panels aren't structural like an exoskeleton would, but that's my personal opinion. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tesla makes it clear as mud but here's my understanding.
A unibody is where the skin takes the stress normally involved in bending twisting. A unibody has to provide for doors (which are not load bearing), so the A/B/C pillars take the stress in those areas with boxed pressed sheet metal. And around the front/rear windows there is more strengthening with more boxing.
Older vehicles (and heavy duty or 4WD) used a ladder frame - handles front/rear bending forces well but sucks for twisting forces.
A space frame handles bending/twisting forces well but intrudes into places for passengers/engines/etc and is expensive.
The so-called exo-skeleton seems to take a bit from each. The exo-skeleton seems to be be those door/window strengthening areas used in a unibody but applied to the entire vehicle. The patents say that the panels are not load bearing (thus, definitely not a unibody) but the diagrams in the patent look just like a typical door area from almost any unibody car since the 1960s.
To my mind, the exo-skeleton is closest to a space frame but using boxed pressed sheet steel instead of welded steel tubing. Non-stress bearing steel panels then get attached to that frame.  Stepho  talk  04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have added and modified information in accordance with another source I found. Please review, revise, and discuss as needed, thanks. Left guide (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that this Top Gear review (which is widely cited elsewhere in this article) calls it an exoskeleton, so I've updated the article to a "sources vary" situation to reflect this discrepancy. Also, if the second sentence of the exterior section has now become redundant or confusing, it can be removed or revised as needed. Left guide (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I would certainly vote to keep. The exoskeleton design has been discussed in multiple reliable sources. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about patent

[edit]

I've also been made aware that a patent is being used to support a conflicting claim, which I believe is this. Left guide (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's the patent. Until someone tears down the production CT that's the only real source we have. UltimaRex (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PATENTS offers guidance regarding the treatment of this type of source. Left guide (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to know whether they actually used the patent or not in the production vehicle. Also it is unclear how different it is than a normal unibody. I say keep things like the current version until there is a comprehensive teardown done by a third-party. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True low voltage E/E architecture: 48V AND 12V

[edit]

This article misses the point that Cybertruck has two voltage levels in its low-voltage network: 48V and 12V:

  • 48V - the small portion of the midvoltage network - featured prominently in too many articles and presented as if it would replace "everything else", but this is wrong.
  • 12V - for all small and some bigger loads. Still a very important voltage level for the majority of the endpoints in the vehicle.

I have tried many time to correct this in this wiki article, but my edits are overridden again and again. Ralf König (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is good analysis of the two low-voltage levels (48V and 15V) in a video by Autoline Network published on 1 July 2024. The Cybertruck was torn apart for analysis by an analysis company called Caresoft, and in the video Autoline is interviewing the head of Caresoft. Includes a specific list of the 48V components and major modules as well as the few remaining 15V components where Tesla used the same sort of 15V components they use on the Tesla Model Y. Here's the link.
Conclusion of the Caresoft guy was that Tesla used 48 V for electrical loads and system modules that were unique to the Cybertruck, or if it had a large power requirement; but that is was cost-effective for Tesla to use 15V for a much smaller subset of electrical loads (also listed in the video). So it is definitely not the majority of the electrical loads that continue to use the 15V supply, and we should not say that in the article. — N2e (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make any commentary about crashes?

[edit]

Today, August 5, 2024 (or 5 August, 2024; which ever is the preferred choice) there have been news reports of a Tesla Cybertruck being involved in the first fatal crash ever. There were no reports of the vehicle being crash tested by a third-party. Sources are found here:

There are some reports of crashes that could be considered notable, but if you want to discuss this further at WP:REFD, then please do so. Ṫḧïṡ ṁëṡṡäġë ḧäṡ ḅëëṅ ḅṛöüġḧẗ ẗö ÿöü ḅÿ ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 19:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not many details. It left the road, crashed into a concrete culvert and caught on fire. Nothing about what caused the crash (car fault, alcohol, sleepiness, etc) or whether the accident would have been survivable in a different vehicle.  Stepho  talk  23:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add A Fact: "Tesla halts orders for cheapest Cybertruck"

[edit]

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Tesla has stopped taking orders for the least expensive version of its Cybertruck, which is priced at $61,000, while making the $100,000 version available for immediate order and delivery as soon as this month

The fact comes from the following source:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stops-taking-orders-cheapest-002525641.html

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=Tesla stops taking orders for cheapest Cybertruck, offers $100,000 version now |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stops-taking-orders-cheapest-002525641.html |website=Yahoo Finance |date=2024-08-10 |access-date=2024-08-10 |language=en-US |quote=Tesla has stopped taking orders for the least expensive version of its Cybertruck, which is priced at $61,000, while making the $100,000 version available for immediate order and delivery as soon as this month}} 

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

– SJ + 04:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2024 and 24 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swagsberyls (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zq2197 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]