Fast Company article: Tesla’s Cybertruck has a serious problem that only a complete redesign can fix

[Zoidz]

Fast Company:

"As Adrian Clarke—a professional car designer who now writes design critiques for the automobile publication The Autopian—told me back then: “The Cybertruck is a low polygon joke that only exists in the fever dreams of Tesla fans that stands high on the smell of Elon Musk’s flatulences.”

“As soon as we saw [the Cybertruck], everyone I know in the industry started laughing. We just thought there is no way they’re gonna be able to get that into production.” There’s no way, he assures me, because it’s not going to pass crash regulations, it’s not going pass pedestrian impact regulations, and, more importantly, it’s going to be extremely hard to make those “those dead straight panels.”

It’s yet to be seen if the changes in the frame and fake exoskeleton were caused by other potential manufacturing problems predicted by Clarke, like the reverberation of sound. “[All those dead flat panels are] going to vibrate and they’re going to have massive problems stamping those panels and having them keep their shape,” he told me at the time. “This will force Tesla to use “some kind of foam or sound deadening.”

Sponsored

 

[mkg3]

What a business as usual, not invented here thinking and comments by Fast Co.

Experts said the exactly the similar thing for SpaceX Falcon 9 operations mode. It cannot be done. We see where that statement is today.

The Cybertruck is already in production with said to be over 100 built. Cannot be there without passing all the DOT/NHTSA regs.

 

[Inkedsphynx]

What a business as usual, not invented here thinking and comments by Fast Co.

Experts said the exactly the similar thing for SpaceX Falcon 9 operations mode. It cannot be done. We see where that statement is today.

The Cybertruck is already in production with said to be over 100 built. Cannot be there without passing all the DOT/NHTSA regs.

You can build anything you want. Getting it on the road and in customer hands is what requires regulations, crash testing, etc, be met. Nothing stops you from building as many Cyberfails as you want so long as that's all you are doing.

 

[Denver_Paulie]

“The Cybertruck is a low polygon joke that only exists in the fever dreams of Tesla fans that stands high on the smell of Elon Musk’s flatulences.”

This.

We can only hope that the Cybertruck bombs and becomes such an financial drag on Tesla that they are forced to spin off the Supercharging network.

Get that essential piece of charging infrastructure out of the hands of that erratic, ticking time bomb, Elon Musk.

 

[manitou202]

What a business as usual, not invented here thinking and comments by Fast Co.

Experts said the exactly the similar thing for SpaceX Falcon 9 operations mode. It cannot be done. We see where that statement is today.

The Cybertruck is already in production with said to be over 100 built. Cannot be there without passing all the DOT/NHTSA regs.

SpaceX rockets offer many advantages over other rockets. I don't see how the Cybertruck construction offers any advantage over other EV trucks other than being different. Tesla could have built a more traditional EV truck, with essentially the same specs, potentially lower costs, and would have already sold hundreds of thousands. Instead they made the Cybertruck out of stainless steel construction which doesn't seem to offer any real advantage and has taken much longer to develop. They still have yet to prove then can built the truck in high volume.

They originally sold this type of construction of having multiple advantages in terms of cost, and strength. It seems that is not the case, and now it's just for looking different.

 

[COdogman]

I have been curious about the crash testing. I'm no engineer, but if the exterior is as durable (stiff) as Elon claims, it likely would not pass those tests. so that could mean Elon is lying again (likely), or he demanded it be designed in a way that will cause problems passing the tests (also likely).

It's hard to imagine they would get this far with it without knowing for sure, but if he's sending out emails demanding "sub 10 micron" tolerances at this stage of the game anything is possible I guess.

 

[NY_Rob]

I have been curious about the crash testing. I'm no engineer, but if the exterior is as durable (stiff) as Elon claims, it likely would not pass those tests. so that could mean Elon is lying again (likely), or he demanded it be designed in a way that will cause problems passing the tests (also likely).

I'm not sure, but I don't think you need to have the crash tests performed prior to selling a vehicle? Didn't Rivian sell vehicles before they were crash tested?

One thing for sure, if the CT gets a poor crash test rating.. that will be addressed quickly as Tesla is always touting their safety status.

 

[derekmw]

I'm not sure, but I don't think you need to have the crash tests performed prior to selling a vehicle? Didn't Rivian sell vehicles before they were crash tested?

One thing for sure, if the CT gets a poor crash test rating.. that will be addressed quickly as Tesla is always touting their safety status.

Well it will be very safe for the driver, but deadly to anyone they hit, person or car. lol

 

[Zoidz]

The Cybertruck is already in production with said to be over 100 built. Cannot be there without passing all the DOT/NHTSA regs.

Cybertruck is NOT in production. It's in pre-production. There's a HUGE difference, those of us who work in manufacturing startup disciplines know the difference. It's pre-production for precisely the reason you cite incorrectly. Vehicles are initially built without passing IIHS/DOT/NHTSA standards. That's EXACTLY how it is done. Pre-production vehicles are submitted for testing. You can't get IIHS/DOT/NHTSA approval without doing this. You won't see true CT production for general public consumer deliveries until 2024.

 

[COdogman]

I'm not sure, but I don't think you need to have the crash tests performed prior to selling a vehicle? Didn't Rivian sell vehicles before they were crash tested?

One thing for sure, if the CT gets a poor crash test rating.. that will be addressed quickly as Tesla is always touting their safety status.

I don't know exactly the timeline of pre vs actual production, but I would be surprised if any manufacturer is allowed to deliver to consumers without having passed the tests??‍

Tesla's previous vehicles were all very safe (not including FSD), but the CT is obviously quite a departure from all of them. If there is something inherently unsafe about the design or construction of it, that will be interesting.

 

[SANZC02]

Cybertruck is NOT in production. It's in pre-production. There's a HUGE difference, those of us who work in manufacturing startup disciplines know the difference. It's pre-production for precisely the reason you cite incorrectly. Vehicles are initially built without passing IIHS/DOT/NHTSA standards. That's EXACTLY how it is done. Pre-production vehicles are submitted for testing. You can't get IIHS/DOT/NHTSA approval without doing this. You won't see true CT production for general public consumer deliveries until 2024.

Just curious as I am not in the auto industry but is there actually a defined approval process? I thought the manufacturer self certified that they were in compliance and would be fined if later found to be out of compliance?

 

[Zoidz]

I'm not sure, but I don't think you need to have the crash tests performed prior to selling a vehicle? Didn't Rivian sell vehicles before they were crash tested?

One thing for sure, if the CT gets a poor crash test rating.. that will be addressed quickly as Tesla is always touting their safety status.

They can do their own internal crash testing and submit results to the regulatory agencies. But the insurance companies may not trust it, hence the purpose of independent IIHS. As far as I know, that testing has to be done on a vehicle that is fundamentally built using all production components. I don't think they can do it on a one-off prototype.

Edit:
Consumer Reports has a good article explaining it

To be certified for sale, every new model sold in the U.S. must be crash-tested internally to ensure minimum federal safety standards are met. But a publicly available rating isn't required.

Nearly a half-million passenger cars and SUVs sold each year have not been crash-test rated by the two main organizations that conduct independent assessments: the federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which uses a star rating system, and the insurance industry-backed Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which rates vehicles from Poor to Good.


Most of the vehicles without ratings are low-volume models, sports cars, luxury vehicles, or large vans. The expense is too great for NHTSA and the IIHS to test all vehicles, so choices are made based on car sales volume and testing budgets. Some untested models are new or redesigned and merely waiting in line to be evaluated. About 97 percent of all new vehicles sold are crash-test rated by one or both of the independent organizations.

 

[mkg3]

You can build anything you want. Getting it on the road and in customer hands is what requires regulations, crash testing, etc, be met. Nothing stops you from building as many Cyberfails as you want so long as that's all you are doing.

The delivery event is coming up.

Your distaste for CT must be such that you must have forgotten that there is a business behind the vehicle. Tesla would not have built as much as it has if it cannot delive the vehicles.

In order to deliver, we agree.

 

[mkg3]

SpaceX rockets offer many advantages over other rockets. I don't see how the Cybertruck construction offers any advantage over other EV trucks other than being different. Tesla could have built a more traditional EV truck, with essentially the same specs, potentially lower costs, and would have already sold hundreds of thousands. Instead they made the Cybertruck out of stainless steel construction which doesn't seem to offer any real advantage and has taken much longer to develop. They still have yet to prove then can built the truck in high volume.

They originally sold this type of construction of having multiple advantages in terms of cost, and strength. It seems that is not the case, and now it's just for looking different.

Since I've spent my entire career in aerospace industry including launch vehicles, I am very aware of the history and what is in Falcon 9 and Starship. I even recall when DARPA released Falcon RFP that SpaceX won; hence the name of the booster.

The original comment I made was the operating mode of Falcon 9. The notion of vertically landing the 1st stage on a barge for reuse had never been done. In fact, NASA spent many years studying ways to fly back the Space Shuttle Solid rocket Boosters (SRB) because they believed that was the only way to recover without dumping into the ocean.

Most industry experts said barge landing could not be done in various sea state conditions. Clearly SpaceX got it done. Over and over again.

The point is conventional wisdom and assessments are steeped in traditional approaches and risk aversions.

All I said was the color and the tone of the article. CT may be failure - maybe a huge success. The market place will determine that. No you or me.

 

[Inkedsphynx]

The delivery event is coming up.

Your distaste for CT must be such that you must have forgotten that there is a business behind the vehicle. Tesla would not have built as much as it has if it cannot delive the vehicles.

In order to deliver, we agree.

Not sure what this has to do with my post, refuting your assertion that all the appropriate regulatory stops have already happened.

Have we seen any evidence of that, thus far? No, we have not.

As for the rest of your post, you know what they say about making assumptions

EDIT: Others said it better. That one point you made was wrong

Sponsored