Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Investor Engineering Discussions

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Regarding Cybertruck

I'm interested to see what they do about the 3rd brake light because the current examples of the high mounted stop lamp on the tail gate are not FMVSS compliant.

Not mounted to fixed structure:


Integrated with other lamps/ reflectors
Related text I found a while back:
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: mongo
Maybe trucks of a certain size are not required to meet that standard?
Oh, good point. If Cybertruck is 80 inches or wider, it does not need a regulation CHMSL, but does need front and rear clearance lights. Cybertruck was called out as 79.8 inches at the reveal, but Elon later said it would be 82, which would make it a non-required brake light.

For reference, the F150 is 79.9 inches wide.
Sierra and Ram are 81.2



SmartSelect_20230226_224917_Firefox.jpg

SmartSelect_20230226_230539_Firefox.jpg
 
Will be interesting to see what the 48V architecture means for 12V accessory ports and possibly 120/230V V2L plugs.

The change to the 16V LiIon battery means some Accessory equipment doesn't work.

DC-DC converters should address the 12V accessory plugs. They're fairly efficient and if Tesla makes them, should be pretty cheap for them.
 
Will be interesting to see what the 48V architecture means for 12V accessory ports and possibly 120/230V V2L plugs.

The change to the 16V LiIon battery means some Accessory equipment doesn't work.
Have you actually seen any complain of some devices not working? Most "12V" automotive electronics will work up to 16V, or used to, since on older vehicles it was not uncommon to see voltage spikes due to poor regulation from alternators, not to mention the charge voltage for lead acid batteries was in the 14V+ range to begin with. I recall many "automotive grade" devices back in the day being spec'd to 18V tolerant or higher even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSP and navguy12
Have you actually seen any complain of some devices not working?
One of many
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP
Have you actually seen any complain of some devices not working? Most "12V" automotive electronics will work up to 16V, or used to, since on older vehicles it was not uncommon to see voltage spikes due to poor regulation from alternators, not to mention the charge voltage for lead acid batteries was in the 14V+ range to begin with. I recall many "automotive grade" devices back in the day being spec'd to 18V tolerant or higher even.
Critical issue is OEM vs aftermarket specifications. GM required functionality at 16V with survivability against an hour of both 18V and varying from 16V to 18V.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GSP
Catapult.
Though I'm thinking inital acceleration energy is minor in the overall flight. One mile of full thrust to takeoff, X minutes of climb thrust (80%?) to reach altitude, hundreds of miles at cruise thrust (60-80%) to maintain speed.
Decades ago there was extensive analysis and testing of a system that acted as a ’pusher’ to facilitate takeoff and climb. The part I saw was commercial/DARPA funded. It was shown to work well and reduce fuel loads by ~30% for the long range craft. The amounts were so high because the combination of excess fuel at takeoff forced larger thrust capability and increased gross weight. Soon after the initial feasibility was documented the program was classified and I saw nothing more. All documentation too…the same thing happened soon after with an SST quiet efficient version (quest) that ended out in use, it seems.

The battery and structural comments here seem probable to have huge value in aerospace applications. I’m decades gone from these subjects. Still it seems inevitable that the advances of TSLA/SpaceX right now have huge military and civil aircraft applications.

All this makes me wish I were 40 years younger or so to do all that over again.
For the record, the most exciting years of my life were at SRI working in Transportation Industries, a close second the same place working on Financial Industries helping lay the groundwork for the legal structure that permitted X.com etc.

Now the technical revolution will be transformative. Analysts will not understand.
This thread is giving me more hope.

I make no technical comments because I am not qualified to do so.
 
Decades ago there was extensive analysis and testing of a system that acted as a ’pusher’ to facilitate takeoff and climb. The part I saw was commercial/DARPA funded. It was shown to work well and reduce fuel loads by ~30% for the long range craft. The amounts were so high because the combination of excess fuel at takeoff forced larger thrust capability and increased gross weight. Soon after the initial feasibility was documented the program was classified and I saw nothing more. All documentation too…the same thing happened soon after with an SST quiet efficient version (quest) that ended out in use, it seems.

The battery and structural comments here seem probable to have huge value in aerospace applications. I’m decades gone from these subjects. Still it seems inevitable that the advances of TSLA/SpaceX right now have huge military and civil aircraft applications.

All this makes me wish I were 40 years younger or so to do all that over again.
For the record, the most exciting years of my life were at SRI working in Transportation Industries, a close second the same place working on Financial Industries helping lay the groundwork for the legal structure that permitted X.com etc.

Now the technical revolution will be transformative. Analysts will not understand.
This thread is giving me more hope.

I make no technical comments because I am not qualified to do so.
A two stage plane would fit well with the high altitude flight scenario Elon mentioned years ago.
787 glide ratio is around 20:1. If you can get a similar airfoil to 30k ft, that's 100 miles of free range.
 
One of many
Interesting. I am surprised that if they were going to raise the "12V" to 16V they didn't throw in some kind of step down DC-DC for the 12V outlet. I guess this goes to show that at least all of Tesla's electronics are 16V (or higher) tolerant.

edit: reading that thread, I see mention of vcfront stepping down power for 12V electronics. If that's the case then they really made a mistake not also doing this for the accessory outlet.
 
Interesting. I am surprised that if they were going to raise the "12V" to 16V they didn't throw in some kind of step down DC-DC for the 12V outlet. I guess this goes to show that at least all of Tesla's electronics are 16V (or higher) tolerant.

edit: reading that thread, I see mention of vcfront stepping down power for 12V electronics. If that's the case then they really made a mistake not also doing this for the accessory outlet.
In a chip shortage, the first casualty is accessory ports...
possible solution, buy 12V accessory extension cord, add 4 appropriately sized diodes in series with the + side.
 
A two stage plane would fit well with the high altitude flight scenario Elon mentioned years ago.
787 glide ratio is around 20:1. If you can get a similar airfoil to 30k ft, that's 100 miles of free range.
And then there is this:
Newly designed airlines such as A350-1000 +now use continuous adapting wings )AKA: morphing) that end out yielding much greater wing efficiency. The B787-9 publicly alleged 20:1 is, I am reliably told, understated and that the A350-1000 is around 26:1. In reality both of these could be much better, say >30:1 were they to not require all the efficiency compromises needs for maximum gross takeoff. Considering that these very long haul variants haul well over 50% Max Gross Weight in fuel, eliminating the need to takeoff and climb fuel and aerodynamics compromised would save as much as 20% of fuel load.
Note on current efficiency: A350-1000 and B787-9 have typical cruise speed of M.85, faster than those of their predecessors while consuming less fuel, that is almost entirely the result of better aerodynamics, although new engines helped too.

All this only peripherally related to Tesla, of course, but Tesla is the only OEM of which I am aware that obsesses on aerodynamics and specifically parasite drag to the extent they do.
Just for fun I looked under a SP85D and a S Plaid. Try it, that helps explain how the latter is more energy efficient than the former.

With all the discussion about CD and frontal areas, few think of tires and undercarriage, mirrors and windshield wipers. The Tesla progress has been impressive in these areas.

At the moment my issue is that Cybertruck does not appear to have so much visual evidence of that thinking in wheels, though it seems to do so elsewhere especially in that tonneau cover, perhaps the least recognized efficiency tool in Cybertruck.

Who will supply all the batteries, BMS and other innovations the Alice and others will need.
It's hard to see Saft as a player, but perhaps I am biased because fo the 787 debacle.

Tesla says zero about aviation. OTOH Elon was an avid pilot, flying his L-39 happily around the practice area for flight training and aerobatics between LA and Catalina. He undoubtedly has thought about that aircraft efficiency, especially when he swapped his Falcon 900 for the Gulfstream. When will Tesla begin to consider aviation? No mention at all, but Phase 4 certainly will be able to tackle atmospheric pollution from aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSP and mongo
There was no mention of the patented architecture ever being put into use during the 2023 Investor Day video. Cybertruck wiring will still be flexible instead of rigid and the power feed will still be fed from a centralized location instead of being fed by bus bar/cable running the length of the vehicle. The only mentioned simplification to the wiring harness itself during investor day was the seemingly lethargic plan to have remaining cross-car wiring utilization work be performed over existing/new communication bus instead. Communication bus wiring architecture has been used in cars for over thirty years. What are you waiting for?!

The wiring architecture patent specifically mentions the potential future usage of 40,48, or 60 volts being used which means the low voltage system upscale has been anticipated in the Tesla engineering circle since at least 2019.