Made a couple small changes to the Cybertruck. Thoughts?

[Electruck]

In this rendering from Tesla, you can see the CT has a bunch of folded sheet metal inside the door frames, floor pan, roof edges,and pillars that looks a lot like the cabin design of many other "unibody" designs. It has ribs added under the bottom of the cabin for stiffness. The unique part is that the outer front fenders, frunk inner panels, rear fenders, and inner bed sides appear to be used as part of the structure to connect it to the front and rear suspension.

I can't see 80% of what you are discussing here, from this side view rendering; floor pan, ribs, frunk inner panels, inner bed sides, front or rear suspension, or inside the door frames. How do you get all that from this view?

 

[CMoZ]

In this rendering from Tesla, you can see the CT has a bunch of folded sheet metal inside the door frames, floor pan, roof edges,and pillars that looks a lot like the cabin design of many other "unibody" designs. It has ribs added under the bottom of the cabin for stiffness. The unique part is that the outer front fenders, frunk inner panels, rear fenders, and inner bed sides appear to be used as part of the structure to connect it to the front and rear suspension.

Again it’s not unibody. None of that is there for strength of the structure but you need something to bolt seats and interior components to. This is what a unibody looks like notice some things missing compared to the cybertruck? eg all the body panels save the roof?

see all the box tube shapes like the 2 rails coming from the front? The square Formed rockers under the doors? The square frame around where the body opens to the trunk? The way the pillars all are all extruded into a load bearing shape as well? The Cybertruck has none of that all the load is borne by the pieces that aren’t even bolted on to that unibody, yes there needs to be some internal structure so you have a place to sit but that’s not what’s load bearing in the CT. You can disagree with me all you want but I’ve spent a heck of a lot of time restoring cars ( cutting and patching) I’m pretty well versed in the practicalities of how a unibody bears load.

 

[keeney]

Again it’s not unibody. None of that is there for strength of the structure but you need something to bolt seats and interior components to. This is what a unibody looks like notice some things missing compared to the cybertruck? eg all the body panels save the roof?

see all the box tube shapes like the 2 rails coming from the front? The square Formed rockers under the doors? The square frame around where the body opens to the trunk? The way the pillars all are all extruded into a load bearing shape as well? The Cybertruck has none of that all the load is borne by the pieces that aren’t even bolted on to that unibody, yes there needs to be some internal structure so you have a place to sit but that’s not what’s load bearing in the CT. You can disagree with me all you want but I’ve spent a heck of a lot of time restoring cars ( cutting and patching) I’m pretty well versed in the practicalities of how a unibody bears load.

Actually,to me, the cabin portion of the CT looks pretty similar to the unibody you show in terms of all the folded metal around the doors, pillars, roof edges, and floor pan edges. Plus those ribs underneath the whole length of the cabin.

The difference in the CT is that the front structure is formed by the outer fenders, extremely-sloped A-pillars, and inside edges of the frunk instead of rails protruding from the front inner portion of the unibody. The back of the Cybertruck uses the inside of the cargo bed and the outer fenders of the bed and is stiffened by the sloping sail top edge. The unibody you show does something similar with the inside of the trunk and C-pillars (albeit not nearly as long as a pickup bed), but appears to be wrapped on the outside by a non-structural skin (probably a plastic back bumper and fender).

Note that the doors that look massive but contribute little to the structural design of the truck (ignoring crash safety considerations). They have to be detached from the structure so they can open.

And also note that on the CT, the outer skins of the Sails are doors. They open for storage. So only the top edge and inner portion of the sails contribute to the stiffness. Similarly, the Frunk hood does not contribute much to the structure. Using this rendering with those panels in place is slightly distracting in regards to evaluating the structural design of the CT.

 

[CoyoteJim]

The photos make it pretty clear there is a continuous top rail from each end to the apex, and the sheet metal is attached to it. It runs the length of the truck on each side. I don’t think it’s just there for looks.

 

[CoyoteJim]

So if the body panels are part of the stressed skin design, that would include the roof. Which is why if they were going with an all glass roof it would have to be the “transparent steel” glass - so it could take the stress and add strength. This is just my guess.

 

[CMoZ]

So if the body panels are part of the stressed skin design, that would include the roof. Which is why if they were going with an all glass roof it would have to be the “transparent steel” glass - so it could take the stress and add strength. This is just my guess.

not necessarily but possible that’s a consideration I doubt the glass itself would be integral to the structure but likely there would be a body beam across the roof at or near the apex

 

[CMoZ]

Actually,to me, the cabin portion of the CT looks pretty similar to the unibody you show in terms of all the folded metal around the doors, pillars, roof edges, and floor pan edges. Plus those ribs underneath the whole length of the cabin.

Ya you'd also see that on a vehicle that uses a frame. None of that is structure in the sense that a frame or a unibody frame needs strength

This is an old body on frame truck you still see those folds in the body which is not providing strength in the sense that we need from the frame . That has nothing to do with the load bearing parts of the truck

The difference in the CT is that the front structure is formed by the outer fenders, extremely-sloped A-pillars, and inside edges of the frunk instead of rails protruding from the front inner portion of the unibody. The back of the Cybertruck uses the inside of the cargo bed and the outer fenders of the bed and is stiffened by the sloping sail top edge. The unibody you show does something similar with the inside of the trunk and C-pillars (albeit not nearly as long as a pickup bed), but appears to be wrapped on the outside by a non-structural skin (probably a plastic back bumper and fender).

Nothing in this paragraph is correct. I don't even know where to start as nothing said here is based in any sort of reality or literature written about the CT

Note that the doors that look massive but contribute little to the structural design of the truck (ignoring crash safety considerations). They have to be detached from the structure so they can open.

Not a clue what your point is here. Doors need to open. yes but it's incorrect doors actually do contribute a bit to the structural integrity of vehicles when closed. Although not generally considered structural. However given that the overall structure of the rest of the body only becomes more important, not less

And also note that on the CT, the outer skins of the Sails are doors. They open for storage. So only the top edge and inner portion of the sails contribute to the stiffness. Similarly, the Frunk hood does not contribute much to the structure. Using this rendering with those panels in place is slightly distracting in regards to evaluating the structural design of the CT.

You're thinking a bit naively here the outside opens but you have no idea where the force vectors are here. Sure maybe they could have made them giant triangular divots that recessed in a couple inches. but then you lose that storage space which is a selling point. and you still have that roof line.

In any event they had to do a lot more actual science around the design based on the body bearing as much load as it does. You know what the F150 engineers had to consider in their body design? Nada this is where all the strength comes from

That's it everything not in that picture has 0 bearing on the strength of the Ford F150 in regards to towing or bed load.

 

[ricohman]

With this type of design its going to be extremely expensive to repair. The crush zones act as they do so the force of impact is not transmitted to the occupants, The CT will have crush zones and "frame rails" like a unibody in the sills and possibly over the doors.
Front and rear crush zones will be used but how will they be repaired?
This is one weird unibody.

 

[xXKingMickeyXx]

Honestly I like the original Cybertruck look more, no side doesn’t look right to me and I hated the look of the truck when it first came out.

 

[CMoZ]

With this type of design its going to be extremely expensive to repair. The crush zones act as they do so the force of impact is not transmitted to the occupants, The CT will have crush zones and "frame rails" like a unibody in the sills and possibly over the doors.
Front and rear crush zones will be used but how will they be repaired?
This is one weird unibody.

Not a unibody

 

[SouthBayGuy]

I think most of us are so used to seeing conventional pickup trucks that we feel the Cybertruck looks strange. But I would wager if you show a picture of a Cybertruck next to a conventional pick up truck to someone who has never seen a pickup truck before, the Cybertruck would look more appealing. And I think this is why so many people don't like the looks at first, but then love it.

 

[keeney]

Think of it this way - nothing stops ICE pickup trucks from being built with a sloping back cover and high sides to help with the aerodynamics. Or even after-market - nothing stops aftermarket topper companies from making a topper that could be added to a conventional truck to accomplish the same configuration as the CT. Why have they not? Because nobody is clamoring for that configuration.

EVs, on the other hand, struggle to produce enough range. They cannot afford to tradeoff efficiency for cargo utility without falling below a critical range threshold or going over cost thresholds. So the sloped back is needed to get the desired range.

My plea would be make the sloped cover optional, or at least easily removable. Those who need the range can leave it on. Those of us who are looking for more general pickup bed cargo versatility can take it off or replace it with a topper, or a camper, or other pickup truck configurations of our choice. That versatility is the essence of what makes pickup trucks popular.

 

[PACEMD]

No one is stopping you from hacking your Cybertruck into any configuration you want. Try it and report back here..........

 

[coleAK]

Not a unibody

Yes it is. Just as much as Range Rovers “monocoque” is also unibody.

 

[ThomasD]

Ford pickup Michigan Vehicle Solutions make these

 

[ThomasD]

View attachment 486939Ford pickup Michigan Vehicle Solutions make these

 

[coleAK]

Think of it this way - nothing stops ICE pickup trucks from being built with a sloping back cover and high sides to help with the aerodynamics. Or even after-market - nothing stops aftermarket topper companies from making a topper that could be added to a conventional truck to accomplish the same configuration as the CT. Why have they not? Because nobody is clamoring for that configuration.

EVs, on the other hand, struggle to produce enough range. They cannot afford to tradeoff efficiency for cargo utility without falling below a critical range threshold or going over cost thresholds. So the sloped back is needed to get the desired range.

My plea would be make the sloped cover optional, or at least easily removable. Those who need the range can leave it on. Those of us who are looking for more general pickup bed cargo versatility can take it off or replace it with a topper, or a camper, or other pickup truck configurations of our choice. That versatility is the essence of what makes pickup trucks popular.

I agree with the others above that the slope seems required structurally. The exoskeleton/monocoque/unibody format is not versatile in this aspect. Body on frame has a major advantage in customizing as you can put a cab, cab+bed, van, SUV, ... all on the same frame/drivetrain.

 

[TjckTock]

TMy plea would be make the sloped cover optional, or at least easily removable. Those who need the range can leave it on.

Is is optional - Rivian. If you want to trade range, safety, durability, & cost for a more normal looking truck you have that option.

 

[keeney]

View attachment 486939Ford pickup Michigan Vehicle Solutions make these

Not saying that efficiency is not a valid trade off. My point being that by building the CT with the sloped sides integral to the design, it precludes other much more popular options.

 

[PACEMD]

You mean the traditional options that you have in mind.......the Cybertruck will be modified like..........well, like nobody's business........meaning there will be a large post-production mod market.........