I really don't think they set out to build an armoured vehicle.
The two dominating optimization factors for the pickup market are "rugged/go-anywhere" and "payload capacity". Very, very different optimization factors from passenger cars (and the former vs. semi trucks).
They set out to re-design the car manufacturing process from the bottom up to save capex and COGs.
I strongly, strongly disagree with this. They set out to achieve
specific goals as cheaply as possible.
I would roughly guess that the CyberTruck COGs savings are $5-10k from going with this new architecture over a traditional manufacturing process and materials.
1) That sounds way over-optimistic, many times over. Depreciation on a press and paint line is nowhere near that much - heck, depreciation on a whole vehicle line isn't that much -and you have to add in extra folding work to compensate, as well as deal with larger sheets. Model 3 total depreciation was reported by Deepak to be well under $2k per vehicle, and that's for
all lines, and quite a while ago.
“Rod, we are very CapEx-efficient, overall. Let me just start from that point. And if we look at our depreciation costs on a per unit basis at steady run rate of 5,000 or so cars per week, we are in my mind well below most of our competitors – well below $2,000 per unit depreciation cost.”
For a "normal automaker", a press line for a high-volume vehicle costs a couple hundred million dollars, and tooling a couple hundred more, and a high-volume paint shop maybe $500M, but it can last for 2-3 decades or so. Call it a cool $1B. Tesla has gotten significantly more capital efficient than that of late, of course, but let's just stick with that. Now divide by many hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year over the depreciation period (Musk previously stated 700k/yr ultimate addressible market, but go ahead and assume less). $5-10k unit depreciation saved,
plus the difference in materials costs? Not a chance.
2) The stainless sheet here is likely in the ballpark of ~4-5x more expensive than the mix of mild steel, high tensile steel, ultra high tensile steel, and alumium found in typical Tesla vehicles. Thousands of dollars more expensive.
3) While Tesla has done what appears to be an admirable job at managing to streamline a vehicle
despite creases, the streamlining is
in spite of the disadvantages of the creases not because of it. The creases nonetheless hurt streamlining vs. a smooth vehicle (those A-pillars in particular). Notice how there were no boasts about Cd this time - Tesla
always boasts about their Cd, even on Semi. Cd is probably coming in somewhere between that of a streamlined sedan (S, 3) and a conventional pickup. A worse CD means more batteries, which is a
much more significant cost.
You optimize to your design constraints. Pickup design constraints are about capabilities and ruggedness. Ruggedness dictates armour. Armour dictates creasing rather than stamping. Armour weight also dictates using it as a loadbearing structure, because otherwise you double up on your weight. Low-weight resistance of torque and torsion in the back for maximum loadbearing capabilities dictates a braced cantilever structure, pairing with the aero-required tonneau taper.
Result: the Cybertruck. But it's a consequence of its premises.