Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[Artful Dodger]

Nope. My M3 got the 2023.20.8 firmware marked with FSD 11.3.6 on TeslaFi. I did not pay for full Autopilot on the M3. And FSD is not available here in Europe.

I think this is new behavior as Tesla gets ready to replace the legacy autopilot code with FSD. Likely to happen across the Fleet when FSD comes out of Beta. Then, all supported cars (most cars produced after Apr 2018 w. FSD Computer) will be capable of enabling FSD at the flick of a bit. Will be v. handy for monthly FSD lease/rentals.

IMO, it's likely that all safety featues of FSD (like red-light detection) will be standard/no extra cost, while convenience features (like Navigate on Autopilot, or Summon) are extra-cost.

 

[petit_bateau]

Cult-ISH? I'm a card-carrying member of the HODLorians. No ISH about it.

Only pointing out the facts to counter the question of whether or not the CT construction is basically the same as on the Y. It isn't.

Some insects are considered as having exoskeletons and still have internal bracing. Why is it assumed that because there are castings and stamped parts this somehow excludes the exterior cladding from being a significant structural part of the skeleton if designed to be that way?

The castings reduce parts count, just like on the 3 and Y. The stamped parts make it much easier to attach doors and their seals, and provide for the battery pack to easily attach using the structural pack technology developed since the CT reveal, which further speeds up production and reduces costs. Eventually, I could see the CT production going "unboxed" on new lines that are built if needed to accommodate demand.

In the natural world there are a wide range of evolutionary outcomes that span the continuum from exo to endo skeleton. But the Cybertruck was supposed to be revolutionary and new in that it was going to have an exoskeleton of load-bearing structural panels, and I simply don't see that in what is on display.

Apart from the exterior panels being
- unpainted folded stainless;
vs
- stamped painted aluminium;
and setting aside scale as being a not-interesting aspect, what is the difference regarding the Cybertruck mechanical structure vs the latest Y mechanical structure ?

The common points between the two that I can see are :
- large castings front and back;
- with stamped side rails etc;
- forming a rigid (internal) endoskeleton load-carrying safety cage, into which;
- a structural (or non-structural*) battery pack are fitted from below, carrying seats and harness restraint loads thereby connecting the humans to the load-carrying structures;
- with suspension and drive components attaching to the load-carrying internal structure;
- and with exterior panels attached individually to that internal structure;
- so pretty much everything.

As far as I can see it is simply that someone somewhere at some time did not understand the difference between endoskeleton and exoskeleton and simply made a linguistic mistake. If I could see load-carrying joints between adjacent exterior panels, and an absence of the corresponding joints between adjacent interior structures, such that the load paths went through the outside panels and not through the inside panels, then I'd call it an exoskeleton. I cannot see that, which is why I am asking if I am missing something.

Try this thought experiment. At this point the exterior panels might as well be made of reasonably rigid folded cardboard, papier mache, GRP, woven straw or somesuch having the same smooth external surface as the folded stainless. Apart from crash-absorption (because external panels do take a fraction of the impact as they crumple) those other materials would deliver an approximately equal functional outcome (yes there would be some differences in NVH, etc). In contrast if one replaced an inner structural member with woven straw the whole thing would collapse, either during manufacture or on meeting the first pothole.

So as far as I can see, the CT is not revolutionary and new**. Yes it has an interesting manufacturing choice of external panels being formed in stainless, but the forming method is not really that new (i.e. folded). If you go back and look at the external panel forming method for the original 1948 Land Rover series 1 (Land Rover series - Wikipedia) you'll find that they were also chosen to eliminate stamping tooling. Yes, it has an unusual 'styling' look for a pick-up, but I'm not sure I'd call it completely revolutionary - it is rather as if someone had done a transform job on a 70s wedge (say an Exclat Lotus Éclat - Wikipedia).

This is not just a matter of semantics. There are some interesting implications arising from this:
- 1) We are not witnessing a revolution in manufacturing, with a switch from endoskeleton layouts to exoskeleton. That is the absence of something.
- 2) If the styling fails to win over the target market (I hope not, as that would be wasteful) then it is a lot easier to take this as a starting point for an evolved product with more conventional styling, than if this was a revolutionary exoskeleton design where looks were tightly coupled to structure.
- 3) It gives us some insight that the 2/Z will likely also be structurally conventional in the 3/Y and CT manner.


* The one item I can see which may be different with the CT is that the Y's internal structure has sufficient load-carrying ability to be able to accept both structural and non-structural battery packs. This means the Y has considerable battery sourcing flexibility. At this stage it is unclear whether the CT can accept a non-structural battery pack.

** EDIT/ADD : The very new architectural innovation that seems likely to be introduced with the CT is the shift to a 48V system. That is a major architectural step forwards, and not only for the auto industry. Over the years I have really struggled with designing in the 48V space because of the absence of some components, and the inordinate cost of other components. So an automotive shift to 48V which this likely presages, will be revolutionary far beyond automotive. But that is not an exoskeleton !

 

[Snerruc]

Just saw a video of one of Sandy’s engineers talking about endo vs exo skeleton. He said current body in white technology IS an exoskeleton . I suspect Munro and Assoc. would know.

 

[CorneliusXX]

In the natural world there are a wide range of evolutionary outcomes that span the continuum from exo to endo skeleton. But the Cybertruck was supposed to be revolutionary and new in that it was going to have an exoskeleton of load-bearing structural panels, and I simply don't see that in what is on display.

Apart from the exterior panels being
- unpainted folded stainless;
vs
- stamped painted aluminium;
and setting aside scale as being a not-interesting aspect, what is the difference regarding the Cybertruck mechanical structure vs the latest Y mechanical structure ?

The common points between the two that I can see are :
- large castings front and back;
- with stamped side rails etc;
- forming a rigid (internal) endoskeleton load-carrying safety cage, into which;
- a structural (or non-structural*) battery pack are fitted from below, carrying seats and harness restraint loads thereby connecting the humans to the load-carrying structures;
- with suspension and drive components attaching to the load-carrying internal structure;
- and with exterior panels attached individually to that internal structure;
- so pretty much everything.

As far as I can see it is simply that someone somewhere at some time did not understand the difference between endoskeleton and exoskeleton and simply made a linguistic mistake. If I could see load-carrying joints between adjacent exterior panels, and an absence of the corresponding joints between adjacent interior structures, such that the load paths went through the outside panels and not through the inside panels, then I'd call it an exoskeleton. I cannot see that, which is why I am asking if I am missing something.

Try this thought experiment. At this point the exterior panels might as well be made of reasonably rigid folded cardboard, papier mache, GRP, woven straw or somesuch having the same smooth external surface as the folded stainless. Apart from crash-absorption (because external panels do take a fraction of the impact as they crumple) those other materials would deliver an approximately equal functional outcome (yes there would be some differences in NVH, etc). In contrast if one replaced an inner structural member with woven straw the whole thing would collapse, either during manufacture or on meeting the first pothole.

So as far as I can see, the CT is not revolutionary and new**. Yes it has an interesting manufacturing choice of external panels being formed in stainless, but the forming method is not really that new (i.e. folded). If you go back and look at the external panel forming method for the original 1948 Land Rover series 1 (Land Rover series - Wikipedia) you'll find that they were also chosen to eliminate stamping tooling. Yes, it has an unusual 'styling' look for a pick-up, but I'm not sure I'd call it completely revolutionary - it is rather as if someone had done a transform job on a 70s wedge (say an Exclat Lotus Éclat - Wikipedia).

This is not just a matter of semantics. There are some interesting implications arising from this:
- 1) We are not witnessing a revolution in manufacturing, with a switch from endoskeleton layouts to exoskeleton. That is the absence of something.
- 2) If the styling fails to win over the target market (I hope not, as that would be wasteful) then it is a lot easier to take this as a starting point for an evolved product with more conventional styling, than if this was a revolutionary exoskeleton design where looks were tightly coupled to structure.
- 3) It gives us some insight that the 2/Z will likely also be structurally conventional in the 3/Y and CT manner.


* The one item I can see which may be different with the CT is that the Y's internal structure has sufficient load-carrying ability to be able to accept both structural and non-structural battery packs. This means the Y has considerable battery sourcing flexibility. At this stage it is unclear whether the CT can accept a non-structural battery pack.

** EDIT/ADD : The very new architectural innovation that seems likely to be introduced with the CT is the shift to a 48V system. That is a major architectural step forwards, and not only for the auto industry. Over the years I have really struggled with designing in the 48V space because of the absence of some components, and the inordinate cost of other components. So an automotive shift to 48V which this likely presages, will be revolutionary far beyond automotive. But that is not an exoskeleton !

If the stainless steel panels are not needed for structural (or partially structural) load transfer it would be inefficient to keep thick sheet metal. I'd assume either the panels remain a structural component or the panel thickness would reduce (and potentially put owners at risk of 9mm gunfire). According to a quick google search, standard alloy vehicle panels are 0.6mm to 1.6mm vs the 3mm thickness of the CT. Using an online calculator that would save somewhere between 200kg-500kg - Or ~10% to ~20% of vehicle weight. Presumably too much to ignore if it doesn't serve a structural purpose. That said, I can't imagine Elon giving up so many fun features that the vehicle was initially promoted with.

Whatever allows Tesla to scale at the cheapest costs and quickest speed is the way to go IMO, even if some of the features end up changing.

 

[SPadival]

No idea at this time. SEC website doesn’t show any Q2 13F filing by Blackrock

It seems this is Q1 data - based on a match on the number of TSLA shares that Blackrock bought in Q1 (930k). In which case, meh - we'll have to wait for a few more days for Q2 13Fs

 

[Stretch2727]

In the natural world there are a wide range of evolutionary outcomes that span the continuum from exo to endo skeleton. But the Cybertruck was supposed to be revolutionary and new in that it was going to have an exoskeleton of load-bearing structural panels, and I simply don't see that in what is on display.

Apart from the exterior panels being
- unpainted folded stainless;
vs
- stamped painted aluminium;
and setting aside scale as being a not-interesting aspect, what is the difference regarding the Cybertruck mechanical structure vs the latest Y mechanical structure ?

The common points between the two that I can see are :
- large castings front and back;
- with stamped side rails etc;
- forming a rigid (internal) endoskeleton load-carrying safety cage, into which;
- a structural (or non-structural*) battery pack are fitted from below, carrying seats and harness restraint loads thereby connecting the humans to the load-carrying structures;
- with suspension and drive components attaching to the load-carrying internal structure;
- and with exterior panels attached individually to that internal structure;
- so pretty much everything.

As far as I can see it is simply that someone somewhere at some time did not understand the difference between endoskeleton and exoskeleton and simply made a linguistic mistake. If I could see load-carrying joints between adjacent exterior panels, and an absence of the corresponding joints between adjacent interior structures, such that the load paths went through the outside panels and not through the inside panels, then I'd call it an exoskeleton. I cannot see that, which is why I am asking if I am missing something.

Try this thought experiment. At this point the exterior panels might as well be made of reasonably rigid folded cardboard, papier mache, GRP, woven straw or somesuch having the same smooth external surface as the folded stainless. Apart from crash-absorption (because external panels do take a fraction of the impact as they crumple) those other materials would deliver an approximately equal functional outcome (yes there would be some differences in NVH, etc). In contrast if one replaced an inner structural member with woven straw the whole thing would collapse, either during manufacture or on meeting the first pothole.

So as far as I can see, the CT is not revolutionary and new**. Yes it has an interesting manufacturing choice of external panels being formed in stainless, but the forming method is not really that new (i.e. folded). If you go back and look at the external panel forming method for the original 1948 Land Rover series 1 (Land Rover series - Wikipedia) you'll find that they were also chosen to eliminate stamping tooling. Yes, it has an unusual 'styling' look for a pick-up, but I'm not sure I'd call it completely revolutionary - it is rather as if someone had done a transform job on a 70s wedge (say an Exclat Lotus Éclat - Wikipedia).

This is not just a matter of semantics. There are some interesting implications arising from this:
- 1) We are not witnessing a revolution in manufacturing, with a switch from endoskeleton layouts to exoskeleton. That is the absence of something.
- 2) If the styling fails to win over the target market (I hope not, as that would be wasteful) then it is a lot easier to take this as a starting point for an evolved product with more conventional styling, than if this was a revolutionary exoskeleton design where looks were tightly coupled to structure.
- 3) It gives us some insight that the 2/Z will likely also be structurally conventional in the 3/Y and CT manner.


* The one item I can see which may be different with the CT is that the Y's internal structure has sufficient load-carrying ability to be able to accept both structural and non-structural battery packs. This means the Y has considerable battery sourcing flexibility. At this stage it is unclear whether the CT can accept a non-structural battery pack.

** EDIT/ADD : The very new architectural innovation that seems likely to be introduced with the CT is the shift to a 48V system. That is a major architectural step forwards, and not only for the auto industry. Over the years I have really struggled with designing in the 48V space because of the absence of some components, and the inordinate cost of other components. So an automotive shift to 48V which this likely presages, will be revolutionary far beyond automotive. But that is not an exoskeleton !

I guess I see this very differently. All the major OEM's use a separate steel frame for their large pickups. Why...because it's easy. Design a frame to carry the loads and bolt everything to it. The cab and the bed do almost nothing for strength. Even the highly vaulted Toyota does this with their large pickup in the US. Yes there are a few small unibody pickup trucks (Maverick, Ridgeline, etc) but the payloads are quite limited.

Tesla has gone a different route where the skin of the truck is doing more than being a cosmetic cover. As I pointed out earlier the rear skin is definitely providing structure. Even the front fenders maybe providing some structure but not 100% sure. This allows them to use aluminum castings as a main structural member which no OEM would ever attempt on a pickup truck.

I am sure the Tesla team struggled mightly to get the needed strength given the relatively high payload for the Cybertruck and would argue there is a lot of innovation needed to do this.. Is it a unibody or an exoskeleton? Not sure, and not going to argue this point as the definitions seem quite fluid depending on the use case.

I think there is a ton of innovation here. We will likely need to have the tear downs from Sandy M to see if they truly have made gains in cost, weight and structural integrity compared to a standard pick up. My guess is they have made leaps here and this knowledge will be used on every vehicle going forward even if it does not have a stainless skin.

 

[2daMoon]

In the natural world there are a wide range of evolutionary outcomes that span the continuum from exo to endo skeleton. But the Cybertruck was supposed to be revolutionary and new in that it was going to have an exoskeleton of load-bearing structural panels, and I simply don't see that in what is on display.

Apart from the exterior panels being
- unpainted folded stainless;
vs
- stamped painted aluminium;
and setting aside scale as being a not-interesting aspect, what is the difference regarding the Cybertruck mechanical structure vs the latest Y mechanical structure ?

The common points between the two that I can see are :
- large castings front and back;
- with stamped side rails etc;
- forming a rigid (internal) endoskeleton load-carrying safety cage, into which;
- a structural (or non-structural*) battery pack are fitted from below, carrying seats and harness restraint loads thereby connecting the humans to the load-carrying structures;
- with suspension and drive components attaching to the load-carrying internal structure;
- and with exterior panels attached individually to that internal structure;
- so pretty much everything.

As far as I can see it is simply that someone somewhere at some time did not understand the difference between endoskeleton and exoskeleton and simply made a linguistic mistake. If I could see load-carrying joints between adjacent exterior panels, and an absence of the corresponding joints between adjacent interior structures, such that the load paths went through the outside panels and not through the inside panels, then I'd call it an exoskeleton. I cannot see that, which is why I am asking if I am missing something.

Try this thought experiment. At this point the exterior panels might as well be made of reasonably rigid folded cardboard, papier mache, GRP, woven straw or somesuch having the same smooth external surface as the folded stainless. Apart from crash-absorption (because external panels do take a fraction of the impact as they crumple) those other materials would deliver an approximately equal functional outcome (yes there would be some differences in NVH, etc). In contrast if one replaced an inner structural member with woven straw the whole thing would collapse, either during manufacture or on meeting the first pothole.

So as far as I can see, the CT is not revolutionary and new**. Yes it has an interesting manufacturing choice of external panels being formed in stainless, but the forming method is not really that new (i.e. folded). If you go back and look at the external panel forming method for the original 1948 Land Rover series 1 (Land Rover series - Wikipedia) you'll find that they were also chosen to eliminate stamping tooling. Yes, it has an unusual 'styling' look for a pick-up, but I'm not sure I'd call it completely revolutionary - it is rather as if someone had done a transform job on a 70s wedge (say an Exclat Lotus Éclat - Wikipedia).

This is not just a matter of semantics. There are some interesting implications arising from this:
- 1) We are not witnessing a revolution in manufacturing, with a switch from endoskeleton layouts to exoskeleton. That is the absence of something.
- 2) If the styling fails to win over the target market (I hope not, as that would be wasteful) then it is a lot easier to take this as a starting point for an evolved product with more conventional styling, than if this was a revolutionary exoskeleton design where looks were tightly coupled to structure.
- 3) It gives us some insight that the 2/Z will likely also be structurally conventional in the 3/Y and CT manner.


* The one item I can see which may be different with the CT is that the Y's internal structure has sufficient load-carrying ability to be able to accept both structural and non-structural battery packs. This means the Y has considerable battery sourcing flexibility. At this stage it is unclear whether the CT can accept a non-structural battery pack.

** EDIT/ADD : The very new architectural innovation that seems likely to be introduced with the CT is the shift to a 48V system. That is a major architectural step forwards, and not only for the auto industry. Over the years I have really struggled with designing in the 48V space because of the absence of some components, and the inordinate cost of other components. So an automotive shift to 48V which this likely presages, will be revolutionary far beyond automotive. But that is not an exoskeleton !

So, what you are saying is that they shouldn't call it autopilot because it cannot fly like an airplane?

The primary difference between the CT and the Y design is the much thicker Stainless Steel exterior, which, by comparison to traditional cosmetic panels could and should be considered exo-skeletal, even when built upon an endo-skeletal framework.

When the bent stainless steel is designed to be more than only a superficial skin for the vehicle, that is enough in my book to meet the definition of being exo-skeletal. It seems it is not enough for you. That is fine. Potato, potahto.

The one doesn't take away from the other in any way. There is no rule that says it must be an either/or proposition. What leads you to believe it cannot be both?

Watch the reveal where they hit the traditional door, then hit the CT door and let me know which one comes closer to meeting the definition of the skin of the vehicle being exo-skeletal more like bone than it is like skin.

From what I got out of the reveal, the CT design goals were to:

• simplify the production line in order to reduce costs;
• bring in a vehicle with a Blade Runner style employing simple, yet strong, unpainted bent panels;
• offer a truly tough, long-lasting truck that resists the sort of common damage (dents, scratched paint, etc.) that traditional ICE pickups quickly acquire from use in a working environment.

The CT differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill by being a truck that should be much easier to build and will last decades because of these design parameters.

I hope to see a van and a car from Tesla built using the same techniques.

 

[scaesare]

Never seen something like this before ... View attachment 956513

Wonder where in VA he lives... if nearby maybe I should make him a low-ball offer ..

 

[Prunesquallor]

Just for weekend OT

This lady has post always very thoughtful videos on a range of scientific and engineering topics. This video is great besides some minor details. Love to read the comments about peoples experiences with a Tesla. Many of them just a few months into their ownership.

I usually like Sabine's stuff, but she missed on a few things on this one.

She implied that US homes don’t have access to 240v for charging.

She had comments about high power dc charging reliability issues. While true, Supercharger reliability shows what CAN be done with a well operated system. That should have been noted.

I think she overstated the impact of EV charging on the grid and didn’t point out how much charging is done at night when demand is low.

She DID however hit the main points correctly : hydrogen and hybrids are wrong answers, EV emissions "payback" is relatively early (~20,000 miles) and will improve as the grid improves.

It should be pointed out that from her past stuff, it seems she doesn’t have a particularly favorable impression of Elon. May be why Tesla was seldom mentioned by name.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Wonder where in VA he lives... if nearby maybe I should make him a low-ball offer ..

... with that bumper sticker? Somewhere within commuting distance of NPR's HQ, I'd imagine.

 

[Drax7]

Just for weekend OT

This lady has post always very thoughtful videos on a range of scientific and engineering topics. This video is great besides some minor details. Love to read the comments about peoples experiences with a Tesla. Many of them just a few months into their ownership.

So many problems in sequence and over amplified , she gave me a headache.

 

[JRP3]

Original Cybertruck inspiration found, 1978

Penthouse Magazine - October 1978 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I usually like Sabine's stuff, but she missed on a few things on this one.

She implied that US homes don’t have access to 240v for charging.

She had comments about high power dc charging reliability issues. While true, Supercharger reliability shows what CAN be done with a well operated system. That should have been noted.

I think she overstated the impact of EV charging on the grid and didn’t point out how much charging is done at night when demand is low.

She DID however hit the main points correctly : hydrogen and hybrids are wrong answers, EV emissions "payback" is relatively early (~20,000 miles) and will improve as the grid improves.

It should be pointed out that from her past stuff, it seems she doesn’t have a particularly favorable impression of Elon. May be why Tesla was seldom mentioned by name.

The video also missed LFP, and LFMP which eliminate nickel and cobalt use. There's also alternatives like sodium ion, which may relieve some of the lithium use for static storage.

It only mentioned companies once.

One point that was missing when it came to infrastructure costs was that it didn't estimate how much additional money would be coming in as a result of people using electricity and instead of petroleum-based fuels

 

[FastCompany]

Hi folks,

Remember that tweet Tesla sent out late, late overnite Friday? Something, something, "First Cybertruck built at Giga Texas!"

Well, that 'lil tweet got Texas-sized attention: 49.8M Views in the first day, and it's still getting 500K Views per hour right now.

Cheers to the LONGS!

I hope the Tesla Twitter account is monetized. Free advertising ? How about income from advertising !

 

[jim0266]

Never seen something like this before ... View attachment 956513

Road Rage Correlates with Number of Bumper Stickers​

 

[FireMedic]

I usually like Sabine's stuff, but she missed on a few things on this one.

She implied that US homes don’t have access to 240v for charging.

She had comments about high power dc charging reliability issues. While true, Supercharger reliability shows what CAN be done with a well operated system. That should have been noted.

I think she overstated the impact of EV charging on the grid and didn’t point out how much charging is done at night when demand is low.

She DID however hit the main points correctly : hydrogen and hybrids are wrong answers, EV emissions "payback" is relatively early (~20,000 miles) and will improve as the grid improves.

It should be pointed out that from her past stuff, it seems she doesn’t have a particularly favorable impression of Elon. May be why Tesla was seldom mentioned by name.

Maybe you could summarize this video for the masses as well. No time to do it myself unfortunately. But it’s a worthy watch. Herbert has been getting really great interviews lately!

These folks from rethink X are so optimistic about the future it makes me not regret having young children.

TLDW: Disruption is never boring. And we’re poised for (or arguably already witnessing) multiple massive and nearly simultaneous disruptions.

 

[unk45]

Just saw a video of one of Sandy’s engineers talking about endo vs exo skeleton. He said current body in white technology IS an exoskeleton . I suspect Munro and Assoc. would know.

They are really good in teardown and cost accounting evaluations but hardly technology and intellectual leaders. Paying attention to @petit_bateau is more informative on this subject.
Just as in biology there are endless variations of endo- and exo- which prove that the distinction is actually a continuum rather than binary. Even in some famous aircraft cases that Sandy likes, there is a continuum.
Our world, including those Tesla and Elon comments at the reveal, do encourage absolutes where very few of those exist among insects or man-made objects.

 

[TN Mtn Man]

I guess I see this very differently. All the major OEM's use a separate steel frame for their large pickups. Why...because it's easy. Design a frame to carry the loads and bolt everything to it. The cab and the bed do almost nothing for strength. Even the highly vaulted Toyota does this with their large pickup in the US. Yes there are a few small unibody pickup trucks (Maverick, Ridgeline, etc) but the payloads are quite limited.

Tesla has gone a different route where the skin of the truck is doing more than being a cosmetic cover. As I pointed out earlier the rear skin is definitely providing structure. Even the front fenders maybe providing some structure but not 100% sure. This allows them to use aluminum castings as a main structural member which no OEM would ever attempt on a pickup truck.

I am sure the Tesla team struggled mightly to get the needed strength given the relatively high payload for the Cybertruck and would argue there is a lot of innovation needed to do this.. Is it a unibody or an exoskeleton? Not sure, and not going to argue this point as the definitions seem quite fluid depending on the use case.

I think there is a ton of innovation here. We will likely need to have the tear downs from Sandy M to see if they truly have made gains in cost, weight and structural integrity compared to a standard pick up. My guess is they have made leaps here and this knowledge will be used on every vehicle going forward even if it does not have a stainless skin.

Agreed. One thing to consider is the conventional definition of "unibody". People think of it as a structure that non-structural body panels are attached to. But that's only partly true. The rear quarter panels, structure around the trunk (of a car anyway, or bed in a unibody pickup) the A/B/C pillars and roof are all cosmetic exterior surfaces-and part of the unibody structure. The non-structural "bolt on" panels are the front fenders/doors/hood/trunk/etc. At the least, the CT takes that further and makes the front "fenders" an integral part of the unibody structure.

Now, in terms of thinking, you can kind of think of a conventional unibody as a "chassis" consisting of the entire passenger compartment/suspension/driveline mounts that you suspend (some) body panels on. IMO CT is more of an external "body" that you "suspend" a passenger compartment in.

I'm confident that Tesla didn't waste the weight and cost to have "non-structural" panels mounted on a unibody and form them from 1/8" thick stainless steel. That's around 4x the thickness of a typical body panel and around the thickness of the frame rails of a legacy pickup. The triangulated structure of those body panels makes for a very stiff, rigid structure. My assumption is that these panels will be the primary members joining the front and rear gigacastings, and provide the strength and load carrying capability to support the load capacity of the bed-as well as the towing capacity of the vehicle. I look forward to seeing how the tow hitch and bed structure are attached to those side panels. The existing unibody "trucks" are highly limited in load and towing capacity. Functionally, the are a "car with a bed", not a pickup. The CT is not.

I've been watching some interesting videos on the new Silverado EV. Looks like they are also some form of unibody or at least hybrid construction, with a good towing capacity. I haven't seen anywhere near the details or discussion of it compared to CT. Looks like a huge step up from the Lightning. Kyle from Out of Spec Motoring had an interesting review recently.

 

[Webeevdrivers]

Seeing the first Cybertrucks in customers hands will be a boost to the brand for sure. But I am surprised we haven’t seen any pics of travel trailer towing testing. I would think a lot of Cybertruck owners will want to pull a small to medium sized trailer with their CT. Maybe in that 20 to 24 foot range. (That would be us). We already see lots of Rivians in campgrounds doing this (and the occasional lightning) and I’m sure there will be CT owners doing the same thing. A promo shot of a Cybertruck pulling a 25 airstream would be pretty cool.

Jmho.

 

[Rotte]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1680242871503409152

Sure hope this rumor is not true. One reason I reserved the CT was the 500 miles range.