Tesla Unveils Radical Cybertruck.

Has it been explained how the rigid frame complies with crash energy absorption requirements?
 
I doubt it has such requirements as it will fall into a class of trucks etc
 
Meeho said:
Has it been explained how the rigid frame complies with crash energy absorption requirements?
Click to expand...

aokman said:
I doubt it has such requirements as it will fall into a class of trucks etc
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's also the 'pedestrian safety' regulations that are popping up all over europe. The NHTSA is looking at them for the US but they won't be applied to trucks. It's hard to imagine any of the current Ford/GM/Dodge trucks doing anything but sucking a pedestrian under the front bumper.
 
seanreisk said:
Yeah, there's also the 'pedestrian safety' regulations that are popping up all over europe. The NHTSA is looking at them for the US but they won't be applied to trucks. It's hard to imagine any of the current Ford/GM/Dodge trucks doing anything but sucking a pedestrian under the front bumper.
Click to expand...

I don’t even think they are exported to Europe in any significant numbers. I know here in Australia, they are stupid expensive and won’t fit in parking spots so nothing says Tesla will even sell them globally.

I think the argument can be made that if it is almost fully autonomous and has high active safety measures that stupid things like pedestrian safety are irrelevant. If you are relying on a 3 ton vehicle to crumple like a can when it hits a pedestrian, then you have already failed.

I know Tesla is already pushing for side mirror regulations to be abolished as it reduces drag by like 10% and has camera’s anyway.
 
aokman said:
I think the argument can be made that if it is almost fully autonomous and has high active safety measures that stupid things like pedestrian safety are irrelevant. If you are relying on a 3 ton vehicle to crumple like a can when it hits a pedestrian, then you have already failed.
Click to expand...
I don't care about pedestrian safety. I would care about my safety driving that thing and getting into an accident. I would hate to be the one absorbing the energy in that case.
 
Meeho said:
I don't care about pedestrian safety. I would care about my safety driving that thing and getting into an accident. I would hate to be the one absorbing the energy in that case.
Click to expand...

Well you have to compare it to other pickup trucks. Not regular passenger vehicles.
 
I could get over how fugly it is. I could even get over the stupid iPad instrument cluster. But a 6’ bed truck is useless to me. I haul too much on a regular basis in the 3500 8’ I have today.
 
kju1 said:
I could get over how fugly it is. I could even get over the stupid iPad instrument cluster. But a 6’ bed truck is useless to me. I haul too much on a regular basis in the 3500 8’ I have today.
Click to expand...
No one said this would replace a 3500..... This is a tiny electric truck. Perfect for people who only need a little truck (most people). There won't be a 3500 level ev for a long time, if ever.

They don't make sense outside of town.
 
travm said:
No one said this would replace a 3500..... This is a tiny electric truck. Perfect for people who only need a little truck (most people). There won't be a 3500 level ev for a long time, if ever.

They don't make sense outside of town.
Click to expand...

the specs is what it can tow and haul are pretty damn near the 3500. Range too for the gas version anyway. What remains to be seen is if those range numbers do at 14k lbs. prob the same as my 3500...get cut significantly.

so yeah it’s pretty damn close to being a replacement outside of town for my 3500. Except the beds just too damn short.
 
travm said:
No one said this would replace a 3500..... This is a tiny electric truck. Perfect for people who only need a little truck (most people). There won't be a 3500 level ev for a long time, if ever.

They don't make sense outside of town.
Click to expand...

It's a crew cab 6.5 foot bed the size of a half ton crew cab with a 5.5 foot bed. It's a 1/2 ton truck competitor, not a 3/4 ton. Its capabilities are only somewhat higher than today's half tons, topping out somewhere around 11k lbs. I'm pretty sure the Cybertruck's realistic tow ratings are going to be in the 10k range. Also, today's 1 ton trucks are rated for 30k+ towing, not 15k.
 
Tsumi said:
It's a crew cab 6.5 foot bed the size of a half ton crew cab with a 5.5 foot bed. It's a 1/2 ton truck competitor, not a 3/4 ton. Its capabilities are only somewhat higher than today's half tons, topping out somewhere around 11k lbs. I'm pretty sure the Cybertruck's realistic tow ratings are going to be in the 10k range. Also, today's 1 ton trucks are rated for 30k+ towing, not 15k.
Click to expand...
I think you quoted the wrong post
 
Tsumi said:
It's a crew cab 6.5 foot bed the size of a half ton crew cab with a 5.5 foot bed. It's a 1/2 ton truck competitor, not a 3/4 ton. Its capabilities are only somewhat higher than today's half tons, topping out somewhere around 11k lbs. I'm pretty sure the Cybertruck's realistic tow ratings are going to be in the 10k range. Also, today's 1 ton trucks are rated for 30k+ towing, not 15k.
Click to expand...

The trimoter on telsa's website is claiming 14k+ towing. This here spec sheet from chevy for the current year 3500 https://www.chevrolet.com/content/d...rado-3500hd-conventional-and-gooseneck.v2.pdf says 14,500 for gas crew cab 4wd. 20k if you go diesel. 30k with diesel if you use a gooseneck. And since I specifically said my gas truck...not my diesel. My statement stands.

Diesel was too expensive.
 
travm said:
No one said this would replace a 3500..... This is a tiny electric truck. Perfect for people who only need a little truck (most people). There won't be a 3500 level ev for a long time, if ever.
Click to expand...

Tiny? It's dimensionally similar to a SuperCrew cab F150. That isn't exactly tiny. It actually looks even bigger than the Supercrew F150:
Tesla-Cybertruck-vs-F-150.png
 
aokman said:
and what do you define as a real truck? Slow as shit? Bad fuel economy? Won’t fit in a parking spot?
Click to expand...
Yea, loud, ground rattling and fun. I would not mind Tesla SUV, especially with self driving mode.
 
kju1 said:
The trimoter on telsa's website is claiming 14k+ towing. This here spec sheet from chevy for the current year 3500 https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/chevrolet/na/us/english/index/vehicle-groups/trailering-and-towing/trucks/02-pdfs/2020 -silverado-3500hd-conventional-and-gooseneck.v2.pdf says 14,500 for gas crew cab 4wd. 20k if you go diesel. 30k with diesel if you use a gooseneck. And since I specifically said my gas truck...not my diesel. My statement stands.

Diesel was too expensive.
Click to expand...

I was referring to current half tons being in the 11k tow range.

Your 3500 is limited by the engine and transmission, not the frame. It's a little disingenious to claim that the Cybertruck is aimed at the 1 ton crowd and that it is a poor competitor to the 1 ton trucks by comparing the top Cybertruck to the lowest 1 ton configuration. Again, the Cybertruck should be compared to half ton trucks, there is no electric 3/4 ton and up competitor yet.
 
Tsumi said:
I was referring to current half tons being in the 11k tow range.

Your 3500 is limited by the engine and transmission, not the frame. It's a little disingenious to claim that the Cybertruck is aimed at the 1 ton crowd and that it is a poor competitor to the 1 ton trucks by comparing the top Cybertruck to the lowest 1 ton configuration. Again, the Cybertruck should be compared to half ton trucks, there is no electric 3/4 ton and up competitor yet.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was a poor competitor? I didnt. In fact I actually said if they just had an 8 foot bed I would be in. Because from their specs so far it can do what I need it to same as my current truck. 6.5 or 5.5 simply isnt enough physcial space period. Its not even really about the weight.
 
kju1 said:
Where did I say it was a poor competitor? I didnt. In fact I actually said if they just had an 8 foot bed I would be in. Because from their specs so far it can do what I need it to same as my current truck. 6.5 or 5.5 simply isnt enough physcial space period. Its not even really about the weight.
Click to expand...

They are doing a single cab and bed length, so they are going for the more popular options.

8 foot bed is a small niche niche these days, I don't think you can even get an 8 food bed in a Ford F150 with SuperCrew Cab, which is essentially what this has.

SuperCrew + 6.5' will cover that majority of what the F150 class pickup market.

On the other side of the argument, I have seen a lot of people that want something like this but smaller, since this won't fit in their garage.
 
travm said:
That's another tiny truck in this picture. How long is that box, 4'6"?
Click to expand...

No F-150 comes with a box smaller than 5.5 ft. That is a full size truck. A crew cab truck with an 8 foot bed is larger than full size.
 
Did they ever re-do the Cybertruck vs otherTruck video with both of them loaded down?
 
GoodBoy said:
Did they ever re-do the Cybertruck vs otherTruck video with both of them loaded down?
Click to expand...
Doubt it would make a difference. CT has more torque at starting rpm than the ferd has at peak.
 
N4CR said:
Doubt it would make a difference. CT has more torque at starting rpm than the ferd has at peak.
Click to expand...
it would at least make for a more interesting video, also there is such a thing as gearing, torque is multiplied by gearing and I believe 1st gear on an f150 is 2.84:1... what you referred to is engine torque, which you are right, the CyberTruck has more engine torque.
You also have to take into account weight and traction, all the torque in the world doesn't matter if your wheels are spinning.
I would be interested in a "loaded" down video with an equally weighed down (same weight total) Ford 4x4 truck vs CyberTruck...
 
There is more to it than the numbers including torque multiplication. Traction motors in electric vehicles (same type as used in train locomotives) are killer for pulling things. Their peak torque is at 0.00001 RPM and can get to the tires peak traction limit instantly. A Tesla Cybertruck with weight added in the bed to equal a traditional 4x4 pickup (even diesel) will win every time if the pull is started by each vehicle at the exact same time (which is fair).
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Vega said:
There is more to it than the numbers including torque multiplication. Traction motors in electric vehicles (same type as used in train locomotives) are killer for pulling things. Their peak torque is at 0.00001 RPM and can get to the tires peak traction limit instantly. A Tesla Cybertruck with weight added in the bed to equal a traditional 4x4 pickup (even diesel) will win every time if the pull is started by each vehicle at the exact same time (which is fair).
Click to expand...
What you are saying is that electric motors get a "head start" because they are "instant". Yes you are correct and that does matter. But what matters more is the torque at the wheels with traction....

Does a cyber truck have more torque at the wheels than a f150 in 1st gear at whatever the stall RPM is??? Probably
The numbers would be interesting.

That video that Tesla did was far from a "fair" test. Unless you goal is to show that the Tesla is for sure heavier, has more traction, and possibly has more torque. All that showed is that the F150 was unable to put its power down without the tires spinning. They didn't isolate and determine which "solution" puts more torque at the wheels.
You could literally do the EXACT SAME THING with a tank track tractor vs a cybertruck.... Traction with Torque will win everytime.


That said, I would gladly take a CyberTruck over a F150
 
Rockenrooster said:
it would at least make for a more interesting video, also there is such a thing as gearing, torque is multiplied by gearing... what you referred to is engine torque, which you are right, the CyberTruck has more engine torque.
You also have to take into account weight and traction, all the torque in the world doesn't matter if your wheels are spinning.
I would be interested in a "loaded" down video with an equally weighed down (same weight total) Ford 4x4 truck vs CyberTruck...
Click to expand...

Equal weight and same tires. My feeling is that both trucks are capable of spinning their tires, but the control software of the Tesla will more easily keep it right at the edge of rolling friction than the traction control software of an F-150.

Give me a Cybertruck without all the controls and locks Tesla puts on their cars, and a more traditional dash and console interface rather than the giant tablet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Rockenrooster said:
What you are saying is that electric motors get a "head start" because they are "instant". Yes you are correct and that does matter. But what matters more is the torque at the wheels with traction....

Does a cyber truck have more torque at the wheels than a f150 in 1st gear at whatever the stall RPM is??? Probably
The numbers would be interesting.

That video that Tesla did was far from a "fair" test. Unless you goal is to show that the Tesla is for sure heavier, has more traction, and possibly has more torque. All that showed is that the F150 was unable to put its power down without the tires spinning. They didn't isolate and determine which "solution" puts more torque at the wheels.
You could literally do the EXACT SAME THING with a tank track tractor vs a cybertruck.... Traction with Torque will win everytime.


That said, I would gladly take a CyberTruck over a F150
Click to expand...
Running the numbers: 470ft-lbs at 2500rpm is peak torque for the 3.5 EB motor. Most stall points are between 2000-3000 rpm, so going to assume we can reach peak torque at the converter stall. 1st gear ratio is 4.69:1 in the 10AT. Differential Ratio of 3.73:1. So 470ft-lbs x 4.69 x 3.73 = 8222 ft-lbs at the wheels in 1st gear at peak torque.

Assuming the same final Drive Ratio as the Model X rear motor (9.71:1) then the CyberTruck is at 9710ft-lbs to the wheels.

The bigger issue is the weight disparity...

Put the CT against a diesel F250 and you get: 1050ft-lbs at 1600rpm x 4.615:1 1st gear ratio x 3.55 final drive = 17183ft lbs with a ~7100lb curb weight in 4x4.
 
Nimisys said:
Running the numbers: 470ft-lbs at 2500rpm is peak torque for the 3.5 EB motor. Most stall points are between 2000-3000 rpm, so going to assume we can reach peak torque at the converter stall. 1st gear ratio is 4.69:1 in the 10AT. Differential Ratio of 3.73:1. So 470ft-lbs x 4.69 x 3.73 = 8222 ft-lbs at the wheels in 1st gear at peak torque.

Assuming the same final Drive Ratio as the Model X rear motor (9.71:1) then the CyberTruck is at 9710ft-lbs to the wheels.

The bigger issue is the weight disparity...

Put the CT against a diesel F250 and you get: 1050ft-lbs at 1600rpm x 4.615:1 1st gear ratio x 3.55 final drive = 17183ft lbs with a ~7100lb curb weight in 4x4.
Click to expand...
Now we're talkin!!!!
Now question, don't they have a V8 option that has more power than the Ecoboost? Or is that gone now?
 
Rockenrooster said:
Now we're talkin!!!!
Now question, don't they have a V8 option that has more power than the Ecoboost? Or is that gone now?
Click to expand...
The Raptor 3.5 EB is actually 510ft-lbs, but that truck doesn't have the peak tow or payload capacity due to its special suspension. However it would 8921 ft-lbs

The 5.0 V8 is 400ft-lbs at 4500rpm. So not only less torque, but also higher in the rpm curve.

The Diesel F150 is rated at 440ft-lbs.

For either Ford or GM to eclipse the CT numbers in the 1/2t segement, they would need to offer ~505ft-lbs with 4.11 final drive, or ~555ft-lbs with 3.73 final drive.

For Ram you would need 495 ft-lbs with 3.92 or 547ft-lbs with 3.55. Now ram has the 480ft-lb EcoDiesel, and the E-Torque Hemi. the Hemi can do 410ft-lbs, but the electric motor can add 130ft-lbs, but I can't find a curve for it, or whether it can peak at 540ft-lbs total output.

But of the Big 3, Ram looks the closest in the 1/2t range. All three eclipse it by no small amount with their 3/4t diesels.
 
Last edited:
Nimisys said:
The Raptor 3.5 EB is actually 510ft-lbs, but that truck doesn't have the peak tow or payload capacity due to its special suspension. However it would 8921 ft-lbs

The 5.0 V8 is 400ft-lbs at 4500rpm. So not only less torque, but also higher in the rpm curve.

The Diesel F150 is rated at 440ft-lbs.

For either Ford or GM to eclipse the CT numbers in the 1/2t segement, they would need to offer ~505ft-lbs with 4.11 final drive, or ~555ft-lbs with 3.73 final drive.

For Ram you would need 495 ft-lbs with 3.92 or 547ft-lbs with 3.55. Now ram has the 480ft-lb EcoDiesel, and the E-Torque Hemi. the Hemi can do 410ft-lbs, but the electric motor can add 130ft-lbs, but I can't find a curve for it, or whether it can peak at 540ft-lbs total output.

But of the Big 3, Ram looks the closest in the 1/2t range. All three eclipse it by no small amount with their 3/4t diesels.
Click to expand...
Cool, thanks for doing the research and numbers.
So, I was right, it would make for a more interesting/fair comparison if traction wasn't a problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Rockenrooster said:
Cool, thanks for doing the research and numbers.
So, I was right, it would make for a more interesting/fair comparison if traction wasn't a problem
Click to expand...
It is believed they actually used a based 2.7 EB F150, which is even lower numbers, but no marketer is ever fair, and Tesla has always had a fluid relationship with the truth in advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top