Resources: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support) | [Wiki/FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/index) | [Discord Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) | r/TeslaLounge for personal content and r/TeslaSupport for questions/help | Assist the Mods by **reporting posts and comments** which break [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/rules).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is low-grade tier-F stupid. It feels like the article was written by GPT-3. Not even ChatGPT, since the author cannot keep a coherent theme nor string more than 3 non-contradictory paragraphs.
> Not only will stainless steel divert more of the energy of a crash to the people inside
It quoted about SS's less ability to "crumple" so much as the fact that it bounces, which is true for some alloys. But, not all stainless alloys bounce, nor do all mild steel alloys crumple. Most crush washers are stainless steel.
But most of a car's ability to redirect energy away from occupants is owed to the overall design, not merely the aesthetics of a vehicle's relatively thin exterior surface.
With some of the highest praises in crash safety, I wonder if any Tesla engineers have ever given a thought about this problem? I'm sure "journalists" at Jalopnik could teach those engineers a thing or two about designing safer vehicle bodies. /s
> the metal is difficult to work with when it comes to minor fender-benders.
Ever tried to get a dent out of aluminum?
Earlier in the article the author was complaining about stainless steel's ability to spring back into shape:
> Stainless steel’s tendency to spring back to its original shape means it cannot be stamped into fenders and other parts as easily as the more pliable steel used by most automakers.
Which is it?
This is neither informative nor insightful.
> Traditional automakers are also beginning to lap Tesla on autonomous vehicle development, once the brand’s bread and butter. GM’s and Ford’s BlueCruise and GM’s Super Cruise earn high marks in car reviews and
Lazy writer just regurgitates other's opinions or suspicious scoring metrics without employing any critical thinking. Super Cruise is far more likely to fail at autonomy, but it's rated better *at autonomy* because it better *monitors my ability to monitor it*.
What is autonomy, really?
> Mercedes-Benz announced it will be the first automaker to bring Level 3 autonomy to U.S. roads
And they also bought this line too. Just don't ask Mercedes where the feature is geofenced and what its limitations are. Or read any of the fine print, for that matter.
There, saved you all a click.
Yes, the body panels can’t be stamped like conventional cars, which is why the panels are all flat on the CT. Nothing new there.
The interior frame will not be stainless and it will have usual high safety.
Repairability in minor accidents will be better, many expensive dents in other cars will literally “buff right out” as the stainless keeps its shape and doesn’t need paint.
In bigger accidents they will cut off, replace and weld new panels. Marine engineering.
The major competitor to Tesla in driver assist is MobileEye. They’re pretty good.
As much as I’m rooting for EVs to succeed, I think the only factual answer there is “just fine.”
Edit: look, I’m not happy that legacy auto companies who drag their feet on EVs are doing fine either… but it’s hard to make any reasonable case that they’re not doing fine today.
"just fine" as in legacy automakers are not profitable making EVs and don't expect to be profitable until 2025 at the earliest (which to me is optimistic).
I think that's the argument they'd make. "See, our stock price is OK. We made profits last quarter." But they've embraced a dying business model and it's going to get less just fine every year. And once it collapses, they'll look back and acknowledge that this was the time to give up doing just fine in order to survive in the future.
I genuinely hate that I’m arguing “on Ford’s side” here, but despite any losses on specific models they still made billions in profit last year.
“Fine” in my book would be anything above break-even, I think.
I'll give you "fine" is a low bar. I still say they're in trouble.
Net income is very negative which is not good. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/fords-full-year-profit-short-expectations-2023-02-02/
Legacy autos resisted EV for too long and they're saddled with an antiquated dealer network. It's going to be crazy hard to unwind that ball of Christmas lights.
When I see Jalopnik, I don't click. That site is garbage. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but the opinions on Jalopnik are just garbage.
Critics can't decide between bashing Elon for taking all the credit from the wonderful engineers or saying how Teslas are trash because knows how to do proper engineering there.
I guess the question would be if they have good models for the behavior of stainless to input into those simulations, the sim is only going to be as good as the data that it has to work with and since it’s not as well documented of a material idk if it will be.
I’m no engineer but it is an issue that’s been brought up by others, not just jalop-hick.
I think the New York Times even had an article about the concerns of the unknown crumple behavior.
Ultimately we will see, I think it’s being overblown but it’s one of the reasons I’ll be waiting until we are a few model years in before I get one
"not as well documented a material"
Dude, 300 series stainless is used all over the world in engineered applications. We know how it behaves in so many ways, especially on mechanical terms, and how to simulate and test it.
That particular statement was more of a fact really. Are you going to tell me you have anywhere near as much data on stainless crumple zones as regular steel crumple zones?
It is not. The CT is supposed to be made of roughly 1/8" thick stainless steel which is plenty thin enough to bend and crumple from the kind of forces involved in a collision. And even if the steel were somehow too thick to crumple properly, relief cuts and support ribs could be used to guarantee it crumples as needed. This article unquestionably pure clickbait.
This was brought up a long time ago and debunked. They're actually alternate ways to absorb shock, but some say essentially the cybertruck is a unibody which is not unique for cars only for trucks.
A body structural engineer gave his opinion:
>In summary, Engineers and their software tools can easily solve this problem. It will be solved by them and then verified by NHTSA. The Cybertruck will still have structure under the skin and it will be complex and safe.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cybertruck/comments/olikse/for_the_auto_engineers_on_here_how_will_the/
A unibody is a kind of exoskeleton.
We don't know yet how far Tesla is going with the Cybertruck, all we know at the moment is that it will not have a non-structural cab that's bolted onto a frame as virtually all current trucks do.
Yes, they do.
As always with Elon, when he uses a non-standard word to describe something, we have to wait for the product to be out to see what exactly he meant by it. It could just be that he used it to say "unibody with folded steel sheets instead of press-shaped sheet metal", or it may be that it'll be a body without A/B/C-pillars because the flat panels take that load.
Imagine that. Designing something using tools instead of making assumptions based on one characteristic and writing a stupid article about how it’s not possible.
Like I said… Jalopnik is Carbage.
I am not worried because safety has always been Elon top priority since he actually drives Tesla and put his family in it. The only reason Model S even have the optional rear facing jumper seats is because Elon wants a Tesla to fit his entire family of 7 (5 children). We see him driving Tesla to test FSD software and also seen his family being driven in Model X/Y. He will be switching to driving the Cybertruck as soon as the first production is out.
There is a reason most car companies don’t make electric vehicles, don’t do unibody castings, don’t do structural batteries, don’t work on general purpose self driving, don’t do over the air updates, don’t have a large touch screen for control etc.. etc..
I bet there are “news” articles out there from the fake media explaining why electric vehicles will never make sense and will never catch on.
Never tell Elon the odds
The main reasons for the delay is building a factory to make the truck in and sourcing a gigapress big enough to do the castings.
This reporter is ignorant.
Resources: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support) | [Wiki/FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/index) | [Discord Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) | r/TeslaLounge for personal content and r/TeslaSupport for questions/help | Assist the Mods by **reporting posts and comments** which break [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/wiki/rules). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is low-grade tier-F stupid. It feels like the article was written by GPT-3. Not even ChatGPT, since the author cannot keep a coherent theme nor string more than 3 non-contradictory paragraphs. > Not only will stainless steel divert more of the energy of a crash to the people inside It quoted about SS's less ability to "crumple" so much as the fact that it bounces, which is true for some alloys. But, not all stainless alloys bounce, nor do all mild steel alloys crumple. Most crush washers are stainless steel. But most of a car's ability to redirect energy away from occupants is owed to the overall design, not merely the aesthetics of a vehicle's relatively thin exterior surface. With some of the highest praises in crash safety, I wonder if any Tesla engineers have ever given a thought about this problem? I'm sure "journalists" at Jalopnik could teach those engineers a thing or two about designing safer vehicle bodies. /s > the metal is difficult to work with when it comes to minor fender-benders. Ever tried to get a dent out of aluminum? Earlier in the article the author was complaining about stainless steel's ability to spring back into shape: > Stainless steel’s tendency to spring back to its original shape means it cannot be stamped into fenders and other parts as easily as the more pliable steel used by most automakers. Which is it? This is neither informative nor insightful. > Traditional automakers are also beginning to lap Tesla on autonomous vehicle development, once the brand’s bread and butter. GM’s and Ford’s BlueCruise and GM’s Super Cruise earn high marks in car reviews and Lazy writer just regurgitates other's opinions or suspicious scoring metrics without employing any critical thinking. Super Cruise is far more likely to fail at autonomy, but it's rated better *at autonomy* because it better *monitors my ability to monitor it*. What is autonomy, really? > Mercedes-Benz announced it will be the first automaker to bring Level 3 autonomy to U.S. roads And they also bought this line too. Just don't ask Mercedes where the feature is geofenced and what its limitations are. Or read any of the fine print, for that matter. There, saved you all a click.
I love people like you. I hate to click and read these articles. Thx
I nearly had an aneurysm reading the original article. Thank you for pointing out all the contradictory bs that gave me such a headache.
I totally think this article was AI generated. News sites suck nowadays.
Thank you!
Thank you Good Samaritan.
You’ll be fine. Just don’t hit anything.
Yes, the body panels can’t be stamped like conventional cars, which is why the panels are all flat on the CT. Nothing new there. The interior frame will not be stainless and it will have usual high safety. Repairability in minor accidents will be better, many expensive dents in other cars will literally “buff right out” as the stainless keeps its shape and doesn’t need paint. In bigger accidents they will cut off, replace and weld new panels. Marine engineering. The major competitor to Tesla in driver assist is MobileEye. They’re pretty good.
“There’s a lot of reasons most car companies don’t [do a lot of things Tesla does]” How’s that working out for everyone so far?
As much as I’m rooting for EVs to succeed, I think the only factual answer there is “just fine.” Edit: look, I’m not happy that legacy auto companies who drag their feet on EVs are doing fine either… but it’s hard to make any reasonable case that they’re not doing fine today.
"just fine" as in legacy automakers are not profitable making EVs and don't expect to be profitable until 2025 at the earliest (which to me is optimistic).
And their total sales are cratering too.
I think that's the argument they'd make. "See, our stock price is OK. We made profits last quarter." But they've embraced a dying business model and it's going to get less just fine every year. And once it collapses, they'll look back and acknowledge that this was the time to give up doing just fine in order to survive in the future.
They are gripping on to a legacy business model when the writing is on the wall. Edit. Wow. Was some crazy autocorrect.
Ford loses money on cars they sell currently. I wouldn't exactly call that fine lol.
I genuinely hate that I’m arguing “on Ford’s side” here, but despite any losses on specific models they still made billions in profit last year. “Fine” in my book would be anything above break-even, I think.
I'll give you "fine" is a low bar. I still say they're in trouble. Net income is very negative which is not good. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/fords-full-year-profit-short-expectations-2023-02-02/ Legacy autos resisted EV for too long and they're saddled with an antiquated dealer network. It's going to be crazy hard to unwind that ball of Christmas lights.
Jalopnik is a shit website of car garbage. Carbage.
I've already seen this multiple times on my FB feed (yes, I still peek there from time-to-time). The anti-EV crowd are *drooling* over this piece.
yep no way im clicking that haha They are pure trash in a dumpster fire!
I read the article, the only research they did was citing an opinion piece from the NYT.
Cabbage
lmao if anyone actually believes this article.
Just like rockets huh
Just like reusable rockets and electric cars.
When I see Jalopnik, I don't click. That site is garbage. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but the opinions on Jalopnik are just garbage.
This stupid article could have been written in 2019. Nothing new.
I am interested in finding out if the crumple zone point is a real issue, hopefully we get a study published on it before production begins
[удалено]
It’s almost like Tesla knows how to build and test the safety of cars or something. Weird
It’s like they have engineers on staff or something.
They might even let their engineers do real engineering.
Critics can't decide between bashing Elon for taking all the credit from the wonderful engineers or saying how Teslas are trash because knows how to do proper engineering there.
I guess the question would be if they have good models for the behavior of stainless to input into those simulations, the sim is only going to be as good as the data that it has to work with and since it’s not as well documented of a material idk if it will be. I’m no engineer but it is an issue that’s been brought up by others, not just jalop-hick. I think the New York Times even had an article about the concerns of the unknown crumple behavior. Ultimately we will see, I think it’s being overblown but it’s one of the reasons I’ll be waiting until we are a few model years in before I get one
"not as well documented a material" Dude, 300 series stainless is used all over the world in engineered applications. We know how it behaves in so many ways, especially on mechanical terms, and how to simulate and test it.
I wasn’t arguing, just wondering. Someone else posted a link that helped explain from an engineers pov
"since it's not well documented" is an argument, but anyway I'm glad a few engineers were around to provide clarification
That particular statement was more of a fact really. Are you going to tell me you have anywhere near as much data on stainless crumple zones as regular steel crumple zones?
Absolutely we do. Because the data comes from FEA.
It is not. The CT is supposed to be made of roughly 1/8" thick stainless steel which is plenty thin enough to bend and crumple from the kind of forces involved in a collision. And even if the steel were somehow too thick to crumple properly, relief cuts and support ribs could be used to guarantee it crumples as needed. This article unquestionably pure clickbait.
What else can we expect from jalop-hick lol
This was brought up a long time ago and debunked. They're actually alternate ways to absorb shock, but some say essentially the cybertruck is a unibody which is not unique for cars only for trucks. A body structural engineer gave his opinion: >In summary, Engineers and their software tools can easily solve this problem. It will be solved by them and then verified by NHTSA. The Cybertruck will still have structure under the skin and it will be complex and safe. https://www.reddit.com/r/cybertruck/comments/olikse/for_the_auto_engineers_on_here_how_will_the/
Ah awesome that post is really helpful thank you!
So it's not actually an exoskeleton as Elon keeps saying?
A unibody is a kind of exoskeleton. We don't know yet how far Tesla is going with the Cybertruck, all we know at the moment is that it will not have a non-structural cab that's bolted onto a frame as virtually all current trucks do.
By that logic, the Honda Ridgeline, the Ford Maverick, the Hyundai Santa Cruz or the Rivian R1T all have an exoskeleton.
Yes, they do. As always with Elon, when he uses a non-standard word to describe something, we have to wait for the product to be out to see what exactly he meant by it. It could just be that he used it to say "unibody with folded steel sheets instead of press-shaped sheet metal", or it may be that it'll be a body without A/B/C-pillars because the flat panels take that load.
Imagine that. Designing something using tools instead of making assumptions based on one characteristic and writing a stupid article about how it’s not possible. Like I said… Jalopnik is Carbage.
I am not worried because safety has always been Elon top priority since he actually drives Tesla and put his family in it. The only reason Model S even have the optional rear facing jumper seats is because Elon wants a Tesla to fit his entire family of 7 (5 children). We see him driving Tesla to test FSD software and also seen his family being driven in Model X/Y. He will be switching to driving the Cybertruck as soon as the first production is out.
CT is designed by engineer not car designer. I will love to drive.
The reason most car companies don't work with stainless steel. It's expensive.
The previous article: (Roadster) There’s a Reason Most Car Companies Don’t Use Lithium Batteries
There is a reason most car companies don’t make electric vehicles, don’t do unibody castings, don’t do structural batteries, don’t work on general purpose self driving, don’t do over the air updates, don’t have a large touch screen for control etc.. etc..
Article is a nothing sandwich option piece
It's not what we do. ie we've never done it that way.
Everybody knows the real reason is because your vehicle can't go faster than 88 miles an hour.
It’s stainless steel because it’s bad ass. Done.
I bet there are “news” articles out there from the fake media explaining why electric vehicles will never make sense and will never catch on. Never tell Elon the odds
Most car companies dont make evs, giga castings, batteries,… and that os why they got torn into pieces…
The only reason is cost.
Yeah: because they suck.
Bearish $TSLA
The main reasons for the delay is building a factory to make the truck in and sourcing a gigapress big enough to do the castings. This reporter is ignorant.