Talk:Tesla Cybertruck/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rwf5256. Peer reviewers: Carly4B.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Mule

Back from 2015, possible very early mule:

  • Smith, Mike (2015-07-01). Tesla Van Spotted. Newark, California – via Youtube. Tesla… What the hell?

—Sladen (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Water

Just in case… it's needed later on:

  • Musk, Elon (2019-06-11). Tesla Annual Shareholders Meeting. [Musk] a car that can go in the water basically? [Questioner] On, or under, or both, the water? [Musk] It's funny you should mention that … if you make it a big bigger then you can actually have a submarine car. It's like technically possible. I think the market for this will be small; small but enthusiastic. So… we do actually have a design for a submarine car.

—Sladen (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Six hours later…:
—Sladen (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Units of measure

I am proposing that we use imperial units as the main UOM's for this article, as that is what is provided by Tesla. Metirc units should be included in (parenthesis). --128.114.255.131 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The dimensions/engineering units appear to be metric originals; approximated for the US-market, to imperial hence the use of |order=flip to display metric units (+ imperial approximation). For example; 6.5ft bed is 2 metres (±<9 mm). Headline 250/300/500-mile range targets are 400/500/800 kilometres (±<8 km). —Sladen (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Sladen, many of the units seem to be metric in original, so using the metric units leading the conversions in other unit systems seems most appropriate. N2e (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
No automobile manufacturer of note uses imperial units anymore. Imperial units pretty much disappeared from the automotive industry by 1985, over 35 years ago. Trying to roll the calendar back in this respect is pointless and ridiculous.47.35.51.175 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems so - "the automobile industry changed long ago to reap the benefits of a single measurement system" (Ford/GM). TGCP (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Launch event

The timeline section needs updating to include the November 2019 launch event, 100$ deposit waiting list and Tesla Cyberquad optional extra. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Language

English is not my primary language so I am wondering. Are sentences such as "Tesla is accepting pre-orders for the $7,000 'full self-driving' option" realy neutral? Wouldn't a simpler "Tesla's 'full self-driving' option pre-orders cost $7,000" or "... is offering 'full self-driving' option pre-orders at $7,000" or something along the line better?

Or ist that a normal phrasing in the US these days ... that companies are not selling products anymore but are graciously accepting pleas for taking the money (in this case for something to come in the future... hopefully) of the custo... err ... applicant?--Soulman (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tesla Network

In response to the request to clarify the following point: Tesla Networks[clarification needed]

1. there is a typo, Tesla Network is singular. 2. Tesla Network is a component of the Elon Musk'Master Plan Part Deux, 2016, quoted in the rest of the sentence in the article 3. Tesla Network is the possibility of vehicles to be rented for money, which is used by Musk to justify that there will be no cheap versions of the vehicles, since the lower-middle class wanting a Tesla would make money out of it and pay for the price differential from what else it would have been purchased. 5. This feature, which hinges on a bundle of hardware and software capabilities, will be available worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logico1950 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Logico1950 for making those changes to the article prose. I think the concept of a Tesla Network is now adequately clear for the typical reader of this article. N2e (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone upload the Cybertruck logo? The {{PD-textlogo}} is an embedded CSS Base64 encoded SVG at http:// https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck It would be good to have the punk Cybertruck logo here. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

So it is available at File:Cybertrucklogo.svg -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

File:TeslaCybertruckUnveil.jpg

File:TeslaCybertruckUnveil.jpg has been removed from the infobox by someone, so a bot has picked it up as an unused NFUR image, and it is now up for deletion. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

That's because it did not satisfy WP:NFCC#1. Prototypes of the truck exist and have been shown publicly, so free equivalents could exist or be created. Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Long cargo loading

The article makes two conflicting claims: "The rear middle seat also folds down to allow loading long cargo extending into the cab from the vault" in section "interior" and "One article claims that there is a pass-through to the cabin for long cargo,[56] but this is doubtful, as the displayed prototype lacks any corresponding opening in the front of the bed." in section "Vault (bed)". Either the seat folds down and creates the opening or it doesn't. If somebody knows which of these claims is true, the false one should be removed.--2003:F6:FF35:4F00:30E3:431F:E85D:35A0 (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The rear seats fold down, but it still just a wall there: the rolling vault cover travels down the outside of the rear cabin wall. It may be possible to have a pass-through from the sail-pillar toolboxes (beyond the width of the sliding vault cover). —Sladen (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Saw this today. Not much firm, but its in the area you are wondering about. N2e (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-cybertruck-folding-rear-seats-more-storage/

Which image should we use?

Consensus in the discussion clearly favors Image 3 (although it probably will not be long before a wealth of additional alternatives becomes available). As that is the image currently in use in the article, there is no change. BD2412 T 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • (1) Original photograph
    (1) Original photograph
  • (2) lightened
    (2) lightened
  • (3) lightened++ + cropped
    (3) lightened++ + cropped
  • (4) slightly lightened in dark areas
    (4) slightly lightened in dark areas

I suppose I better get a consensus before an edit war breaks out. The subsequent images are modifications of the first one. The original looks a lot nicer, but the modified versions are easier to see. The original author of the image prefers the first one, as he's said the edit "looks like absolute garbage"... anyone else have an opinion on this? Saucy[talk – contribs] 04:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The light thumbnail is better than the dark; the aft third of the dark thumbnail is almost invisible. So for the article, the light (edited) is better.
However, for a screen sized image, the dark photo (original) is better; the aft is now sufficiently visible, and the light is grainy due to enhanced image noise. Is there a way to use the light thumbnail in the infobox, but linking to the dark original for bigger images? TGCP (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: difficult question:
    1. original is a better photograph.
    2. might be better for a quick-glance thumbnail, but ends up being silver-grey car against silvery-grey backdrop.
    3. has the potential to be useful, but at the moment is so tightly cropped that there is no context about what is car and what is not car (in particular, too tightly cropped on the left/rear).
  • With no clear improvement/benefit with the modified versions, tempted to suggest that we might as well keep the original photograph in the mean-time? At least readers then have a quick way to get to the full-size photograph. —Sladen (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Image 1 as of now. It's the best image of the three. The other two have a cheap whitewashed feel about them. It's a good idea to lighten the first image, but not if it looks like those 2.HAL333 19:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    Which size do you mean - a thumbnail for the infobox, or as a full-screen image? Does anyone see a sharpness difference between the thumbnails? TGCP (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 1 as it is the best representation of the truck and it is an official photo taken. Cook907 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Since someone suggested lightening image 1 but without making it look like 2 and 3, may I suggest image 4? It's an attempt to make image 1 a bit more palatable for people with monitors like mine. For me, the original image is too dark even as a full size image. And I'm probably not the only one. Tell me what you think. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 2 While its lower quality, I think image 2 shows off the truck the best, which is the intended purpose. I would vote any of the edits though over the original because the original is very difficult to see on most monitors, and the #1 purpose of an image on Wikipedia is to show off the subject matter, which the original doesn't really do. TKOIII (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 3 - Lightened and cropped shows the vehicle best, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 1 - Looks the best; the brightened ones seem to have a cheap, washed-out feel to them. Some1 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 3 - The purpose of the original image was to be artistic, and it achieves it well. However, the purpose of Wikipedia is to actually show the truck, and this is best achieved by Image 3 (or 2, the difference is too small). Tercer (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 3 with that image , you can see all of the truck. Image 1 hardly shows anything! . By the way, image 3 also looks great full screen on my monitor. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Image 1 or 4. The other images look dirty. The caption said that this was the truck during the unveiling. There was no artifice in the original image. It was just how it looked with the contrived lighting on stage during the presentation. Darwin Naz (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As the person who put up this question, I'm gonna vote for Image 4. It's a decent compromise, as you can see the truck better without making the image look too ugly or washed out. Anyways, I think I'll try to get some more people to vote, this RfC has gone on long enough. Saucy[talk – contribs] 08:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3 Image 1 is unusable. You can't see a thing. Image 2 is better, but there are distracting things in the background. The cropped and lightened version focuses in on the truck and makes it pop. Also 3 is the most accessible version, images 1 and 4 are gonna be real hard to see if you're visually impaired or have a bad monitor. Do note that I came here after Saucy mentioned this on Discord, though that hasn't affected my vote, merely my presence. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3 (or 2). The others are too dark. Cropped looks better in my opinion. Majavah (t/c) 15:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: on Commons, these should appropriately be linked to one another using Commons:Template:Derivative works & Commons:Template:Derived from. Currently, they are not. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3: The original image is so dark that it is almost useless. It is so dark that the signal to noise ratio is very bad. Which means that any attempt to lighten it will magnify both the signal (what we want to see) and the noise (the grainy specks that we don't want). So the best we can do is to slide the gain up until we see too much noise and then back it down a bit. I tried this myself and even played with some different gamma curves to concentrate mostly in the dark areas. My best effort was very close to image 3.  Stepho  talk  02:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
    It seems that Image 2 or 3 has a small majority, but no clear consensus. There are no other free images available through a Google image search. But there are probably good photos taken that have not yet been tagged as free - perhaps some of you with good online connections to Reddit, TMforum, Twitter etc. can request better photos to be made free? TGCP (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3 (and then 2). The dark images are just too dark to see. The closeup in 3 is better than 2 in my opinion.--Eostrix (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3, more or less. The cropping is good, but the lightening is slightly too much, and it also needs a contrast pass; presently it looks washed out, though it is much clearer on detail than the dark images (1, 4). On my monitor 4 and 1 are nearly indistinguishable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Image 3 An image has not to be pretty but to bring some information, what lightened and cropped #3 does. #1 ist just inept and not suitable for WP. 2003:F5:6F06:7900:D01E:38A0:6E5D:AB52 (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC) MPB
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similar car designs

Per Popular Mechanics [1] Wedge shaped cars; Perhaps some of them as see alsos?

-- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Depends on whether you mean a curved wedge (eg Stratos) or a flat sided wedge (eg Lotus Esprit). And those examples are all cars, not pickups. The Toyota Kijang#F10 can give it a run for its money for flat sidedness but I wouldn't necessarily link them.  Stepho  talk  12:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Elon himself said inspired by Blade Runner cars and his Lotus Esprit -- neither of which are trucks. So flat wedged cars would be stylisticaly similar, and ones which the press already compare the Cybertruck to (ie. DeLorean, Countach, Esprit; several 80s post-apocalyptic movie cars; several 70s wedge electric minicars) -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I've possibly missed something, but wasn't there another logo floating round before the event? I think it was registered, too. Sir Magnus (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative logo?

'Also called' section

Is there any strong reason to include 'Tesla Truck' and 'Tesla Pickup' in the 'Also called/Also Known As' section in the infobox? Both names are no way official, for comparison the Toyota Hilux had been called the 'Toyota pickup' in the 80s to 90s, and it is not included in the 'Also called' section. Andra Febrian (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unibody vs exoskeleton

@UltimaRex:, why do you think that a stainless steel exoskeleton is not a unibody? We already have multiple references that say an exoskeleton is a unibody.

  1. https://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/tesla-cybertruck-exoskeleton-and-design-explained-ar187129.html says "So Tesla designed an exoskeleton, a fancier word for unibody layout, to move the stress from the frame to the outer skin of the vehicle."
  2. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/what-is-cybertruck-exoskeleton.174936/ says "All modern cars except most pickup trucks have a frameless exoskeleton, AKA monocoque or unibody."
  3. https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/22/heres-why-the-tesla-cybertruck-has-its-crazy-look/ says "Here’s why the Tesla Cybertruck has its crazy look - Saved-You-A-Click: Because it's a unibody truck".  Stepho  talk  23:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I have the Tesla patent that shows the difference between the exoskeleton construction and a unibody. Over the weekend I'll hopefully find the pdf and reference it directly. Topspeed et al are opinion pieces. UltimaRex (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Until then, we will restore the article back to its previous state, as per WP:BRD. I look forward to seeing the patent.  Stepho  talk  07:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Is this the patent ? https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docs2/pct/WO2021102162/pdf/boJ4uEkkpZwwaqeagwi5_E9dpkhk_gmfAnhCEMOWuCZv6F_N_64oWuFfJ622puODrsWlHQ-2KFkRiTG8Yo92Woj88akgjGSEmnlIzs5Wb2dluxBY1CHBp5wO_H18DwLm?docId=id00000060115326
To me that seems more like a variation on a space frame with hanging panels attached. Which is not a unibody but not something completely new either.  Stepho  talk  08:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the patent. While I'd call it an exoskeleton before I'd call it a space frame, it's close enough to be interchangeable. Its not a unibody anyway. Call it an exoskeleton in the description up top and point out the space frame/exoskeleton similarities in design? UltimaRex (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind if I did an edit? See how it sits? UltimaRex (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking around, I think stressed skin fits even better than space frame. UltimaRex (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Design

According Tesla design chief Franz von Holzhousen, the design process behind the Cybertruck began with the question, "what is the least expensive way to build a full-function pickup truck?" The answer the engineers came up with was 'cut the cost of the factory by removing its most expensive components.' Removing a high volume paint booth saves $500 million but requires rust proof materials, which led them to choose a specialized stainless steel. (Source: Sandy Munro for cost figures, both Musk and Holzhousen have discussed the steel...it's the same used in SpaceX Startship). Removing the stamping presses saves a ton of square feet and another $100 million+, but means you can't have rounded curves, so the design becomes angular.

Why was 'the least expensive way to build a full service truck' the driving question? Because the endpoint of vehicle manufacturing competition will manifest as two or more robotaxi providers competing over market share in the same city. They will inevitably hold a price war, and the vehicle providing the lowest cost per PVM (Passenger Vehicle Mile) will win the price war. The cost of manufacturing is the first number that goes into the calculation of average cost per PVM, and the smaller the better.

In other discussions of the vehcile design, Holzhousen said that it makes no sense to put the most fragile part of a work vehicle one the most exposed parts, so the very idea of paint on a truck was self-defeating from the standpoint of durability. That reinforced the idea that getting rid of the paint and paint booth would result in a more durable vehicle, while costing less to produce. 98.97.13.164 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla_Cybertruck/Archive_1&oldid=1178488307"