Jump to content

Talk:Tesla Cybertruck

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

Customer-reported problems[edit]

The numerous and well-documented issues that cybertruck owners are reporting with these vehicles (reliability, quality, design flaws, and so on) would seem to warrant a section all to itself. 136.56.27.70 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add content to the article, with good sourcing as to whatever you think is needed. After all, on Wikipedia, WP:ANYONECANEDIT. N2e (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0-60 times[edit]

What does "2.6 sec. (with rollout subtracted)" mean? It isn't actually a legitimate 0-60 time? 203.7.126.16 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A link has been provided now to this car racing esoteric term. See if that answers your question. N2e (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it clear. Thanks JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chassis info[edit]

There appears to be disagreement over the presence of chassis info at the beginning of the exterior section, what do others think, keep? Or remove?

The Cybertruck is, was, and always will be an exoskeleton design. Period. It's even backed up by the US patent office. Most talking heads haven't even seen a Cybertruck yet. Anyone calling it an unibody at this point is simply lying.
Either call it an exoskeleton or remove all mention of the chassis if reality bothers you that much. UltimaRex (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone calling it an unibody at this point is simply lying."
Care to elaborate?
The MotorTrend source says: "The stainless steel exterior panels of the Cybertruck are not load-bearing" "The stainless steel panels are "hung" on this supporting chassis, just like body panels are hung on the unibody chassis of most consumer vehicles"
Can you provide something that could debunk this claim? The patent, as I said, provides absolutely no indication that it is being used.
Because I believe it is obvious that the body panels aren't structural like an exoskeleton would, but that's my personal opinion. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tesla makes it clear as mud but here's my understanding.
A unibody is where the skin takes the stress normally involved in bending twisting. A unibody has to provide for doors (which are not load bearing), so the A/B/C pillars take the stress in those areas with boxed pressed sheet metal. And around the front/rear windows there is more strengthening with more boxing.
Older vehicles (and heavy duty or 4WD) used a ladder frame - handles front/rear bending forces well but sucks for twisting forces.
A space frame handles bending/twisting forces well but intrudes into places for passengers/engines/etc and is expensive.
The so-called exo-skeleton seems to take a bit from each. The exo-skeleton seems to be be those door/window strengthening areas used in a unibody but applied to the entire vehicle. The patents say that the panels are not load bearing (thus, definitely not a unibody) but the diagrams in the patent look just like a typical door area from almost any unibody car since the 1960s.
To my mind, the exo-skeleton is closest to a space frame but using boxed pressed sheet steel instead of welded steel tubing. Non-stress bearing steel panels then get attached to that frame.  Stepho  talk  04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I have added and modified information in accordance with another source I found. Please review, revise, and discuss as needed, thanks. Left guide (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out that this Top Gear review (which is widely cited elsewhere in this article) calls it an exoskeleton, so I've updated the article to a "sources vary" situation to reflect this discrepancy. Also, if the second sentence of the exterior section has now become redundant or confusing, it can be removed or revised as needed. Left guide (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I would certainly vote to keep. The exoskeleton design has been discussed in multiple reliable sources. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about patent[edit]

I've also been made aware that a patent is being used to support a conflicting claim, which I believe is this. Left guide (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's the patent. Until someone tears down the production CT that's the only real source we have. UltimaRex (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PATENTS offers guidance regarding the treatment of this type of source. Left guide (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to know whether they actually used the patent or not in the production vehicle. Also it is unclear how different it is than a normal unibody. I say keep things like the current version until there is a comprehensive teardown done by a third-party. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on whether Munro & Associates media content can ever be used as a source in this article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus that it can be used. However, there are limitations to this consensus; it doesn't mean that any use is justified, and it doesn't speak on whether it should be used attributed or unattributed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Can information sourced to the media releases of Munro & Associates (e.g., Munro Live) ever be used as a verifiable source in the Cybertruck article? 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Generally no, mainly due to the serious COI issues raised above regarding Munro's financial relationship with Tesla; on its own, the usage of this source fails to satisfy WP:NPOV policy, particularly WP:DUE. Limited exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis for providing mundane clarifying details about topics and aspects buttressed with well-established coverage by clearly independent sources. Left guide (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, on the WP:V core policy page under the section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable" the very first sentence states: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Left guide (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: This RfC is narrowly about Munro & Associates published analysis and whether it can ever be used as a source in this article. I also have seen the one editor above who said that the company CEO may own some Tesla stock; but haven't seen any support for that. However, if the owner does, it would clearly indicate we could not use anything from the owner to support topic notability or other things proscribed by Wikipedia policy. It would not follow that 100% of the analysis of the company could never be used as a source here in this article; as you began to assume when you deleted any mention of that source as if it did. So it may certainly be relevant to some particular positive statement, and would be an invalid source for that particular claim; but it would not be relevant to the technical description of what is under the hood and inside a vehicle from an analysis company that is in the business of evaluating exactly that. N2e (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in this video starting around 58:30 I cannot begin to tell you how much money I have made from Tesla stock, then goes on to describe. And it is relevant to a technical description of what is under the hood, because if truly independent third-party sources haven't explored and discussed that aspect of the vehicle, then that material is simply WP:UNDUE, since there is no independent mainstream perspective to contextualize it against. At a bare minimum, sections or paragraphs cited exclusively to this and other problematic sources like WP:TESLARATI are clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. Left guide (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes — Munro & Associates (which as of 6 January, links to an article about the founder of the company, Sandy Munro, but also describes the company) is a well-known automotive industry analysis firm that "specialises in deconstructing automobiles and has analysed the construction of hundreds of vehicles." (quoted from the Wikipedia article, which I had not read before today). The information about the company, and Munro himself, is reliably sourced from several secondary sources there. One of the sources (Industry Week, 7 May 2019) says "[Munro] and his band of engineers, lean experts, cost analysts, statisticians and more have analyzed hundreds of ... vehicles since the late 1980s." Further, the company identified (and published) many deficiencies in the Tesla Model 3 vehicle it tore down for analysis at the time. So of course, Munro-produced media can be a valid source for Wikipedia in some cases, and for this article on Tesla Cybertruck, for information about the technical makeup of the vehicle. N2e (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per Left guide's points. QRep2020 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Munro & Co are recognised experts in the field and their detailed coverage might well be helpful in documenting particular technical details. If they have some general opinions about the product then these might be attributed in the same way that we would report the opinions of other motoring journalists. I'm not seeing any evidence that they are worse in any way than general motoring journalism and my impression is that they are generally respected for being blunt, honest and knowledgeable in their criticisms, when they have them. Note that the article currently cites lots of general news sources such as USA Today, which are low quality, shows such as Top Gear and Jay Leno which are literally comedians, and it even cites Tesla itself. Munro is better than any other source I've noticed so far. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that the article currently cites lots of general news sources such as USA Today, which are low quality." Note that at WP:RSP#Sources, USA Today has been ruled by broad community consensus as generally reliable. So if you believe you have evidence that USA Today is "low quality", you will have to litigate that at WP:RSN to overturn the ruling. Left guide (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP#Sources is not a reliable source. In any case, its classification of USA Today is that it's "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise". But USA Today has no expertise; it's just a general newspaper written by journalists, not experts. The particular source that we're using here was written by Bailey Schulz who is a "general assignment money reporter" for USA Today. They don't seem to have any technical expertise and all their report does is churn PR information from Tesla. And the report is festooned in advertising. The idea that this is more reliable than an experienced industry consultant like Munro is absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

True low voltage E/E architecture: 48V AND 12V[edit]

This article misses the point that Cybertruck has two voltage levels in its low-voltage network: 48V and 12V:

  • 48V - the small portion of the midvoltage network - featured prominently in too many articles and presented as if it would replace "everything else", but this is wrong.
  • 12V - for all small and some bigger loads. Still a very important voltage level for the majority of the endpoints in the vehicle.

I have tried many time to correct this in this wiki article, but my edits are overridden again and again. Ralf König (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is good analysis of the two low-voltage levels (48V and 15V) in a video by Autoline Network published on 1 July 2024. The Cybertruck was torn apart for analysis by an analysis company called Caresoft, and in the video Autoline is interviewing the head of Caresoft. Includes a specific list of the 48V components and major modules as well as the few remaining 15V components where Tesla used the same sort of 15V components they use on the Tesla Model Y. Here's the link.
Conclusion of the Caresoft guy was that Tesla used 48 V for electrical loads and system modules that were unique to the Cybertruck, or if it had a large power requirement; but that is was cost-effective for Tesla to use 15V for a much smaller subset of electrical loads (also listed in the video). So it is definitely not the majority of the electrical loads that continue to use the 15V supply, and we should not say that in the article. — N2e (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla_Cybertruck&oldid=1233083514"