Thoughts on how to do second Cybertruck vs F150 challenge?

Discussion in 'General' started by 101101, Nov 27, 2019.

  1. 101101

    101101 Active Member

    Here is a suggestion:

    1. Have a 2020 Ford F150 Raptor fully equipped at average price $75K in the same spot as the average F150 in the prior test and a $69.9K (even with full self driving) its only 76,900 in the same spot as last time.

    2. Have 5 average weight people (137lbs each) and 11 bags of of cement (94lbs each) standing on a scale showing 1750lbs next to the Raptor and have 6 average weight (137lbs each) and 29 bags of cement (94lbs each) standing on a scale showing 3500lbs next to the cybertruck.

    3. In the fast forward have the people load the truck beds with their respective bags of cement and get in their respective trucks

    4. Have the Cybertruck drag this new Ford Truck up the same hill backwards again.

    5. Point out the Cybertruck is in the F150 weight range and it is at a disadvantage because it having to pull a lot more because its pulling not only pulling the Ford against the Ford's maximum effort but its pulling it up a hill backwards meaning its having to a lot more work and look at the speed. Also point out that both trucks are at their legal pay load capacities.

    6. A good time to point out the Cybertruck's 0-60 times and quarter mile times vs the Raptors (as further evidence of more way more power!) and its radically superior off road stats for clearances and suspension tech (and announce its superior fording,) and that it comes a maintenance free tougher exterior and a million mile power train that will likely last 5x longer than the Raptor power train with about zero hassle and radically greater reliability and that its cheaper to run than a Prius and no more having to go to the gas station and its zero emissions and won't get penalized. Also point out that the Cybertruck comes with standard functionality that no amount of expensive Raptor add on options can match.

    Guessing a lot of police departments will like the Cybertruck.

    It looks like Ford paid Motor Trend ( to lie about the Cybertruck's stats apparently intentionally understating the payload stats at 3250 vice 3500lbs a critical window presumably to discourage or blunt Cybertruck pre-orders. What Ford doesn't want people to understand apparently is that Cybertruck has 2x the payload capacity of the Raptor and by mismatching the trim it doesn't want people to understand that it doesn't play stupid options games. This was done in a shill article comparing the Raptor to the Cybertruck they also compared the wrong trim levels and tried inexplicably to bring the Rivian into the article in a way to was too favorable without context. Rivian needs to go back to the drawing board. They suggested Ford will announce the same or slightly superior specs- ah no all did was delay its vehicle by a year and back of its own challenge. Besides Tesla tends to improve the specs of its release vehicles relative to prototypes and then continues to improve even already launched vehicles.

    Saw some interesting stats that are not investment advice. As we know Tesla is now the #3 automaker in the world by market cap and climbing- only VW and Toyota are bigger.
    But notice this. Tesla is up year to date on vehicles delivered 65.5% and Ford is down -3.5% Toyota is down -2.5%, Honda down -.1%, Nissan down -7%, GM down -.8%
    Don't have BMW's stats but it guiding lower for the full year and making the same noises it did about greater SUV sales compensating right before it announced the worst results in a decade and booted is CEO. So Tesla is way up when all the other automakers are falling in real terms even against inflationary losses. But people also seem to have way more confidence in Tesla than the other automakers notice the market cap per car produced is GM 1 cent, VW 1 cent, Toyota 2 cents, Ford 2 cents, BMW 4 cents, Daimler 4 cents, Tesla 1.17 $$ So the confidence in Tesla is 60x higher than in Ford or Toyota and 117x higher than in GM or VW.

    Saw something else. Who is the biggest user of cobalt by an order of magnitude? The fossil fuel industry. What do they do with this toxic lead like heavy metal. You guessed it to hide their sulfur pollution they put it in their fuel products and make us breath it just like they did with lead and remember the studies on IQ and violence related to lead produced the most significant results ever seen in social studies vs violence (and probably right wing stupid politics) it was bigger than the drop off effect of Rowe v Wade.
  2. Esprit1st

    Esprit1st Well-Known Member

    Probably not happening, looks like Ford pulled back saying the tweet challenge was only to show how ridiculous the first tug of war was.

    And honestly I think so too. It's not really about how good reach car is. It's about how heavy it is. There is really no point. The Ford is a really capable tower as well.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
    interestedinEV likes this.
  3. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    They should meet at a tractor pull. They know how to do a real pull test.

    Bob Wilson
    Esprit1st likes this.
  4. Esprit1st

    Esprit1st Well-Known Member

    Now that would be way more interesting!

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
  5. interestedinEV

    interestedinEV Active Member

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson felt that it was a ridiculous test, he called it "about the science of friction".

    Here are specifications for towing and payload for the Cyber truck. Given below that is the payload and towing capacity for the F-150 ICE. These are published figures by the manufacturers. The Tesla has a better payload and the towing capacity varies by the variant. Both the towing and payload vary for the F-150. But they are roughly comparable. Remember this is the ICE version of Ford F-150, not the electric version. I have not been able to find the specifications of the F-150 electric. To the average customer that is what is more important, not who won a tug war where the winner could chose the parameters. Shown below is ridiculous video test from Ford. They show the F-150 Electric towing a rail car and million pounds of load. Again it proves nothing. So it is not that Ford did not start this.

    Tesla Cybertruck

    Ford F-150 ICE


    Fords media attempt
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2019
  6. Esprit1st

    Esprit1st Well-Known Member

    That train tug was just as ridiculous as the Tesla tug of war.

    Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
  7. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    Tuesday morning I was passing by a construction site and it looked like every car and pickup had dents. Speculation, the stainless steel unibody might significantly reduce repair costs and insurance rates. It is better to give a dent than receive.

    Bob Wilson
  8. Esprit1st

    Esprit1st Well-Known Member

    Definitely very cool indeed that it is so tough.
    Just wondering how pedestrian safe out is and how it behaves in a crash with another vehicle. Would be bad if the other car disintegrates into dust and the Cybertruck doesn't have a scratch. Well at least bad for one party.
    interestedinEV likes this.
  9. I don't understand the stainless steel all around, though. It is very heavy, and if indeed it is hard to dent, could be very harmful to occupants in a crash. Good crash worthiness vehicles have crumple zones incl the outside skin to absorb impacts. Otherwise the occupants take the full brunt instead.
    Pushmi-Pullyu and interestedinEV like this.
  10. interestedinEV

    interestedinEV Active Member

    Here is a discussion on why car bodies are not made of stainless steel. Some of the comments/answers are not valid, but there is a good discussion on pros and cons (and this is a 2014 thread, hence it is not related to Tesla at all, so there is no bias for or against Tesla. An more engineering discussion).

    Here are some points that I came up after reading through the thread.
    1. Solid body, better dent protection
    2. Less susceptible to rust (may not be completely rust proof, depending upon actually alloy)
    3. Can last 30 years, with a million mile battery that is being promised, you can keep it going for years without any thing to show for wear and tear.
    1. Cost: High quality stainless steel costs lot more than other carbon steels or composites
    2. Difficult to manipulate and weld, hence higher manufacturing costs
    3. Higher costs to repair in case there are damages.
    4. More difficult to paint
    5. Higher weight, one poster claimed that the higher weight might mean reduction of mpg from 20 to 17 (in an ICE) which might mean additional costs of $4000 over a 100000 miles. I am sure the EV range would go up if it were lighter.

    These are in addition to the points above. May be Elon has a trick or two up the sleeve. However to be able to sell a truck with 250 mile range with SS body, bullet proof glass @ $39,000 is going to be an engineering challenge based on my old days in production engineering and what I have read. I am still willing to give Elon the benefit of the doubt but the devil is in the details. Is it SS all around or just in limited places? What are the color choices, given the difficulty in painting SS? What would be the insurance costs? If Elon can pull it off, it is as great an achievement as Henry Ford building a fully functional mass consumption car for $500. Put me in the wait and see category.
  11. Well, I am sure the bullet proof comments caught the interest of the gangsters and cartel members. So should be some extra sales there...
  12. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    • strength-to-weight ratio - we often think, rightfully, that carbon fiber makes a light weight and strong structure but thin, 3 mm(?), stainless steel is pretty dang good too. There is an example: [​IMG]
    • "crash protection" - one of the challenges is energy absorption and many have pointed out this stainless steel is nearly impossible to 'stamp' into a curved shape. Part of stamping costs are die replacement because they wear out. The flat sheets are cut to shape and then the folds scored. Then welders strengthen the folds to support the crush zones.
    • pedestrian safety (more of an EU issue) - there are EU standards, mostly missing the North American market, about what happens to a pedestrian. But it isn't clear that between the size and target market, EU is a player. But it would make a fearful 'technical': [​IMG]
    Understand that I have no need for a pickup and resented how many of my fellow white-collar co-workers filled up the parking lot and roads with pristine, not scratched, dented, or a spot of mud riding on huge knobby tires. The Cybertruck would be the perfect answer.

    If I accidentally won a Cybertruck, I would add hidden, outside speakers with a 'sound box.' Then at a traffic light, I would play: "Here kitty, kitty" or "Meow, meow" or "Bow wow wow yippie yo yippie yay" or "Who let the dogs out woof, woof, woof, woof, woof" or Clint Eastwood "Do you feel lucky . . . punk?"

    Bob Wilson
  13. I worked with stainless steel with a couple of airplanes I built (I am a pilot), and it is needed for the firewall for fireproofing. It is very, very hard to cut or drill, and totally flimsy and wobbly unless your crease it or support it with doubler (witches hat strip works best). And even though you use the thinnest possible for a firewall it still is very, very heavy, esp compared to the aluminum of the rest of the aircraft. It also transmits sound very well (vibrates between the creases and doublers). Could be a very noisy truck.

    So I just don't get the SS choice for this vehicle. I can see why it would be bullet proof though. But who needs that, except the gangsters, and maybe the terrorists in the middle east. This seems like a very crude vehicle...
  14. interestedinEV

    interestedinEV Active Member

    Modern Cars use between 18-22 gauge sheet metal for bodies. 3 mm is about 11 gauge which would be very strong but have much higher weight Here is an academic article that goes into relative cost of alternatives including Carbon Fiber. At the end you are trading off strength vs weight vs cost and the answer is "it depends on what you want to do or achieve". Strength in itself has multiple components (yield, tensile etc. which measure different properties). Here they have used Yield stress: Yield stress is the amount of stress that an object needs to experience for it to be permanently deformed.
    and Specific strength: Also known as the strength-to-weight ratio (yield stress by density)

    So I can see now why Ford went in for Aluminum for F-150. Even if you use a thicker gauge, you are not adding to weight that much. However it will dent if you drop a large load like in the GM commercial.

    Bottom line. Material properties of certain SS alloys are awesome. So you could get away with a thinner gauge, but then it will not have same impact resistance to bullets or a hammer. If you still keep the current thickness, you have great strength (that can resist a hammer) but much higher weight compared to Aluminum or Carbon Fiber. SS is costlier than High Strength Steel.
    So if you chose one of the three (strength, weight cost), your choices on the other two are limited.

    So you want a vehicle for the next century, SS is your material. However it is a material to manipulate as evinced by @R P says and my own experiences years back when I had to use special electrodes. For those for whom strength is not paramount, or those who want something lighter, there may be cheaper choices but with some compromises.

    If I wanted to dodge bullets, my vehicle of choice would be


    Attached Files:

    Pushmi-Pullyu and bwilson4web like this.
  15. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web Well-Known Member Subscriber

    More than “like” I really appreciate folks who have a technical clue!

    I came to this forum exactly in the hope we’d find like minded posters.

    Bob Wilson
  16. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I'm quite skeptical about several of Elon's claims here. You have a pretty good list of "cons", I think, altho painting won't be a problem since Tesla apparently doesn't plan to paint it at all.

    I, too, hope Elon -- or rather, Tesla and SpaceX -- have a few tricks up their sleeves. But I don't forget that Elon confidently predicted that he could turn factories -- or at least the Fremont assembly plant -- into touchless "alien dreadnoughts" with robotic arms operating at eye-blurring speed, so fast that wind resistance would actually be a limit to production speed. He kept claiming that they could speed up production by 5x, and that was after backing down from the original "5x to 10x" claim.

    In reality, not so much.

    I'm certainly interested in seeing what Tesla will do with this new idea for a 3mm stainless steel "skin" replacing a car (or light truck's) unibody or frame, but I was already quite skeptical, even before reading this thread, about several points already raised in comments above. What about repair costs? Won't those be higher for a thicker stainless steel body, especially if the structural strength of the vehicle depends on it remaining just as it was when it was manufactured, with no alterations?

    What about safety? I've seen it said that the Ford Model T was hard to dent because the body panels were so thick, at least as compered to modern cars; but by the same token it made the vehicle very unsafe in an accident, because a greater amount of the force of the impact was transferred to the occupants. If that's true, won't the Cybertruck have the same problem?

    What about modifications to the body? If the structural "skin" is compromised by cutting pieces off to add on mods, won't that significantly weaken the body?

    Another cautionary note is that Tesla didn't actually build the Cybertruck prototype with that "structural skin". If Tesla couldn't pull it off in the prototype, is it realistic to believe they can pull it off for the production version?

    As a strong Tesla fan I certainly want Tesla to succeed with the Cybertruck, but I see several... well, I won't call them red flags, but let's say some yellow cautionary ones.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2019
  17. 101101

    101101 Active Member

    Jennifer Sensa did her first that I am aware of apparently bought and paid for whiney article for InsideEvs How much did Ford pay her?

    First she went on about losing body and frame. Obvious retort is two fold. 1. Other countries don't do American pick ups because they are fluff. 2 More important is getting rid of ICE to get rid of fossil fuels- we're not going to trade supposed trivial comfort for survival. She then went on about Tesla's comparison not being fair. What a bunch of BS. It was totally fair. The ICE power train is totally obsolete and price wise that is exactly the type of F150 people will be driving when they replace it with an equivalent cost Cybertruck. It ridiculous to suggest that Ford be allowed to bring its electric prototype. The context is against ICE and Ford ICE as the heart of ICE and showing how obsolete it is. If allowed to Ford would make something that would put the minimum pressure on its ICE products to give Ford the least disruptive landing. Ford is sitting on 37 billion in cash but the experts are worried that isn't close to enough to help it make it through its challenges.

    This is a comparison of power train technologies not truck platforms even remotely as much. Again as above, you don't have to be a physicist or mechanical engineer that specializes in electric motors to see that the total, complete, supreme domination of electric motors is totally obvious. Look at the videos of the channel locks- little electric motors on tracks drag full supertankers up into the locks.

    Elon has made a couple of illuminating comments. He has said that electric pulling power is practically infinite. He said that during the Cybtruck release. What he is referring to is these motors can take tremendous strain without breaking and translate that into pulling capacity (totally irrelevant that this is different than towing capacity for a given vehicle platform) and it translates into a power to weight ratio that translates into pulling capacity that is far more impressive than any feat electric motors have shown the general public from Tesla so far. The pull tests will be far more impressive than the speed tests. There is a formula that describes the ratio of power to cross sectional area- and it radically favors electric motors over obsolete gas piston combustion pneumatics. So we see why at the Semi launch Musk said the Tesla semi could drag the most powerful class 8 diesel semi up a hill backwards in a tug o war. The most powerful Class 8 is used the Australian road trains and they pull 300klbs loads. If I've got this right 4 model 3 motors can out pull that maybe by double because that is what is in the Tesla semi- again not the rated tow capacity but pulling. For pulling which is the core component of towing an electric motor is way more efficient and possible an order of magnitude
    better- maybe more.

    As for he blather about the body being heavy. Look at what James Rickards has said on this. You're losing a heavy frame! Go to the Posco website and look at their Gigasteel- it can reduce a vehicle's weight by 30% even before you drop the frame. Not sure that is what Tesla is using here (its not stainless) but what Tesla is using here has better characteristics than carbon fiber for rocketry and if anything it is equal to or better than the Posco stuff for this application as Tesla says there is nothing better and there was they would use it. Rickards says you can eliminate 60% of your manufacturing and tooling process with this and the industry has been wanting to use it for a long time. As for actually manufacturing it Rikards point out as does his guest that the flat shapes of the truck make it super simple to manufacture. They aren't having to bend this stuff much at all they just have to cut it and they go into how that can be done. As for crumple zones its got a frunk and no one has side crumple zones, and guessing you could still do accordion scored sheets of stainless in the frunk area.

    But bottom line is the top cyber truck (and really all things considered even the base) is a better performing truck all around than a specked out 75K Ford Raptor for less money and its zero emissions and it will last a lot longer with a lot less hassle. The Cybertruck seems like a 30 year leap over the 2020 Ford Raptor. As for the mirrors, what would be holding us back on that- the fossil fuel industry?
  18. interestedinEV

    interestedinEV Active Member

    I had not heard before of James Rikards and googled him. He appears to be some sort of controversial political financial talking head with some bizarre ideas. I cannot see any where that he has an engineering background and seems to have his agenda.

    I normally do not respond to your comments, but let me try. Yes, you can use a lower thickness (higher gauge #) with a material like SS, but you are not going to get bullet resisting capabilities that Elon claims.

    Here is a good article on that

    Is the Tesla Cybertruck *Really* Bulletproof?

    The Tesla Cybertruck's skin will be made of the same stainless steel that is used by sister company SpaceX for its coming Starship spacecraft. That means 301 stainless steel and, in the Cybertruck, 3mm thickness. Tesla claims this makes it bulletproof to 9mm rounds but does not mention any armor rating certification.

    ......A quick reference to the various civilian and military armor rating references shows it's at least plausible that a 3mm-thick sheet of 301 stainless steel could successfully deflect a 9mm Luger round—but it's not at all clear the same material could meet the full requirements for certification, which includes multiple impacts from a specific range, at a designated impact angle, among other requirements.

    According to the article, this might not get certified as an armored vehicle, so not seeing what the point is.

    Normal cars have thickness of of panels of about 1 mm (about 20 gauge), Elon wants to use 3 mm panels (11 gauge), so right here the weight of the panels is about three times as much. So you are not losing the heavy frame, you are actually making it heavier. Second the Cybertruck has an unique curvilinear shape which is going to be difficult to form. Third welding (and most frames have welding) is more difficult for SS. Finally SS is costlier than high carbon steel. Ford F-150 used Aluminum to make it lighter for a reason. 301 SS which is Austentic Stell is more expensive than the alternatives used today,

    Finally let us take the glass.

    Apparently, the Cybertruck may also have a bulletproof windshield. Tesla chief Elon Musk says the laminated windshield, which appears to be completely flat, will stop a 9mm round, as well. We tested its strength by dropping weighed metal spheres from various heights. It didn't break.

    "Conventional auto glass is one of the hardest media to consistently defeat with handgun projectiles," Harrison added. "I've shot windshields with 9mm hollow points, which barely made it through to the other side, so simply adding another layer to the sandwich would probably stop them. It's the same approach taken to make bullet-resistant screens in banks—just keep adding thickness until you reach the level of protection needed."

    Adding another layer means additional weight.
  19. Esprit1st

    Esprit1st Well-Known Member

    I think what @101101 is referring to with the weight is the fact that Elon said exosceletton. So yes, the steel is heavier, but you lose the internal frame.
    So you lose the internal steel frame completely. You have higher weight on the outside. Not sure if it'll save weight in the end it how all that works.
  20. 101101

    101101 Active Member

    Right should have wrote Jack not "James": Jack Rikard EVTV

    Oh "curvilinear" right, Motortrend hasn't been real reliable with its comments on Cybertruck like persisting in apparently intentionally understating the Cybertruck's payload capacity so it wasn't obvious it was 2x the Raptors etc.

    It is such a simple point. If this is what is being used it rocketry (and has been in ICBMs going back to the 1960s) where
    strength and especially weight are so crucial (weight will really harm the economics) its pretty clear weight won't be an issue here.

    The 3rd row down we see the material Tesla is talking about. It weights 2.4469 kilos per square meter or about 5lbs per square meter. So if the Cybertruck came delivered in a box made of that material what would that box weigh? It would weigh 299lbs and surely that squared box which is not form fitting would provide enough material to cover the skin of the truck, with the window cut outs and the truck body actually only taking up a fraction of the volume of the box. You could use 3x that amount of material and still be at only 900lbs. That leaves a lot of room for a battery. Guessing if you tried you could spend $33K at retail on 300lbs of this stuff. But on Alibaba when you order in 301 stainless by the ton it ranges from $800-$4471-per ton. If you look at what stainless by the industry costs is said to be $3lbs. So pretty sure you can actually get the highest grade annealed better than full hardness 301 stainless for $4471 a ton or $2.35 a lbs. But lets go with the worst case scenario of $3 a pound. And lets assume you need 3 times for the surface area or a squared box that would contain the truck (maybe other expensive steel like Posco high strength gigasteel is used inside- it will still be cheeper than 301) So that's 900lbs of steel or $3000 in cost for steel. But it still seem possible the steel cost is closer to $900 and the weight of steel closer to 300lbs see the link below. For context Ford using more aluminum in the F150 saved 700lbs.

    So again neither the cost nor the weight of this material is going to be an issue and Rikard covers the construction.

Share This Page