Recommended Posts

On 03/12/2023 at 02:08, adrynalyne said:

, you don't go shooting up a vehicle unless you know  it is bullet proof. 

They gained that knowledge when somebody decided to shoot a 9 mm at a piece of Starship steel.

Putting a piece of metal behind a target is a thing, the Starships are built in Texas, and one of the properties they purchased at Boca Chica (AKA Starbase) was Massey's gun range, but above all the metal has the properties they needed to make Cybertruck capable of off-roading. 

On 03/12/2023 at 22:18, DocM said:

They gained that knowledge when somebody decided to shoot a 9 mm at a piece of Starship steel.

Putting a piece of metal behind a target is a thing, the Starships are built in Texas, and one of the properties they purchased at Boca Chica (AKA Starbase) was Massey's gun range, but above all the metal has the properties they needed to make Cybertruck capable of off-roading. 

You have proven my point. 

On 04/12/2023 at 01:24, adrynalyne said:

You have proven my point. 

Only from your point of view. The choice of the strongest stainless steel was for safety reasons, it's what they do. When the model S was made and tested for roof crush do you think they intentionally made it to break the machine (which it did)? 

Earlier I mentioned the IDRA (Italy) Giga Press for casting frame halves.

Recently Ford, Hyundai, and Toyota have announced that they are pursuing this technology.

Giga Press is currently in use on Model Y and Cybertruck for front and rear frame segments, 6000 and 9000 metric ton clamping force machines respectively. Their next generation of vehicles will use a 12,000 metric ton unit to cast a frame in a single piece.

The battery is structural and goes between frame halves or becomes the floor of a single piece frame. 

This video is a little dated, but better than most...

Model Y casting halves with a structural battery

tesla_model_y_structural_battery_0.thumb.jpg.dcab064c6d74b7287ef80e962cc68a27.jpg

On 04/12/2023 at 01:01, DocM said:

Only from your point of view. The choice of the strongest stainless steel was for safety reasons, it's what they do. When the model S was made and tested for roof crush do you think they intentionally made it to break the machine (which it did)? 

Earlier I mentioned the IDRA (Italy) Giga Press for casting frame halves.

Recently Ford, Hyundai, and Toyota have announced that they are pursuing this technology.

Giga Press is currently in use on Model Y and Cybertruck for front and rear frame segments, 6000 and 9000 metric ton clamping force machines respectively. Their next generation of vehicles will use a 12,000 metric ton unit to cast a frame in a single piece.

The battery is structural and goes between frame halves or becomes the floor of a single piece frame. 

This video is a little dated, but better than most...

Model Y casting halves with a structural battery

tesla_model_y_structural_battery_0.thumb.jpg.dcab064c6d74b7287ef80e962cc68a27.jpg

It’s the only point I have been discussing from, so yeah. 

On 02/12/2023 at 19:02, adrynalyne said:

Thats a load of crap. You don't accidently make something bullet proof. People don't go around shooting cars as part of their testing process unless it was intentionally bullet proof.

No, it's absolutely true.

They literally stated this.  It's not completely bulletproof, but its an unintended property of the metal that was designed.

It's just where people's minds go when they see a huge metal car.  They're used to plastic honda's, not tanks.  So as such, the question is always raised.  

It sounds to me like they over-engineered the chassis and maybe should have looked at ways to reduce the cost by using a different material.  Using stainless steel designed for a rocket is pretty overkill, and having the production price being almost twice the initial estimate doesn't look good.
They're late to the game and the entry price is $10,000 above the F-150 Lightning.

It's too expensive and stands out too much.  Every kid in the neighborhood is going to perform flying karate kicks on it to "test" its strength.

On 04/12/2023 at 08:44, mram said:

No, it's absolutely true.

They literally stated this.  It's not completely bulletproof, but its an unintended property of the metal that was designed.

It's just where people's minds go when they see a huge metal car.  They're used to plastic honda's, not tanks.  So as such, the question is always raised.  

No, its not, regardless of what they stated.

They chose the material KNOWING it was bullet proof then used that "feature" to market it further. Which is fine, but come on, that was not unintended. Unintended is when you smash an "un-smashable" window during a demonstration.

 

From the head on crash test, I think I would feel more alive afterwards in that plastic Honda.

Edited by adrynalyne
On 04/12/2023 at 08:49, adrynalyne said:

No, its not, regardless of what they stated.

They chose the material KNOWING it was bullet proof then used that "feature" to market it further.

They didn't choose the material, they designed it.  it wasn't like a color wheel at Home Depot.  It's a structural support exoskeleton frame that was created, something not done typically with consumer vehicles.

It is incidental that it has other properties.  It has to be strong for its designed purpose.  It might be strong enough for other purposes.  This is for funsies.  That's kind of what Tesla has been known for.

First 45 seconds from the Tesla engineer: "Obviously we didn't design it to be bulletproof, but if it works out..."

Lets see what it is like in the real world, not the favorable paces that all car companies showcase. Personally, I still think it is fugly.

I would not want to test how well it takes a shot in the real world.

On 04/12/2023 at 10:44, mram said:

No, it's absolutely true.

They literally stated this.  It's not completely bulletproof, but its an unintended property of the metal that was designed.

It's just where people's minds go when they see a huge metal car.  They're used to plastic honda's, not tanks.  So as such, the question is always raised.  

Not to mention people who try to shoot up junkers, law enforcement agencies who test tactical ammunition against vehicles to see if they'll go through the bodies and window glass (often the answer is no - laminated glass is very tough), etc. 

Sometimes manufacturers will put vehicles through torture testing which includes guns, Tesla has a orders for Cybertruck from police agencies, including Latin America. Even corporate security is looking at it, one example being Oracle.

Edited by DocM
On 04/12/2023 at 22:29, DocM said:

Not to mention people who try to shoot up junkers, law enforcement agencies who test tactical ammunition against vehicles to see if they'll go through the bodies and window glass (often the answer is no - laminated glass is very tough), etc. 

Sometimes manufacturers will put vehicles through torture testing which includes guns, Tesla has a orders for Cybertruck from police agencies, including Latin America. Even corporate security is looking at it, one example being Oracle.

Looking forward to when NHTSA adds "shooting vehicles" that part of their safety testing. /s

On 05/12/2023 at 08:16, Warwagon said:

People either HATE  the Cybertruck or LOVE the Cybertruck. I'm on the LOVE side. If I was rich i'd buy one!

It's meh. Would rather have an F150 Lightning or Rivian if I was in the market for an EV truck..

On 05/12/2023 at 08:47, primortal said:

Looking forward to when NHTSA adds "shooting vehicles" that part of their safety testing. /s

Automakers which make police vehicles do destructive testing - often in conjunction with police agencies. Some of the most grueling tests are done by the Michigan State Police.  FBI does a lot of tactical ammunition tests, determining which penetrate laminated glass and other barriers the best.

Top Gear does Cybertruck

 

On 05/12/2023 at 11:00, tsupersonic said:

It's meh. Would rather have an F150 Lightning or Rivian if I was in the market for an EV truck..

I go for the one with a more HIGHEST SPEC 240v utility power/bidirectional charging F-150 Lightning is 9.6 KW, Cybertruck is 11.5 KW. I also like the under the bed tool box, fold down back seats, and steel power tonneau cover. 

On 05/12/2023 at 09:02, DocM said:

Automakers which make police vehicles do destructive testing - often in conjunction with police agencies. Some of the most grueling tests are done by the Michigan State Police.  FBI does a lot of tactical ammunition tests, determining which penetrate laminated glass and other barriers the best.

Top Gear does Cybertruck

 

I'm sure we will see these as police vehicles any day now.

On 05/12/2023 at 12:43, adrynalyne said:

I'm sure we will see these as police vehicles any day now.

 

LEOs have ordered it, and last September Larry Ellison announced Oracle's public safety division has ported their LEO software to Cybertruck. It's already deployed in other Teslas.

On 06/12/2023 at 17:33, DocM said:

There were hints something like this was coming.

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-michigan-speech-autoworkers-electric-boat-rant-1234833784/

But trump told us EV's and water combined would get us killed.  This was only a couple months ago too.

 

Are you saying he's wrong?

  • Haha 2
On 07/12/2023 at 10:03, DeathLace said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-michigan-speech-autoworkers-electric-boat-rant-1234833784/

But trump told us EV's and water combined would get us killed.  This was only a couple months ago too.

 

Are you saying he's wrong?

I'll take ectrocution over sharks any day

On 12/12/2023 at 11:30, primortal said:

 

Checked around and it sounds like it had a pre-release software version which affected the all-wheel drive. Fixed.

Meanwhile, Ford has cut in half their production of the F-150 Lightning. One factor may be customers made  Lightning orders as a hedge against their Cybertruck order. Other possibilities are  that Cybertruck has a larger bed, and more power from its bi-directional 240vac socket.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I sort of agree with you on that. I had a telescope - a real hefty thing, although only around 500CHF - that got me so fascinated about the stars and planets. I would stare for hours, amazed that I could see the craters of the moon or the rings of Saturn in "realtime" (quotations because, y'know, speed of light and whatnot). A friend of mine has a telescope like the one mentioned in the review, and the pictures are amazing to look at. But there is something missing for me. I may as well just go to NASA's website and look through their gallery.
    • As opposed to catching bad press because it's the engine's fault? You didn't really think this through did you? lol
    • I think it depends on what you're looking for to do, and the time you have to spare. With my Dwarf 3, I easily spend 3-4 hour sessions; half an hour driving to an un-light polluted place, another half hour unpacking and setting up the smart scope + tripod for equatorial tracking, then 15 more minutes mucking around with settings and shooting calibration frames, spending a few hours shooting, merging with past photo sessions, etc. It's crazy how time flies and I often get home later than I expected. It's something I still need to set aside a good part of an evening to do, all in all. For one session, where you often need like four for best results when it comes to deep space objects. Even with a smart scope like Dwarf 3, regular non-astro photography is still way more approachable to people getting into photography. I find this is a time consuming niche no matter how I go about it. With practice, I can probably begin cutting time here but I think where smart scopes find their home is among people who love to shoot the night sky but don't have the spare time to go deep with the "navigator level" attunement to the night sky itself in addition to everything else. Having said this, _if_ you have even more time to spend on this hobby, it will probably be even more rewarding to do it more by hand and learn the skies and the details of how it all works.
    • I misread the title and thought Teams itself would be redesigned. Imagine having this one as a native WinUI app.
    • Dell, HP PCs ran into endless reboot, BitLocker recovery loops but Windows 11 isn't to blame by Sayan Sen Last month Neowin reported on a major issue on Dell systems wherein a bug in its official support tool was leading to endless blue screen of death (BSOD) and restarts. Following our report, Dell officially acknowledged its SupportAssist-related crash issue, confirming that the culprit is not Microsoft's operating system but rather a faulty version of its own remediation software. In a newly published support advisory, Dell stated that version 5.5.16.0 of Dell SupportAssist Remediation and Alienware SupportAssist Remediation can trigger blue screen errors and unexpected system restarts. The company notes that the problematic component operates independently of the main SupportAssist application, meaning users should not remove the primary SupportAssist software when troubleshooting the issue. According to Dell, the crashes are linked specifically to the SupportAssist Remediation service, which is bundled with SupportAssist OS Recovery Tools, and as such it has since released an updated version, 5.5.16.1, which is said to resolve the problem. Affected users are advised to first verify whether version 5.5.16.0 is installed by checking the Installed Apps section in Windows Settings. If so, Dell recommends updating SupportAssist OS Recovery Tools through either SupportAssist's "Update Software" feature or Dell Command Update. Dell also advises users to back up important data before performing the update and to ensure systems remain connected to power throughout the installation process. If you are still having issues though make sure to report to the Dell support forum. As it turns out though Dell is not the only PC maker currently dealing with update-related headaches as HP is also facing a separate but probably equally frustrating issue involving recent Windows Secure Boot updates that were released with recent Windows 11 Patch Tuesdays. Similar to Dell, HP also put up its own support article where it explains the issue. The company says that affected devices could hit a brick wall when booting as they run into a BitLocker recovery loop after the April 2026 updates. The problem appears to affect systems wherein the new UEFI Secure Boot CA 2023 certificates fail to apply properly. As such affected users will find themselves entering their recovery key over and over again despite the system otherwise functioning normally. HP says such PCs should be updated to the latest available BIOS version and configured with the necessary Secure Boot certificates before installing Microsoft's Windows 11 Patch Tuesday updates. Systems that are already experiencing the problem may require BIOS configuration changes to restore normal boot behavior. Admins can find information regarding that in the support article here on HP's official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      246
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!