On the glass: from a
JerryRigEverything video (from 4:00 min mark) I’ve learned that they did in fact throw the ball at the car before, multiple times, without problems. Most likely the glass was already compromised.
Edit:
[automerge]1574495434[/automerge]
Very interesting piece!
I mentioned earlier my questions over the stainless’s durability, particularly because the mallet they used was rubber. If you couldn’t tell visually, it’s also evidenced by the lack of paint scratching that would naturally occur hitting the metal door (aluminum presumably if from a new F150) if the stage demonstration.
It’s curious in this pre-presentation test they have a padded blanket protecting the body of the car from the metal ball. It makes me question how impervious the material is to hard metal objects.
I don’t doubt the material is more durable than conventional galvanized steel body panels, certainly aluminum (now used on Ford trucks), but I think their marketing likely unrealistic. While it may serve to protect from small bumps with plastic bumpers and such, a lot collisions involve metal-on-metal and with far more force than someone swinging a rubber mallet. I don’t doubt the glass is stronger and the on-stage incident was bad luck (or maybe a marketing ploy, though Elon’s reaction seemed genuine). At the end of the day I think a possibly-but probably-limited-bullet-proof-body and stronger than normal won’t be a strong decision factor amongst potential buyers.
While apparently it is possible to make some repairs to stainless body panels, something I wasn’t really aware of other than re-graining to possibly remove scratches, it seems dent removal is pretty limited. I think the real problem is stainless repair is an extremely niche skill with very few people able to do it- therefore very expensive. This is already an issue when it comes to aluminum body work and an even greater issue when it comes to Tesla Certified body shops.
Aluminum currently costs more than 3x more than galvanized steel. Stainless can cost up to 10x+ than galvanized steel. Stainless is also very difficult to work with, which probably explains all the straight edges on the CYBERTRUCK and DMC-12. Considering existing Tesla parts and repair costs, I imagine repairing a CYBERTRUCK body will be very expensive and be reflected in the insurance costs... especially on the 2.9 sec 0-60 top trim model.
I’d also think on an electric car especially. you’d want to save weight to increase efficiency. Maybe the increased strength of stainless ultimately pays off in the end weight wise or to achieve the desired towing/cargo capacity, but I’d think using an aluminum design as many other manufacturers have adopted would be cheaper, lighter, and therefore more efficient.
Theres also questions to be answered about towing efficiencies. Tests of EV’s towing haven’t yielded great results thus far. Range typically is dramatically reduced, which also occurs to ICE vehicles though not to the same degree and refueling is a bit easier than recharging. Range carrying a heavy payload also something in question. That said, I doubt many many buyers of the Tesla will actually be carrying or towing heavy loads.
Given the weight of stainless and batteries, not to mention those tires with massive sidewalls, I have trouble believing it rides anywhere close to “like it’s on rails”. I’m also curious why with presumably a very similar trimotor drivetrain to the new Roadster, why the truck is $70k and the roadster is $200-250k. Makes the roadster seem like a poor value or that the truck is underpriced.
I’m sure the truck will sell amongst a niche of buyers- young, tech oriented people..., it just seems given Tesla’s situation they’d want to build something to actually compete in the pickup market. Again from a business prospective (if prices are correct), even if the truck sold well, unlike the conventional competition this is likely a low profit vehicle. I almost think a higher price tag would give it more of an exclusivity factor. Then again, for all we know Tesla could be playing games with price like including “gas and maintenance savings”. It would be cool however if they are anticipating technological advances to have substantially cheaper batteries by 2021/2022. Other than potential battery tech breakthroughs (that surely will be seen in other cars) this seems like a missed opportunity and the stock reflects it.
Theres a number of big fumbles Tesla has made over the years that affected their business significantly, the 420 tweet, attempting to over-automate the Model 3 assembly line causing “production hell” (ultimately following proven industry convention of manufacturing process), promising a $35k Model 3 when that probably wasn’t necessary but then had to strive to deliver (likely losing money), a period of constant price adjustments promoting uncertainty, the silly gull wing doors on the X that wasted tons of time and money, etc. I think the CYBERTRUCK will likely be added to that list based solely on missed opportunity.
I don’t think many consider the X attractive, the Y release was a largely considered disappointing (they won’t even post pre-orders), and now this truck... meanwhile the S and X are getting very old. I’m not sure why some of these decisions are made and I find it at least a little concerning.
