Tesla Orders Parts For 375K Cybertrucks In 2024 (electrek.co) 60
schwit1 shares a report from Electrek: Tesla is planning to produce 375,000 Cybertrucks per year and have release candidates by late August, according to communications they sent to suppliers. Tesla's latest official comment on the timeline is a planned delivery event "around the end of Q3," which would mean around the end of September 2023.
Recently, CEO Elon Musk also gave a Tesla Cybertruck production volume estimate at Tesla's annual shareholders meeting. In his comment, he first said about 250,000 units per year, but the CEO also added that he believes it could be between 250,000 and 500,000 units a year. Now, Electrek gets more details through communications that Tesla sent to suppliers for the Cybertruck program, which it calls "Project Everest," internally and with suppliers.
Tesla has asked suppliers to plan to meet a base production volume of 375,000 Cybertrucks per year. For a base volume, it seems to be a bit more aggressive than what Musk communicated publicly at Tesla's annual shareholder's meeting, but Tesla has been frequently adjusting to target. Earlier this year, it was about 100,000 units lower. Also, the number is planned for the production lines running at 85% efficiency.
Recently, CEO Elon Musk also gave a Tesla Cybertruck production volume estimate at Tesla's annual shareholders meeting. In his comment, he first said about 250,000 units per year, but the CEO also added that he believes it could be between 250,000 and 500,000 units a year. Now, Electrek gets more details through communications that Tesla sent to suppliers for the Cybertruck program, which it calls "Project Everest," internally and with suppliers.
Tesla has asked suppliers to plan to meet a base production volume of 375,000 Cybertrucks per year. For a base volume, it seems to be a bit more aggressive than what Musk communicated publicly at Tesla's annual shareholder's meeting, but Tesla has been frequently adjusting to target. Earlier this year, it was about 100,000 units lower. Also, the number is planned for the production lines running at 85% efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
That's 5000/week. Past experience suggests it will likely take a year or more to reach that rate, so if first production is in August or September, they could hit that by the end of 2024. Of course, this vehicle has new production techniques, so they may find it takes longer, or they could get lucky and their experience in manufacturing will allow them to ramp up more quickly. In any case, Tesla is ordering from suppliers based on their most optimistic timeline, as the last thing they want is to have sup
Re:1 finished truck every 2 minutes (Score:4, Funny)
Late to the party (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Late to the party (Score:4, Informative)
That's because safety regulations are mostly enforced on car makers, not consumers. Not only that, but only "large" car makers. The Tesla Roadster, back in the day, didn't have to have much safety features or testing because at the time Tesla wasn't a major maker. Now it is, the Roadster absolutely wouldn't pass.
So you're allowed to buy a car and then fuck up all the safety features if you really want to. That's basically where armored car makers fit in. They modify compliant cars, not manufacture them. If they do manufacture them enough to count, they don't actually make enough of them for the rules to apply to them.
It's basically to allow economic creation of custom work vehicles - everything from the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile to a custom tow truck designed to haul cars back up a cliff onto the highway. Read about the truck at one point. Basically 3 of them made for one highway.
Re: (Score:2)
you're allowed to buy a car and then fuck up all the safety features if you really want to.
Kinda. Some of them have to be retained (or replaced with like or better) by law, like the seatbelts and the bumpers.
Re: Late to the party (Score:2)
That is state law not federal legislation
Re: (Score:2)
That is state law not federal legislation
Federal law requires seatbelts in all vehicles (and has since 1968) and bumpers on heavy trucks and trailers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Consider the weight of the vehicle, the size of the sledge, and all that. A sledgehammer is basically a light and local impact compared to an actual accident that threatens the occupants of the cabin.
Basically, the sledge is the equivalent of 5mph bumpers - where the car isn't supposed to take significant damage from a 5 mph impact.
Energy goes up by the square of the velocity. Take a 10 pound sledge, swung at maybe 10 mph. That was a side strike, and not particularly fast. I think it was even a "dead bl
Re: (Score:3)
Consider the weight of the vehicle, the size of the sledge, and all that. A sledgehammer is basically a light and local impact compared to an actual accident that threatens the occupants of the cabin.
Basically, the sledge is the equivalent of 5mph bumpers - where the car isn't supposed to take significant damage from a 5 mph impact.
Energy goes up by the square of the velocity. Take a 10 pound sledge, swung at maybe 10 mph. That was a side strike, and not particularly fast. I think it was even a "dead blow" type hammer - designed to not rebound, but that means lower peak force.
Now consider the impact of a 5k+ pound truck into an object tough enough to stop it quickly. Kinetic energy scales linerally with mass, but by the square of velocity.
So, let's say 40mph is the impact velocity we care about, that's 500 times the mass times 4^2 velocity = 8k times as much energy.
Something that won't bend at X force will often deform like playdough at 8k times it.
When the vehicle hits something it’s the entire front end that takes the blow, widening as the surface is pushed until the entire corner or front is pushed in. When the sledgehammer hits something it’s a 2” radius circle. The cyber truck is 84” in width and let’s say 3’ high where the normal crumple zone is for over 3,000 square inches while the area of the sledgehammer face is 6”. That’s 500x the pressure. It’s kind of amazing you know what kinetic
Surface Area isn't the entire measure (Score:2)
What you're missing is that the crumple zone isn't just the surface area. Especially for the wider area impact, the impact force is going to travel deeper into the vehicle. Also - 8k divided by 500 still means 16 times the energy is available for deformation, compared to the sledge.
So an impact that doesn't even leave a dent with a sledge, you move the energy up 16X and now you have a dent. Move it up to the entire front(or even a partial), and what happens is that even if the skin wasn't deforming, you
Re: (Score:2)
So an impact that doesn't even leave a dent with a sledge, you move the energy up 16X and now you have a dent. Move it up to the entire front(or even a partial), and what happens is that even if the skin wasn't deforming, you have all that energy traveling through the frame, and it WILL hit points that will bend. For example, you go from the front of the car, to the skin along the sides.
Despite knowing what kinetic energy is, and understanding it scales linearly with mass and with the square of velocity, you really don’t understand how a hammer or an auto impact works. How a hammer or car impact works is an energy balance, you put energy in over a long distance, after all energy is force times distance. You bring it to rest in a short distance, this needs to balance the energy in and all else equal is the ratio distance that gives you g’s of force. Stop a hammer instantly an
Re: (Score:2)
BLUF: I'm not coming up with a different answer than you because I'm missing something, lacking knowledge. It's because I'm adding additional knowledge than you apparently possess, which changes the answer. It's like calculating how long something will take to fall - you're accounting gravity, but I'm adding air resistance in as well, but you're assuming that my coming up with a longer fall means that I'm somehow calculating gravity wrong.
You come so close, yet are so far. You're like a kindergartener t
Re: (Score:2)
BLUF: I'm not coming up with a different answer than you because I'm missing something, lacking knowledge. It's because I'm adding additional knowledge than you apparently possess, which changes the answer. It's like calculating how long something will take to fall - you're accounting gravity, but I'm adding air resistance in as well, but you're assuming that my coming up with a longer fall means that I'm somehow calculating gravity wrong. You come so close, yet are so far. You're like a kindergartener trying to explain math to a math professor. A college one. Who is currently rebuilding his house, so hammer use is... Frequent.
Lmafo. I passed my masters defense in mechanical engineering and my thesis revolved primarily around analysis of impact loads to mobile structures. Tell me more please, I’m entertained.
Perhaps, unlike you, I have practical and extensive experience with hammers in addition to the theoretical. And cars. I mean, I recently replaced the CV axles on my truck along with other suspension components and the brakes. What you seem to miss here is that the steel panels of the truck have their own elasticity. You hit them with the hammer, they do yield, but because they're not pushed to the yield point, they simply spring back. Remember when I said that those were some half assed hits with the sledge? In addition, said sledge hits weren't even on the frame! They hit the door. But hit it with 16X the force(roughly), and that is (probably) going to stop.
And I’ve mentioned how the ratio of cross sectional area differences necessitates an equivalent difference in force because local deformation stress needs to be area invariant otherwise your structure is going to be too rigid given the impact vector to protect the passengers. If it’s too tough to deform
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the only one with a Master's degree, you know? You must be like the one man my mother described. He passed his CPA exam, but couldn't balance a checkbook. Generally speaking, when posting online, I try to keep the jargon down so more people can understand.
And I’ve mentioned how the ratio of cross sectional area differences necessitates an equivalent difference in force because local deformation stress needs to be area invariant otherwise your structure is going to be too rigid given the impact vector to protect the passengers. If it’s too tough to deform in a small spot adding that up over the frame makes it too rigid in eli5 terms.
I've mentioned before that "too tough to deform in a small spot" does not add up to it being that tough over the whole frame. Besides, it isn't like it doesn't deform, it's just that compared to most cars, the spring deformation area is huge
Re: (Score:1)
Personally I’m wondering how a frame exterior that won’t crumple when you hit it with a sledgehammer will pass any safety testing. A rigid exoskeleton like design is quite strong, but also would decelerate passengers far faster than a frame designed to crumple and would not pass or at best do poorly in impact tests. My guess is it was abandoned completely along with who knows what other details people may have wanted.
All the other Teslas has done extremely well in safety tests so how about you leave it to the engineers instead of idle speculation?
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I’m wondering how a frame exterior that won’t crumple when you hit it with a sledgehammer will pass any safety testing. A rigid exoskeleton like design is quite strong, but also would decelerate passengers far faster than a frame designed to crumple and would not pass or at best do poorly in impact tests. My guess is it was abandoned completely along with who knows what other details people may have wanted.
All the other Teslas has done extremely well in safety tests so how about you leave it to the engineers instead of idle speculation?
That’s my point. The engineers will undo everything the toddler told his audience they would be getting. You quoted it, but did you read it?
Re: (Score:2)
Musk has put Tesla in a difficult position, because he claimed that you could hit the panels and the windows with a hammer and they would not break. You can bet people will test that, even though the demo failed.
The sheet metal construction of the car is going to be a problem for insurance too. Other manufacturers have already backed away from large sheets of metal because if they get damaged in an accident they cost a fortune to replace. Rivian made the same mistake there, with read end collisions often co
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I’m wondering how a frame exterior that won’t crumple when you hit it with a sledgehammer will pass any safety testing.
A sledge hammer creates a small high pressure point at impact and quite critically has fuck all inertia behind it compared to a car. You can hit any car with a sledge hammer all day, the crumple zones won't budge at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I’m wondering how a frame exterior that won’t crumple when you hit it with a sledgehammer will pass any safety testing.
A sledge hammer creates a small high pressure point at impact and quite critically has fuck all inertia behind it compared to a car. You can hit any car with a sledge hammer all day, the crumple zones won't budge at all.
Yes they will, if you hit them I’ve done this to fix cars, you’d have to be a bit slow or Ill informed to think otherwise. The sheet metal exterior acts as the crumple zone. A hammer works by storing kinetic energy applied as force over distance, you might not recognize the most basic definition of physical motion energy or it’s implications here. When it’s brought to rest given constant accelerations, it’s the ratio of distances that apply the force. If it stops instantly,
Re: (Score:1)
In the meantime, Rivian has lots of EV pickups already on the street, and Ford F-150 lightning is here.
Maybe consider the base price of each?
The Cybertruck is expected to have a base price of $35K, but let's call it $40K.
The Rivian starts at $73K.
The Ford F-150 Lighting starts at $62K.
Not everyone can afford a $60K+ pickup truck...
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, Rivian has lots of EV pickups already on the street, and Ford F-150 lightning is here.
Maybe consider the base price of each?
The Cybertruck is expected to have a base price of $35K, but let's call it $40K.
Not any more. You are simply repeating old marketing hype. Here we read [wired.com] that:
Addressing all of these manufacturing and engineering issues is likely to have substantially pushed up the price of the Cybertruck. Musk initially said the pickup’s price would start below $40,000. However, by 2021 those attractive price estimates had already been removed from Tesla’s website. Musk told shareholders last year that the vehicle’s specifications and pricing had changed since its introduction in 2019.
Now, in the $100 preorder agreement, Tesla merely states that “the Final Price Sheet will be provided to you as your delivery date nears.”
That "below $40K" price pitch - made when he did not even have a deliverable design - was made to get an order list built to show investors, it was never a serious promise on the actual price. For more than two years no price has been quoted and nobody will now what the real price tag is until they get that Final Price Sheet.
You need to take a step back and come to grips with Musk's modus operandi of making wild promises, most of
They Will Sell 50 As Novelties (Score:1, Troll)
The rest will be buried next to E.T. The Video Game out in the desert.
And 1.25 million as... (Score:2)
They Will Sell 50 As Novelties
And 1.25 million as workhorse vehicles.
Pre-ordered.
On their website.
Requires $100 down payment to keep your place in line.
Basically, free market research to let Tesla know that the model will be successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Those are refundable deposits.
When the first few thousand get the ridiculous 'Cybertruck' and find people laughing at how ridiculous it looks and overhear people saying what a poser the owner/driver must be, most of the rest of the fools will get their deposit back.
That thing's ridiculous - looks alone will kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
>>> That thing's ridiculous - looks alone will kill it.
Have you SEEN the latest Ram/F-150/Silverado? The manufacturers have gone completely loony in trying to make the most humongous, most "bad boy" looking, most intimidating, trucks on the planet. They're so far over the top that in 20 years people will be laughing at them like they laugh at the ridiculous "fin wars" of the 1950's/1960's. And why do they make them that way? Because truck buyers buy them. Heck, the Cybertruck looks almost plea
Re: (Score:2)
That thing's ridiculous - looks alone will kill it.
The first time one silently overtakes you then leaves you in the dust you'll be like, "I have got to get me one of those!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: And 1.25 million as... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I should have said "The first time a Tesla Cybertruck gaps you at a traffic light". Shrug.
Re: (Score:2)
Only someone extremely insecure and with an enormously fragile ego would care about someone overtaking them. The rest of us just keep on driving according to speed limits.
Says "Gaygirlie".
Haven't you noticed that the entire US truck design is centered around making 10-second pickup trucks these days?
Re: (Score:1)
How many of those refundable deposits are two or three years old?
The appearance of the Cybertruck hasn't really changed since it was first announced, I think those that put down deposits know what they are getting and are sticking with it - you can debate if they are buying it FOR the appearance or IN SPITE OF the appearance, but it isn't an unknown quantity.
I don't know about you, but I spend very, very little time sitting outside looking at my pickup, instead I spend a lot of time inside looking at the in
Re: (Score:2)
A $35K EV with 300 miles range, can seat four adults comfortably, and includes things like a bed cover - I think it will sell fine in my opinion.
The pitch for a "under $40K" (not "$35K") cybertruck was pulled over two years ago [wired.com] and no new price has been announced. Only then the Final Price Sheet is unveiled shortly before delivery begins will people find out what they really cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Requires $100 down payment to keep your place in line.
Considering Tesla's target demographic, that's probably pocket change if you've developed a case of reserver's remorse.
It's basically the cost of two days worth of "preferred" (basically, a slightly closer parking spot) at Disney World. It's also not even enough money to buy all 4 of the album cover variants of Taylor Swift's Midnights, to hang them on the wall as a clock. Yes, that's really a thing. [taylorswift.com]
$100 doesn't go as far as it used to.
Re: (Score:1)
About time, Elon (Score:2)
When it was announced there was a lot of pixels spilled about how revolutionary this design would be and it would make manufacturing cheaper, fewer steps, and in less floor space than any other vehicle. And with Tesla's much touted speed of innovation it would be any day.
Well last I saw a list I was about 650,000 on it. So this means I have another 2 years to save up to pay for it. Good thing I'm happy with my Model Y.
People will buy them for ideological reasons (Score:3)
I think this is the reason Elon Musk bought Twitter.
Americans increasingly make a political statement through the products they buy. After buying Twitter, Musk became an enemy of the left, and a hero among conservatives, allowing Tesla to shed its eco-warrior image. So all those conservative pickup drivers looking to avoid woke companies will put Cybertruck at the top of their list.
I'd say Musk has lost around $30B on the Twitter purchase (although it may recover because users are hanging around, and interest rates will fall eventually). If Tesla is making $20k per truck, that's $7.5B per year, and could easily go higher.
Re: (Score:2)
So all those conservative pickup drivers looking to avoid woke companies will put Cybertruck at the top of their list.
Well, they'll be disappointed, because here's your list of a few popular truck manufacturers, and Tesla, in order of "wokeness":
100: Tesla [hrc.org] and Toyota [hrc.org]
95: Stellantis Chrysler [hrc.org]
90: Ford [hrc.org] and Chevy [hrc.org]
Even ignoring "woke" corporate culture, you're not rollin' coal or revving up your engine at a red light in a Tesla. I doubt any of Musk's antics have really moved the needle on the demographics of the typical BEV customer. Unless, of course, Musk introduces a vehicle that burns gas.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So all those conservative pickup drivers looking to avoid woke companies will put Cybertruck at the top of their list.
You think? I live in a deeply red, small-town area of a red state, and I don't know too many pickup truck drivers who want less functionality. What you have to understand about the kinds of buyers whom you probably don't know is that their purchases are not driven (bad pun) by need, they're driven by the perception of possible need. This is why you see so many 3/4 ton diesel 4x4 trucks in smaller areas. Vehicles are so expensive, buyers want a truck that can do everything that they might need. If you're a t
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of pickup owners choose V6 engines (not the majority, but many) - not everyone has fantasies of hauling trailers, many just want a 4 passenger car that can haul larger home furnishings and carry 4 adults comfortably...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're overestimating how many people in the total market have the same considerations as your neighbors. Most people in rural areas buy trucks, but most people who buy trucks don't live in rural areas. I live in Houston and there's probably more trucks in the parking garage of the office I work at than you have in your whole county. Here, people buy the trucks largely for reasons of appearance.
Success of the vehicle will be dependent on how many people like the cyberpunk-truck vibe. I think it's re
Re: (Score:3)
I think this is the reason Elon Musk bought Twitter.
He didn't want to own it at all, so it's certainly not a deliberate strategy to pivot to the chud market.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a certain YouTube channel I watch that does car reviews. The subject of Tesla came up, and it was sad to watch the "conservative" presenter try to contort himself around the idea that electric vehicles are bad but Musk is good. "Electric vehicles are terrible, but you know that Musk guy, he somehow made it work. I'll hand it to him, he's a genius, but his cars are still terrible. But he did make them good."
At the price point I doubt it (Score:2)
This is why nobody's backing down on the LGBTQ+ stuff except bud lite (who's core demographic is the right wing). Target for example still has all their pride stuff. They took one guys stuff off the shelve and moved a bit of it to the back beca
Can they build a "not-car"? (Score:2, Troll)
Considering that first prototypes were notoriously bad at simple things like, braking while turning, consistent braking, leaking water (because that still happens in their cars...), I don't have much hope that it will be out this year at all.
Still, it does look super cool and would be great to drive. If it wasn't made by a Musk company. Elonmusk.today
I wouldn't buy one just because Musk is a prat that is likely to cause the end of space travel within 10 years, for another failed company that the math says w
Short interest (Score:2)
Considering that first prototypes were notoriously bad at simple things like, braking while turning, consistent braking, leaking water (because that still happens in their cars...), I don't have much hope that it will be out this year at all.
Still, it does look super cool and would be great to drive. If it wasn't made by a Musk company. Elonmusk.today
I wouldn't buy one just because Musk is a prat that is likely to cause the end of space travel within 10 years, for another failed company that the math says will never be profitable (Starlink, 42000 LEO satellites needing renewal every 5 years, that don't de-orbit as they should, setting off the cascading space-junk field..)
I just checked "tesla short interest" on nasdaq and... you're right! Lots of people are shorting Tesla right now, about 91,000 shares worth!
(NB: People frequently bad-mouth Tesla because they own short positions on the stock.)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally wouldn't short Tesla stock, as it, and it's founder (plus Stans), are too fickle and unable to see reality. In saying that, it means that even if the position IS well researched and SHOULD provide a good return, the unpredictability of the aforementioned makes such a position untenable.
(NB Stans often state unrelated "facts" to protect their own idealized view of one of the biggest frauds in the industry, or at least a CEO that has provably lied on too many occasions to ever be taken seriously)
This is some kind of joke? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If Ford was interested in forging new market segments (or reviving old ones) it would probably be best for them to do it. It would certainly plug a gap in their current lineup - particularly if it was sold at a reasonable price. Ford did have an El-Camino-like vehicle, I forget what it was called, back in the 60s, so they could claim "heritage" or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mavericks and crossover SUVs have zero resemblance to an El Camino. Most trucks are already "useless trucks" by virtue of the capabilities not being used. With a lower, smaller vehicle you reclaim the range and handling disadvantages. It would compare very favorably to a Rivian or an electric F-series in normal use cases.
People who want something "cool", not the modern equivalent of a mom-van (crossover SUV), and maybe care more about daily-driving specs than pulling a trailer... it sounds like an untapped