Talk:Tesla Cybertruck

Customer-reported problems

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)

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)

True low voltage E/E architecture: 48V AND 12V

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)

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)

Agreed, someone with no knowledge whatsoever of electrical standards seems to be reverting facts that are already in the cited sources. 142.134.26.141 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Make any commentary about crashes?

Today, August 5, 2024 (or 5 August, 2024; which ever is the preferred choice) there have been news reports of a Tesla Cybertruck being involved in the first fatal crash ever. There were no reports of the vehicle being crash tested by a third-party. Sources are found here:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

There are some reports of crashes that could be considered notable, but if you want to discuss this further at WP:REFD, then please do so. Ṫḧïṡ ṁëṡṡäġë ḧäṡ ḅëëṅ ḅṛöüġḧẗ ẗö ÿöü ḅÿ ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 19:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Not many details. It left the road, crashed into a concrete culvert and caught on fire. Nothing about what caused the crash (car fault, alcohol, sleepiness, etc) or whether the accident would have been survivable in a different vehicle.  Stepho  talk  23:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Tesla halts orders for cheapest Cybertruck"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Tesla has stopped taking orders for the least expensive version of its Cybertruck, which is priced at $61,000, while making the $100,000 version available for immediate order and delivery as soon as this month

The fact comes from the following source:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stops-taking-orders-cheapest-002525641.html

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Cite web |title=Tesla stops taking orders for cheapest Cybertruck, offers $100,000 version now |url=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-stops-taking-orders-cheapest-002525641.html |website=Yahoo Finance |date=2024-08-10 |access-date=2024-08-10 |language=en-US |quote=Tesla has stopped taking orders for the least expensive version of its Cybertruck, which is priced at $61,000, while making the $100,000 version available for immediate order and delivery as soon as this month}} 

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

– SJ + 04:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2024 and 24 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swagsberyls (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zq2197 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Network / electrical system

Please don't revert changes regarding technology you have no general knowledge of. There is nothing controversial whatsoever about this description of the network, electrical system, connection and jacks. In fact it's literally all implied by the IEEE standards or present in the already-cited Cybertruck documentations. Not every single claim - like RJ45 jacks not being used for the automotive ethernet connection - needs to be individually sourced. As for splicing the 48VDC feeds, that's in the actual manual, which as a primary source isn't cited directly, but also fits as general knowledge. If there's any problem with this text discuss it here: 142.134.26.141 (talk) 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Mid-voltage electrical system

The Cybertruck uses a 48-volt electrical system; this 48 V DC is fed on the same wire as control (see network below) to electric-powered components including steering actuators, oil pumps at the drive units, window regulator motors, wiper motor, accessory power feed to the frunk (400W) and to the roof (400W), three domain controller ECUs, the touchscreen and a 48-volt lithium-ion battery.

Raw 48VDC power feeds - with 400W maximum draw each - are located on the roof and in the powered frunk. These require professional splicing to use. 142.134.26.141 (talk) 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Network

The Cybertruck 48VDC mid-voltage system runs a central, bi-directional gigabit Etherloop network, building on the Automotive Ethernet standard in an Etherloop style configuration (following IEEE 802.3ch and IEEE 802.3bu).

Multiple Power over Ethernet (PoE) switches are connected to the central gigabit ring and connect to CAN bus for local devices. It's a hybrid zonal architecture in that the switches are controlling local devices, regardless of functionality, but they're also translating to CAN protocol within the zonal areas. This allows Tesla to use legacy devices instead of having to convert everything to PoE. Each switch is connected to the ring in both directions, as opposed to star configurations with separate power and data, which requires twice the wiring but still has many single points of failure. Audio travels over the same network, eliminating the need for audio-specific wiring. For comparison, while the number of endpoints increased 50% over the Model 3, the amount of cross-vehicle wiring was reduced by two-thirds. 142.134.26.141 (talk) 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ethernet ports and jacks

Network connectors aren't typical RJ45 as used in other Power over Ethernet applications (building light, security cameras, wireless access points, VoIP, musical instruments, door locks, sensors, alarms etc) but higher durability industrial connectors suitable for extreme environments (industrial, marine, aerospace, military). Tesla has initated dialogue with Ford, GM, VW and other manufacturers to set a long term standard as more automotive devices meet PoE standards native. So the intention long term is to eradicate the CAN bus entirely and rely on multiple rings as PoE door locks and alarms do. 142.134.26.141 (talk) 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Replies

With so many levels and subsections, it's not clear where you expect us to reply, so I'll just reply down here.

RE: "Please don't revert changes regarding technology you have no general knowledge of." Hmm, let's see, I've worked on Distributed-queue dual-bus circa 1990 when it was still being developed (which underlies almost every large Telco's backbone network), bank EFTPOS comms systems most of the 1990s (including multi-drop LAN systems in shipping centres), bus ticketing machines (including ArcNet and Ethernet), car ECUs (including K-Line, LIN and OBD-II across CAN), forklift/truck CAN monitoring devices (including the joy of designing CAN bootloaders), DSRC networks for mining vehicles in the desert (including POE base stations). Plus I've completely rewired a few of my own cars (switching the alternator from the left side to right side during an engine swap was a real pain due to the heavy duty cables required). I'd really like to know what expert knowledge above this you are expecting.

The real reason I reverted you wasn't because I thought it was wrong. It was because none of it was supported by references. I even pointed out this necessity by listing WP:FACT and WP:RS for you in my revert comment. Without supporting references we have no way of knowing if you are right, or mistaken, or confused, or outright lying. Wikipedia lives and dies by its references.

Home/office connectors (eg RJ45) are known to be useless in the auto industry. Continuous vibration makes them fall out or snap. We typically use Deutsch connectors or similar.

Not sure if you know it but most new cars already implement multiple CAN rings. So I'm not sure what your last point about multiple ring POE devices means.  Stepho  talk  00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention it but I'm happy if you add your stuff back in as long as you also put in the references. The lack of references was my only real complaint.  Stepho  talk  23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)