Talk:Tesla Cybertruck

Is this entry an advertisement?

This entry reads like it's not only an advertisement and puff piece for Tesla, but also seems like "original research" that lacks a neutral point of view and verifiability. Practically all the citations come from Tesla, Elon Musk, and Tesla blogs. These primary sources are just unreliable claims about something that doesn't even exist. There are very little reliable secondary sources that can help verify claims made in this entry. Amerikasend (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Still the case eight months later. The 'specifications' table in particular is laughably optimistic. Lisiate (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when it comes to Tesla in general and the Cybertruck in particular secondary sources are even more unreliable than primary ones.

We are going to have to wait until after the Cybertruck launches before any real secondary sources happen. UltimaRex (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The vehicle is in production, and being delivered now. If any editor is concerned about some particular aspect of the article being too much like an advert now, that particular bit ought to be highlighted & tagged for improvement. But the general issue identified by the OP in this Talk page section is over now: an old concern, the article is vastly different now. N2e (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Musk tweets and original research

Like the topic above alluded to, the article features a ridiculous amount of Musk tweets as citations for thinly-veiled original research. At the very least, we should employ news sources that mention his tweets in context. I cleaned up a little bit of the History section, but any assistance would be appreciated. QRep2020 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. Propose removing the following as it exclusively uses Elon's tweets as sources. Furthermore, such promotional details contribute next to nothing to understanding the development history of the Cybertruck:

Between the years 2012 and 2013, Elon Musk discussed the desire to build a truck with self-levelling suspension, making comparisons with a Ford F-250. In early 2014 Musk predicted 4–5 years before work could start on the product.

In mid-2016, Musk outlined the intent for a new kind of consumer pickup truck, and suggested using the same chassis for a van and a pickup truck. In late 2017, the size was estimated to be at least that of a Ford F-150, to be large enough to enable a "game-changing" feature. During the Tesla Semi and Tesla Roadster unveiling in November 2017, a picture of a "pickup truck that can carry a pickup truck" was displayed. Background ideas had been in preparation for nearly five years.

In late 2018, Musk anticipated a prototype to be ready to show in 2019.

QRep2020 (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Like my reply to the topic above, there is nothing but Elon Musk's remarks until the Cybertruck is in public hands. (And yes, I'm aware that this is on purpose.) If these are deleted, so be it but you cannot replace those remarks with things that are not true. UltimaRex (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Cory Steuben "unibody" remarks are a case in point. It's not true anymore than the hundreds of internet comments saying the same thing but because you're desperate for someone outside of Tesla to say something it's in the article. UltimaRex (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

What in blazes are you talking about? Munro inferred something about the pilot production and the inference was notable enough for Auto Evolution to publish about it. The line in article makes the provenance of the remark crystal clear. QRep2020 (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The issue is Cory Steuben's remarks on the unibody/exoskeleton saga. Also, he isn't at Munro anymore. UltimaRex (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it fair to put somewhere in the article that this thing strongly resembles the armored vehicle in the movie Aliens (1986)? NotPeterParker (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really. You would need a reliable reference that says the designers had that in mind when they designed it. Otherwise it's just coincidence.  Stepho  talk  09:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m also bothered by how many citations appear to be “stuff people said on a forum.” RickyCourtney (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This sort of source would not be considered a reliable source that could be verified for Wikipedia. Do you still see any of this RickyCourtney? If so, we should just delete all material sourced by such non-reliable sources right away. N2e (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

0-60 times

What does "2.6 sec. (with rollout subtracted)" mean? It isn't actually a legitimate 0-60 time? 203.7.126.16 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

A link has been provided now to this car racing esoteric term. See if that answers your question. N2e (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That makes it clear. Thanks JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Torque listed under "Cybertruck model specifications"

It's not very helpful to have the information of torque listed the way it is, many times higher than how most trucks on the markets list their numbers. It's most likely 1/10th the number when measured equally, not after gearing and wheels making it look inflated. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:155:CB7A:A24A:97ED (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It does highlight that ICE vehicles have almost always given power and torque figures at the flywheel rather than useful figures taken an the road wheels - therefore giving more impressive figures that do not include drivetrain losses.  Stepho  talk  22:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Listing torque from the crankshaft or the motor is the standard way to list torque, it's the standard on most Wikipedia articles and the most motoring magazines and other journalists. It's listed that way under other Wikipedia articles about EVs as well, such as the Tesla Model Y. I suggest we change the Cybertruck torque from numbers measured at the wheel to measured at motor instead, as that way it conforms to other articles. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:C52:5FBF:AE1E:ECC2 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Large amount of the article is sourced from 2019 info about the concept car

There is way too much info stated/claimed in the article that is sourced from 2019 information that was about the concept car unveiled in late 2019, or about speculative "plans" Tesla had for the future of this vehicle.

This is appropriate for prose that is stated explicitly to be about the 2019 plans, or the 2019 concept vehicle. This would mostly be in the History section now, and needs clear prose to contextualize it.

But for the many other places in the article, where in late 2023 a 2019 source is used to claim that x or y is verifiable about the Cybertruck, then this all needs fixed, in order to improve the article. N2e (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Opinions wanted.

• Should we just remove the prose that seems to talk about the Cybertruck today, in 2023, but is sourced with old 2019 or so speculative sources?
• Or would it be better to leave the prose in the article wikitext, but comment it out until an up-to-date source is provided?

It is clearly incorrect to represent the delivered vehicle with sources about speculative plans and a concept vehicle shown off in 2019. N2e (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

With no opinions from other editors on offer, I have gone through the text of the article and removed a bunch of 2019 citations that were supporting claims about the current 2023 production truck. If it is not obvious that the now-unsourced statements are supported by 2023/recent sources post release of the production truck, I've added a tag. In some cases, I modified the prose to clarify time context, so that it was clear the prose is saying something about the concept vehicle in 2019, or other 2019-vintage opinions and facts. Do feel free to check my work. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done with the above edits, and the addition of newer sources for some of the legacy statements by RickyCourtney & other editors today, this issue is pretty much in the past. N2e (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Why the German "PS" unit of power in conversion units?

Why is the article showing conversions of power, not merely in the traditional hp (horsepower) and kW (kilowatts), but also in PS?

PS is an abbreviation of the German term for metric horsepower, Pferdestärke, and I've never seen this used in other articles of the English Wikipedia. If we want to cover the world, there are more than a dozen other units of Power we might convert to: Module:Convert/documentation/conversion_data#Power So, why German?

I propose just kW and hp are sufficient. N2e (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:CARUNITS and WP:UNITS, we must always supply kW - usually as the first unit. If the article has strong ties to a location that uses another unit then that unit may also be provided and may come first - eg, hp for US/UK, PS for Europe/Asia. In this case, I would say that PS is not needed and should be removed.  Stepho  talk  00:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that PS should be kept because people mix up hp and PS, and as the result the conversion became inaccurate.

Most brochures in my country uses PS and only Toyota uses kW, so I'm very confused when anyone say PS is rarely used and not needed. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:CARUNITS says hp to kW is sufficient. That’s also the default output of the template. If you disagree with that, this isn’t the forum for that discussion. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Pedestrian Safety

The claim about the large flat front of the truck potentially causing more severe leg injuries smells kind of false to me. I don't know much about designing cars to crash safely, but my naive understanding of basic physics is that the large flat surface area should widely and evenly distribute impact force REDUCING the severity of injuries. Unless the vehicle is moving so outrageously fast that the impact just turns all the bones in your leg to powder. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the stainless steel is rigid enough that it will deflect the crash energy onto the pedestrian rather than deform from it? The rigid material might prevent the crash from doing work on the truck body (since the front of the truck is not really being displaced), and so the crash energy must go somewhere else. I'm no physics expert either, so I may be wrong about this though. In any case, the section just describes concerns raised by experts; I'm not aware of any actual scientific tests looking into this. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 12:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Also not an expert my 2c worth...

The broad front spreads the impact over a wider area than vehicles with pointy noses - this is good.

Low fronts on cars tend to break your legs and toss you over the bonnet/hood/roof - not an enjoyable day but modest chance of survival. High fronts smash children in the head (bad chance of survival). For adults, it hits in the upper body, pushing them backwards so that the back of their head hits the ground (low chance of survival) and then hits them with the sump/diff/wheels (just in case the chest and head injuries failed to kill you) and truck nuts (I knew they had a purpose - cause of death = tea-bagging). This is a trait shared with large pickups and SUVs.

In any collision the energy has to go somewhere. With a crumple zone the energy is spent deforming the car and leaving less energy to hurt passengers and pedestrians. No crumple zone means the car survives very well (hurrah!) but the energy goes to the passengers (sudden deceleration turns organs to jelly) and into the pedestrians (frog in a blender). Enjoy that picture.

But so far we only have a few dodgy videos commented on by armchair experts (you, me etc). We need to see the NCAP results to know what real experts say.  Stepho  talk  06:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I just think we should be careful how we present these claims that the vehicle is inherently dangerous until there has been time for studies and/or a statistically significant number of real-world incidents to prove or disprove the claims. Before then claims will trend toward sensationalism or attention seeking, and I think we should take care not to excessively amplify claims that may not be motivated by data or good intentions. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's tricky to know where to draw the line on WP:UNDUE. The overall size/weight of Cybertruck is pretty much same as others of the large light-duty trucks like F-150, Silverado, Dodge Ram, etc. Cybertruck is just a bit shorter in the front. Vehicles striking pedestrians is always harder on the pedestrians. Still, lots of people/pressure groups trying to make Musk (& sometimes, Tesla) be seen in a bad light.

I'd concur that we should have statistically significant info, or violation of some regulatory standard which applies in Cybertruck's US market, before it really warrants being featured in the article. Any pressure group can throw out concerns, and come up with hypothetical cases where any tech product is "unsafe" in some particular point of view. N2e (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5zDNaY1fvI at time 31:20 talks a bit about crush zones built into the vehicle. This is for when it hits heavier objects rather than pedestrians but it's better than no info.  Stepho  talk  01:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

How much article emphasis on the concept vehicle?

Now that Cybertruck is in production and being delivered, how much of article emphasis should be on the concept vehicle? What amount is undue in an automotive article on Wikipedia?

Currently: 5 of 9 photos are about the 2019 concept vehicle, more than 50%. Heck, more than 20% of photos in the article are just about one faux pas at the concept unveiling: involving breaking window glass. I know that this is what regular media wants/needs to attract eyeballs; but is this the right mix for an encyclopedia article on a groundbreaking truck with numerous groundbreaking changes (stainless steel/no paint body; 48 V electrical control; steer-by-wire, etc.) and many other interesting bits about what's up after the concept vehicle they made over a few months in a workshop four years ago? N2e (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Given it a year—we may have more CC-BY/CC-BY-SA photos to choose from: we have what we have thanks to the generosity of the kind photographers who have contributed their photos to the commons. (Those Franz before/after pictures are particularly unique, and even now, 20% of the news coverage to-date probably mentions that incident!) —Sladen (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Lots of self-published and primary sources on this article; been working to supplant some of them with independent secondary sources. Anyone else who is willing to assist with this endeavor would be much appreciated, thanks. Left guide (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ralf König: in response to why it's not a third party, the sources added in this edit appear to be from a company that manufactures and sells aftermarket parts for the truck, so it would be ideal to find WP:Independent sources instead, thanks. Left guide (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Turns out those sources are also user-generated according to another editor. Left guide (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: the "Range, battery, and charging" section: do we really need non-primary sources for specification information like charging speed? Even if this is published by a non-primary source, they're going to get the information from Tesla. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I think the bigger issue is that if secondary sources aren't talking about it, then it is probably WP:UNDUE to exist on Wikipedia, and should be removed for that reason. Left guide (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Would you say that about other specifications like those presented in the specifications table or the infobox? These are specifications that help benchmark the vehicle. I'd say they're entitled to as much due weight as other specifications. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, those are probably fine since it's useful for technical information as you say. It's more of a concern when there are multiple consecutive sentences in the body of the article cited to only primary sources. In any case, I'll keep looking for more independent secondary sources. Left guide (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Teslarati

Is teslarati.com considered an independent and reliable source for this article in accordance with the criteria set forth at WP:IS and WP:RS? In the current version, it's used in citations 25, 27, and 32. Left guide (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd call it a non-preferred source. They seem reliable for some information, especially positive news. But I question if they apply enough skepticism to Musk or Tesla, especially for topics that portray either in a negative light. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking through their list of stories, I see stories both praising and criticising Tesla. To me, this makes them independent of Tesla. The writing seems to be professional and not just a group of fanboys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Teslarati is an often good source, with good secondary source reporting on a number of topics, EVs being one of them. In general, it should be an acceptable source for this article, although as always, what other sources say, and comparison to multiple sources in writing this article is always good practice.

If a general case is to be argued against Teslarati being a reliable source, then the place to do that is WP:RSN. N2e (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

For those interested or concerned, there's actually an archived RSN discussion about the source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 412#Teslarati. Left guide (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

The recent cleanup of a lot of sources that were primary sources has been a good thing. Replacing primary sources with secondary sources is always an improvement to an article.

But there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that forbids the use of primary sources in all instances. (see WP:PRIMARY). Sometimes, a primary source might be all that is available to cite a particular relevant item.

Moreover, whereas Twitter etc. may often be self-published sources (WP:SELFPUBLISH), there is nothing preventing the article from having a citation to something in Twitter, especially if that something was stated by the CEO of the company involved. So, sure, replace with better sources when possible; but whether a particular statement made in the article prose is WP:UNDUE or irrelevant (and should perhaps be removed from the article) is an entirely separate consideration from whether the citation happens to be to a primary source, or to a Twitter announcement of the CEO who is a subject-matter expert on many topics re Tesla and the products it manufactures. N2e (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Tesla's website is fine for basic specifications, although using it to choose what contents to cover or flaunt what the company wants to highlight makes it undue. I have mixed feelings about the extensive citation of that one YouTube channel mostly for due weight reasons. Sandy Munro, Lars Moravy, Franz von Holzhausen, Drew Baglino, Pete Bannon, David Lau (December 11, 2023). Cybertruck DEEP DIVE with 5 Tesla Executives!. Austin, Texas: Munro Live is cited SIXTEEN times within the article. Graywalls (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with N2e that swapping primary sources with independent secondary ones is a large net positive for the article. As for the Munro video, it may have some educational and informational value, but it's also promotional and nowhere close to independent. For our purposes, it's essentially one subject matter expert interviewing five Tesla executives who can frame the presentation of information in a way that aligns with the company's viewpoint (so falls within WP:COISOURCE), and thus I generally agree with Graywalls that 16 citations to it is likely undue, and should be replaced with higher-quality citations as much as possible. The bigger systemic problem however, is that much of this article has been written and edited WP:BACKWARD, ideologically built around Musk's tweets and then decorated with other sources that conveniently support those views (to make the claims look superficially stronger on the surface) without due regard for their quality and independence, rather than properly starting the research with independent reliable high-quality sources to build the core of the article. Left guide (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that the Munro reference is likely to be biased in Tesla's favour. However, having spent a few years professionally designing ECU's, I was fascinated by the tech talk around the Etherloop bus that you rarely see anywhere else (I was nodding my head every time he mentioned debugging and CAN's lack of bandwidth in such cases - a constant battle for me). So, even when we get lots of other independent references, I'd like for the Munro reference to still be somewhere in the article. It's fine to use it as a reference, as long as we also have a better quality, independent, reference - or perhaps do it as an external link.  Stepho  talk  11:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the external link idea; like I said, I do believe the video has some educational and informational value for readers, and that value can certainly be retained, with the caveat that a dozen-plus citations for it in the article prose seems unlikely to be NPOV-compliant. That said, if you or anyone else is interested, the control/feedback section (and possibly the range extender section) could benefit from improved sourcing. Left guide (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We're mixing two things. Primary sources per se: of course, get secondary where possible. Interview with company execs by established expert (Munro) with a media output channel is not merely a primary source. So don't agree that the MunroLive sourced info should be wholesale removed as has begun happening. N2e (talk)

The major problem with the usage of the Munro video across the article's original version is that it seems to present aspects and details of the vehicle not cohesively covered by truly independent secondary sources (the "Etherloop" concept for example) which makes it a violation of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE. If the coverage of such details is first well-established by strong sources, and the Munro video then comes in to provide some small clarifications or specifications, then that would be appropriate. WP:INTERVIEW shows that this type of source is really murky waters with regards to primary vs. secondary, but the bigger question is that given there is so much unambiguously independent and reliable coverage available about this vehicle (so that we don't have to step into those murky waters), why are we not establishing sections and concepts described in the article around such sources in the first place? Left guide (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Something like this secondary coverage of the Munro video (from Business Insider) would be a much better way to present the video's information in this article rather than citing the video directly. Left guide (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Business Insider has been frequently questioned, and is not considered a great source by many. However, I'm not saying BI should not be used as a source in this article. But I would say it is not a particularly better source than an interview published by Munro & Associates, a rather top-end research & analysis outfit that has a history of analyzing automotive builds and manufacturing. We don't discriminate on sources just cause some use a video medium and some use a print medium. A Munro-published interview with Tesla engineering heads is not primary source. WP:INTERVIEW is an Essay, and neither Policy nor Guideline for Wikipedia. If you want to argue Munro isn't a good source, you ought to start a separate section on that topic, or start an RFC on Munro material or Munro Live as a source, not just add it on to this section on use of primary sources in general. N2e (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course I understand that the medium is largely irrelevant and we shouldn't discriminate on that factor alone (although I appreciate you trying to help). I actually brought that BI piece here as part of a good-faith search to try to establish some due weight for aspects covered in the video, because I'd like to keep what's preserve-able (but unfortunately I can't keep material that violates WP:NPOV, as that is a policy, which includes its sub-section WP:UNDUE). The more important matter is that the Munro video itself is certainly a WP:COISOURCE in this instance, whereas BI's coverage of the video doesn't appear to be, so that piece of BI coverage in particular is definitely more independent and secondary than the video. Just to be clear, I wasn't the one who first added the Munro video into this section, that's just how this discussion naturally evolved, so that's neither here nor there. In any case, I agree that discussion of the video should transfer to a new section (which it already has below). Left guide (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Significant figures

This sentence in the article "Compared to the 2019 unveiling of the concept Cybertruck, base prices were substantially more expensive by US$21,000–39,000, depending on the model, an increase of 52.9% to 82.1%." has an editor-added percentage calculation, not found in the source provided. Whether or not this is considered original research or not, it is excessive significant figures for an encyclopedia article. I had made a bold edit and changed it to just two sigfigs. User:Mliu92 changed it back to three sigfigs.

Under WP:BRD, let some other editor(s) weigh in on what is best in the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Under WP:AVRC I believe the percentage change is not original research. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk)< Mliu92 (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Mliu92 for self-fixing your revert forcing that editor-made calculation to 3 sig figs. It is now back to 2 sig figs, which is enough.

The OR discussion was incidental to the sig figs discussion; all the AVRC essay says is that some editors think that the sort of OR that calculating percentages is probably acceptable OR in many cases. I did not argue the OR angle as a reason for fixing the sigfigs issue. N2e (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Chassis info

There appears to be disagreement over the presence of chassis info at the beginning of the exterior section, what do others think, keep? Or remove?

• Keep, it's independently-sourced, reliably-sourced, relevant to the topic, and useful for readers. Left guide (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Cybertruck is, was, and always will be an exoskeleton design. Period. It's even backed up by the US patent office. Most talking heads haven't even seen a Cybertruck yet. Anyone calling it an unibody at this point is simply lying.

Either call it an exoskeleton or remove all mention of the chassis if reality bothers you that much. UltimaRex (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Anyone calling it an unibody at this point is simply lying."

Care to elaborate?

The MotorTrend source says: "The stainless steel exterior panels of the Cybertruck are not load-bearing" "The stainless steel panels are "hung" on this supporting chassis, just like body panels are hung on the unibody chassis of most consumer vehicles"

Can you provide something that could debunk this claim? The patent, as I said, provides absolutely no indication that it is being used.

Because I believe it is obvious that the body panels aren't structural like an exoskeleton would, but that's my personal opinion. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Tesla makes it clear as mud but here's my understanding.

A unibody is where the skin takes the stress normally involved in bending twisting. A unibody has to provide for doors (which are not load bearing), so the A/B/C pillars take the stress in those areas with boxed pressed sheet metal. And around the front/rear windows there is more strengthening with more boxing.

Older vehicles (and heavy duty or 4WD) used a ladder frame - handles front/rear bending forces well but sucks for twisting forces.

A space frame handles bending/twisting forces well but intrudes into places for passengers/engines/etc and is expensive.

The so-called exo-skeleton seems to take a bit from each. The exo-skeleton seems to be be those door/window strengthening areas used in a unibody but applied to the entire vehicle. The patents say that the panels are not load bearing (thus, definitely not a unibody) but the diagrams in the patent look just like a typical door area from almost any unibody car since the 1960s.

To my mind, the exo-skeleton is closest to a space frame but using boxed pressed sheet steel instead of welded steel tubing. Non-stress bearing steel panels then get attached to that frame.  Stepho  talk  04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I have added and modified information in accordance with another source I found. Please review, revise, and discuss as needed, thanks. Left guide (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Turns out that this Top Gear review (which is widely cited elsewhere in this article) calls it an exoskeleton, so I've updated the article to a "sources vary" situation to reflect this discrepancy. Also, if the second sentence of the exterior section has now become redundant or confusing, it can be removed or revised as needed. Left guide (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Good, I would certainly vote to keep. The exoskeleton design has been discussed in multiple reliable sources. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about patent

I've also been made aware that a patent is being used to support a conflicting claim, which I believe is this. Left guide (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep. That's the patent. Until someone tears down the production CT that's the only real source we have. UltimaRex (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:PATENTS offers guidance regarding the treatment of this type of source. Left guide (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Impossible to know whether they actually used the patent or not in the production vehicle. Also it is unclear how different it is than a normal unibody. I say keep things like the current version until there is a comprehensive teardown done by a third-party. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Munro as a source

I disagree with using any content by Sandy Munro as a source for this article. Munro has openly talked about how much money he made investing in Tesla stock. His inherent bias should draw immediate skepticism to whatever he produces concerning Tesla products and the company itself. QRep2020 (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't previously aware, that's even worse than I had originally thought; at this point, it seems best to simply purge the article of Munro-cited material, and talk consensus would need to be reached for adding back individual applications of it. Left guide (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I agree that Munro isn't an independent reference, being essentially 5 Tesla engineers doing most of the talking. But it's got too much useful information to discard. Shift it to a "Further reading" section.  Stepho  talk  06:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ping Stepho; whether particular aspects of a source can be used to establish notability of an article or technology; is a very different question than can a single particular media source article or video be used in an article to source particular technical statements; which is a very different question than whether a particular source might ever be used in this article. All three have been mentioned in the dialogue above in recent comments, conflating the issues. I think it important to clarify the question, and figure out editor consensus on the matter.

I've started an RfC to start the process on consensus on one of those issues, re this article. If, however, some editor(s) want to make a case that Munro & Associates is an unreliable source and use should be deprecated across all of Wikipedia, then the place to do that is the WP:RSN noticeboard. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on whether Munro & Associates media content can ever be used as a source in this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that it can be used. However, there are limitations to this consensus; it doesn't mean that any use is justified, and it doesn't speak on whether it should be used attributed or unattributed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Can information sourced to the media releases of Munro & Associates (e.g., Munro Live) ever be used as a verifiable source in the Cybertruck article? 20:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Generally no, mainly due to the serious COI issues raised above regarding Munro's financial relationship with Tesla; on its own, the usage of this source fails to satisfy WP:NPOV policy, particularly WP:DUE. Limited exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis for providing mundane clarifying details about topics and aspects buttressed with well-established coverage by clearly independent sources. Left guide (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, on the WP:V core policy page under the section titled "Sources that are usually not reliable" the very first sentence states: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Left guide (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT: This RfC is narrowly about Munro & Associates published analysis and whether it can ever be used as a source in this article. I also have seen the one editor above who said that the company CEO may own some Tesla stock; but haven't seen any support for that. However, if the owner does, it would clearly indicate we could not use anything from the owner to support topic notability or other things proscribed by Wikipedia policy. It would not follow that 100% of the analysis of the company could never be used as a source here in this article; as you began to assume when you deleted any mention of that source as if it did. So it may certainly be relevant to some particular positive statement, and would be an invalid source for that particular claim; but it would not be relevant to the technical description of what is under the hood and inside a vehicle from an analysis company that is in the business of evaluating exactly that. N2e (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The evidence is in this video starting around 58:30 I cannot begin to tell you how much money I have made from Tesla stock, then goes on to describe. And it is relevant to a technical description of what is under the hood, because if truly independent third-party sources haven't explored and discussed that aspect of the vehicle, then that material is simply WP:UNDUE, since there is no independent mainstream perspective to contextualize it against. At a bare minimum, sections or paragraphs cited exclusively to this and other problematic sources like WP:TESLARATI are clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. Left guide (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes — Munro & Associates (which as of 6 January, links to an article about the founder of the company, Sandy Munro, but also describes the company) is a well-known automotive industry analysis firm that "specialises in deconstructing automobiles and has analysed the construction of hundreds of vehicles." (quoted from the Wikipedia article, which I had not read before today). The information about the company, and Munro himself, is reliably sourced from several secondary sources there. One of the sources (Industry Week, 7 May 2019) says "[Munro] and his band of engineers, lean experts, cost analysts, statisticians and more have analyzed hundreds of ... vehicles since the late 1980s." Further, the company identified (and published) many deficiencies in the Tesla Model 3 vehicle it tore down for analysis at the time. So of course, Munro-produced media can be a valid source for Wikipedia in some cases, and for this article on Tesla Cybertruck, for information about the technical makeup of the vehicle. N2e (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, per Left guide's points. QRep2020 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Munro & Co are recognised experts in the field and their detailed coverage might well be helpful in documenting particular technical details. If they have some general opinions about the product then these might be attributed in the same way that we would report the opinions of other motoring journalists. I'm not seeing any evidence that they are worse in any way than general motoring journalism and my impression is that they are generally respected for being blunt, honest and knowledgeable in their criticisms, when they have them. Note that the article currently cites lots of general news sources such as USA Today, which are low quality, shows such as Top Gear and Jay Leno which are literally comedians, and it even cites Tesla itself. Munro is better than any other source I've noticed so far. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Note that the article currently cites lots of general news sources such as USA Today, which are low quality." Note that at WP:RSP#Sources, USA Today has been ruled by broad community consensus as generally reliable. So if you believe you have evidence that USA Today is "low quality", you will have to litigate that at WP:RSN to overturn the ruling. Left guide (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP#Sources is not a reliable source. In any case, its classification of USA Today is that it's "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise". But USA Today has no expertise; it's just a general newspaper written by journalists, not experts. The particular source that we're using here was written by Bailey Schulz who is a "general assignment money reporter" for USA Today. They don't seem to have any technical expertise and all their report does is churn PR information from Tesla. And the report is festooned in advertising. The idea that this is more reliable than an experienced industry consultant like Munro is absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - Even WP:GUNREL sources can be used with the correct WP:CONTEXT and attribution. I do think that the expertise of Munro warrants at the very least attributed inclusion. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Sort of - But it is to be used with care, and if a more independent source is available then that ought to replace them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - Munro is known for its extertise in comprehensive analysis and is worth mentioning, absent WP:UNDUE. Path2space (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good article status

Currently aiming to get this article up to GA status, still got lots of sourcing cleanup to do. Any further suggestions on improving this article towards GA status would be appreciated. Left guide (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Good articles are expected to be stable and this seems difficult for such a new product. As its production ramps up and there are increasing numbers on the street, we can expect a lot more coverage based on experience and incidents. As Tesla is likely to evolve the product design in the light of such experience, feedback and innovation, the product itself may well not be stable for some time, if ever.

A good approach may be to compare the article with the equivalent articles about other Tesla models. For example, Tesla Model X seems more substantial but is also graded as C-class, like this article.

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Surprising

Wow--this is a very viewed article. 115,000 in the past few days? That's more than a lot of FAs. 750h+ (talk) 10:52, 16 January 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)