DANGER: DO NOT TOW WITH A CYBERTRUCK? - (catastrophic failure test)
Posted by hi_im_bored13@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 99 comments
[removed]
Posted by hi_im_bored13@reddit | cars | View on Reddit | 99 comments
[removed]
Tw0Rails@reddit
You could also come and cry and whine that the 0-60 of the Cybertruck makes it a sports car, because wow look a metric.
You can be one of those people that uses 'hard' specific metrics to justy a soft definition like 'work truck' or 'sports car'.
Or you grow up and don't need to force a definition to prove a point or be a whire knight.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
And you can cry and whine that the cybertruck isn't quick somehow because a chiron is faster. It's not as quick as a chiron. Its still quite quick
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
His phrasing was backwards but the idea is correct.
He further explains later in the video how trailer weight will absolutely determine forces felt through the receiver.
Regardless of your feelings on the matter, myself, my truck and my 34’ conventional enclosed trailer will remain clear of any heavily loaded cybertrucks.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
and IMO his explanation doesn’t make much sense here, it was tested to sae standard and in his very video withstands 2x the required margin. there is no logical scenario where you are putting 10k+ lbs of tongue weight.
i think you are fair and right to stick with the f250, no need to fix what ain’t broken, tried and tested platform, but I’d like to see something like the r1t go through the same test
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Just poking around a bit.
https://popupbackpacker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/B3-2-SAE-J684.pdf
I couldn’t find any information on how Tesla classes their hitch receiver for the cybertruck, but the requirements are listed above for a class 4. I think class 5 is pretty much undefined. Class 4 specifies 1.3 N on vertical compression.
I know it’s an old document but these requirements got even stricter around 2008 iirc.
Regardless it sort of set off my bullshit alarm. I’m not the better type but if I was I’d put money on several other things happening with my truck, and any conventional truck really, before the receiver separates from the frame. There’s a reason this was never really a conversation before the cybertruck arrived on the market.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
In the document the static test load required would be 5,500lbs which the cybertruck passed well ahead of no? Not claiming this is an F-250 or anything, not claiming it's a good product either, plenty of issues but I think this isn't one of them. Not as overbuilt as dedicated HD trucks no doubt, but these are very different products with different customer & development priorities, and I think tesla did an acceptable job with this specific bit of engineering at least.
At the minimum, I think his conclusion that tesla needs to "do something" is objectively wrong
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
That’s for the trailer coupling. See table 2.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
But question/point is wouldn't the coupling go before anything on the truck in a real scenario pushing 11,000lbs on the hitch? (no idea what this realistic scenario might be if you load your trailer correctly and within spec, but hypothetically), genuine question.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
That’s why there’s safety chains on that exact same structure, if I had to guess. I’m sure there’s an intended point of failure engineered into this.
Like I said, not an expert. But it’s a shocking failure mode even in a WhistlinDiesel video, and that dudes built a huge channel abusing the hell out of pickup trucks. Everyone loves to write it off but dudes not doing CGI.
I’m just looking at the tables provided by the SAE that specify a class 4 ball and trailer coupling must withstand trailer weight X 1.3, and class 4s only rated up to 10k.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
I just think that the failure mode doesn't really matter here considering it won't fail under any normal circumstances. Same with the whistlindiesel video, it's not really a normal circumstance.
Unless you have significant user error and are blatantly ignoring tesla's ratings you won't have an issue with shock loads or rough roads, physically impossible to put 11,000lbs all on the tongue unless you go flying. At which point, you have bigger issues
As for if the aluminum structure will hold up after years of use, I don't know about that and its fair discussion/criticism, but I do think this video did a horrible job at illustrating his point.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
People routinely commit significant user errors and blatantly ignore ratings. We’ve all seen a truck going down the road with a trailer full of scrap and its nose in the air.
If it met the SAE standard I don’t think it would have failed the way it did. The 21 year old dodge that showed up with a bent receiver on a forklift did nothing but creak.
I don’t understand this blind spot here. And ultimately I don’t have to I guess so whatever.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
I don't think this is tesla's fault though? I don't see why tesla needs to "do something" as he mentioned in the video.
Why do you say so? It failed at well above what it was rated for. How it fails there is irrelevant because (at the moment) if as you are working within the rating and thus within what SAE tested around you won't encounter that failure mode
Would love to see it compared to the defender & R1T for that reason, cars folks pretty much mutually agree on as properly capable, how do similar unibody vehicles fare?
In the future once that aluminum wears? That is a more interesting conversation, would love to see it compared
Absolutely, but its a product built for a different demographic, its not as comfortable to ride as the cybertruck, compromises need to be made and for their customers that means aluminum unibody.
Thats not to say it isn't built to spec, because the video inadvertently proves it is, its just not as overbuilt as the dedicated hd trucks out there
Tw0Rails@reddit
This is your circular argument....
Because it fails on video at doing truck things. Therefore ridicule.
Ok, they barely met requirements for marketing. Doesn't change real world use case.
They don't have to do anything, but will maintain being source of ridicule. Back to begining of circle.
You want to defend them both from ridicule and from being cheap. Its one or the other.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Rediculed for failing at 9x tongue weight is absurd
If meeting the standard is an issue for so many people why don't we fix the standard?
Tw0Rails@reddit
They met one standard to use as marketing. Just like any car with a hitch can claim any tow rating.
You also are a layman trying to read a SAE book and doing it quite poorly.
I had a Subaru Baja. Had a hitch and the book said 2500 lbs.
If I tested to failure and it made it to 5000lb would I be impressed? No. They just put the safest number down.
Do I go puffing my chest up about the Baja being a real big boy tough man truck? No.
Engineer Explained has a great video on how a Ford F150 ad showing it tow a train rail car was a marketing gimmick.
Maybe instead of coming up with"bbbbbbuttt whyyyy" cries, go watch that video and see how one metric or measurement does not make a vehicle something it isn't.
You could also come and cry and whine that the 0-60 of the Cybertruck makes it a sports car, and if that isn't true then the 0-60 standard needs to be changed. Thats stupid statement, but its the one you are making. You know better. I know better. Stop jerking around.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
Are we ignoring table 2? You do understand that maximum tongue weight is based on safety and stability, not the truck breaking in half.
This is the only truck on the market demonstrated to do this. It’s not weird to assume that the thing made to hold the 8000 pound object to the 11000 pound object should not fail under any circumstances.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Is this not transverse thrust? thats Gross trailer weight, N (lb) x 1, and the hitch did 10,000lbs. The tool in the video is not on a ball.
Obviously, because this is the only unibody truck on the market demonstrated period. He hasn't made a video for the R1T or the Defender. As I've said multiple times before, I'd love to see him do the same to the competition. And the competition here is not a ram.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
No. Dude. There’s a diagram. Figure 1, below table 2. And transverse means across.
There’s no reason for a unibody to be held to lesser standard. If the Rivian or whatever else fails it should be called out too.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Yeah exactly, which is why I'd love to see those cars tested too.
But what I am saying is there is a reason for a unibody to be less overbuilt to that standard and the reason is customer priorities.
Corsair4@reddit
No. It isn't.
Vertical is up-down forces.
Longitudinal is forward-backward - driving in a straight line or reversing.
Transverse is pushing the hitch from the left or right side.
Figure 2 clearly delineates this.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Ah fair enough misread the diagrams, I concede, they should get that checked.
ggouge@reddit
Part of the problem is also the aluminum fatigue it may withstand 10k now but in 5 years maybe it won't withstand half that.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
I agree here, as I said above could argue that the failure mode here isn't ideal & that aluminum is not ideal for the use case.
But a. I don't get why everyone is saying the truck here is no good at doing real work when he proved the opposite and b. is there any data proving that the primary competition of this, the R1T will outperform it on the same test? (which also has unibody elements & uses a single-piece cast aluminum rear subframe).
As long as it is built to standard and built better than its competition is it really an issue? Sure it's no F250, but those buyers have entirely different priorities and thus the engineering team is spending their budgets elsewhere.
Tw0Rails@reddit
Your hand waving away grandiose clains while introducing another vague notion of 'real work'.
Is a gardener using a imported kei truck not real work?
What percent of the work this 'truck' does overlap eith any large suv?
Be honest and straight. The Cybertruck was advertised as a apocalypse ready heavy duty machine.
It isn't. All they did was barely meet towing standards instead of overbuilding. They did not design it from the ground up with heavy duty in mind.
They designed it as a flexmobile first. Therefore it deserves ridicule as a flexmobile.
It cannot even handle a fence:
https://www.instagram.com/getdriversed/reel/DCjVx4yp0Er/
Stop playing coy.
Stop asking 'bbbbut why'. You know exactly why.
Pretending you don't understand to drag out long responses isn't cool.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
I still don’t understand how this video proves any of that, yes it doesn’t hold up to 10x what it needs to be rated for & doesn’t compare to a 2500 …. okay?
Tw0Rails@reddit
The video showed exactly what I just said. On paper spec.
As everyone else has shown, its a flexmobile with panels being easily torn off.
It can do what any other not-truck suv can do - basic towing to a rating.
Congrats, you gained the ability to read a marketing sheet. Color us all wowed and impressed.
You keep flip flopping between 'it meets specs' and 'should be considered by people as a "real work" truck and taken VERY SERIOSLY".
When somone pokes at one claim, you fall back to the other.
Just grow up and stop playing coy.
ymjcmfvaeykwxscaai@reddit
Does this mean the ram should be meeting 16750 pounds of pressure without snapping the coupling, or bending the frame? Bending sounds safer than catastrophic failure while you're carrying at least.
kushangaza@reddit
And he did the worst possible test to show that. He didn't manage to show that the Cybertruck actually breaks sooner (relative to the tow weight of the vehicle, which was much higher for the truck). And his whole argument is that aluminum fails under repeated stress, yet he does a test of a single static load, not repeated stress. Of course the Cybertruck looks good in his test, because he doesn't actually test the thing he suspect it's bad at. Yet he still plays it as if the Cybertruck failed, when it exceeded his expectations by 2x and nearly exceeded the capabilities of his test setup
blainestang@reddit
Yeah, the Cybertruck passed this test. He should have pretended this test never happened instead of making himself look incredibly biased, but he had to try and salvage something out of breaking his truck.
You’re right, he should have done a repeated stress test. Put a more reasonable weight on it that might actually happen under rated use, say, 1,500lb, and then keep going from 1,500lb to 0lb and back until it fails. That would actually be really interesting, but harder and more expensive to accomplish. There’s also a good chance it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of loadings to cause a failure and he embarrasses himself even more. But I’d actually watch that video.
SerendipitouslySane@reddit
That's not difficult considering that the heaviest thing ever loaded on your average cybertruck is 196 cans of Monster.
ThinNeighborhood2276@reddit
It seems like the video demonstrates that the Cybertruck's hitch can handle significantly more than its rated tongue weight, which aligns with Tesla's engineering claims. The failure at 10,000 lbs, nearly 10x the rated tongue weight, suggests robustness rather than a flaw. The test might not reflect typical usage, and improper loading is a user error that could affect any vehicle.
AbXcape@reddit
this guy is insufferable
TrumpAndKamalaSucks@reddit
Found the Tesla fanboy 🤣🤢
AbXcape@reddit
tesla is irrelevant this guy is toxic as hell and made politics his entire identity on social media. similar to you
BillyLaBufanda3@reddit
curious why you say he's so toxic. Only watched his you tube for years and he hasn't really made anything political. Dude tears down phones and runs a wheelchair business lol
AbXcape@reddit
I only watched 2 or 3 videos of him years ago. As I wrote above, he is toxic on social media not specifically his youtube channel. Was a big turnoff for me to see how coco he is irl.
Corsair4@reddit
Dude spends his day breaking cellphones, and building wheelchairs. Toxic as hell, I agree.
TrumpAndKamalaSucks@reddit
How many videos and test do we need to accept the simple objective fact that this is an overpriced shit product?
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Yeah but my point/question here is doesn't this video/test prove the opposite? That the cybertruck is capable of handling what it's rated for, and objectively matches its competition (rivian r1t) in capability & price?
It may be shit for a multitude of reasons but didn't they prove that the capability isn't one?
Tw0Rails@reddit
Honda could advertise a civic that makes it to 120mph. Whup dee shit. Tests confirm it can!!!! Wow.
Must be super sporty, buy the sport trim.
TrumpAndKamalaSucks@reddit
What capability. Like the guy says in the video, it's rated at 11k pounds, and broke at 10,500 pounds. Also explains that there are scenarios where the weight could be transferred on the tow hitch. That's why it could be dangerous, not even considering the fatigue limit. You might also have missed the part where a $5k 20 years old truck did better?
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
You are confusing trailer rating with tongue weight, what he tested isn't rated for 11,000lbs, thats the towing capacity, it's rated for 1,100lbs tongue load, what he was testing here was tongue load. For margin of error, SAE requires it withstand 0.5x towing capacity with minimal issue, so 5,500lbs. 10,500lbs here is well above what is required.
His explanation/assumption is wrong, hitting a pothole or cresting on a hill will not transfer 100% of trailer weight to vertical tongue load, that is physically impossible. The only issues were if you blatantly ignored the tongue weight recommendation (user error) or if you crashed.
His explanation of fatigue limit was backwards
20 year old truck with different priorities from customers and for the engineers designing it, the F250 can do better for the same price obviously, it also rides and drives stiff as a board. His conclusion that tesla needs to "do something" is objectively false, and he proved it himself
TrumpAndKamalaSucks@reddit
Yah that's TLDR. You can argue with the youtuber guy if you want.
NoFrame99@reddit
It's rated at 1,100 lbs, and broke at more than 10x that. That is typed out above as well. A "tow rating" is not a "tongue rating."
In simpler language, sideways is not the same direction as down.
TrumpAndKamalaSucks@reddit
You can argue with the youtuber guy. I'm just repeating what he explained.
RedYourDead@reddit
If you’re towing 11k lbs you’re not putting 11k lbs of weight on the hitch. Tow capacity is not the same as tongue weight.
If anything, the cybertruck did ~9x the SAE standard.
TrumpAndKamalaSucks@reddit
You can argue with the youtuber guy, I don't really care.
lostboyz@reddit
If you are regularly towing, you were never going to buy a cybertruck because it's not good at doing that in any real metric. I'd put it in the same category as any non-truck as good enough for towing every once in a while.
Objectively no it's not ideal to use aluminum at all, let alone cast aluminum, and even some of the geometry looks less than ideal, but that's impossible to know by appearance alone.
The video itself is just jumping onto the hate train, which is well deserved I guess, but not worth the click.
RiftHunter4@reddit
I doubt many cybertruck owners thought this through. They saw "Big DeLorean Truck" and bought it. It is the same set of customers who buy Lamborghini's only for them to catch fire because they keep redlining at stop lights.
lostboyz@reddit
Those people are not 'regular towers'. When the truck is the cheapest part of the equation on your adventure, it just becomes an appliance. People with toy haulers, boats, track cars, etc. almost never have 'cool' trucks, at best they throw a livery on it.
Mojave_Idiot@reddit
I think they all exist, but there are also plenty of insane class A diesel pushers pulling stackers which to me is the most dream state tow rig imaginable. Sure they’re rolling 150k plus buckshots and funcos out of there but that whole rig is also 500k.
It’s gonna be scene dependent.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Is it not good in metrics and is the hate here deserved though? In top trim that’s 11k lbs of tow with 1,100lbs maximum tongue weight, and it proved that in the video
That matches the r1t, which many folks argue is more of a real truck with owners doing real truck things.
lostboyz@reddit
I think there's objective arguments to be made that it's bad at most things it was 'designed' to do (being a truck). Is it overall a bad vehicle to own as a statement-mobile? It seems to accomplish that just fine.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Yeah thats a very fair assessment, I hate tesla's advertising/image surrounding the truck, I think it is more a competitor to a range rover or than any real truck.
The whole "built for anything" mantra is stupid, it's built for malls first and foremost, nobody is bringing this to a worksite. But if you do need to tow once in a while, it seems to do that fine.
atony1400@reddit
It appears he saw what Whistlin Diesel did and just wanted to confirm it himself. He made many comparisons to the latter in the video even.
Shalashaska19@reddit
He’s pointing out the obvious. The aluminum frame is weak compared to traditional steel ladder frame trucks. The CT is a stupid example of dumb engineering.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
But thats my question, didn't he prove .... the opposite? am I missing something?
Shalashaska19@reddit
He then had an old dodge do the same test and it didn’t even bend the receiver. The back half of the CT literally broke off.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Yes, because it is a different product designed with different goals in mind, their customers don't prioritize comfort & daily usability like tesla's customers do, hence why I am curious how it would stack up to its direct competition, the R1T.
Yes, after putting 10x what it was rated for. That seems like a success to me and then some
Shalashaska19@reddit
So a truck that can’t do truck things? Makes sense. Just add it to the list of all the other things a CT can’t do.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
A truck can do truck things, for what it is rated for.
The ram is a class above, it is a 2500.
Shalashaska19@reddit
you're missing the point. it's a failure test. failure tests are designed to push past limits to guess what, determine the failure point.
the concern is simple. the aluminum frame has a much lower failure point vs a standard truck steel frame.
It only takes one catastrophic failure to possibly cause a loss of life. you can get as butt hurt as you'd like, doesn't change the facts.
TrumpAndKamalaSucks@reddit
Dude you're trying so hard 😂🤣
Corsair4@reddit
The back half of the video.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
He proved that the aluminum frame here is anything but weak or dumb engineering.
Corsair4@reddit
I mean, here is whistlindeisel's video, timestamped to when the cybertruck frame failed.
Now, you can certainly argue that the rest of the video is excessively abusive, but this test in particular is one of the mildest things he does, and mirrors how towing another vehicle goes sometimes.
What issues do you have with this test in particular? How does it establish the frame is strong?
If you prefer, you could watch this video. It has a picture from a cybertruck out in the wild, with the same problem.
So we have 3 different cybertrucks at least, that failed in the exact same way.
Or the report from this guy, who had rear frame damage and 34k in repairs after hitting a pothole.
You can look at the rest of the whistlindiesel video where he drags shit with a chain on the F150, and it's fine. Drops a concrete block on the hitch, and it's fine.
So I'm genuinely curious, by what metric you think any of that looks good for the cybertruck.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Because none of these are metrics. It is objectively rated for 1,100lbs tongue, 5,500lbs margin by SAE, and it does 2x that. Metrics are not on looks, metrics are numbers. It does not matter if something looks good or bad if it objectively performs as it is rated for.
Yes, that is putting over 6,000lbs of force on a hitch that is not designed for it. That is not a realistic test and far above what tesla rates it for
We have absolutely no idea how this trailer was loaded and if it was done to spec. If it was done so, based on the testing from the video above, it should have been absolutely fine.
This is a completely unrelated issue to the towing capability & capacity. Maybe its an issue, maybe not, it doesn't mean anything for the towing capability of the truck and its out of scope for the discussion at hand
And it is inarguably more comfortable than domestic trucks, its a different product for a different audience, the point of the truck is not the utmost capability, the comparison here is an R1T or a Defender, range rover, etc., unibody luxury products, not a ram or a f250
Yes, when pushed far above what it is officially rated for and far above the margin it is tested for even if you ignore that rating
Corsair4@reddit
Towing other stuck vehicles is not a realistic test?
What are you talking about?
How much does that F150 weigh? No more than 6000 pounds. Probably less, but lets give you some leeway.
Given that the F150 was not hovering in the air, we can also assume that it was not exceeding the tongue weight of the cybertruck in a stationary load. Agreed?
When did it fail? When the Tesla was pulling the truck, not in a static load.
YES, THAT'S THE POINT.
Not everyone loads everything to spec. The world would be a better place if people knew how to operate their machinery properly, but a lot of people don't. THAT is the real world.
Something tells me you didn't watch the video. Because, as diesel describes, the vehicle hit a pothole, and the hitch couldn't withstand the force. That happened at highway speeds.
When a truck and trailer become airborne and come back down, there is a vertical impulse on the trailer hitch. That's when it failed in the highway example.
That is EXACTLY when it failed in the diesel video.
If anything, all of that is proving that the Cybertruck cannot safely tow it's 11,000 pounds, because with a sharp impact or vertical impulse through the hitch, it's likely to fail.
And before you come back with some nonsense about being an unrealistic test, potholes exist. In fact, it's a pothole on the highway that caused the trailer incident.
Not that it matters for this conversation, but have you SEEN the inside of a high end Ram or F250?
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
This is not how you tow a vehicle. You take all the slack out of the line and you slowly apply more and more pressure. You do not go full speed and try to yank the other person out.
F=ma, there is a difference in force when you are slowly pulling something with slack (towing!) and when you yank. That was well above what the tesla legally needed to be rated for
How is it teslas fault if someone is not following the spec? This is entirely user error. I don't get what your point is here
Couldn't withstand the force of a trailer we have no idea on how it was set up
No, because again that is a static force with no acceleration. If you drop a 11,000lbs object down three feet, the force it hits the ground with is not the same as the force it is putting already sitting on the ground!
If that sharp impact or force, according to the video, exceeds 10,500lbs. 9X what it is supposed to do.
The unrealistic test here is the first tow test with whistlendiesel that you originally linked. The pothole is completely realistic, but we don't know how the trailer was setup and thus can't draw conclusions. Do you understand?
have you RIDEN in either of those? F250 throws you through the roof on every bump.
As far as we know, yes as long as you follow the rules & regulations.
Corsair4@reddit
Why are you still arguing with me when you already conceded that it needs to be looked at?
Corsair4@reddit
Why are you still arguing this?
We already established that you don't know the difference between transverse and vertical forces when that information was provided to you in a SAE spec sheet.
Your argument essentially boils down to "But it meets spec", and you have critical misunderstandings in what the spec actually is, and what it's tested against.
kushangaza@reddit
I agree with his sentiment that an aluminum frame is an issue for towing. But this video was terrible.
The video basically went: "If it breaks below 1100 that's a massive issue, if it breaks below 1100 and 1500 that's still an issue" ... "It is cracking at 6000, that's bad" ... "If it breaks below 10000, that's still bad" ... Breaks above 10000 ... "10000 pounds, that's iffy" ... Truck rated for twice the towing capacity doesn't break 10500 pounds "That's interesting, that shows something, that's data".
What kind of fever dream did I just watch? If you are convinced that the truck is bad at towing no matter what the test shows, why do the test? I would even agree that it's a bad test.
It just feels like he spent a lot of money on making a youtube video, but when it didn't go his way he could neither scrap the video nor change his predetermined opinion. An opinion that's probably right, but not supported by the video at all
Captain_Alaska@reddit
No, it doesn't. He says 11 thousand pounds and 15 thousand pounds. Which is 11000lb and 15000lb. The video literally shows the weight number in the bottom right of the screen (and a conversion in kilograms) when he says this, lmao.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Exactly. I am very curious if the aluminum construction will pose an issue in a few years come time. But the video was horrible at proving his point.
Drone30389@reddit
It's not about the material category, it's about the details. Aluminum is fine for towing if you do it right.
RS50@reddit
Aluminum doesn’t have a fatigue limit like steel does. Even at low loads it can fail given enough time. It’s not a good material for the hitch. But it’s not like this meme truck was meant for actual work.
Drone30389@reddit
They build giant airplanes out of aluminum and those get almost the entire hull pressurized and the wings and body flex a lot. Pistons and some connecting rods are aluminum and those get cycled thousands of times per minute. Ford F150s are aluminum and I haven't heard of them falling apart when towing. I don't even know if Cybertrucks are falling apart while towing either (although with the limited tongue weight and range they may just not be used much for towing)
Captain_Alaska@reddit
Metal fatigue effects all airframes and aircraft are regularly checked for signs of damage. It's not even slightly unknown to loose aircraft due to fatigue, whether from general stress or minor damage eventually causing catastrophic failure.
The deadliest single aircraft accident of all time is Japan Airlines Flight 123, the aircraft in question suffered a tail strike and was repaired and returned to service. The aircraft flew for another 7 years and 12318 successful flights before the rear bulkhead explosively depressurised and blew the tailfin off and severed all of the hydraulic systems.
These are not structural load bearing members though.
No OEM puts aluminium connecting rods into their car engines. These are something you will find in race engines where they are typically changed every season specifically because they don't last.
The F-150 has an aluminium body perched on a steel ladder frame. The hitch attaches to the steel frame.
LordofSpheres@reddit
And those pressure cycles are accounted for in a fatigue analysis, and when the airframe exceeds its fatigue limits it gets retired. In fact, it's such a standard practice that they do it for all airplanes and all components, not just the ones made of aluminum. 737s are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 flight cycles (called GAGs in industry - Ground, Air, Ground) or 50,000 flight hours.
Steel can avoid that because it has effectively infinite service life below a certain stress level. A well designed steel beam that doesn't rust and isn't overloaded will last effectively forever. An aluminum component won't. Especially if it's poorly designed. It's not wrong to be concerned about this kind of component being loaded heavily and cyclically being made out of aluminum.
ResEng68@reddit
And they inspect said airplanes at regular intervals for cracks and fatigue such that they may perform expensive repairs as needed.
Drone30389@reddit
How often do you inspect your pistons?
ResEng68@reddit
You're talking about compression cycles on a piston. Not sure that's a great analog for structural aluminum which is fighting bending moments.
RS50@reddit
F150s only have aluminum beds and bodies, not the frame. The bed and body of a truck doesn’t really carry any significant load, certainly not any safety critical loads like towing.
For planes all those parts have defined lives and need to be replaced before they fatigue. That’s why planes have such meticulous maintenance schedules. And once an airframe is old enough, it has to be scrapped.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Exactly, put an f150 lightning through this test and at worst it would bend, not break
Though I disagree here, I think the video proved the opposite, there is significant margin above what it is officially rated for.
srsbsnssss@reddit
you sure about that? honda built the first mass-produced Al unibody and they said now that they're approaching mid 30's, they can be near end of life, as the the metallurgy from the late 80s could be so, not sure about the most modern implementations
RS50@reddit
Passenger cars can be built from aluminum with low risk cuz you aren’t hauling or towing with them. My point is steel is way safer for a hitch where a failure could easily cause death.
srsbsnssss@reddit
aluminum unibodies can have tow ratings, ie new lr defender
RS50@reddit
I mean…so does the cybertruck right? It isn’t a good option for a work vehicle that will see a ton of use. No one is buying a Defender as a work truck so Land Rover doesn’t care.
srsbsnssss@reddit
i was responding to your comment that aluminum doesn't fatigue to a limit, they do
im not a materials engineer or even half decent at physics to explain if done right it's good enough for heavy duty towing, but the occasional towing light-to-medium duty i dont will pose much problem
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Nit but plenty of folks do drive their NSX's like this. Lots of daily driven examples in the 200k+, 300k+ range. They are a perfect example of an overbuilt aluminum chassis.
The designers themselves set a target for 20yrs life at the minimum. and most are older at this point.
retroPencil@reddit
If someone bought the CT to tow for their job. They would be laughed to death at the job site before their vehicle could take them out.
NoFrame99@reddit
The video is made to get clicks, which nothing seems to do like a cybertruck. By all accounts it's a well engineered vehicle. Unfortunately for a number of reasons the vehicle triggers many people, as evidenced by the posters in this thread.
RedYourDead@reddit
Gonna preface by saying that the only towing experience I have is a small uhaul trailer with my track car, probably 4000 lbs max.
Isn’t this video a bit over sensationalized? In real world applications, if a cybertrurck actually ever towed at its max capacity, what are the chances of it ever seeing over 10000 lbs of tongue weight? And even if it does, what are the odds of it experiencing it long enough to cause this much damage?
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Thats what I feel as well. Lots of folks getting heated in the comments but it seems to have done absolutely fine? Only realistic scenario where you'd face 10,000 lbs tongue is in a crash and there you have far bigger things to work about.
jawnnyboy@reddit
Well the good thing is that its already dumpster shaped so owners can just leave it in the alley when they blow up.
EICONTRACT@reddit
Yah I think it’ll still pass SAE
turnt-tit@reddit
There isn't a single vehicle whistling diesel couldn't destroy. His videos are purely for entertainment and hold no real credible value in terms of vehicle reviews.
hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)
Hence why I said could argue not could argue successfully. So many things tesla could do better but it tows as rated and tests well for safety
AutoModerator@reddit
It looks like you're posting about a currently popular topic. Your submission has been automatically removed and forwarded to moderators for review. If your post is about Tesla or Olympian, please see this thread for details. See r/TeslaMotors and r/RealTesla for indepth discussion. Want to prognosticate about car prices? Head on over here. YES, WE WILL REVIEW YOUR POST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. NO, YOU ARE NOT ON A BLACKLIST. You do not need to send us modmail immediately. Your call is very important to us and will be answered in the order it was received. No, seriously, we're all volunteers. We'll get to it as soon as possible. In the meantime, please check r/cars/new to see if there is a discussion already underway.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.