Cybertruck Crash Test Predictions

[cheeseandcraigerz]

Hey all,

I'm new here and happy to be apart of the Cybertruck "future" owners club.

I've been thinking a lot about how the Cybertruck will do in crash tests. With Tesla having the safest vehicles on the road, I'm hopeful that the Cybertruck will be even safer. Just a few things come to mind with the Cybertruck specifically. With a thick steel exoskeleton, how will the car have any crumple zones?

Would love to hear anyones thoughts on this and their overall crash test prediction!

Best,
Craig

Advertisement

 

[DarinCT]

Welcome!

This was discussed recently and I'm hoping whomever had the link will repost it but in the meantime...

The 30X stainless steel is similar to the SpaceX SS so maybe it'll look like this...

#tongue-in-cheek

 

[Pilot4hire]

Hey all,

I'm new here and happy to be apart of the Cybertruck "future" owners club.

I've been thinking a lot about how the Cybertruck will do in crash tests. With Tesla having the safest vehicles on the road, I'm hopeful that the Cybertruck will be even safer. Just a few things come to mind with the Cybertruck specifically. With a thick steel exoskeleton, how will the car have any crumple zones?

Would love to hear anyones thoughts on this and their overall crash test prediction!

Best,
Craig

No crumples zones needed. The truck of the future “Cybertruck” will pulverize what ever hits it. I’m ready NOW for mine.

 

[Diehard]

Welcome!

This was discussed recently and I'm hoping whomever had the link will repost it but in the meantime...

The 30X stainless steel is similar to the SpaceX SS so maybe it'll look like this...

#tongue-in-cheek

Anyone knows how many crashes that was? I have to make sure my reservation number is higher than that

 

[cheeseandcraigerz]

No crumples zones needed. The truck of the future “Cybertruck” will pulverize what ever hits it. I’m ready NOW for mine.

I'm more worried about other cars I guess. lol

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

I fully expect it to destroy any test equipment. The results should looks something like this:

 

[Crissa]

It will crumple at the massive forces of a crash.

But yes, it will also be another vehicle which pushes the limit of their crash testing gear.

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/so-you-think-cybertruck-cant-crumple.2137/

https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/crumple-zones.1999/post-31897

-Crissa

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

We don’t need no stinkin crumple zones

 

[Crissa]

We don’t need no stinkin crumple zones

And wash the driver out with a hose, eh?

-Crissa

 

[Luke42]

And wash the driver out with a hose, eh?

Thankfully, they don't build 'em like they used to anymore!!!

For anyone who hasn't seen what decades of crash engineering progress looks like yet, here's a "solid" 1959 Chevy Bel Air in a offset head-on collision with a "disposable" 2009 Chevy Malibu:
The engineering-ethics discussion writes itself from here.

This is now a classic video, and most of all y'all have probably already seen it. But it still makes a salient and relevant point!

 

[cheeseandcraigerz]

Thankfully, they don't build 'em like they used to anymore!!!

For anyone who hasn't seen what decades of crash engineering looks like yet, here's a "solid" 1959 Chevy Bel Air in a offset head-on collision with a "disposable" 2009 Chevy Malibu:
The engineering-ethics discussion writes itself from here.

This is now a classic video, and most of all y'all have probably already seen it. But it still makes a salient and relevant point!

Wow awesome video! This shows a lot.

 

[cybrtrk_maybe]

I'm more worried about other cars I guess. lol

if you're worried about your car, then stay out of my lane. :-D

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Thankfully, they don't build 'em like they used to anymore!!!

For anyone who hasn't seen what decades of crash engineering looks like yet, here's a "solid" 1959 Chevy Bel Air in a offset head-on collision with a "disposable" 2009 Chevy Malibu:
The engineering-ethics discussion writes itself from here.

This is now a classic video, and most of all y'all have probably already seen it. But it still makes a salient and relevant point!

There is too much innuendo in these remarks for simple me. You say that a video makes a salient and relevant point? All I see is a crash from different angles and I heard no point voiced at all (nor would I expect one). So what is/are the salient and relevant point(s)? That seat belts and air bags save lives? That something made of a lot of heavy-gauge steel isn’t enough to protect someone? No arguments there. Some other relevant point? I thought the question was about crumple zones. I just did a few minutes of casual research on crumple zones and the intention is to lengthen the time it takes to change velocity as a result of a collision. Slow things down. Historically they use the front and rear compartments to achieve this while making the cab a protection zone with seat belts, air bags, and a stiff/strong cage. Given that the CT has no engine, and a long bed, it should probably provide pretty good ‘crumple zone’ protection. The cage, etc. will be similar to other cars. I saw one reference that spoke of protecting victims from the car if they hit it but I suspect that the best hope a victim has when hitting any vehicle at speed is to slide off the vehicle and hopefully not be hit be the next one. Please educate me where I do not understand.

 

[Luke42]

That something made of a lot of heavy-gauge steel isn’t enough to protect someone? No arguments there.

You'd be surprised by how many people argue with this point.

Even in this thread, people are talking about the Cybertruck demolishing anything it hits which would, of course, do significant injury to the occupants. People on this board haven't thought through the neck-snapping consequences of an unattenuated crash.

Back to the people who think heavier == safer. Many of them feel that a heavier car itself is more likely to survive the collision undamaged. That's the engineering-ethics discussion I mentioned: it is obvious that an expensive (and insured) piece of machinery should be sacrificial-by-design (via crumple zones) in order to prevent injury to the occupants. However, the "I wish they'd build 'em like they used to" crowd typically hasn't considered the ethics from the perspective of an automotive design engineer who has a say in how tens of thousands of car-crashes unfold.

There is a lot to unpack here, even if you personally accept that proper crash engineering is worthwhile. One could teach a whole university course on these kinds of engineering-ethics questions. Fortunately, this one is easy.

However, as someone who reads other car blogs/forums, this thread contained echoes of some once-popular fallacies that were truly destructive when they were widely believed. One of those fallacies is that heavier/stronger cars are safer in a collision -- which was demonstrably false in the video I shared. (The Malibu is strong around the passengers, and deliberately weaker elsewhere.)

The idea that crumple zones, seatbelts, and air bags save lives shouldn't be controversial. The data has been in for decades.

And, yet, there is a lot of automotive misinformation out there and there are a surprising number of people who are ready to fight to keep it that way. ??‍

 

[Crissa]

There is too much innuendo in these remarks for simple me.

1. You aren't the target audience.
2. Are you saying you cannot see the failure of the bel-air's cabin?
3. This is what crumple zones are for. They redirect force away from the cabin (and battery, in an EV).

-Crissa