Stainless steel has been around longer than cars. I'd say it's fairly safe to assume that some R&D department has done exactly that. Their criteria was probably slightly different than Tesla's, but reduced costs (pennies matter when building things at scale) and increased safety (fewer fines, recalls, etc) are going to be the same.
>The manufacturing process and design was entirely different though.
I used to work in automotive assembly, specifically in body panel stamping as a controls engineer (ie programming the robots). The big presses were set to accept both aluminum and steel. For example, the robots could use magnets for the steel or suction for the aluminum to move the parts, but the basic manufacturing used the same assembly lines. It was common to run both in the same shift.
Frankly, I have doubts. Being entirely different from the rest of the players in this multi-billion dollar industry is a pretty high bar to cross. Especially when some of them have been working in this industry (and had access to the same materials) for over a century.
Yet Tesla has tried different things and now we see the larger auto industry singing a new tune. The most visible example of this is the GigaCast. The Old Auto companies never thought this was a viable path until Tesla showed how superior it actually is.
Sandy Munro is a leading expert in the auto industry, tears down all the vehicles and consults with all the major manufactures. He has many great videos on the trends. One thing he consistently points out is how adverse "old auto" is to new ideas or change of any kind, that they don't know how to innovate
We have learned a lot since they were common. Does our increased understanding over several decades factor in?
How does this logic hold up for another application, like the distributedness of the internet? It started out very distributed, but the last ~20 years we have seen a significant centralization. Yet we now see people trying really hard to re-decentralize major services. Should they not try based on your rationale, analogized?
We are not talking about any of that other stuff. It's irrelevant. We are talking about the Cybertruck, which Tesla has put into production and taken orders for. It is not an R&D prototype. So this is something very concrete.
Do you or Tesla have any data or studies or announcements that point to some unknown advancement with one of the oldest industrial materials in one of the oldest industries? This isn't some hypothetical discussion. You should have something to point to.
The fact of the matter is that there isn't a known advancement to point to. This is a production vehicle that goes against several well-known, established for decades design principles in car design. It will not absorb energy in a crash like every other modern car with crumple zones. It will deliver energy both to the crash target and to the inhabitants.
If Tesla had made some magic advancement, do you not think they would share it?
You keep implying towards some ethereal advancement and arguing with people based upon known, existing facts. Until there's something different, you're just speculating without basis and on a product made by a company well-known and infamous for lying and overhyping product features and advancements.
I'm not implying some ethereal advancement, rather that the commenters here are stuck in their opinions and ideas. People just want to hate on it, so it goes...
You keep implying it is impossible to build a crumple zone with a steel body, I just don't buy into the impossibility. Either way, despite orders and production, the vehicle will only be allowed on the roads of it meets safety standards. So either they will make it work or have to change things.
I'm sure you, as an expert, shall point out how I'm wrong yet again
