I’m An Ex-Tesla Suspension Engineer Here To Tell You: The Cybertruck’s Front Suspension Is Not ‘Terrible Engineering’

Cybertruck Spindle Fine Ts
ADVERTISEMENT

After many years of delays, Tesla is finally bringing its new Cybertruck into production. And while the styling is extremely polarizing (our own David Tracy likes it now that he’s seen it in person, but what I’ve seen driving here on the road makes me wonder if he needs to see an optometrist), there seems to be one small detail that has both Tesla fans and Tesla critics up in arms. It’s the front suspension.

Specifically, it’s the stud coming from the upper control arm through the top of the steering knuckle.

What this commenter is referring to is the location of the upper ball joint in the front suspension and the fact that it appears to be placed over top of the tire. While I personally haven’t seen a Cybertruck up close, I can assure everyone that this type of suspension design is extremely common and has been on production since the late ’70s when it was first introduced by Mercedes in the W123.

It’s called a “tall spindle double wishbone” or “tall spindle short/long arm (SLA).” The concept is the same as I described here on the Can-Am Maverick and is one of the most common front suspension designs on the planet — second only to the ubiquitous MacPherson Strut.

Mercedes uses it. BMW uses it. Ford, GM, VW, Jeep — they all use it. In fact, I can’t think of a single car and truck manufacturer that doesn’t have some form of an SLA in production. Even Tesla uses it on the Model S.

I think what is throwing people off is the fact that the upper arm is so visible in the Cybertruck. Most cars have a much smaller fender-to-tire gap, so the upper arm is only visible if you get up close. With the Cybertruck’s large fender opening, the suspension is very visible, and a shiny aluminum part really stands out.

What this design DOES do, however, is eliminate your ability to install larger tires. A larger tire would interfere with the stud of the ball joint so it just wouldn’t fit. Most trucks that use SLA’s (like the F-150, for example) solve this problem by placing the upper ball joint next to the tire. This keeps it out of the way of a larger diameter tire. It also makes the upper arm and ball joint more difficult to see which is why many people don’t realize these trucks have such a suspension design. You can see that here on my 2020 F150:

F150 Ball Joint

While the commenters have not been very specific about what aspect of the design constitutes “terrible engineering,” one problem that could arise is susceptibility to damage from rocks and dirt thrown up by the tire in an off-road situation, especially to the rubber boot retaining the ball joint grease. If this boot were to get damaged, the ball joint could fail prematurely. I’m not familiar with the off-road durability testing Tesla would have done; I suspect if this had been a problem, it would have been addressed. We’ll have to wait and see what customer experience tells us in the coming years, but a fairly simple shield could be made to prevent direct impingement of debris against the boot if this does turn out to be a problem.

[Ed Note: Jeep uses a similar setup on some of its off-road vehicles, like the Grand Cherokee. Check it out:

Notice how increasing tire size would definitely yield rubbing. -DT]

Here’s another comment from someone who thinks the Cybertruck suspension is somehow inferior:

This commenter states that the Cybertruck clearly just uses the Model Y suspension and how could that possibly be good enough for an off-road vehicle? Let’s take a look at the upper arm of the Model Y suspension:

Tesla Model Y Front Suspension Upper Arm Mounting
Screenshot: Munro And Associates

Notice how the upper arm bushings use a cross bolt to attach the arms to a small casting that also holds the upper spring mount. Now let’s look at the Cybertruck upper arm mounting:

Notice how the upper arm here is mounted to the vehicle in a completely different way. The bushings have what is commonly called a “dog bone” or “bar pin“ inner metal which is then bolted to a casting that is part of the body structure while the upper spring mount is separately attached to the body. These are clearly NOT the same design or same parts.

Lastly, remember earlier how I said this type of suspension design would not allow a larger diameter tire to be installed? The Model Y uses a P255/35R21 tire size which has a diameter of 712 mm while the Cybertruck is equipped with a P285/65R20 tire which has a diameter of 878 mm (about 35 inches). That’s a difference of over 6 inches! Clearly, the Cybertruck tire would not fit on a Model Y suspension so they simply cannot be the same. They use the same architecture, that is true, but they use completely different parts and execution. The Cybertruck suspension is much bigger and I’m sure much stronger than the Model Y.

All in all, the Cybertruck, while polarizing from a styling standpoint, shouldn’t be polarizing from an engineering standpoint. I can tell you from personal experience that Tesla engineering is second to none. Say what you will about the cars themselves, say what you will about Elon Musk, but Tesla engineering is exceptional. That’s why it remains the standard by which all other EVs are judged.

And the Cybertruck front suspension design most definitely does NOT represent “terrible engineering.”

About the Author

View All My Posts

155 thoughts on “I’m An Ex-Tesla Suspension Engineer Here To Tell You: The Cybertruck’s Front Suspension Is Not ‘Terrible Engineering’”

  3. So, as so many people were asking on Twitter, what happens if you cut that stud? Some people were concerned about cracking and ruining the heat treatment but I don’t think that would be a huge issue unless you went full caveman to get it off. If you’re super worried about heat remove the arm and bring it to a water jet. Anyway since that stud is hex shaped I’m guessing it’s there to give a mechanic something to hold to undo the nut above it or some other fasteners. Probably don’t want to cut that if that’s the case or you’ll need to do major surgery when the arm needs to come off.

    1. Cut it cool with a hacksaw if you’re worried about heat treat. As far as removal, if you’re anywhere in the rust belt, the only way that’s coming off is with a torch or cutoff wheel anyway, so I wouldn’t worry too much…

        1. If it’s anything like flexseal or undercoating, just be careful there’s zero corrosion or moisture underneath it. Otherwise, it just seals the rust in, and you’ll have structural paint before long.

    2. The stud is indeed there to allow a mechanic to hold the stud while removing the nut. It was also needed during production to install the nut. If you think you will ever need to service either the upper arm or the knuckle then you will need that stud to take the joint apart, even in non-rust belt states. The nut is likely to be a prevailing-torque type which means you will need some way to hold the stud to remove the nut even in a brand new, clean car.

  6. Ah but it is a crap design because it is installed on a crap design of a truck.

    Yes a tall spindle is a common design that is good, at this point most of the vehicles in my driveway have a tall spindle IFS, though they all have a much more substantial UCA.

  7. This is not a problem. What I am worried about is that there’s no toe or camber adjustment on the front. There’s images and videos all over of other Teslas and promotional Cybertrucks with wear patterns on the outside edge of the tire from where the front wheels toe in under braking and produce positive camber under hard acceleration. Their suspension design is flawed in that regard, but the upper control arm is the same as on most other 4WD capable trucks and SUVs from the late ’80s throughout the ’90s with the arm’s curve inverted.

    1. Toe adjustment will still exist at the tie rods. Caster and camber are not adjustable on a lot of modern cars because manufacturing tolerances are so precise that it cannot be out of spec.

      If they were adjustable on the cybertruck I would expect it to be at the LCA mounting points, which I have not seen a picture of. I am not familiar enough with Teslas to know if caster/camber are adjustable on their other cars. I know that on MLB VAG cars (their high-end ones are all based on this platform now) these are not adjustable up front and it is simply impossible for them to go out of spec without either breaking something or moving the subframe (this could happen due to loosening it and not marking where it was or an impact).

      1. “Caster and camber are not adjustable on a lot of modern cars because manufacturing tolerances are so precise that it cannot be out of spec.”

        And sometimes that spec sucks. My Mazda 5 had a non adjustable rear suspension which caused no end of grief as the aggressive camber of rear tires would cause them to wear out prematurely.

        https://community.cartalk.com/t/mazda-5-rear-camber-angle-problem/68825

        The fix was to replace the non adjustable upper arms with adjustable ones out of a Ford Focus. After quickly wearing out my first set of tires I did that, set the camber to zero degrees and its been fine ever since.

        1. Oof. I wonder how common this issue is. It seems like a huge amount of the FWD modern cars I see these days have noticable rear camber.

          Forgot to add-my cars also have additional wear on the outside of the tires but it has more to do with driving like an idiot.

      2. > Caster and camber are not adjustable on a lot of modern cars because manufacturing tolerances are so precise that it cannot be out of spec.

        Musk demanded sub-micron tolerances from his engineers, so forget about making any adjustments!

    2. I don’t own a single vehicle with camber or caster adjustment and it has yet to be an issue.

      Lots of cars have very not-optimal-looking camber, caster, or toe under certain situations like hard braking and I promise you it’s not an issue, this is an engineering tradeoff. For example my twin I beam Ford is basically a swing axle and gains a ton of positive camber when the suspension decompresses. Non issue

      1. I know ever since we moved to MacPherson struts for everything we stopped being able to adjust the camber, but plenty of double wishbone vehicles that use an SLA up front have them. I think BMW still has adjustable suspension on the 2, 4, and 6 series. On the Teslas you can adjust the camber, but that’s done via the air suspension ride leveling system, which is the same exact system that’s causing the weird wear patterns. Teslas can increase or decrease their ride height on the fly depending on what mode it’s in, but that means that the default ride height during comfort mode has lots of positive camber so that it can drop for performance and eco mode.

        A small bag air suspension’s fine for luxury SUVs like the Escalade and Navigator and is arguably a better solution given their intended use, but I’m not certain how it’s going to handle being in a truck that has frequent bed load changes and towing. … Wait, no what am I saying, this is a Tesla. The most it’ll see is an obnoxiously oversized e-bike in the back.

        1. Huh, can’t say I’m surprised that Tesla factory setups result in a less-than-ideal tire wear. See: their godawful headlight alignments.

          It sounds like it may have too much camber change engineered into it. Perhaps it was originally designed for steel suspension?

          Also bags seem like a pretty good solution for IRS in a truck, as it will keep the suspension and alignment at the proper height. Unsure what you are getting at here.

          1. I guess going for coils and adjustable shocks in the back like Chevrolet’s started doing. The truck’s already rocketed past the intended price point, I don’t think an extra two grand per unit’s gonna matter.

        2. The whole point of air suspension is that it handles frequent load changes and towing well. Load leveling and all that. That’s why semi trucks almost universally use air suspension, and why aftermarket air suspension is extremely popular on pickups used for towing. Actually all of the issues you’re talking about only apply to independent suspension and variable height air suspension works really really well in solid axle vehicles.

          Ironically I don’t own a car with MacPherson struts, I have SLA double wishbone that’s not adjustable, solid axles that aren’t adjustable, and twin I beams that are sorta like a solid axle and also not adjustable.

          1. Semi-trucks use a different suspension setup that’s more of a trailing arm. The airbags aren’t directly over the axle, they’re behind it, and the axle moves up and down by the spring beam rotating ahead of the axle. It allows a larger bag and allows the hubs to be moved further in so that dually wheels can actually fit. Often times there’s an additional shock or shocks that stabilize things so that the airbag only has to handle vertical loads. With the Teslas, Escalade, Expedition, Navigator, and such the bags are directly over the axle, replacing both springs and shocks, necessitating that they be smaller to fit and thus are less capable of taking a load.

            An Expedition can tow fine so long as you’re not near the weight limit, but I’ve seen so many with sagging asses because people were using them to carry heavy band equipment or tow loads near or at the weight limit and other stuff that just ruptured the bags after repeated loads. In passenger vehicles they’re meant for comfort, not duty. That’s why the passenger rated F-150 still uses leaf springs but you go up a few weight classes to the much larger industrial F-550 and you can get bags using that trailing arm design, for example.

                  1. Being eccentric is expensive. I hope to one day earn enough to throw a chunk of it away on semi-functional French machines; until then it’s JDM stuff for me.

                    1. I would be ALL over some hydro-pneumatic suspension if that sorta stuff existed over here.

      2. I don’t know if it’s the camber change but that Ford truck suspension gets squirrelly when you slow down hard on a slick surface. Not a big fan of the twin I/traction beam setup. It’s strong but it weighs as much as a transmission and brings some of the baggage of a solid axle.

        1. I like my 2wd twin I beam. Super strong, pretty good ride on pavement and exceptional ride on horrible rough roads(there’s a reason baja 1000 trucks use these). They are super duper heavy though.

          I’ve never had issues with squirrelly braking, mine stops as well as could be expected for a pickup.

          1. I’ve only had it in an Econoline so maybe the different weight distribution of the van changes things. I’ve never thought about it while around an F series of similar year but I wonder if the engine is in the same place relative to the front axle? In the van the I beam is directly under the engine, iirc. It’s been a while since I had that vehicle.

    3. You can adjust camber by putting shims behind the dogbones. Adding shims to the upper mounts reduces camber, lower mounts increases the camber.

      Camber on my Lotus was adjusted using shims.

      Edit to add: you can adjust castor as well by shimming just the front or rear mount of an arm. It’s all linked though, so it’ll be an iterative process to get the change you want.

  8. Weeellll…
    …it does look like that spindle/bolt thingy would rub and puncture the tire when the wheel moves up an inch or so.
    Isn’t that a bad thing?
    (even tho I know it’s just set back behind the tire and I want clicks because I like the attention)

    2. Ss it set back behind the tire? I’m not sure about that. On the Model 3 it’s above the tire. At least within the first tread block.

      The reason it won’t puncture stock tire is because that ball joint is connected to the knuckle and tire and they all move together as one.

  9. Hey man, if you can’t trust the engineering expertise of a guy who’s username and profile picture is that of a comic book character who can be summed up as “what if The Punisher was a complete moron”, then who can you trust?

  10. I just want to see one irl so I can leave a nose print on a rear glass straining to see exactly how cave-like that rear seat is.
    No, actually, I want to see one at an autocross

  11. I’ll reiterate what has been said in replies below. The upper control arm doesn’t see much load so it doesn’t have to be half as beefy as the lower arms do. All the upper arms really do is keep the spindle upright in the correct position. Same as pretty much all 1/2-ton trucks today.

  12. I can tell you from personal experience that Tesla engineering is second to none.

    I can’t think of a single car and truck manufacturer that doesn’t have some form of an SLA in production. Even Tesla uses it on the Model S.

    https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34465088/tesla-china-recall-model-s-model-x-suspensions/

    So we should feel good about Tesla suddenly getting SLA’s right when the upper control arm ball joints were literally detaching from the rest of the suspension on the Model S – a car which has fantastic second-to-none engineering? Surely you are not here to defend Tesla’s suspension engineering after the company response was “drivers are abusing their cars because potholes are user error”? This is a joke right

    1. Whenever you see a recall that targets a specific range of cars built during a specific timeframe, the culprit is almost universally a bad batch of parts, not because the engineering was poor. I can’t speak to this particular recall, but I would bet that was the reason here also.

      1. Tell that to my cousin who’s on his 4th set. He’s got some sort of sweetheart deal with Tesla that keeps them under warranty or he’d have lemon law’ed the car a long time ago.

        I’m a Tesla skeptic but not a hater, but the decision to defend their SLA’s is a somewhat curious one.

    2. This entire range of articles on this shit box, including this Mees article, are a curious decision by Autopian as a whole, and disappointing. Jumping the shark on this one.

      1. These guys have to make money and the CT is newsworthy and attracts comments like flies to shit. I am hate reading about it and it’s like poking a bruise ow so good ow mmmm pain

          1. Not a suspension engineer, but if the design is fine then I am happy with not ragging on it. And while David likes the look, the others are all making “vomit” faces.

      2. It’s a curious decision for a media outlet to cover one of the most, if not the most, influential and notable vehicles this century?

        Like it or not, it’s a big deal, and it will have very real effects on many parts on the car industry, good or bad.

          1. This century so far, meaning the last 23 years. I think it’s safe to say that the Cybertruck is one of the most, if not the most, influential vehicles since the year 2000.

            Definitely not the most influential since 1923, clarification needed.

            1. I would still argue the Model S beats it. Before the S we had a slew of tricked out lead acid golf carts, the mysterious EV1, and some Hybrids. Even though I hoped the trend would be towards smaller EVs, the Model S proved you could have luxury, speed and an EV. The Cybertruck is the most controversial, but I think every EV is chasing the success of the Model S, and by extension the 3 and Y

              1. You’re probably right, although we’ll have to see if the whole stainless triangles thing turns into a bigger phenomenon. Probably not, but I expect to see some styling influence.

          1. You think it’s “fawning” for an engineer to write an article pointing out that a suspension system is in fact not atypical?

            Wait until you see any Cold Start or taillight or jeep or camper related article. That’s fawning.

              1. I read the article again just for you, and I legitimately noticed no evidence of bias until he said “Tesla engineering is second to none” at the very end. That’s definitely bias, but if that’s it then this article is more objective than most journalism.

                The general premise of the article, that this suspension geometry is not unusual or bad, is obviously true and not affected by any bias.

                1. One overall point you make at the end is true. If by “this suspension geometry” you mean the design that this vehicle appears to use, sure. But it’s much more problematic.

                  Even the first paragraph here shows the concerns. “While I personally haven’t seen a Cybertruck up close…” which really negates the entire point here. It’s great that he’s a former Tesla suspension engineer, but that doesn’t mean as much here. Pick any random vehicle by any random manufacturer, and there will be another vehicle made by the same company that is apples to oranges. Even the very purpose of the Cybertruck is different from anything they’ve made before. So, it’s better than a tangential connection, but only just.

                  Now, we then have a lot of discussion about how the randos on teh interwebz say the suspension is trash for no good reason. Fair enough. I mean, I know the internet is a cornucopia of fruitful information. So, debunking easily debunked claims is fair game, and well done, GGWP, and all of that. But DT had sprinkled comments in there about other vehicles that use the same design style, so I don’t think that we needed a Tesla stan to do this post.

                  And stan the author is. You already commented on the truly embarrassing statement at the end: “I can tell you from personal experience that Tesla engineering is second to none.” At this point, he’s lost every ounce of credibility that he may have claimed to have. This is an objectively false comment in so many ways. Do we have to catalog them? I suspect not. But he doubles down: “…but Tesla engineering is exceptional.” Perhaps. But there is a lot of “Exceptional” engineering going on these days. Isn’t that a minimum bar to clear for car companies as well? I mean, one of the key things about Tesla was that the ideas may be exceptional, but the execution and engineering are lacking. Not to mention straight-up lies about roll out dates, range, features, etc.

                  And of course, he triples down at the very end: “That’s why it remains the standard by which all other EVs are judged.” No, that’s not true. As time is going by, the successes that Tesla has gathered are undeniable. A charging standard that all automakers are adopting? Huge. Making EVs a household name? I’ll go for that. But Tesla is and always has been a dog and pony show that has been more about making big promises to chase big dollars than it has been about delivering on those same promises. This very vehicle: promised price vs. actual price. I mean, even the bulletproof claim. The staged 911 drag race. The list goes on. Only someone unintelligent or otherwise in Elon’s pocket could make the absurd claims that this article made with a straight face.

                  This is the first article like this that I’ve seen on this site so far. Hoping it’s the last.

                  1. I’m no fan of shameless plugs, but I don’t believe that’s what we’re seeing here.

                    First, the author was instrumental in the design of the suspension on the Model S, and the Ford GT. Regardless of your opinions of these cars as a whole, both were significant departures from the manufacturing methodologies of the day, and required a lot of work to end up at the level of refinement expected out of a modern car.

                    Second, it should be noted that the author was merely responding to SLA suspensions, specifically those with the balljoint located directly above the tire, being somehow inferior. There are inherent advantages and drawbacks to every suspension design, but there is no single correct answer. Most of the problems that people cite with Teslas are production ones, not engineering. And before you get up in arms about them, remember that century old companies still have production issues to this day, and Tesla is a relative newcomer, using new methodologies. All of this to say, the author very effectively addressed the supposed issue with design, while not getting into the minutia of production challenges.

                    Finally, it rings more than a bit hollow to see a mini-novella of ad hominem attacks on the subject of engineering. If you do not like the man’s technical opinions, then give us a technical counter argument. Otherwise, we digress into the sort of longform trolling that has made so much of the greater discourse in the world of cars desperately insufferable.

        1. It’s great that you have the reading comprehension of Rust Buckets, above

          Autopian typically doesn’t do fawning puff pieces, but here we are. I didn’t think we needed the money that badly

  14. “A larger tire would interfere with the stud of the ball joint so it just wouldn’t fit.”

    Well it’s not like truck owners put bigger tires on their trucks. Wait, actually, I think that’s like the #1 thing they do. Probably #1 by a long shot. Even my dad, who is a 65 yo grandpa who drives under the speed limit has larger than stock wheel/tire on it.

    So much about truck culture has to do with customization and it always starts with bigger tires and/or wheels. Seems like an odd design choice here.

      1. I don’t see a lot of Grand Cherokees with larger tires. How do they deal with the issue?

        Also, it looks like the jeeps have more clearance to start with. It might be the camera angle but the Tesla looks to be within a quarter inch between the end of that stud and the tire.

    3. I mean there’s definitely a limit, or a much lower limit, but my Passat uses a sorta similar suspension, albeit with two upper CAs and balljoints.. and I have much larger than stock wheels and tires on it. The clearance isn’t what I’d call “enough” but it’s also never scrubbed at all, so, meh. It also appears to me that the ball joint on this mess might honestly be behind the plane of the rear of the tire. It’s really hard to tell in the pics, but it just looks like it might be.

      In other news, Tesla not engineering cars for the enthusiasts/ modders? shocking.

      2. I managed to go up 3 inches in tire diameter on stock wheels on my Touareg despite a similar design. I have a fraction of an inch of clearance but that’s more than the zero clearance between the tire and certain parts of the inner fender.

        OTOH my B7 a4 (similar design to a b5 passat) does not have extra room after going up ONE section width. So lesson is YMMV.

        On trucks it seems like people always add an insane amount of wheel spacing so I don’t see how this is an issue at all.
        EDIT: Ok, I see how it COULD be an issue but I don’t think it’s going to be the limiting factor.

        1. My Egg has 22″ O.Z. Canyons and not small tires. I haven’t honestly paid much attention to the upper CA clearance as I have no current plans to modify it, but iirc, can’t it take 33s stock, and the only limiting factor for 35s (at least on TDIs) is the intercoolers? Maybe it’s 31s and 33s? But I’m right at 30″ and there’s tons of clearance all around for sure, and there a are definitely people with 35s who aren’t spaced beyond the ball joints.. so. basically I’m not sure. But the Touareg suspension is definitely closer to the CT suspension than the B/C cars.

          Weird on the B7 though. It’s very similar (basically the same) to the B5 and B8 cars. I had BMW style 63s with fat ass tires (I honestly forgot the tire size) on the W8 for a while and I still had ~ an inch of clearance to the upper CAs (granted, 034 CAs), and my friend has a B8 (stock allroad) with tires up two widths from factory and there’s easy clearance there and otherwise…

          1. I think it’s 31s and 33s. Mine are 32s @ 275/65/r18 and oh boy it is on thin ice. I had to get rid of the intercooler bumps (they are still there on the non-intercooled fender liners) and it rubs the liner in a few other spots (in extreme situations). And in some of those spots I think the backing for the fender liner is structural. I believe eurowise suggests cutting the front of the rocker and welding in a new plate to go to 33s.

            For the B7 I dunno, I have a set of stock wheels with 245/45/17 (stock is 235/245/17) and my pinky finger is an interference fit. I would definitely not be able to run tire chains.

            My rallyx wheels are also stock 17s but with I think 225/50 and it’s close as well.

            My B8 (s4, woooo) has an absolute crapload of space on stock size tires; I think it shares the knuckle with Q5s. It has a cutout in the top of the fender that I believe is to clear the knuckle at full bump.

    4. I don’t see most Cybertruck buyers being interested in custom wheels. Swapping stock wheels for custom/larger/heavier wheels is going to reduce range considerably. These trucks will be primarily sold to Tesla fans who are aware that custom wheels will substantially reduce range.

      Now that I think about it, I don’t recall seeing many Teslas with custom wheels. I presume reduced range has something to do with this.

      1. IDK, this truck is already F350 size that uses unnecessarily heavy stainless instead of aluminum. I don’t think range is a concern.

        But good point that their clientele might not be into truck culture. Their current models don’t surprise me. I see far more trucks with custom wheels and/or tires then sedans and SUVs in general.

        1. Cybertruck’s wheels do look very heavy. Although, from what I have read, the aerodynamic properties of the wheels matter as much as the weight of the wheel and tread pattern/compound. I could see a swap to heavier non-aerodynamic wheels with off road tires decreasing range by 30% or more. I presume aftermarket wheel producers will eventually sell EV-friendly wheel and tire combinations, though.

          It is interesting how frequently trucks have custom wheels relative to other vehicle types. Both of my trucks have aftermarket wheels, although I have left my other vehicles stock.

    5. Not sure how much extra tire is enough, but it looks like some of that stud could be cut to gain a little more in addition to the existing clearance (minus whatever safety factor would be recommended).

  15. Cybertruck news: It’ll have an option for a full size spare, but said storage for the full size spare is just laying in the bed with a couple straps and a cover securing it.

    Pretty lazy IMHO.

            1. Interesting, but you can’t tow with a bolt euv. I agree that a lower price would be ideal, but I’m much more intrigued with what can be done at that power interface. Bigger battery? ICE range extender? Leased modular swapping for trips?

      1. Depends. Maybe it’ll only go in the little bed cubby and maybe another one would go in the frunk. Less non bed storage but you’d still have the bed and the cab.

        *edit: They made it take up a decent chunk of the bed, just saw it on Jalopnik, what a waste.

  16. I’m actually shocked people haven’t the foggiest about this type of suspension system, given the rise of crossovers and how they’re so visible on, like, everything. Not the normies, but people trying to call it out as bad, you’d assume they might have a morsel of a clue.. but nah.

    Least concerning thing about this truck.

  18. I’m not concerned about this suspension at all, the rest of the truck yes, but not this.

    The stamped upper control arm is fine as well because there isn’t a huge amount of load on it. They also probably filled the stamped upper control arm with plastic to help with NVH transmitting to the cabin.

    The lower control arm is taking the vast majority (or all) of the load, and it’s likely the shock/strut/spring assembly is taking most of the load on rebound, not the upper control arm.

    1. You are correct. Upper control arms in these tall spindle suspensions are basically just along for the ride. They keep the knuckle upright but that’s about all.

    2. Open channel sections with the ball joints/bushing centers lined up and a straight push-pull load, will take an enormous amount of force. I’d have no issues w that control arm. At least.

      1. And more often then not, when people say “upper control arm failure” it’s really the ball joint failed in the upper arm. Not usually the upper arm, itself, failing.

        A high mileage car that’s seen a lot of winters in the rust-belt, without proper maintenance, ball joints can pop out. Like on a Jeep Liberty.

  19. What strikes me as questionable engineering is how are those 3mm (is that accurate?)thick SS panels attached? and does compression of the crumple zones result in protruding knife edges?

    1. While I see your concern on the crash safety mark, I don’t see how the deformation of the panels would be much different from a standard steel bodied car accident, especially given the pseudo-random nature of crashes in that certain things like specific deformations and fractures of individual panels cannot possibly be predicted.

        1. This issue screamed at me from the get go. I don’t see how it could pass crash testing, unless they only look at concrete barrier testing and neglect vehicle on vehicle

        2. Oh wow I missed that part, that could definitely be a contributing factor. That said, flat sheet metal, even 3mm Stainless isn’t nearly as robust as you would think when facing an accident with that heavy a vehicle. while it absolutely would be more of a concern for the edges being hazards in a crash, I don’t believe anything of that sort is considered by NHTSA or the IIHS for ratings.

          1. It’s a Death Mobile with 45 degree beveled daggers to multiply stiffness front and rear, and they neglected the wedding cake disguise. Would not be surprised if it slices through side intrusion reinforcements in a T-bone accident.
            “Think about it, you’re smart, and I’m right” Charlie Munger
            He had some beauts.

  20. It isn’t the stud sticking down that bothers me, it is the very flimsy section of the stamped steel upper control arm around where the ball joint is pressed in. I can’t imagine that is stiff at all, and that the upper ball joint would twist quite a bit, especially under braking torques. Would there be any reason to intentionally add flex in that area? I can’t think why you’d want to…

    1. It should be pointed out that the upper control arm is not the hold the car up arm it’s the control arm. All it has to do is keep the ball joint the same distance from the bushings.

    2. The thickness of the arm can be deceiving. Since the arm is so far away from the wheel center, it doesn’t carry all that much load. The lower arm is the one doing the work here.

      2. It is true that the torque arm is long, but it is not a whole lot longer than the wheel radius, so the forces on the ball joint will be in the ballpark of tractive effort – so to do some lazy head-math, let’s call it 0.7g braking, front tires doing 70% of the deceleration, Cybertruck weighs something like 7500 lbs… I’d still expect something like 1500 lbs of force acting pushing that ball joint forward under heavy braking. Am I way off the mark here?

        1. You’re not far off but those forces are no problem for an arm like that to handle. The forces that break suspension parts are not braking forces but pothole strikes and curb hits and those will be predominantly handled by the lower arms.

      1. I own and work on several. The traditional double wishbone setups have beefier stamped steel arms, with stiffening lips all the way around the perimeter of the control arm. The cars with tall spindle / short-long-arm suspensions all have cast upper control arms.

  22. I agree with the premise here, but MAN those control arms do look T H I N for the kind of weight/tire size/horsepower it has to control. I honestly like the Cybertruck, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in that upper control arm. The good news though, is that’s an easy and cheap fix for the aftermarket.

        1. A failure during testing doesn’t bother me at all. That’s why we test. If the company doesn’t react to the failure however, then it’s time to worry. If you don’t break parts in testing you don’t know how good you are. The part could be WAY overdesigned.

          1. When would you expect the design of something like a control arm to be finalized relative to full production/release date? I have no idea how things move in the auto industry.

              1. Cool, thanks. To be fair to the previous commenter all of the posts about that seem to be from about 1 month ago.

                For all we know they were jumping it or something, though.

                Interestingly I had the last year of a generation car and it had steel LCAs. I now have a first year of the same model and it has aluminum LCAs. So definitely see how it could happen in something more mass-market than the GT.

        2. That whole thread is hilarious. There are literal pages of people doubting that it’s bent. There’s a rant on the second to last page about how Tesla has the best engineering in the world and the inferior engineering of other automakers only works out because they have building cars for such a long time and know what doesn’t work.

          Sure, a Ford, GMC or Ram truck is going to have control arms that probably won’t be damaged in normal use either, because they rarely change their designs more than incrementally and their designs are proven by millions of users. A Tesla is going to have control arms that probably won’t be damaged in normal use because they are well engineered and validated with destructive testing in the real worlld, and in the lab.

          Apparently Ford and GM don’t actually do any engineering, they just build something and hope it works and then never change it.

          That guy has over 3 thousand posts on a forum for a truck that isn’t even for sale yet… lol

            1. ???

              I was commenting on Tesla bro culture. I am aware that Ford has been dealing with quality issues but they don’t have an army of thousands of shills denying that there could possibly even be an issue.

  24. Not that I’m doubting Mr. Mees, but if I were inclined to believe Tesla engineering is bad (I’m not), why would anyone think that the assurances of a (former) Tesla engineer would convince me otherwise?

      1. I’m not doubting your expertise, explanation, or objectivity at all, I’m doubting the willingness of folks with negative, subjective opinions about Tesla to accept your observations at face value. Their loss, of course, but when has that ever stopped people from holding insupportable opinions?

      1. My point is not the Mr. Mees would be inclined to defend Tesla just because he worked there, but that Tesla doubters would be less objective about accepting his objectivity because of said affiliation.

        1. If someone could be labelled as a “Tesla doubter” then I would bet that they’re gonna doubt Tesla no matter what.

          There’s always an edge case. You can usually safely ignore them.

Leave a Reply