You must log in or register to comment.

Messier_82 t1_j1rqfaq wrote

How is this news? It’s just another piece of production equipment, being a robot doesn’t make it very special or indicative of Cybertruck production progress.


JKJ420 t1_j1to7gc wrote

It's still better than most of the other Tesla posts, that really have no connection to technology.


thiskidlol t1_j1uoooo wrote

This isn't a news site, it's just some blog


Jyith t1_j1uwitp wrote

It's not even a blog, really, it's just a site to regurgitate Elon Musk's propaganda, but made to look like a legitimate news site.


ScootysDad t1_j1rao0o wrote

Better get that payment upfront and in cash. I'm just saying.


The National Business News




ResponsibleAd2541 t1_j1sgbij wrote

They have good cash on hand, $21 billion as of the previous quarter.


ScootysDad t1_j1txx8c wrote

And? It's working capital and that can quickly evaporate. Apple's current cash and cash equivalence is +$200B.


ResponsibleAd2541 t1_j1uf3sn wrote

My point here is that they can pay for equipment, they are not reliant on selling stock to raise funds for equipment.


lordkiwi t1_j1sogas wrote

what makes you say that?


ScootysDad t1_j1txedt wrote

Elon is still the CEO of Tesla and Twitter. He's not paying rent for Twitter office space in Europe and rumor is that he's not paying severance pay for laid-off employees either....not a leap.


lordkiwi t1_j1vbvxp wrote

Elon is the CEO and owner of Twitter. When the Twitter office spaces are not being paid for its because Elon is not coming out of his own pockets to pay those bills.

Elon is the CEO but not the owner of Tesla. He is is a very large stake holder. Any bill Tesla pays or does not pay is part of Tesla's finances not Elons.

Tesla currently has 2 billion in debt down from 5.4 billion in 2021 which is also down from there peek debt which was 11.6 billion in 2019.

Say what you will about Elon. But Tesla has virtually no debt meaning their contractors are fully paid, and this has been true for 4 years.


JKJ420 t1_j1tob8l wrote

Elaborate or delete your insinuating comment.

EDIT: He added 3 sources, but they don't provide information regarding his comment. A ramp up of a new factory will always cost money. This is not new(s).


katatondzsentri t1_j1u2coo wrote

Kuka. They should've googled that before naming something Kuka. (Kuka means trashcan in Hungarian)


Jyith t1_j1uwlji wrote

It means "who" in Finnish.


PeterMillermark t1_j1y9ftb wrote

No Google in 1927.

> The company was founded in 1898 in Augsburg, Germany, by Johann Josef Keller and Jacob Knappich. > The name KUKA came into being in the year 1927 through the company's name at that time "Keller und Knappich Augsburg".


babyyodaisamazing98 t1_j1ssspu wrote

This thing has always seemed like a death trap to everyone around it. Have regulators approved this for the road? It seems like it would cause much more fatal accidents for anyone hit by it.


another-masked-hero t1_j1tk4ra wrote

Agreed but do regulators care? Hummers and even some other large SUVs to some extent feel the same.


rideincircles t1_j1trp6j wrote

What are you even talking about? Have you ever seen a truck? Plenty of trucks are about as aerodynamic as a rectangular box made of metal. I would not want to get hit by any truck.


diwakark86 t1_j1ttvh1 wrote

I don't think OP is talking about the aerodynamics. It is about the vehicles' effect in a collision. Most automobile exteriors are designed to absorb the energy of a collision by crumpling and protect the interior. The Cybertruck's use of work hardened steel in its exterior would cause it to either transfer most of the energy to the other colliding vehicle or in case of collision with a large stationary object like a concrete wall transfer the energy to the interior.


rideincircles t1_j1v5npu wrote

The frame structure picture that was leaked the other week looked like it was designed for that as would be expected. Tesla designs their cars for 5 star crash ratings and I expect the cybertruck wouldn't be any different.

It just seems like it would be a pain in the ass to repair that though.


thatmikeguy t1_j1tbg5q wrote

Does the Cybertruck take much more charging time if it is using the Tesla Semi charger?


jtmarshiii t1_j1ueqtp wrote

Semi Chargers? Has one of these been built? Thing I read on them that they would need there own electrical substation to supply he power the require.


thatmikeguy t1_j1urm82 wrote

They had a delivery video for Pepsi I just viewed again. I also see a video breaking down the average substation math, but this video for Pepsi also shows 500 miles, so that would be multiplied by 4 to achieve the same miles as other semi 2000 miles, so 4x the charging time over 4 units for the same loads if the batteries do not weigh any more than the standard semi engine and tank in order to haul the same amount of allowable weight on the roads? It said these new chargers were for both the Semi and Cybertruck, but if so I do not understand if it's charging time savings, additional load, or why on the Cybertruck?


jtmarshiii t1_j1uuy4j wrote

You may want to check up on the battery weights there compared to the engine and you can include fuel (fuel gets lighter as truck consumes the fuel).

I’m 100% on with EVs but ev long haul won’t be there in a while. I think hydrogen for trains, ships and trucks are the way to go. But we’ll need a ton of energy. I say nukes run at full power and with wind and solar any extra is spent creating hydrogen for long haul.


jtmarshiii t1_j1uv3rb wrote

Pepsi said 500 mile hauling lighter things like chips. Soda will be limited to 100 miles… not great.