Tesla Cybertruck
tesla.com
tesla.com
Well, that escalated quickly.
It probably would through aerodynamic drag at the same speed but if you're planning on towing you can just drive slower (65 instead of 80) to make up for it.
If you are pulling a trailer (let's say a camping trailer) you are likely going to stay a few days at a place before returning home and going down those hills you went up.
Not if the mountain's big enough. You might only go an appreciable distance downhill on the way home.
Your comment makes you sound like a city boy.
> Your comment makes you sound like a city boy.
Is this supposed to be an insult?
Or maybe it’s generally a midwestern North America thing?
There's no way the Tesla truck gets 250 miles when loaded up with 3500 pounds or hauling a trailer. It's very unclear if the range is sufficient if you use this truck like an actual truck where you need those things. Similarly if you are using this as a work truck there's some poor design choices involved here, too. Like the inability to access the bed from the sides of the vehicle. Or the non-flat roof complicating roof racks or additional lighting.
This appears to be more of a "lifestyle" truck than a "work" truck, and in that market how important are the extra cargo pounds or trailer capacity?
There's other stuff out there, sure, but what people are actually buying is well north of the Tesla base price.
The other part is that work trucks need good integration with tools and tool storage. You need to be able to add tool storage/access on the sides of the truck. If you can't do that - it's going to eliminate a lot of the market for a work truck. But - of course - that's just ONE type of work truck. (One where a person is getting out and doing manual labor with tools - electricians, plumbers, general handymen, etc.)
Other types of work trucks are basically completely different and require an entirely different bed. And the Tesla here definitely won't work with those. (Think flat bed trucks used for hauling)
I think the idea of this being a work truck is a silly idea. I don't know why anyone is thinking this would even be a remotely good idea considering you can't mount anything to it.
An article with an image of various types of work trucks: https://www.worktruckonline.com/343935/comvoy-launches-as-on...
Just imagine trying to make the Tesla fit those use cases like outlined there...
I suppose Tesla could possibly add a tool storage frunk in the front if they thought it was worthwhile and they can spare the room in their design.
Pickup trucks in general are sometimes criticized as not being great work trucks [1], and I generally agree -- I think it's an awkward form factor and would probably rather use a large van for most of the things people use pickups for, but clearly people still buy them and many of them are used as work trucks. Many people also buy them and don't use them as work trucks. Making a pickup truck that people could use for work or for non-work is consistent with Tesla's goal of getting as many electric cars on the road as they can.
[1] https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-wo...
A van can be a good work vehicle as well but I think for a lot of tasks - it's not the right one. Getting in and out of the van is an issue. And if you make it to where you're not getting in and out of the van then you're ultimately not utilizing the space fully. (Unless it opens from all sides I guess - but then you're dealing with doors again unless they fold onto the body all the way)
The article is mostly condemning conspicuous consumption - not really relevant to the points here.
Unless you are top-loading something, there's very few things I can think of that a truck does better than a van. It's certainly possible you have more real world experience than me and can think of some things I'm glossing over though.
Hell, I've gotten away with using a minivan for things most people would use a pickup for for decades. My dad's 87 Aerostar growing up allowed for the back bench and both middle seats to be entirely removed, and we did that a lot.
I've had a few friends throughout the years that expressed interest in getting a small/medium pickup so they had something to haul stuff "when they needed". Every time I mentioned how a mini-van would probably fit their needs better, they eventually agreed on the merits, but admitted they wouldn't buy one.
The truth is, very few people are entirely rational about their vehicles, and most of us are nowhere near rational. This truck may or may not be useful and used at work sites, where the business may act in a more rational manner, but I think that has little to do with whether individuals buying their own work truck (e.g. professional carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc that work for companies too small to provide a fleet of trucks so use their own) will make their decisions on a more personal level, at least after their basic needs are met.
https://www.extendobed.com/industrial-units/lumber-slip-rack...
A lot of work trucks drive less than 200 miles per day. Being able to keep them plugged in at night and start every day at 100% charge is likely more convenient than having to stop at a gas station and fuel up for most plumbers/ electricians/ framers.
> The other part is that work trucks need good integration with tools and tool storage.
This is a much bigger issue and it fully depends on use. There are bed sliders which would help a bunch.
Also, lifting things out through the side of the truck bed is very much a thing and it's basically impossible with this design.
> I think the idea of this being a work truck is a silly idea.
For some jobs it would work fine, but for a large chunk of professionals the design is too out there to be useful.
Rental might be a “different” option than buying a newly produced 2.7 metric tons truck?!
Never been a problem for me with a Honda Fit, at it's a subcompact with a footprint of a VW beetle. The seats fold down almost into the floor, giving me plenty of cargo space.
My friend had a minivan with folding seats, he used to carry his enduro motorcycle in it.
I have a hard time believing anyone living in a city needs a truck for anything except work.
In any case, from 500 miles with 10% degradation, 10% reservation, and 50% inefficiency due to towing you're still going to get 200 miles. Most superchargers are within 50-100 miles of each other. Ezpz.
At 250 miles with those same metrics, you're at 100 miles of range. Sure you don't want to go cross country but you can make the haul if you want to.
The biggest problem is going to be trucks with trailers hogging the whole bank of chargers so they don't have to detach their trailer.
They were bitching that it's so inconvenient because they thought you have to use the app. That's seems disingenuous t me.
Not really important. What's important is that it _look_ like it can haul stuff. Like most Ford F-1-2-whatevers, Rams and other pickups, most of the time they're empty and car-wash clean.
I actually like the looks of the Tesla pickup. It's about time they went more avant-garde with their designs. This is supposed to be the future, dammit, Mr Musk's other company makes spaceships. Why NOT futuristic cars instead of Lexus look-alikes?
Also Mad Max might have as well been set on Mars, aesthetics matches :)
The $50k trucks are basically for suburban dads. They used to drive luxury sedans while their wives drove minivans. Now the dads drive trucks that have replaced the minivan and the moms drive luxury SUVs. Trucks need to fit 6+ people, have nice interiors and enough space for hauling kids' sports gear and Home Depot stuff on the weekends. The Cybertruck is perfect for this segment. Fits 6 people, has plenty of hauling capacity and will take down a Ferrari in the 1/4 mile.
I've been thinking for a while now that luxury trucks (like the F-150 Platinum, Silverado High Country, etc.) are basically the modern-day versions of giant land-yacht sedans like the Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight, Cadillac DeVille, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, etc.
You can thank CAFE focusing more on car fuel economy than truck fuel economy, plus a culture that's come to increasingly value high ride height and a rugged image.
The issue with lumber racks and the apparent inability to haul larger items is a much bigger concern for "Work Trucks".
I see this as something which I can haul 3-4 friends and their bikes up to the trailhead in (or skiing/ camping/ fishing) and it seems pretty reasonably set up for that.
I thought I read around a track, the Model 3 gives a BMW M3 (which is $60k-$80k) a run for its money.
The model 3 performance holds it's own.. for two laps until it reduces power for being too hot.
Still super impressive but if you're a track die-hard and have the money, it looks like the new Porsche EV will have a leg up there.
And you could buy two for the price of that Porsche.
Regardless, the M3 isn't exactly the pinnacle of bang-for-your-buck speed. You are paying a big premium on the BMW for fit & finish which is miles ahead of the Model 3.
But when I wrote about the pricing on the Model 3 I was thinking more in terms of utility, not pure performance. If the job to be done is driving to work, the M3 isn't the car I'm looking at. It's the Honda Civic.
Full 2 meters shorter overall than Ford F-150, but with truck bed almost as long.
Just less oomph, but enough for most city uses.
However, I would not expect that to be what corporate America of today would produce.
Horsepower is just a proxy for 0-60 anyway. People shop for the experience, not the numbers, even if they end up at the numbers.
I'd rather them come out with totally utilitarian bare bones truck but with the range and basic capabilities for $25K or so. THAT would be a game changer in the SUV/Truck space.
Look at that interior of the Tesla, and tell me that there's not a huge set of complex components. Imagine the repair costs on the stainless steel structure. No body shop is set up for this.
If you want simple, low maintenance, a 2WD Silverado with a small block is as simple as it gets. You do what? Change the oil and coolant every now and then? Flush the transmission a couple times through it's life? If you stick with what's actually practical, ICEs are extremely reliable and have very little maintenance these days. People get hundreds of thousands of miles without so much as an over the air update...
Also, I can do all this maintenance myself on a Silverado. Pop the drain plug, and then refill with fluid. Can you even do your own flush on the cooling system in a Tesla without voiding your warranty?
Good question. But you don't ever have to! https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/battery-coolant-does...
But to answer your question YES you can do your own maintenance.
"How Much To Service Your Tesla? " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meJp2lj_NnM
This myth about owners not being able to perform basic (pretty much non-existent) maintenance on Teslas is way overblown.
If this had been available 3 years ago when I bought my truck it would have been an instant purchase. As it is, I'm likely to sell my current truck and buy this when it comes out.
Second, this is going to be a very heavy truck, 6000 pounds or more. No truck with thick stainless steel body panels can weigh less than 5500 pounds. How that much weight can deliver 250 to 500 miles of range... sounds like fantasy #2. Apparently Musk is imagining that battery technology will advance a lot before this thing ships. Or he's just making stuff up.
Finally, the claim that the bed will extend to the ground to form a useful ramp. Nah. These folks have never lived with a pickup. No object heavier than a bicycle is going to make it up that 45 degree incline and into the bed without crashing into the cab before it can stop, especially given the polished floor of the demo truck. That's fantasy #3. No telling how much more reality distortion lies beneath that funky exterior.
https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck
Payload is bed capacity not tow capacity.
The battery in this truck is probably incredibly heavy, which really moves the center of mass down. The suspension is also computer controlled, and at high loads you could lower the vehicle to be closer to the ground. Carrying 3500 pounds off road isn't a good idea even if the vehicle can corner so you don't need the clearance.
Actually I think your overestimating the total weight, but it goes to the above point when you say
> Second, this is going to be a very heavy truck, 6000 pounds or more.
> Musk is imagining that battery technology will advance a lot before this thing ships
Unlikely, more likely he is just planning on putting a lot of battery in it. Unlike you, Musk has lots of engineers working on this and has a pretty damn good idea of what is possible.
Pickup trucks are ideal for packing a lot of battery, lots of space along the bottom to do so.
> Finally, the claim that the bed will extend to the ground to form a useful ramp. Nah. These folks have never lived with a pickup. No object heavier than a bicycle is going to make it up that 45 degree incline and into the bed without crashing into the cab before it can stop, especially given the polished floor of the demo truck. That's fantasy #3. No telling how much more reality distortion lies beneath that funky exterior.
ROFL - you realized they literally live demoed doing so on a ATV right?
Moreover, the main use of ramps, at least in my mind having unloaded and loaded a pickup truck, is making it easier to move heavy objects in and out by hand.
I'm pretty sure the only person fantasizing here is you.
If they don't, then they will need to be revised before release and we can discuss them at that time.
> No pickup has a bed capacity of 3500 pounds.
Nonsense. Super Duty trucks have payload capacities up to 7,850 lbs. Even a ford F150 with a V6 has a capacity near a ton and they only go up from there. https://www.fordf150blog.com/2019-f-150-towing-and-payload-c...
> How that much weight can deliver 250 to 500 miles of range... sounds like fantasy #2.
This falls into the category of put up or shut up. Tesla has bad track record of hitting deadlines, but a really good track record of hitting their range estimates. If they don't hit 250 miles on the base model, we're sure to hear about it when it's launched.
> Finally, the claim that the bed will extend to the ground to form a useful ramp. Nah. These folks have never lived with a pickup.
If you don't see the value in being able to tilt the truck bed then you've clearly never used a pickup to it's capacity.
I've bought 4 major appliances lately and hauled several tons of lumber, concrete, & gravel. Even without the ramps, Being able to tilt the bed down to unload the truck sounds like a fucking godsend to me. Particularly for loose loads and lumber where it would act a bit like a dump truck.
But after appreciating all the awesome engineering that went into it, I find myself loving the scifi look. Finally a vehicle designed for geeks like me. I had always thought it sad that stainless steel vehicles never caught on. Here's my chance, and built from the same material as a space ship, that's icing on the cake. This is for sure my next vehicle.
Think of all the wrangler, hummer, truck buyers who want a militaristic, rough, unpolished steel look and this is that flavor taken to an extreme.
Other buyers still have the S3XYs to choose from so we can all have our favorite toys from the same company. No cannibalization.
What do those words mean? Google Image Search isn't helping.
This thing alienates far more than it attracts in the pickup truck market.
I was referring to parent comment
In fact it's made with the same steel alloy. I think I want to buy one now.
Is the same alloy really also the best at everyday -50 to 50 (c) temperatures?
This thing looks like straight out of a sci-fi movie. I think the aesthetic is going to get them a lot of sales. If I had use for a car, this would be at the very top of my list, purely based on the looks.
I bet they'll get a ton of sales from people buying it ironically. Which, when you think about it, is why many people buy trucks in the first place - very few are buying it for utility.
Every single Tesla vehicle I've seen in the wild here in Indiana has had a vanity plate, my favorite being Indiana plate "5TAR 5HP" a few weeks ago driving home from work, here she is https://imgur.com/gallery/YGhwGYV
In static images, it looks ugly, but in videos, it looks awesome.
Maybe it's because of the extremely minimal design, and as someone said in these comments, it lacks any features at all.
One thing though, you have to give Elon the credit to travel down the road less traveled.
Can you use this to overtake someone on the hard shoulder (half covered in sand) and go bumming around sand dunes? That's what Tesla have got to do to win there.
I love the fact that Tesla are moving away from the boring, middle of the road designs of their previous models.
But this.... this is just hideous.
It doesn’t look tough or futuristic; it looks like something a 10 year old designed, and no, that’s not a good thing.
Here's a few artist imagined renders, and to be honest, they would be a lot less likely to get an April 1st calendar check reaction:
- https://inteng-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/img/iea/JYG0mpkD61/s...
- https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/tesla-p...
Whether it looks hideous or not would still depend on personal preferences though. I like the fact that it looks, well like a concept car, but it isn't.
Absolutely bizarre.
The concept renders both assume, which we all did, that Tesla would remain consistent with a design language that's been successful.
Good thing is: You won't have to buy it.
Yeah that's for Elon's other company.
How the tables turn.
It's tough in unimportant ways but weak when it comes to the bed which is arguably the most important feature of a truck.
I think this vehicle is better described as a crossover. For a crossover its not as ugly to me because I'm not hung up on the design decision to neuter the bed. But as a truck it looks like they chose a really terrible looking form over function.
You can’t use it as a work truck as when you damage something, the part will take 3 years to arrive.
Source: I've had to do major repairs to my Model S twice now and the parts always arrived within a week.
My dad loves his Honda Ridgeline. He can put his trash in the bed to take to the dump, put the dogs back there if needed, and tow a lawnmower over to some elderly people he helps out. But it is essentially an "El Camino" hack of a Honda minivan with jacked up suspension.
A Tesla work truck would be awesome -- they should sell a cab and shell that a third party can customize.
A friend of mine has a Ridgeline, too. The thing is great. Goes off-road, just about anywhere he wants to go, hauls skiing/camping gear for 4 people with room to spare, hauls 2 motorcycles and a dirt bike in the bed.
He's not hauling a horse trailer, or a boat, or following a TRD Pro 4Runner into the desert. If something breaks, he fixes it or rides his second vehicle until he can get it fixed.
People are acting like Tesla needs every farmer and construction worker to replace their diesel truck with the Cybertruck. If they didn't replace it with a Ridgeline (or similar unibody truck), the Cybertruck isn't for them.
More than ugly, it looks like a parody.
What really stood out to me is the truck bed and the way the ramp pulls (or folds?) out. It actually seems very sensible and well designed, despite looking like it's trying too hard to be different.
This truck gets attention. It's a loud status statement that looks cheap to build, costs less than $50k. Well done Tesla.
Out of curiosity, which generations? I'm in my 20s and most of the friends Ive talked to think it's comically ugly.
Some people will love it, some people will hate it, a lot of people are probably just kind of confounded by it but will come to like it after they see a few in person.
Either way it's absolutely dominating a news cycle, which isn't easy to do.
I can only assume this is a joke and in a few hours Elon will do a "one more thing" before showing the real Tesla Pickup.
This take on a pickup looks like some engineer accidentally left their Halo fan-art on the shared CAD file server.
To illustrate, consider that the world record for a single person towing a train by a strap held by their teeth is 280 tons.
Here's a bunch of HO scale (1:87) trains pulling their full sized version, too: https://twitter.com/mrtimdunn/status/1101414657418498049
And anyway, I'm not sure why an all metal grill would be worse than the grill guard (cow catcher) already present on a lot of trucks.
Plays into the inconsistent nature of autopilot.
Then you have far more complex real-world situations like this one. The emergency breaking works correctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3rmevP6XVY
I'm not sure what statistics are available for pedestrian collisions. Probably nothing short of deaths are reported reliably at the national level.
But yes, as sibling replies have pointed out, I was more aghast as the fact that the US does not give one iota of fuck about pedestrian safety, apparently. Here, you can (theoretically, granted) get fined for attaching a bullbar that compromises the pedestrian safety, for example by changing how a pedestrian bends when impacted by the front of the car and in doing so increasing the risk of spinal or other injury to the pedestrian.
My comment was largely a critique of the differing approaches to road safety.
You could technically still buy one, just as you can a non-road-legal track car, but that's it.
but nope, apparently not. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/07/while-other-countries...
The regulator of the regulator is your legislator.
With that money the government does A LOT of different things, from creating special interest groups to increase salad prices for farmers in <random state> to fighting a long term geopolitical battle with China.
You can vote a couple of times, meaning you can make like 4 choices a year to effect those things. Meaning your opinion about ALL of these has to be condensed to like 4 choices, and those choices are incredibly restricted by a party system.
And with almost none of the 300 million people car safety regulation is in the Top 100 of issues they care about means that the democratic process has almost zero direct impact on a particular topic.
We get choices. A lot of choices. The people concerned with prosecuting jaywalking aren’t the same people concerned with prosecuting trade wars. I jaywalk all the time in my city, at red lights, outside crossings, across the intersection, and often right in front of the police as long as I keep my wits about me and don’t do so in a way liable to get me killed.
Maybe stop looking to DC for all your legislative needs unless you live there. We need far less centralization of power, not more.
Now, I don't know all the national laws here in Europe, but this page would support the idea that other countries might have very similar laws: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowle...
>(c) In order to cross the carriageway elsewhere than at a pedestrian crossing signposted as such or indicated by markings on the carriageway, pedestrians shall not step on to the carriageway without first making sure that they can do so without impeding vehicular traffic.
>(d) Once they have started to cross a carriageway, pedestrians shall not take an unnecessarily long route, and shall not linger or stop on the carriageway unnecessarily.
I don't see how this advice implies that laws are in place?
"(3) Persons on foot shall rapidly cross lanes on the shortest path transverse to the direction of travel, taking into account vehicle traffic. If traffic density, speed, visibility or traffic flow so require, a carriageway may only be crossed at crossings or junctions, at traffic lights within markings, at pedestrian crossing aids or on pedestrian crossings (sign 293). If the carriageway is crossed at crossings or junctions, pedestrian crossings or markings at traffic lights shall always be used." - translated with deepl from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo_2013/__25.html
Vehicles must yield to pedestrians in cross-walks in just about or all states it seems. I didn't read every single one in that PDF but i skimmed it.
In some states:
"Vehicles must yield to pedestrian in crosswalk on vehicle’s half of road or close to it. Pedestrians must not step off curb and into path of vehicle when vehicle does not have time to stop"
The laws on the books are more so that if a pedestrian steps off a curb or crosses suddenly somewhere other than a crosswalk, drivers aren't immediately crucified by the law. For example, if the speed limit is 45mph with an adjacent sidewalk, how are drivers suppose to stop for any given pedestrian that jaywalks without looking? Additionally, if a vehicle has to maneuver out the way to avoiding hitting someone, they become a danger to other vehicles and even other pedestrians.
Except in areas where jaywalking is a huge hazard (i.e near homeless shelters in urban areas), it's not like people are actually getting ticketed for jaywalking.
They exist, but I don’t know anyone who has ever owned or rented one. They’re hard to find, dealerships don’t tend to have them so you’d have to find a specialist importer I reckon.
Not to mention the farmers who buy these sorts of vehicles in Europe tend to value durability, reliability and ease of maintenance. From what I can tell, they all drive around in old Hiluxes.
Having been stung by John Deere already, farmers aren't going to fall over themselves to buy something that they don't own, can't fix themselves and will likely be in the dealer for months if it breaks.
This is a luxury status symbol.
I don't think I've ever actually seen what Americans call a 'truck' on a street in Europe.
(Slight exaggeration, but not really.)
---
[0]: https://www.globalresearch.ca/dutch-government-provided-terr...
It's like somebody else already said, it's just too big to park. Subterranean parkings that are the norm in European cities are pretty much impossible with them.
Yes we do, get out of the way.
Outside of major cities there are almost no pedestrians in the US, the only time people walk in the US is when our car/truck is broken..
and with Uber we do not even have to do that now... Technology is great :)
I don't know what it is like outside of the United States but here everyone has the common sense to know "don't walk in front of moving vehicles" as you are taught as a child "look both ways before crossing" over and over and over.
You can put all of safety features you want on a vehicle, but if they hit a pedestrian there is a VERY good chance they will die. That's a lot of force and a little bit of rubber or plastic won't make a lot of difference, I say this as someone that lost a very dear friend to a hit and run as a pedestrian and lost another friend this year that was stationary on her motorcycle and someone rear-ended her and killed her (effectively) instantly.
I want to buy this right now. This has nearly the towing capacity of my Ram and will smoke my wife's Audi on the track.
We'll see.
If it does kill, the looks won't be a problem, they'll be an asset - a more extreme version of the Prius.
But if it doesn't, a lot of people will blame the look.
The specs are a truck lover's dream. Most pickups are driving office dudes like me to our office jobs every day. We hate the gas mileage but we love the look and we want something powerful enough to tow the boat or ATV hauler on the weekends. This truck claims it can do that AND beat a Porsche off the traffic light AND never have to visit a fuel pump again.
When I think of the people that like big trucks, I think of the people blocking super chargers or blowing black smoke out the back onto Teslas. People that hate EVs because of a tribal political affiliation. This is the group that cares about status and argues over Ford vs. Chevy.
Outside of those people are the ones just doing regular work and I think they just want a regular looking truck to put things in (not the market).
Honestly don’t know the market for this one. I love my model3, but I’m unsure of this.
There are so many people who have desk jobs or jobs where they don't really need or only occasionally need a pickup, but they still drive one (at least where I grew up, in Northern California). Because of the Tesla truck's performance, and many other EV advantages, my guess is that this pickup truck will indeed appeal to a large number of pickup owners, including showboaters, occasional towers, occasional use daily drivers, as professional/hardcore customers.
How do you fit clothes in an egg box?
You can get them from supermarkets. And they're thick cardboard. Great for moving books.
https://www.amazon.com/Cartons-Flattop-Carton-12-Egg-Recycla...
egg box / case : http://www.eggboxes.com/media/ecom/prodlg/30doz.jpg
egg flat : http://www.eggboxes.com/media/ecom/prodsm/5x6superflat.jpg
egg carton / box : http://www.eggboxes.com/media/ecom/prodsm/005.JPG
I have wanted a truck for a while since I like the look/'pretend' utility (but don't like the tribal-association of trucks). This is so ugly its a statement item, but its a Tesla so its still a status symbol. Its fast (so I don't have to compromise on that bmw/audi) and it can haul shit if I ever need that.
For rural/agricultural uses... EV doesn't make sense until range is fixed. 500 miles is certainly good enough for most applications, though, so maybe my thinking is out of date.
For urban contractors/builders etc., an EV truck does make sense; they're not typically going to drive more than 50-100 miles in a day. Then it comes down to cost, though; your average plumber or electrician isn't going to plop down $70K for the 3-motor AWD 500 mile range model.
For general rough-and-ready pickup drivers, the Tesla comes across as too exotic and weird looking. Those guys (and I think it's almost all guys) are going to wait until their F-150 or RAM wears out, then buy another one used. Or they're going to wait for a more "normal" looking EV truck that has decent range and off-road capability.
https://www.cars.com/articles/the-week-in-tesla-news-tesla-p...
This truck design is too far out for most people. I suspect tomorrow morning Detroit will have a good laugh at Tesla's expense. Will this prove to be Tesla's Edsel?
I watched the stream. My impression was "someone made a truck, designed and marketed it based on my preferences when I was 19."
If they had done this in 1999, I totally would have bought it.
But then I wasn't the sort of guy who bought pick up trucks. I was the sort of guy who got beat up by the sort of guy who bought pick up trucks. (I mean, by 19 I had a real job in a much larger city and was away from all that, but... the memories were very fresh.)
But that's the thing, even if this is totally unappealing to the sort of people who currently buy pickup trucks... this is appealing to a completely different group of people who currently would not consider a pickup truck.
This might explain the bad goth 'neuromancer' cosplay. to get someone like 19 year old me to buy a pickup, you need to overcome the associations with pickup trucks. and... yeah, that's going to alienate the existing pickup truck drivers.
In addition to woodworking and desiring a truck bed for that, we tow a camper with which we can boondock (dry/off-grid camp) via solar power. I purchase carbon offset credits for our trips. Not ideal, but better than nothing. I have not modified my truck in any way, especially not to "roll coal", and I report others that I see doing that. I take pride in my truck passing emissions tests and would never attempt to defeat ("delete") those controls. I would never consider blocking a charging station, and in fact we almost bought the Prius Prime plug-in hybrid when it was first released but it wasn't available in our area yet at the time. Otherwise my other car would need those chargers. We also take the Prius as much as possible, and only use the truck when necessary. I enjoy hypermiling in the Prius, too. I hate that diesel trucks like mine create other non-carbon pollution like NOx so I try to only drive it when needed, and would gladly adopt new hardware to reduce those emissions further if it didn't hurt overall efficiency. I also would love for carbon-neutral (or at least carbon-reduced) biodiesel that doesn't come from destroying palm tree forests to be an option until EV trucks are more available. I have other truck-owning friends that are also not obnoxious intentional polluters that hate EVs. Anecdotally at least, my friends and I are the exact market for the Tesla Cybertruck. My gut feeling is that there are more truck owners that think Teslas are cool and want one than those that block charging stations.
I guess my point is, next time you pull up behind a heavy-duty truck, it could be me, a vegetarian EV/hybrid lover driving a carbon-offset, emissions-compliant truck on their way to go off-grid camp via solar power, waiting for the Cybertruck to launch.
That's a surprisingly narrow minded world view. Are there walking stereotypes of comically evil rednecks who blow black smoke and hate on gays 10 times a day while being racist? I've met some, very few in fact and I live in a place where I go to see rodeo 3 times a year. Is that majority of truck owners? Not even close.
Where I live trucks are a sort of "I make good money I can afford one" vehicles. All young men want to have one! Tesla's truck fits the bill so well with young city dwelling men who grew up on 80's sci-fi, who love new tech and toys, and who want to proclaim "I am successful! I can afford this ridiculous over the top TRUCK"
That said, there's a reason all the truck ads have deep voices and talk about being 'tough' etc. Ford and Chevy sell a lot of trucks so presumably there's something about the market that pushes them to this sort of advertising.
I suspect the overlap of the people positively influenced by those ads and the people that like EVs is small and of those the people that would like this design is even smaller.
Maybe there's a new market that will want this, but I'd argue it isn't most of the existing truck market.
This thing is Pontiac Aztec bad.
Is it just me, or DDG really shows an image of a turd when searching for "Pontiac Aztec"? :D
Given the price of that thing, you should just buy a second, smaller electric car (maybe even a Twizy). If you care about your CO2 emissions, it's better to give up looking manly and driving like a madman at traffic lights.
In the near term Bollinger Motors[1] has electric pickup and SUV models that look a lot more like rugged high end trucks. Granted they cost nearly twice as much, but these are all luxury vehicles and people already spend 100k on a Ford Raptor.
There are other electrified truck companies bringing up their models. Maybe even faster than Tesla can get this thing out. Ford is already testing their electrified F150's. Current owners will just buy their same brand when it becomes electrified.
and you can get this thing with 3 motors.
The Rivian has 4 motors by the way...
Said it before and I stick with it: It's a race between tesla coming up with a sustainable and profitable way to mass produce EVs before money runs out and incumbents figuring out the design of EVs that can be mass-produced at existing facilities. tesla had a huge head-start, but incumbents are catching up and the window of opportunity for Tesla is closing but not closed yet.
Not trying to rain on your parade or anything. But be real. The $49k model S never materialized. The $35k Model E never materialized. This thing won't either. Unless you got the $$ to blow on a top-end model, don't expect much.
You must hang out with some very atypical truck guys. Most would not be caught dead in an electric vehicle, and certainly not in something that looks like this.
Can't really see anyone who relies on their truck for actual work wanting something like this and the product page is clearly geared towards more outdoor recreational types (Eg. Pics of the camping top extension and towing a weird looking camper or futuristic dirt bike). Compare to Ford and Chevy marketing.
In other words you overbought and don't use the diesel or the 3/4 ton frame? Because this is definitely NOT a replacement for that.
I think you just described 80% of truck owners.
Cybertruck: Not Your Urban Cowboy’s Truck
This truck is no Dodge Dakota. This sits between a half-ton and 3/4-ton truck.
The Tri-motor is 14k lbs, a 2019 F150 is 13,200 lbs. https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/2019/features/capability/f1...
I stand by my comment, this thing falls between a dodge dakota and a ram 1500.
There is exactly one model of F150 that can tow 13,200. The other 47 models [1] mostly tow between 8-10,000 pounds.
I haven’t done enough research on F-150 but I would guess it outperforms a more expensive F-150 at each of the 3 price points offered.
And that’s before accounting for maintenance and fuel savings.
and they will get the energy back going downhill.
Many (most?) trains dump excess charge into the grid, meaning that it has no limitations on brake power nor capacity.
Battery-powered vehicles have to protect their battery, limiting brake power to keep the battery cool, and brake duration as it cannot overcharge the battery.
To compete with a train, a battery powered vehicle would need to implement rheostatic braking (i.e. brake resistors).
Of course, conventional engine braking is not worth comparing to any of this, but I thought it was important to emphasize that trains ≠ cars.
But the technology is exactly the same: apply an electrical load to a motor/generator and it will generate a braking force. The source of the load doesn’t really make a difference as long as it meets implementation requirements.
(Perhaps maybe the most ironic way they could dump excess electricity could be by running the onboard air compressor — literally the same thing an ICE vehicle does to dump energy when engine braking: compressing air.)
My point is that the technology is definitely a good fit for braking large loads.
A resonable auxillary air compressor won't make a difference. With a heavy trailer going down hill, you'd need to at least dissipate tens of kilowatts, maybe even touching triple digits if you also need to slow down.
Nowhere to dissipate the power → no regenerative braking.
Sports cars dissipate several hundred kilowatts in their friction brakes (for reference, the Porsche Taycan which can almost do with only regen braking can regen ~270kW). A hard-braking truck will exceed this significantly, but of course distributed over many more brake discs.
However, for the trailer scenario, I assume that if you go up a certain slope using N kilowatt of propulsion to maintain a stable speed, you'd need somewhere in the ballpack of N/2 killowatt of braking power when going down during the full duration (unlike hard braking, which is only for a few seconds).
Also, peak braking performance is much different than effective regen potential, since you shouldn't need to do hard braking very often.
There are 3 things that limit regenerative braking in its braking capacity at normal speeds:
1. Battery capacity, as you mention. Mostly a concern if you started high, as you mention.
2. Battery charge rate (thermal and lifetime concerns), as you're within or exceeding fast-charge charging rates. Especially important as the battery is likely already operating hot from pulling the load uphill. To give an idea of battery wear, note that a Tesla Model S only allows you to fast-charge a fixed amount on a given battery before you are permanently locked out to not further deteriorate the battery.
3. Charge capacity from the motor controller, which limits total regenerative braking capacity.
The first two are unique to batteries, and become an issue with continuous regenerative braking (such as a long downhill slope with a heavy trailer). Number 2 is likely to be the biggest issue.
Optimal regenerative braking sinks take whatever you throw at them: Either a brake resistor for rheostatic braking, or a connection to the grid which from the perspective of the vehicle is an approximated load of infinite size. Rheostatic braking is only limited by cooling of the brake resistor, which can both operate much hotter than a battery and is much easier to cool.
So why do cars not have brake resistors? Because normal vehicles do not have problems with excessive regenerative braking. Even going downhill, their weight is unlikely to cause severe battery load (although it may fully charge). However, gravity is a bitch when your total weight exceeds 10 tons.
> Also, peak braking performance is much different than effective regen potential, since you shouldn't need to do hard braking very often.
Exactly. The reason I mentioned this is that you noted peak brake numbers, which have no meaning in relation to continuous load capacity, which is much, much lower.
The air compressor comment was an illustrative tougue-in-cheek comparison, not a serious suggestion.
Imagine the amount of power needed to run an air compressor with a displacement in the 5-6 liter range. That’s exactly the amount of power we’re talking about. Because that’s literally what an engine-braking truck is doing, it’s driving its engine as an air compressor.
Your “tens of thousands of watts” estimate is probably just about right. And that’s not anywhere outside the realm of doable. That’s probably well within the abilities of regenerative system in the drivetrain this vehicle will have, but even if we assume it isn’t, a 10kw resistive load is a $100-$200 part, off the shelf.
Not only does regenerative braking recharge the battery, it is possible to apply entirely arbitrary reverse torque should need be, where an ICE has a pretty fixed resistance.
That's what the gearbox is for
Nobody is realistically thinking this truck can pull more than ~15-20k (and even then it would be a short distance and no hills type of trip because of cooling limitations) with the acceleration/braking distance/handling we expect in this day and age for vehicles towing things on public roads.
The people who actual use these class of vehicles for real have mud splashed over the vehicle and extra cans of petrol. They aren’t going to buy an unproven vehicle that you can’t refuel.
They’ll probably make a killing with the Cybertruck.
BMW 3 series: 20 inches Subaru BRZ: 18.1 inches Porsche 911 GT3: 17.9 inches
The triple motor also has a double stacked battery, so the center of mass is not going to be much further up than the battery is.
Also.. tracks have turns. Low center of gravity helps, but this thing will probably weigh 3-4x as much as a sporty car. Even the Model S has weight comparable to a minivan. My guess is a Subaru BRZ could beat this around many tracks.
This is a cool truck and all, and I hope Tesla makes more exciting designs like this, but I'm tired of people thinking that Teslas are performance cars just because they have torque. Tesla has yet to make anything that interests me at the prices they charge.
Not too surprising. According to [1], the A3 and A4 mostly have 0-60 times worse than 6.5s. You've got to get up to the recent A6's to beat that.
[1]: https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/audi-0-60-mph-tim...
Also it’s a bit weird to compare super entry level 1l audis to this. They’re in a weird segment with lots of compromises.
Again, there are fast A3s but the vast majority sold aren't that quick.
How is that surprising? Unless you go for the really expensive ones with top-spec engines, you're normally looking at 7-8s to 60mph. As an example, the Q3 can be had with 6 different engines, and only the range-topping 45 TFSI breaks the 6.5s barrier at 6.3s to 60mph. All other engines are slower.
A1 can be had with 3 different engines, and the fastest one does 0-60 in 7.7s.
Really, the only Audi where <6.5s to 60mph is "standard" is the A8, with the slowest engine being the 50 TDI that does 0-60 in 5.9s. The second model in line, the A7, starts with a 40TDI that does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds.
It's pretty surprising because the comment seemed to imply that the same Audi might also end up on a track.
It's also going to have truly awful front and rear visibility. Long windshields are invariably difficult to live with, creating a hothouse interior on any day without clouds. Once you add appendages to make this legal (side mirrors, rear center brake and tail lights, headlights and turn signals) much of the bold charm of the original concept truck (which is all this is) will be lost.
I agree the design is refreshingly bold. But lots of concept cars in the past initially took fans by storm only to fade into the mainstream by the time they shipped. I'll be very impressed if a design this striking can maintain its visual impact all the way through production.
That is, assuming the other values (economy, comfort, handling, ...) are better in cars than in trucks. I’m starting to suspect that either cars+trailers are seen as unattractive (like station wagons) or that those other values aren’t as highly valued as they are outside the US. One big difference I can point to is the size of parking spaces...
They can market it based on what their life could be like if they brought the car. Perhaps in vague, emotional terms.
You too could be kayaking/mountain biking/skiing through picturesque countryside with your pretty, athletic friends... if you buy a Brand X SUV. Be confident in any situation. Whatever, wherever, whenever. Adventure starts here. Built tough. Driven by dreams. Past the pavement. Built for city roads and no roads.
Yeah I don’t think so. Trucks are not suburban status items. This is more like the El Camino of 2022.
Have you ever been to Texas?
I have found the single stupidest thing in this thread.
(also, honestly this design is a fugly tin can. Elon musk is generally going through a tin can phase (starship etc)). I wouldn't bet on many sales for this, but it's still interesting to see something so different
That said, it is a truck, and maybe someone (perhaps even Tesla) will develop a modular LNG/propane/diesel generator unit you can put into the back of the truck for purposes of range extension. I realize this is inefficient, not environmentally friendly, and going in the opposite direction of what the electric car is supposed to do, but its also only applicable in those extreme edge cases where you need to be away from the grid for days or weeks.
However, 99 % of drivers of a "truck" like this will be commuting between a suburban home and an office.
I also consider myself a "truck guy". In my entire life, I've owned a single car. I had it for about a year when I got up one morning, drove to the dealership, bought a new Dodge (basically the same as yours, except 1500), and told the girlfriend she could have the car (hers had seen better days).
I would not be caught dead in one of these.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Harley riding country boy from the midwest, probably not Tesla's major demographic anyways!)
I know three people who own a pickup (one in commercial construction, one who is a big animal vet, and one who has a horse farm). This does not appear to be designed for those people at all.
However, I think it could appeal to the same people who wanted a hummer. Driving it is just overtly confrontational. It will be fascinating to see whether there is a market for exactly this though, because Tesla is supposed to be environmentally friendly, and the people who bought hummers clearly didn't care about that (at the time, at least).
Just look at the success of the G-Wagon among white LA uurbanite-types. No one cares about the utility. It just looks weird and gives off this vibe of "I work! Trust me! Look at my utilitarian car!" That's who this will sell to, and it will sell well.
The Cybertruck isn't about profit. It's about making Tesla's name synonymous with shock and awe.
Frankly, I don't think will cannibalize the existing P/U market as much as it will sway more people away from SUVs into [Cyber]trucks, especially if the back seat is as spacious as a normal full size truck's.
The only thing the Cybertruck needs is more colors. It's a little odd looking, like Robocop is coming to town, but it's time for changes in the market. The Model 3 converted me to viewing existing cars as dinosaurs, and this will probably transform the truck market as well.
I grew up working on a farm, and while I'm a developer today, I still get my hands dirty. I'm in for one.
In particular, I despise the fact I can't even put a dual sport bike in the back of shortbed without the tailgate down, which means everything else has to be tired down as well. My point was really based around the fact that most people who buy crew cab shortbed trucks are using them as a man's suburban SUV.
It's only a "long bed" when you compare it to midsize trucks like the Tacoma or Ridgeline, which is what this vehicle really is more akin to (especially the first generation Ridgeline, as you can't replace the bed on the Cybertruck or the old Ridgeline as it was a part of the unibody - not good when you accidentally overload or bend up the bed, unfortunately).
Curious to see what the production version ends up like, but I don't know if this is really going to be taken seriously by people who need a "real" truck, at least in the current form. It's more of a weekend warrior vehicle right now, I'd say
The drivability of a 6.5 vs 5.5 is huge because of the turning radius resulting from the longer wheelbase. Most people don't want to have to think about where they can park.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility
Looks sweet though.
Disagree? Why? Active crash-avoidance aids seem to be getting pretty impressive.
About this time last year, I skidded and lost control of my car for a fraction of a second while changing lanes on a busy highway at 60mph. I'm alive and typing this not because I was nimble enough to recover from that situation, but because my car had electronic stability control -- a feature that is often not available in smaller models -- and a good set of winter tires.
It also is unfair to those you share the road with to embark on an arms race “who can afford the heaviest car”, if only because pedestrians and cyclists will always lose that race.
But you can be super safe while still helping protect your crash partners. You can often improve both your and your crash partner's safety with more crumple zones.
I don't think the patrons of this thing are going to be thinking about this much.
A lot of problems with driving come with people treating it as adversarial situation, instead of cooperative one.
But the article was from 2003, unfortunately. Searching online I can't find statistics per mile driven, which is what you need to made the claims the replies to my posts are making.
Right? If your bio isn't a joke, you'd better darned well have that attitude. Otherwise I don't see how you'd get through a typical workday.
The SL-1 nuclear reactor accident (possibly murder-suicide) happened because a human was actively actuating a control rod by hand and pulled it out too fast. Passive systems that limit rod withdrawal rate are better.
The Three Mile Island accident happened because a sensor mislead the human operators, who then did the wrong thing and ended up dropping the coolant level below the core, which subsequently partially melted. Passive safety systems like a pool of low-pressure coolant preclude this entire class of accidents.
Chernobyl happened because humans could and did manually disable all the automatic safety systems that told them the reactor was in an unstable configuration. Passively safe reactors can't physically get into unstable configurations.
Fukushima had active cooling systems powered by diesel generators. After the earthquake, they started up and worked fine. But when the tsunami came, it flooded the basement. The operators for god knows what reason put the fuel supply and electric switches in the basement, which flooded. The active safety systems failed, the coolant boiled, and the cores melted. As with TMI, passively safe reactors with low-pressure coolant and/or natural-circulation driven decay heat removal (i.e. no diesel backup power needed) would preclude this condition.
The nuclear industry is very into passive safety features, from experience. The first true passive safety demos happened in Idaho in April 1986 (weeks before Chernobyl) at a reactor called the EBR-II.
In summary, making a system safer with active systems is one approach. It's often both more elegant, more reliable, and cheaper to improve a system passively via design ingenuity. Thus, passive safety has a place here at Hacker News.
>The glass is stronger than standard car glass
Please stop doing this. Audi and Mercedes pulled this gimmicky crap about 8 years ago until they realized samaritans, Firefighters and EMT's need to be able to breech safety-glass windows in the event you become entrapped in the vehicle (possibly burning) during a major accident. You may also need to shatter a window in order to exit your vehicle if it becomes submerged in a body of water.
Teslas are already unique enough to require their own first responder procedure to perform an advanced extraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4peF1EYke8
Please, the vehicle already looks like the M577 Armored Personnel Carrier from Aliens. it outruns a porsche, it out pulls an f150. Youve ticked all the masculine boxes truck owners want for this thing. Dont turn it into a rolling coffin.
Teslas burn just fine, in fact much more unpredictably than ICE cars.
Side note, the anecdote seems misinformed, "The car is so overengineered. It’s so techy, it makes you want to buy a Chevy pickup truck." GM makes more money on trucks than on any other line so you better believe their is more R&D and technology in those vehicles than almost anything else in their lineup -- the only exception being the Cadillacs with SuperCruise. I'm guessing that lawyer has not been in a modern pickup truck.
Battery fires are worse than gasoline fires from what I've read: (2016) - https://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-batteries-violently-explo... (2017) - https://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-torched-in-weird-supercha...
There are many valid reasons first responders might have to remove people from cars quickly.
Meanwhile, more than a million people die in crashes each year, and some 40 million or so are injured. Putting any, even small, additional obstacle in the way of help is bound to be a losing proposition.
This would essentially be a re-hash of the seatbelt debate, where many people were somehow convinced they could escape any accident by quickly jumping out before impact. That attitude lead to seatbelt laws, which were the single most important factor in reducing fatalities per mile traveled by a factor of 10 or so since the peak.
While I'm tempted to invoke some Darwinian principle, the damage wouldn't be limited to those making that decisions, but also their passenger, the next owners, etc, and possibly pedestrian victims of collisions.
In any case, I doubt it's actually forbidden right now. There are, after all, bulletproof cars. They just tend to be expensive enough to mostly discourage people motivated by Hollywood macho fantasies.
Otherwise, if that is indeed the case, if it was a family car for use with kids that would be a borderline deal breaker. But that doesn't seem to be the target market here. For me personally as long as they communicate the risk honestly I don't see the problem.
Breaking the window creates an instant smaller opening that's still big enough to get out of.
https://www.tellwut.com/uploads/media/image/6511e1353649402o...
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBTY...
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8kyf00w-pKY/Tnz1ztUQ8CI/AAAAAAAAA...
All it takes is some fire.
It's possible, but not likely to have both a multi-car or large vehicle pileup that blocks all the doors and a fire.
Isn't most of that just the special consideration that all electric vehicles will need in order to isolate the battery voltage?
But they need ballistic glass.
Who is going to be attacking you? Seriously. Even with all this crazy stuff going on we live in one of the most peaceful times is history. Especially in the West, which is where most of these are going to sell (few people that live in these violent places could afford this. Except maybe the authoritarian regimes themselves).
Personally I'd rather get the extra miles that a lighter vehicle offers than knowing that I can shoot my truck with a pistol. If you feel like you need this kind of protection then I feel sorry that you live in such unjustified fear.
Maybe not many in violent places could afford these things, but they're the ones who'd be targeted.
While you obviously don't want to test it, there are videos of Model 3's and Model S's being driven through water over the windshield and were fine. IIRC there's a video somewhere of one of the Tesla models actually floating when the water got too deep.
Hope they don't use something like this 3M polymer layer, because it means you will be trapped for 2 more minutes even if you have the tools to go trough the polymer.
https://youtu.be/m7atGkba-Z8?t=75
So maybe that means it's not so hard to get into if needed.
You're not just trying to see your blind spot, which becomes considerable with a trailer, but you're trying to be aware of what's behind you.
I don't have a lot of personal experience with trailers, a few thousand miles maybe. But I've never liked clip on side mirrors. They bounce around/vibrate. A camera system that's optically stabilized and patches into existing displays would feel a lot more natural for someone like me with minimal experience.
Hmm as a long time Truck Buyer I am not impressed with the design at all, nor the specs, nor the price.
>Please, the vehicle already looks like the M577 Armored Personnel Carrier from Aliens.
I wish, no this looks like some on put a Truck bed on a Pontiac Trans sport minivan from the 90's
This Truck buyer will be waiting for the Electric F150, that is for sure
Of Course I also take pristine care of my Trucks, don't abuse them, and change all fluids under old school time tables not modern "Life time" fluid bull shit marketing
There’s nothing gimmicky or odd about this. It was demonstrated to behave exactly like standard laminated auto glass, which is everything short of required to meet FMVSS 226 standards required by 2017. Most all US cars now have laminated side glass.
And for good reason, they make curtain air bags stay in place and do their job correctly. Side impacts are way more common than fires or submersions.
Regardless, first responders have been dealing with laminated glass on windshields for many decades, they have tools to deal with it.
And the number of people who break out their own windows to save themselves is approaching zero. Tools are typically still required to break old-school safety glass.
If you're going to have a vehicle the flexibility of a truck is second to none.
No seriously, trailer would be the sensible option if you only use the bed sporadically. Why ride around with lots of unused spaced and dead weight?
Why have a guest room when there are hotels you can send visitors to?
Why have a 4 door car that incurs most of its mileage in a commute with 1 or 2 people?
People should just do the math and decide for their own particular case if hauling around a huge vehicle with all the disadvantages that come with it (maneuverability, fuel consumption, parking, etc.) actually pays off when they need the capacity, or if they're better off always using the right tool for the job (regular car for most of the needs, rent big one for the rest). YMMV.
I’ve seen several comments in this thread that conclude that it’s wasteful to have the truck bed when you are not using it. Going one level deeper, to the owner it doesn’t feel wasteful on a day to day basis because you forget it’s back there when you’re not using it. But it’s so handy when you do need it.
Former truck owner myself, I downsized to a car after moving to a more urban setting. It’s often on the weekends that I loathe not having to pickup for various furniture moves, gardening, etc. since I now have to borrow and friend’s or rent one.
How many times per year would you say you need to move furniture? If you do it 1 day per month but carry around a full truck and the above mentioned disadvantages the other 30 maybe it’s not that bad of a trade off.
I really wouldn't recommend that the average American driver use a trailer. renting a pickup from home depot is a good option though.
I live in Los Angeles. Four years ago, I bought a pick up truck.
In my case, I don't have a long commute. I can bike to work. So when I need a vehicle, it's to take my kids around, haul something I can't carry with my bike, or head out of the city for camping/adventuring/etc. The truck has been perfect. As it is, I use the bed of the truck at least once a week. I use it like all the other SUVs on the road, only I much prefer the flexibility of a proper truck, let alone the real offroad and towing capabilities.
Moreover, I know it's going to last pretty much forever and should I get a second, electric vehicle, there really won't ever be a time when having a truck on hand won't be useful.
What else is really surprising to me is their resale value, especially when they are optioned with desirables such as 4x4 or a diesel powertrain; 10-15 year old Dodge Rams with the Cummins are still selling in the $10k+ range, with some of the nicer 10-year-old examples fetching closer to $20k, roughly half the original MSRP
The Titan is made in Mississippi.
The Ridgeline in Alabama.
Those who identify as Republicans seem to indicate willingness to pay more for Made in USA than Democrats according to the polls I've seen.
https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/21/poll-support-for-purch...
https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/171016...
https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2019/06/2019-honda-ridgeline-i...
But they’re trucks and not cars, so things randomly falling off is part of the appeal.
I suppose you have never been in Crete, Greece. :P
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...
I really hate that trend as most of time people driving it have no idea what they are doing + have no need for that capacity.
Both vehicles were totaled. My passengers had some lacerations from shattered glass. The avalanche people were taken away in an ambulance. I was fine.
Small cars can be designed quite robustly to withstand these huge trucks hitting them. Not all though.
I think the current tesla sedans do quite well with large vehicle impact testing.
There can also be serious problems when modern vehicles have collisions with older vehicles that don't have those safety features, for similar reasons.
over/under 2.5t on weight of that tesla cyberwart?
Presumptuous to assume the operators of these vehicles don’t have the need for the capacity. My next door neighbor has 3 kids that fit in 3 car seats she carts them around all day not to mention their accessories and shopping and I always thought she needed a bigger vehicle. SUVs fare better in a collision with a smaller car, when it comes to protecting your kids you are better off riding in a tank.
Would all fit in a compact
In the US kids who are small enough to need a car seat aren't going to be in the front (air bags aren't designed for kids)
ISOFIX points can be found in the outer rear seats and in the front passenger seat.
So then you most likely wont have space for the second parent.
You need to look at the Peugeot 5008 or larger MPVs if you want that.
It's a gap in the market, I'd kill for a Model 3 sized car which was 5cm wider and had three proper seats in the back.
Source: the last three months researching and looking for the smallest car I can buy which can fit the whole family in.
It really does feel like a massive gap in the market, and I wonder why that is?
BTW, if you're still looking, and depending on the age of your kids, it might be worth looking at the MultiMac - it's basically a new back bench for your car, with 3x car seats built-in.
The ww Turan is also a option.
https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/3-across-car-seat-guide...
Unless the other party was driving a bigger tank in response to everyone else's tanks.
An arms race where vehicles get heavier and heavier isn't really in anyone's interests over the long run.
If I'm forking out 40K+ on a car I'm going to make sure it's at least useful for 2-3 vacations per year with the kids. That currently requires about 900L of boot space (stroller, 3 big duffels, a few boxes with supplies, toys, etc)
Honestly if my family is going to own just one car, it will be a SUV, instead of a sedan/compact.
Flying somewhere for vacation now costs $$$, so driving say to France, Spain or Portugal is a lot more appealing. A baby stroller already takes up half the 500L boot/trunk space of my BMW X1 and even with an annoying & noisy 400L roof box we still can't fit everything we want (I used to go backpacking for months with a 35L pack, so I'm not someone who takes the kitchen sink on vacation).
A Skoda Superb has a boot space of around 600L, one of the largest among "normal" cars. If you want more space, I guess you have to go for something that may look out of place in the city center but does have practical appeal even outside of farms.
Their being higher is a big factor I bet (less stooping and more road visibility, although the latter is less of a factor as they get more popular).
With my big pickups, I just try to center the deer on my massive grill guard so they don't dent the quarter panels.
Also, realistically I don't think sitting slightly higher up gives much better visibility.
Reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw on a big, jacked-up American truck, though: "If you can't stop, smile as you go under."
Well yeah...they might be a thing that fits well in the US but they as sure as hell don't belong in Europe.
Reading this thread and seeing all of the reasons people come up with to justify their "need" of a truck is hilarious.
I live in the midwest, have to deal with snow, and with a good set of winter tires I do just fine in my 97 na.
What about the rest of the time though?
Would you save money by using a "normal" car for most of the year, and then renting something bigger (SUV, (mini)van) when you need the large volume? Or purchase a hitch for your car and rent a trailer when you need to haul things?
A co-worker of mine drives a Ford F-150 year-round because he owns a fishing boat that he used 5-6 weekends per year. Seems... sub-optimal.
A bigger car of a non-premium brand with a small engine would probably cost about the same in taxes, insurance, consumption.
F-150 is total overkill of course.
An Audi Q5, for example, is big vehicle, yet I've more space in my 3 Series GT. Very similar story with the BMW X3 and the Merc equivalent.
At some the very biggest SUVs, such as the Q7 and X5, yes, you have a decent amount of space - but it's absolutely less than you'd think for what are basically tanks.
UK has Chelsea Tractors.
They're used a lot as utility and work vehicles. Road conditions can be pretty bad especially during the rainy season.
In Bangkok small cars are more popular.
A small Peugeot diesel crossover, weighing 1392kg, will cost you €1484 per year in road tax. Meanwhile a Toyota Hilux at 2030kg will cost you €496 in road tax. Even a Ford F250 with the 7.3L V8 and 2850kg will cost you only €692 per year. Less than half of a family crossover.
The worst thing is that some pickup trucks don't have a bed big enough to qualify as a work vehicle, so they cut the bed and make it longer (VW Amarok) or they take out the rear seats and put a divider in between to create a cargo area. Or people just buy a bigger truck so it's big enough to qualify. It's also exempt from CO2 tax giving you between €5000 and €72,000 (not a typo) off your initial purchase. So the €256,000 Range Rover SVA suddenly becomes a whole lot more affordable at €184,000, just by tossing the rear seats, calling it a utility vehicle and registering it on your business.
Mind boggling that we do this while construction of new homes is shut down all over the country because of the nitrogen crisis.
I've seen an Audi RS6 like this.
That's absolutely nuts.
The only thing I heard of is that older cars can be registered under a company and the market value used for tax purposes. That's why you see a lot of these massive Mercedes on the road..
I should add that only 1 percent of nitrogen is caused by construction, compared to 40 percent being caused by agriculture.
It seems like you wanted to show off your knowledge of the chicken tax and just threw it in an answer to whatever thread came up first.
It doesn't make them more practical, just more common.
Cheaper relative to the foreign competition, but the prices of American trucks are not reduced by the tax.
>It seems like you wanted to show off your knowledge of the chicken tax and just threw it in an answer to whatever thread came up first.
Maybe, but I'm sure there are a lot of people here who don't know about the chicken tax. It is relevant to a general discussion of trucks.
Toyota trucks are everywhere and our family 1995 Toyota t-100 regularly had people stopping us making offers on it from about 2005ish until I gave it to my half-brother in 2013 with almost 140k miles on it (which is nothing for a Toyota), I even had people knock on the door of our house offering to buy it when it wasn't for sale. The Indiana State Police (I live in Indiana) even had some of their fleet as Toyota pickups for years (they still might). Actually, I'm quite confident I received more offers for my t-100 than I did for my '67 c-10 and I'd regularly get stopped and asked if I was willing to sell it too (which I finally did when someone offered me twice what I'd paid for it, which I'm still sore about I really miss that truck).
To be fair though, Toyota does manufacture a lot of vehicles in Canada and the United States which gets around the 'chicken tax'.
The reason you don't see a lot of imported pickups is because most of them are absolutely tiny, when you see an Isuzu truck for example it looks about as practical as an El Camino.
We use my wife's crossover for all of the family trips, so it's usually just me in the truck. Before I owned a home I enjoyed driving a nicer sedan but now I would now I prefer the utility of a mid-size truck.
Always hated filling a sedan with trash, yard garbage, or landscaping materials though.
I used it to move a queen size bed, refrigerator, washing machine: stuff you'd normally need a ute or van to transport.
Front-wheel driver cars in the United States are generally not rated for towing, and can void your warranty. (It's silly, because as I understand it, the exact same car in Europe usually is rated for towing).
Minivans are the exception; they are rated for towing more than some compact pickups. Unfortunately, seat design means that many minivans no longer meet one of the original design criteria of the first minivan: the ability to carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood.
I wasn't aware those laws were so strict in the US, perhaps that is why trucks are so much more common. Owning or renting a trailer isn't uncommon here.
That is crazy, no wonder many Americans think you need a monster-truck to tow a trailer. My small Audi A3 is rated with a trailer weight of 1400kg in Europe
I don't know about "most". Current Honda[0], Toyota[1], and Chrysler[2] vans are still up to the task.
[0] https://www.middletownhonda.com/honda-odyssey-cargo/
[1] https://www.toyoland.com/trucks/sienna.html
[2] https://www.boston.com/cars/news-and-reviews/2016/04/02/2017...
Here are much smaller (10x and smaller) taxes on vehicles, that is probably the reason.
I also doubt you are taking fuel into account with this comparison, which was the primary source of savings mentioned when you own a small car and rent a truck as needed.
Large trailers (if they’re big enough to be worth hiring instead of a van) will for most people likely need additional qualifications on their licence to be allowed to drive with so they’re less popular.
I've been toying with the idea of getting a hitch installed on my Prius.
But I guess in US this usually wouldn't be viable because of the big land and less population density.
I recently bought a pickup knowing that the number of days in the year I need to transport bulky stuff can't really justify owning a truck. But since it (a Honda Ridgeline) is about as livable as an SUV, I didn't feel too foolish. Given that few luxury SUVs can be had for the $US 40k I paid, and given this truck's many upgrades that help it to rival a luxury car, I was sold.
1. It is a status symbol (as in "my car is bigger than your car")
2. It is sturdier and has more weight so it will physically dominate the average car in an accident and provide more security to it's passengers.
This is just such an American way of putting it. Sounds so much nicer than "kill everyone in the other vehicle to provide a marginally higher chance for its owner" but it's basically the same thing
I'm not saying escalation is a Good Thing™, only that it's inevitable when people are culturally obsessed with driving absurd bullshit.
To be clear, I agree that humans being humans, we do love to get into escalating arms races.
* https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/drunk-driver-who-kill...
* https://www.kxan.com/traffic/two-children-killed-in-cedar-pa...
* https://www.kxan.com/top-stories/two-from-austin-dead-after-...
* https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/married-only-minutes-texas-n...
I agree that it is probably inevitable but there is also people who don't join the race and that is lifting my hopes.
It’s actually one of our bigger problems (it has big implications on safety, infrastructure, urban planning, &c.), but not many people really care. Cars are too deeply associated with “freedom” and “success” and individuality; for a lot of people I’d say they might be the biggest icon of America after the flag.
https://www.budgettruck.com/moving-trucks-accessories/truckd...
There are plenty of trades that benefit from using a truck other than just farming.
People will come up with all sorts of justifications for what is really an emotional purchase.
If you don't believe this take a look at the marketing for cars, the further upmarket you go the more it is laden with emotional triggers. Buy this car and your wife will become slim and attractive, your kids will love you, roads will become empty and smooth before you, that new speed boat will suddenly be within reach and trailerable.
Never mind the reality of endless car payments, clogged up streets, increasing pedestrian deaths, kids not being able to play outside, particulate pollution and climate change.
In fact, I wonder about the Tesla truck's appeal. I feel like the oversized truck's negative ecological impact is one part of its appeal, do does an electric truck actually end up selling? Here in the South, some pickup drivers modify their exhausts to spew toxic smoke ("rolling coal") which is clearly not an option with the Tesla...
> Veblen goods are types of luxury goods for which the quantity demanded increases as the price increases, an apparent contradiction of the law of demand, resulting in an upward-sloping demand curve.
I mean... why the hell would you do such a thing?!
And several people here, as a manner-of-fact, "oh yeah that happens in part of the country where I live". That is not normal.
Conspicuous consumption is an enormous part of consumerism absolutely everywhere. Wearing a $20,000 suit is conspicuous consumption to those who can tell that’s what you’re wearing but we don’t generally call it that because it’s only conspicuous if you’re in the know.
They could always shoot a hole in the battery pack to do that.
yeah that sounds like exactly their attitude, fun but useless.
The thing I find interesting about this truck design is the angled body. It looks like it's designed for minimised radar cross section (RCS) signature, which is a military application benefit.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing–Sikorsky_RAH-66_Coman...
God save us...
I don't want one myself, but I can understand the appeal.
I am 6' 2", Climbing in and out of a Car that sits 6in's off the ground is not fun for me, and I do not want to do that every day.
I prefer lateral movements, and a Truck or Full Size SUV's standard Height is just about perfect for me
(And they will tow the things that most people tow, like a trailer that weighs a ton).
VW Touran has a ground clearance of 156MM or 6.14 Inches and to total height of 1659mm or 65in , my Truck as a ground clearance of ~10in and a total height of 77in, that may seem like a small amount but is huge difference to me.
a VW Touran is exactly the type of vehicle I avoid
Further while available are not practical because there are very few mechanics that can work on them or have parts for them it has to go to the dealer which is $$$$$$
I tend to Stick to American Manufactured vehicles from Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc.
If you are 98 % of time driving on good roads, the generally lower center of mass makes things like a Touran or Toyota Verso safer and better to drive than a truck.
If you really need some more ground clearance, then there are things ranging from Honda CR-V (a very nice drive but a ground clearance closer to 8 inches) to Suzuki Jimny (a vehicle with actual off-road capability, but driveable on roads and small).
Of course there are people who actually do need a truck, but very often the cited reasons sound more like excuses.
Buying American, when you are yourself American, is of course a thing for many.
They are proportional, most Seats sit about the same height from the floor, so Ground Clearance it an accurate measurement to know how far the seat is from the ground.
When you have the bed, you realize there are a lot more uses for it than you might otherwise think. Other than just hauling stuff, the tailgate acts as a bench to sit on- I used to have lunch with my wife every day in the summer like this. At an outdoor event (like fireworks, outdoor concert in a park, etc.) I've lined the bed with blankets and lounged at comfortable height with 3 friends and great view of whatever is going on.
For me, the real key is to own an older truck that you don't mind dinging or using to its potential. I buy used, with cash, and I don't spend more than $15K or so. I don't understand spending $65-75K on a brand new mall-crawling status symbol that will only start being used like a truck in 15 years by a guy like me.
Although admittedly, I really like the look and presumed potential of the new Tesla truck. It's the first vehicle that I'd actually consider buying new. I wonder how well the stainless steel will hold up the salty roads- the bane of vehicles around here.
This looks like a solution in search of a problem. People are buying stuff they don't need then finding a good justification for it (from their perspective). But almost anything can be justified this way. Even driving an 18-wheeler will have advantages you never thought about but this doesn't negate the downsides. Mainly that you carry around 4000-5000lbs (over 2000Kg) of metal mainly just to move 1 or 2 people and nothing more. This is a lot of wasted fuel and a lot of space taken in the street.
Coal also has advantages but few people would dare defend it with this argument.
People want one car to be the jack of all trades. Big enough for 7 people and carry a house's worth of furniture in one go while towing a boat, and travel 800Km on a charge. So it ends up being truck sized, 2500+Kg, to carry 1 person on their 5Km commute to work 99% of the time.
But it would be a death trap to drive around other 2000kg vehicles, and it wouldn't be comfortable.
>5Km commute
Almost no one in the US has a commute that short.
If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate should they ever decide to go out on the streets? Is that normal?
> Almost no one in the US has a commute that short.
It's all relative. You just multiply that (avoidable) waste.
Do you really need to drive a "tank" just to survive? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21609767
People with families who regularly take them out aren't going to fit in a subcompact particularly if anyone is tall or there are car seats.
You could design a very lightweight car that could hold 4-5 people comfortably with 1 or 2 carseats and fit tall drivers. But no one does--it's not really an option.
You could buy and maintain multiple vehicles for different purposes, but it's expensive especially when you consider the additional insurance.
>100Kg dingy or a 2500Kg fat-mobile?
No obviously not, I'm saying that 2600kg vs 2300kg is basically irrelevant. And that when you say 2300kg is a waste of energy that statement only makes sense in the context of specific design goals.
>If that's a death trap around the "real" vehicles, should cyclists and pedestrians expect 90% mortality rate
No but motorcycles have an almost 30x higher fatality rate per mile driven than cars do, so I'd call that a death trap.
It's a prisoners dilemma. Everyone else is driving 2000kg+ cars. To make very lightweight vehicles that are safe around those huge vehicles it's very expensive. The solution is regulation, not begging individuals to drive smaller cars.
I live in Northern Europe and drive a Prius and have no issues in the winter. Last year we went to visit my wife's grandma, who lives in a 'village' (nearest neighbour 1km away) ~5km down a uneven dirt track which is bad enough in the summer. When we went, there was 30cm of snow on the road, but I had absolutely no issues. I was surprised by how well it handled it.
Sure if I had ended up in a ditch I would have had troubles, but you'd also have issues with a truck. (There aren't many big trees you can use to tow yourself out in this area)
I get that maybe you like trucks, but I don't think there is as much need as you make out (in the winter department - your other points are fair arguments). Modern cars (esp. 4x4) can handle pretty much any road surface, the only case you would need something bigger is for off-road where you need higher clearance.
I mean, I _know_ how it sounds because I am one of those people. But I wonder how Americans think this sounds.
Vehicle ownership in the US is practically a requirement because you have to drive to get anywhere. Therefor, having a versitile vehicle like a truck is more apealing.
Trucks also tend to be more durable than cars so they're more common in the used market, especially in the midwest.
...but for many, a truck is just an aesthetic/lifestyle symbol. The "country" lifestyle is generally associated with independence and work ethic - traits which are highly valued in the US. Trucks are a classic symbol of that lifestyle. That's why country songs stereotypically mention trucks.
> Trucks also tend to be more durable than cars
Surely the engine, drivetrain, clutch etc are the same parts you'd find in cars? Curious about what you mean here?
The scales of the US and Switzerland are incomensorable.
Recognizing the difference of scale is not a claim to exceptionalism. The US's scale makes it more like Russia than any western European country.
No driving in water.
All that said, I would have been much safer in a truck.
A truck specifically, or would any ol' four-wheel driven (4x4, AWD) vehicle do?
AWD has a great plus for thrust, but in terms of stopping, which is where most "oh shit" stuff happens, the snow tires are what's meaningful.
(I live in New Hampshire)
I like having a truck but would never drop $75k for one. I currently own a 1999 Chevy 2500. It has 150,000 miles on it, which is essentially nothing for a truck that old. A lot of people who buy trucks expect them to last 15+ years and most of them do. Hell, as long as the frame is in good shape, you won't have any trouble finding someone who would buy the truck and drop a new engine in it, considering a crate 350 will set you back less than $3,000.
While I've never considered purchasing a new pickup, I'd sure like to have one of the cybertrucks to haul with.
Farmers are fed up with John Deere and their software shenanigans. I hope people like you who are actually thinking about value, don’t fall for this...
(sure, on strictly theoretical grounds, having 4 wheel drive, or 10 wheel drive or 1000 wheel drive, if there are no downsides, would always be preferable)
They are also useful if you own your own business that requires moving things around.
Note that I do not own a truck, I just wish I did.
Weird reason to own truck if you only do it so your friends will call you over to help them move.
There are mosquito fleet trucks in SF whose whole purpose is to collect recycling and take it to the recycling center.
In western cities there are off-road enthusiasts who camp at places you can’t get to without a modified vehicle and winch (no crowded campsites).
Some people just like trucks and will buy them because why not?
Backpackers seem to manage just fine.
However, in my immediate social group, there are LOTS of smaller trucks or smaller SUVs, mostly because of the practicality for bicycling trips. Sure, you can do a roof rack or a hitch rack, but if you want to go out to the hill country with you and your wife and both MTB and road bikes, you find yourself wishing for a truck bed pretty fast.
There's lots of overlap in this group with other outdoor activities -- camping, hiking, some fishing, a very small amount of hunting -- that reward actual trucks. My friend J has a full-size (read: HUGE) Ford with back seats and a long bed, and uses the HELL out of it, since he travels back and forth to Colorado with bikes pretty frequently.
But he and his wife also have a VW they use for most urban driving. ;)
Absolutely will be buying a truck in the near future for these purposes- and selling this compact to a high school student or somebody else willing to drive a ragged out hybrid.
Small / compact trucks like the Toyota Tacoma have become much bigger, and other models like the Ford Ranger disappeared and have been reintroduced in larger sizes.
This is annoying, because the previous gen size of the Ranger (e.g.) is a really great and useful size. Most people who could use a truck don't need the giant "full size" models, and yet the market ignores them.
If you do this a lot and can afford it, a larger vehicle is a great option.
Really though, why not follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart instead of getting serially banned? It's in your interests for at least three reasons. First, those rules are what keep HN interesting and prevent it from burning to a crisp. Scorched earth is no good for anyone, and there aren't that many places like HN on the internet, which for all its faults is worth preserving. Second, if you just blast the things you dislike with a flamethrower, it only discredits your positions. Keeping your cool, staying neutral, and explaining your point of view in a positive way would be more effective and have more dignity. Third, following HN's rules takes discipline and self-control, classical virtues which we all profit from cultivating.
Btw, I'm not an American. Normally I wouldn't say that because the rules don't depend on what I am, nor is "American" somehow a bad thing to be. I mention it because you said "clearly". A lot of things—maybe most—that people perceive "clearly" on the internet are actually untrue. This is what happens when users function in flamewar mode. If you switch to thoughtful mode you are more likely to get your facts right and to help other people do the same. Basically the idea is to learn from each other. Don't you think that's worth doing?
(the other big reasons for their popularity is status signalling, and perverse incentives created by regulation of "passenger cars" as a category that have negatively impacted the quality of "regular cars" in the US.)
"Cuz 'Merica"
Yep, Americans love to overcompensate. It is in our DNA.
Hard to judge which demographic you're looking at while driving around.
* Hauling stuff from the home improvement and warehouse stores. Single family houses are a bit of work depending on age and when they are not, HGTV is the devil's workshop that invents the work.
* Safety: the feeling that regardless of who is at fault, you will live in a car crash. I have seen plenty of sad news reports where in a truck+car collision, the people in the car paid for it with their lives while the truck driver walked away.
* Status: possible - just don't have enough social understanding to know whether this is still a thing. I can imagine a jacked-up F350 or Silverado may be a status symbol.
Look at businesses and what their fleet vehicles are. No one uses an F150 in the city. Why? Because thieves very often steal stuff from the flatbed. If you actually want to transport large, bulky items in a city environment, you need to close off the back so that no one can look in and see the cargo.
2020 Ford Transit-350 Cargo is $35k.
------
F150 comes more in handy in rural areas, where there aren't thieves around. The flatbed is useful for hauling very large, oversized items, such as mountains of topsoil / compost, or rocks for your garden, or bundles of hay for stuff.
But when it comes to "city items" like furniture (often valuable furniture, so thieves want it), or large equipment like computer racks and servers... a van wins.
You can certainly make do with a smaller vehicle, but there are these occasional things that make having a truck suuuuper convenient. Some personal examples from the last year:
* Needed to top dress my lawn and it only takes 3 loads of soil from IFA to cover my 1/4 acre
* My father (who lives very close) bought a boat knowing he could use my truck to haul it when necessary. And yes, he talked to me about it first, and my family gets to use it whenever we want.
* I built a treehouse in this giant willow in my front yard and could not have hauled the lumber or fireman's pole without a truck
* With 5 people in the family we get huge Costco runs regularly, these are moderately easier to haul in the back of the truck.
* I get social capital when bringing my truck to any family or friend moving parties
* Used it to haul lumber, tools, and people when the extended family participated in our family cabin area's work day
* Hauled my father inlaw's motorcycle+ATV trailer on a family outing
IMO not everyone needs one, but in a community or geographically close family it is always nice to have that person you can call to borrow their truck, and if you're the one that has the truck then you get social capital when lending it and you also don't have to borrow one yourself.
For us since it's a second vehicle it does sit idle most of the time while we use the minivan for typical travel needs. But I have space to park it, and the truck obviously isn't wasting gas when we're not using it. And since we paid cash and it was cheap, there's just not much of a downside to keeping it around.
Then we will transition into a feminine, high quality style for 2028.
But it’s absolutely hideous without taking it in the context of resembling sci-fi. The wheels just look goofy.
Now if it concealed the tires, it’d look great. Just a solid block of metal. But it’d also be hell for maintenance.
It's just so outrageously different, offers the functionality of both a truck and the tech and performance of a Tesla, and isn't comparable with other 'trucks' which I'd argue are homogeneous in nature, cliche, particularly un-aesthetically pleasing and are synonymous with gas-guzzling North American indulgence.
Regardless, it's another instance of Musk pushing boundaries which I find myself continually applauding.
I’d totally buy a reasonably priced car with this aesthetic.
Looks like Ark II style scifi from the 80s.
Welcome to the desert of the real.
Not anymore!
Related, this seems to be something of a theme with Musk's companies. Landing rockets is an old-school concept, and Starship looks like it was taken straight from the cover of some pulp sci-fi work from the 60s.
Now that spirit has largely faded away, the West seems to have lost faith in progress in exploration and is focused in preserving what we already have - sometimes for good reasons (environmentalism and fight against climate change), sometimes not (disproportionate attention to minor threats like terrorism, fear of immigration, etc.)
Musk clearly still believes in progress and exploration, hence it's not surprising that his designs end up evoking reminiscences from that era.
And this new Tesla seems reminiscent to me of that pessimistic idea of the future, trying to survive the apocalypse on Earth. Not like the optimistic future of 2001 A Space Odyssey.
As soon as I saw it I thought "dystopian future military transport". Then I remembered Blade Runner is set this month, of this year, and uncharacteristically giggled.
Do I see this turning up on construction sites in the next few years? No, probably not, for many reasons. Can I see it capturing some of the market of recreational truck buyers? I can, just as the Model S took part of the luxury sports car market by appealing to people who could likely afford more expensive "status" vehicles by being different.
It has status like having the new iPhone on day 1 has status. Different than big money status, but still status.
The type of status that this truck is trying to market to is like the `I paid 1.5 million cash for this crazy pentagon` status.
The only other option I might add is a battery charger for hand tools. I know they can plug into the normal outlet but it seems inefficient to go from 400v --> 110v --> 12v.
You can still haul 4x8' sheets, you just have to be more creative and haul fewer at a time. Otherwise if you need so many you'd reach capacity in an 8' bed, you'd likely have them delivered to the jobsite (yes, even if you own a truck).
This dystopian cross between stealth bomber and Mad Max is angular, but straight in all the wrong directions.
It looks like it's going to be a challenge to pass EU pedestrian safety regs, but I'm quite impressed they have achieved the ugliest road vehicle bar none. I'm amazed the balance of comments here seems hugely in favour - to me it looks like a wind up!
I love how this thing has the dystopian look, yet it doesn't need gas. Mad Max was all about gas. Maybe gas would make a comeback in a Mad Max world since chargers might become hard to come by.
If ugly was a goal, this was an interesting way to accomplish it. This is ugly that I would be okay caught driving in. This is ugly which achieved a goal, rather than not attempting to be ugly but horribly failed. ;)
There's still some time before this thing actually ships. Maybe they'll make some changes so that truck people could properly attach things like gun racks and winches.
I'd be amazed if Tesla simply chose to ignore the whole market though...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Fiat_Mul...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/06-08_Ch...
0-60 wouldn't care about drag much at all. Highway cruising would.
I wasn't aware the US didn't have regulations for that.
Reading these responses makes me think I’m out of the loop on some joke. Seriously. I had no doubt when I came to the discussion that all the comments would be about how ugly it is.
Maybe this is one of those white/gold vs. black/blue dress things. Or the “yanni” thing.
I’m blown away by any of the comments that find the design appealing.
In a world where every manufacturer makes cars that look basically the same as every other car in the world, I'm fucking stoked on this.
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_SSR
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humvee#/media/File:SAM-HMMWV.j...
Pontiac Aztek and Jeep Gladiator.
It's also strange that you can sell it in a context of 'being prepared', with the offroad capability and everything - I don't know a better example for a vehicle being dependent on an always-on infrasructure than an armored electric truck.
Why?
It seems to me people like the martial aesthetic and function(!) as a status symbol, maybe without reflecting why the martial aesthetic is what it is. To keep people in a metal shell with guns on it from being shredded.
A civil society should find these things ugly but respect their necessity, not celebrate them. And if civil society has a real need for these things, it's in a sad state.
Also, weapons and weaponry can be aesthetically pleasing without accepting the inevitability of violence.
Why? It is so, so much easier to produce your own electricity than your own gasoline. A truck running on slightly impure ethanol or gasified wood would still be more independent, but there are performance issues to consider there.
http://www.retrogamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/launchi...
- <insert delorean bare metal>
You can even see a little Mad Max oriented punk on elon buddies clothing on stage.
Note that Peugeot attempted a similar thing with the 508 electric revival recently.
Just needs more spikes on the front ;)
Seeing the truck I was immediately reminded of the original Death Track game.
Apparently the F117 looks like that because they didn't have enough computational power to simulate more complex surfaces.
To me it looks like the Tesla is for people who want that truck and the Rivian for people who need a truck.
And yeah imho the Cybertruck is very ugly. It looks like a copy of the Maserati Boomerang (1971) which was futuristic back then.
But maybe Shirley Bassey was right: it's all history repeating.
As a rider who hates breathing diesel particulates, I love it.
I know it can't be, the design has come out too soon.
The funny part to me is that this design is something I saw often maybe 20 years ago. It's the stereotypical future car that major automotive design departments often came up with, and sketched up in programs like Alias AutoStudio, back when it was still Alias. None of the designs ever saw prototypes let alone production, I'm guessing largely because they were too radical for the time and thus seen as too risky.
It's like it's half future car of the early 2000s, and the other half a nod to DeLorean.
Flash forward to 2019, the world's falling apart and going crazy at the same time, things feel a lot more surreal, advancements are becoming too numerous for the average person to keep track of, AI is a big deal, smartphones and all manner of tech are just a boring fact of life now, and as always the future is right around the corner, but for real this time.
Likewise, 80s and early 90s nostalgia is in vogue right now. Cyberpunk 2077 is nearing release. For the target audience of this car, they remember the 80s because they either grew up in it or lived it.
When you lay eyes on this thing, you immediately go "What the fuck, is that a real car?" I can think of no better marketing.
It's a rather genius design in my opinion, a retrofuture tribute to a future that never was, but now is.
Analysis aside, I tend to agree with you: it's pretty ugly, but for some reason I really like it.
Fugly is in the eye of the beholder. To me this is an outstanding design, with crazy cool cyberpunk inspiration, and finally a fucking bold design move -- 99% of cars looking the same shit, even sports cars like Lamborginis sticking to the same designs since the 80s...
I've had to see such an interesting take since the DeLorean....
Your opinion may vary somewhat
You'll notice this pattern with many of the really high end cars. Some signature elements are always present and evolve only very slowly over time. You could call it the master stroke, it's what makes a particular brand distinct from others. This is deliberate and I for one like that.
A complete newcomer can design whatever they want right away.
_Everyone_ is going to see this, have an opinion on it, and want to know what everyone else's opinion on it is.
This is a great example of the marketing strategy that advocates focusing on a small group of very passionate customers. If you can create a set of fanatical early adopters for a brand-new product, you're on your way to success. Very few products achieve immediate mainstream success and assuming that Tesla won't likely have the production capacity to meet mainstream demand anyway, this is a very smart play.
Having grown up in the 90s with a dream of becoming an automotive designer one of my favorite designs was that of the Lamborghini Countach (1974). The Cybertruck design is reminiscent of that design (to me), and I think that's one of the reasons it's drawing me in so strongly.
I hope they've included biodefense mode.
Why would you say that? I think its ugly but maybe if all trucks looked this way we'd think the current ones are the ugly ones.
I'd say it looks like this BECAUSE it's rugged and practical.
The rear tray is also looks smaller than the renderings make it out to be. They have a quad in one picture that takes up the full length and then a sleeping fitout in another that also takes up the full length, either it's a really long quad or they are really short people.
I'm sure this will become more fleshed out over time, I doubt this is the final specification for the car.
I can't wait to see all the different renderings people come out with, to show potential aftermarket parts for this thing. I think that will be the real display of whether or not it will make for a good utility vehicle. I can imagine this looking extremely purposeful and rugged with the right equipment on it.
Except the base Tesla is $20,000 cheaper than the base Rivian.
The High end Telsa (with 500+ miles of range and 2.9 0-60) is the same price as the base Rivian.
Rivian are shitting themselves right now about pricing.
The Model S has been awarded as one of the best vehicles ever made, and has the highest safety rating of any car ever made.
Same for the Model X, and the Model 3.
Why do people still think Tesla "can't do it" when they already have, time and again?
To be clear, I think it looks freaking awesome and I would love to own one. I also think they still have not shipped the Roadster or Semi, the Model S and X refresh is next year and the Model Y is still a year plus away even though it shares most parts with the 3. This is the same story as Apple's iOS 13 launch, they have packed their schedule with cars to finish while building a bunch of new factories, while just a year ago they were taking all of Tesla Solar's employees and putting them on the model 3 R&D line. I'm bearish on this not because I hate what they have done in the past but because I want them to actually succeed mass market and be stable. Keep in mind, the truck market is supposed to be a larger market in the US (but more than 2X) than the Model 3's segment. Why can't they just ship a good, shippable, profitable truck with Tesla's DNA? It's like the falcon doors, a bit power mad, in a year this is going to be the example people use to say why Elon should not be CEO of Tesla and it sucks, because Elon at his best is probably the best CEO around, at his worst he will trash the company for a cool looking truck.
Re: rear visibility, in the test-ride videos the rear mirror is actually a video feed from the rear AP camera, the same that is done in the Chevy Bolt and has worked well there. Works even better if the cab is loaded.
For brake lights, they should use Apple's technique of laser cutting the metal, so the LEDs shine through: https://venturebeat.com/2011/11/04/apple-laser-manufacturing...
This car looks like I could beat the fuck out of it and the fix it with a sheet of metal and either a welder, some bolts, or some rivets. I see beauty in adaptability, which is something modern cars have none of.
VERY disorganized presenting. Badly rehearsed. Awkward speech. Speech is almost never in sync with slides. Demos failed spectacularly. The rest of the event was him with a backdrop of two broken windows.
They didn't show the interior, and barely talked about the bed. Is this even good as a pickup truck? Is there enough storage?
This all seemed hastily put together (probably as a response to the other pickup truck press). But for an Elon presentation, this is pretty normal (high awkwardness).
Signed, Model 3 Driver (who loves his car).
Edit: Others have pointed out my apparent ignorance of truck pricing; turns out this is a normal price
I'm disappointed they didn't do something more aerodynamic. The incumbents could use a kick in the pants to stop making bricks on wheels. This thing is just for poseurs.
I don't entirely trust my intuition when it comes to the behavior of turbulent air, but the tailgate on a conventional truck looks about as aerodynamic as a parachute.
I agree though that the shape of the cybertruck, especially with the cover, should be a significant improvement.
Edit: Ah. I didn't allow all of the scripts at first, so didn't see the text about "exterior shell made for ultimate durability and passenger protection". They ought to use actual "bulletproof" windows, however. So I wonder if this is aimed at wealthy preppers.
Also, the nose should be depleted uranium, with the batteries just behind and shielded, to facilitate punching through other vehicles in the way.
Jobs would start off describing a common problem before unveiling the product which inevitably solves said problem. This often brought cheers that felt genuine.
Musk simply shows something bizarre and talks about how they made it, never how it solves your problems (other than a desire for the latest tech). edit Regarding the transition to EV vehicles, that's what Musk always says about new models, it's not a new thing.
I started at, "This is terrible, this guy is crazy"
By about halfway through though it turned into, "This guy is crazy, and I really hope he succeeds"
Such a disappointment personally, I hope they add a chassis option with an 8' bed and two seats, or maybe make the back seats removable? also they need a lumber rack. seriously, pickup trucks have lumber racks. I think they are missing out on a significant market segment of trades people by not offering it with an 8' bed(or a rack), and a foreseeable second-order effect is that it will give the Cybertruck the repute of being a poser vehicle. I like everything about it, except that it has a huge cab and a small bed.
It's a toy, this is a recreational vehicle hence the ATV. Off-roaders often need compressed air to refill tires after deflating for traction in exceptional conditions like sand and snow.
The decision to have sloped bed-rails prevents mounting toolboxes anywhere on this thing, nor can you place oversized loads across them without sliding off. That alone precludes the vast majority of work truck applications. The 1st gen Honda Ridgeline had the same defect, to a lesser degree.
Here's a picture of the bed, just before the ATV drives up to it. Note the wheelhouses don't impinge upon the cargo bed at all.
https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5dd768642c8...
If you can put a 4x8 sheet of plywood in at a slope, the high end would be about 4.66 feet above the bed, if the bed is 6.5 feet long. There probably isn't enough vertical clearance for that, but it would be close. On the other hand, maybe the rear window opens and is at least four feet wide.
Thing is: though the glass demo failed, we still know this guy comes thru with great stuff - he'll get that problem fixed, and we'll have videos soon of someone literally shooting up the truck with practically no damage (glass included). The man managed to get rockets to land & reuse; fixing the glass will be resolved next week.
I'm not sure if I'm thrilled or dismayed by the exterior design, but it's innovative and futuristic. It pushes the state of the industry forward.
It's unclear to me how an exterior design devoid of compound curves pushes the industry forward.
And he was planning/hoping to reduce it even more.
From what you say, it seems Elon achieved his goal regarding his time management goal.
And I also remember some saying Apple engineers basically spent their time all year preparing for Jobs' next upcoming presentation. :)
A passionate person in charge, who tries to make the things he wants to use.
I wonder if the awkward persona isn’t intentional, i.e. to project a certain image, perhaps to appear less intimidating and more approachable, the guy you could nerd out about stuff with.
Musk is a tinkerer and it shows in all the aspects that you have outlined.
Regarding the interior - some 3-4 guys stepped out of the truck implying it must be quite spacious. An ATV could fit in the bed. So this truck is most likely going to sell. Pricing is spot on.
Or, is this a nutty professor kinda of shtick that Elon thinks makes him seem more personable?
His presentations are painful to watch.
> There were compulsory subjects like Afrikaans, and I just didn’t see the point of learning that. It seemed ridiculous. I'd get a passing grade and that was fine.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=zRXjCwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA43&ot...
Many people have poor presenting skills. Just few of them get to be CEO and still insist on being the public face of the company
Give me the high-functioning aspie CEO who puts all their energy into realizing a brilliant vision, and has none left over to game their audience with 'charisma' (e.g., Adam Neumann). Not sure that Steve Jobs was much of a normie either - though possibly his meditation practice had some effect to his conduct.
Signed, not a Tesla owner :(
Some models over the years have looked decent. Many have (Ford especially) have been dog ugly. I could see this thing taking off, though not sure how rural truck owners would take to electric.
Edit: On second thought, rural truck owners must go through a ton of gas. I bet they would love to own something like this.
Edit edit: I also love that this thing can take a beating on the exterior. You don't have to worry about scratches in the paint or dents from shopping cart accidents.
Of course, they usually span the past few decades of makes/models, but there are plenty of towns where the trucks outnumber the people.
I think one big issue will be that a lot of people are like 50 miles from the nearest major highway or town, which makes the range a bigger issue for daily use.
But electric cars were charging from local solar powered recharging stations just fine.
That's not universal, these things are common in Australia and look pretty sleek: https://www.google.com/search?q=commodore+ute&safe=active&hl...
But even the less pretty ones had that sort of brutal, functional, serious look. This ... does not.
That's a car with a bed, like an El Camino.
Then again some people feel the same way about the Tesla truck. Personally I think the Cybertruck looks incredible.
I have a Toyota Tacoma. I expect it will go well into the multi-hundred miles (typical for Tacomas), I have 4 jerry cans filled for when exploring off-road or for times like "oh hey, the power is out, the pump in a rural town doesn't have power".
Is it really that high? That’s what I pay in New York City.
Electricity is still not an option for exploring / driving extended off road trips.
Someone could do this with any EV, but tossing it all in the back of a pickup is easier than a sedan or even an SUV.
Gas is one expense. California and some other western states (WA) are doing what they can to ramp up licensing fees on older vehicles to make them less affordable.
Do you have a source for this?
Rural means limited access to infrastructure, including petrol stations. Especially when those start going out of business because of people switching to EVs, this will induce some range anxiety for ICE vehicle owners that already have to spend a lot of money on fuel just for the detours they have to make to refuel (50-100 miles). When petrol stations start going out of business, it will be the small unprofitable rural ones that go first. Margins for those are shit to begin with and even a few percent drop in demand is going to impact them heavily. And it will be more than a few percent. Worse, remaining hybrids and ICE vehicles will be competing on range and efficiency. Which means less revenue for petrol stations charging per gallon.
With an EV, any kind of wall socket will be able to charge you (though probably not at a great speed). That includes the one you have at home. With this thing you leave with 500 mile range in the morning. In case that that is not enough, any surviving petrol stations that are functioning will likely have wall sockets and if the owners are somewhat enterprising they might invest in high capacity chargers. If you are unlucky enough that there is no super charger in a 100 mile radius, that should cover your emergency needs. Generally it is going to be much easier to find the nearest functioning wall socket than a petrol station. The absolute worst case is that you run out of battery due to spectacularly poor planning and then somebody with another EV (i.e. battery on wheels) drives up to you to give you a few kwh. Mobile charging infrastructure is going to be a thing.
Everyone else in this thread is saying the styling is a negative, but they couldn’t be more wrong.
As a former truck owner I have to disagree. I like modern trucks and with a few exceptions think they've looked great since they were invented. The truck shown by Tesla does not appeal to me.
Frankly I think it's odd how one-sided the upvotes are going in this thread. I really don't think Tesla would bother astroturfing on HN so I dunno... I guess HN folks really like the design. Personally I just don't see it having wide appeal, especially among truck owners.
A Ford F150 for example, looks 'masculine'. The Tesla truck looks... sterile? It's like comparing a sledgehammer to a scalpel.
The design, of course, is subjective. We'll be seeing professional commentary which may sway our opinion. I would be interested to see if there were design constraints which weighed heavily in the final design.
There's a prism of ugly and this truck fits in the region which I can live with. I have mostly found Ford designs to be ugly (1995 for example.) I also feel that truck designs have mostly been similar. If I find X year Ford to be ugly, then it's relative to the same year of Chevy. There's also utility ugly and the sort of ugly which attempts to be artistic but which fails into something I would be embarrassed to drive (curves and paint schemes which aren't meant to be functional and just look bad.)
The Tesla Cybertruck has the feel of minimalist utility. It's also bold and different. Unlike the Rivian, it's not trying to be anything like the current state of the art of trucks. I think it will have a lot of appeal for being different and for having crazy specs. It's ugly, but I want one.
I have been seeing good comments pointing out problems. For example, it doesn't seem to be accommodating to accessories. Maybe this is something which will get worked out before it hits production.
History will judge this thing better than we can. Regardless of our opinion, it will be interesting to see if the design sticks.
Tastes are subjective, I agree, but I want to point out on, at least this small matter, how much yours diverge from a lot of people that purchase trucks. I think history will judge mostly whether this appealed to people in a venn diagram of truck owners and not truck owners who are looking for very aggressive and unorthodox large status vehicles and are underserved by the truck SUV market.
I don't really mind, it doesn't affect me one way or another, but I do find the consistency in these threads curious. Sometimes I chalk it up to probably far more European commenters than I would have guessed, but also it's just the demo of HN or people that spend too much time arguing about things on the internet (see the comment section of Jalopnik). You could easily turn loose a markov chain based comment generator on one of these threads and rise to the top.
But hey, everyone is talking about it. $0 ad spend.
It elicits strong reactions. People seem to love it or hate it. Far better than indifference.
Not a truck owner, nor in the market, but I appreciate bold moves and deviation from the norm.
The flat surfaces and not-stamped stainless are about ease of manufacture - https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi...
-The bed is not easily accessible from the sides
-It's unibody(ask Honda about that)
-It's stainless steel which would make repairing difficult. You will now have to paint that raw steel after hammering out any dents after an accident just like the Delorean
This is why Deloreans that got into accidents were usually painted.
Of course if you can easily replace an entire panel with a new one, this can be done. On cars the rear quarter panel cant be "replaced" like the front quarter panel which is just bolted on.
I kept waiting for the sledgehammer guy to hit it and the walls to fall off, with a real truck inside.
Then again Tesla is well known for missing deadlines too!
This is going to flop, big time. This is the worst looking Truck I have seen in a LONG time, this will not appeal to people that buy the Best selling Truck on the market, The F-150.
I have no interest in buying this, and i would not drive it even if they gave me one for free. Sure the performance is there, ofcourse when Ford and other manufactures release their Electric Trucks then when can do a Apple to Apple comparison.
I will be waiting on the Electric F-150, which should have comparable specs to the Rivian, and I would much rather have a Rivian Truck than this monstrosity
Not every buys a Truck purely for work. Just like not everyone buys a car just for transportation.
Further even if you remove the Aestetic debate over the Cyber Truck, for Work is not practical, any contractor will tell you side access is VERY VERY important, the truck bed on this is completely impractical for traditional work people do in a truck
Oh, geez. "Truck guys" in the US are some of the most opinionated, style-conscious folks you will ever meet in an automotive context. They're really something if you ever find yourself hanging out with them.
Even if the Cybertruck kicks ass on the road, it's not going to impress these guys. And if they're the target market for this new truck, Tesla's in trouble.
Interior aesthetic is a different matter though. Strange how culture winds that way.
Then after a little while of looking at it, I thought, well, perhaps it is just crazy enough to work. Definitely thinking outside the box.
Then a bit later in the evening, I was struck by how in the space of a couple hours it had aged in my eyes, and it wasn't aging well. As soon as the 'interesting' wore off, all I can see is how boring the design really is.
By itself, maybe not such a big deal, pickups aren't meant to be exciting. They are successful because of their utility. King of the road, riding high, the modern incarnation of a 70s land yacht, very spacious inside, well appointed, and incidentally able to haul stuff when you want, pull stuff when you want. The very definition of function over form. The opposite of Cybertruck.
I'll wait and see how it plays out, since this is obviously a prototype of a prototype (read MotorTrend's writeup, they had early access and it was still coming together in the last couple weeks). The windows aren't street legal, the bumpers are not street legal, almost certainly the headlights and taillights aren't, etc. A lot of the actual finished product has yet to be designed, so I will withhold judgement until we see what it turns out to be.
Huge, beastly trucks are a status symbol and signalling to others that you are are certain demographic. Same reason some people buy cheap cars and add shiny wheels and lights. Same reason some people buy BMWs and Mercedes. These are all part of socioeconomic norms. I don't see how the normal truck crowd will latch on to this.
The specs are pretty impressive though. 500 mile range got my attention.
I think the goal was to look heavy duty (which it does), not big, which is for people with insecurity issues.
I think this is going to resonate really well with techies. Not a huge demographic, but one that can afford it.
The market for sci-fi/cyberpunk cars won't be huge, but in exchange, this looks like it'll capture _all_ of that market, as opposed to a small slice of a more conventional one.
The price here is not a concern at all. The design.... not so sure about that.
There's also a Chevy truck with a toy look... But I can't remember the name.
That said you see a lot of 3/4 ton daily drivers that only see a tow hitch one or two weekends out of the year.
IIRC this was a thing on land rovers back in the day, and was notoriously unreliable. It's a great idea in theory, but much more difficult to get right than a bunch of steel springs.
https://www.thrillist.com/cars/the-pontiac-aztec-was-the-big...
Also, I don't know how they think they're going to get away with that tailgate design in the US. I love it, but the government doesn't allow brakelights to be on a moveable piece of bodywork (even though they have redundant lights under it). It's the same reason the back of the Ferrari California was so ugly... Ferrari learned this fact too late in the development process:
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/heres-hilarious-story-fe...
I'm nostalgic about those things.
So this polygonal look is targeting my demo.
...
That is the goddamned ugliest vehicle I've ever seen.
The design was very divisive when it rolled out but I find it still looks awesome ten years down the road.
Will be very interesting to see how middle America responds. Truck buyers tend to be a traditionalist bunch.
I honestly feel like it could be something out of Altered Carbon, or Cyberpunk 2077.
Id love to drive a road car that looked like this.
Also, the geometry of the body is more functional that it is for form and that probably puts at least a few people off.
I think it's one of the reasons I like cars like the Kia Soul so much. They look… fun.
If the Porsche Cayenne is anything to go by it will do well
Brutalism has a deep beauty, that ramifies intricately as you examine it further, in the thought and process that went into this triumph of function.
Much of what we describe as beauty is no more than skin deep - a veneer of curves and shine, under which lurks incredible ugliness in both function and intent.
Perhaps we are confusing pretty and beautiful.
Well, yes, well-executed things tend to imbue some value or ideal. The vast majority of humans are exposed to extremely poor brutalism that is simply oppressive.
Source: I worked in a brutalist building for several years. It literally stood in as a prison in movies: terrible every day environment.
The truck is such a slap in the face to the standard car aesthetic. It’s jarring because it feels different and causes dissonance with what I know cars are allowed to look like. Some people will hate it purely because of that knee jerk reaction.
I’m not sure I like the look but I really like how iconoclastic it is.
Whether you find that beautiful probably depends on how jaded you are. But it’s a matter of taste.
Although maybe when it was trendy, brutalism looked like it was from the future too. Maybe in 20 years, this truck will be “just ugly” as well.
https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2018/se...
As is the nature of futurism.
https://d14e8oeg5e788p.cloudfront.net/content/56310/c8d68987...
http://oldconceptcars.com/wp-content/uploads/lancia_stratos_...
it's definitely not what is considered futurist today. It's not only ugly, but doesnt even fit well in a retro futurism classification. i know that there's no accounting for taste, but this is a uniquely ugly car, and not in an innovative way.
A well compensated white collar professional will get judged hard for driving a pickup in some social circles and I think this styling is to help get around that.
Is this a fact in (I'm assuming) NorCal?
I'm in one of the parts of the country where everyone drives pickups, so it kind of boggles my mind.
Does no one tow or haul things there?
The rest are pristine showroom objects that have never even touched a gravel road, let alone dirt.
And that haul one single person to the office and back every day at 12 MPG. Hooray.
edit: woops 12.7 l/100km is actually 18.5 mpg. All these years I thought 10l/100km was 30 mpg! must have done the conversion wrong once and been basing my whole life off it ever since. It's great to find out something you thought was true is not sometimes.
https://www.homedepot.com/tool-truck-rental/load-n-go-truck-...
Last time I had to leave my car in the body shop after it was hit, my insurance got me a rental car from Enterprise. The only rentals available at the time were F-250s, so I drove a pickup truck to work and back for a week.
Why do you think that pick up trucks are unrentable?
I can jam quite a lot of lumber in/on my Mazda Protege though, so it’s rare I need an actual truck.
That said, having more vehicle than you need is definitely a means of social signalling and if you're regularly shoving 5 people in your 5-seat compact or regularly hauling large things on the roof of your car or regularly burying your AWD mom-mobile in the mud you will give off lower class vibes so I understand why a lot of people buy more vehicle than they strictly need.
It's "technically" 1 lb shy of the GVWR requiring a CDL.
It has enough power to sheer off a 3/4" utility pole climbing spike, in reverse, with a slight tap of the gas. Don't ask me how I know.
I don't know about an F-250, but the last time I rented a car it was a walk-in at an Enterprise in Harrisburg, PA and I walked out with a Nissan pickup 30-ish minutes later.
Also, your average Home Depot or U-Haul typically has pickups for rent, specifically for this use case.
If anything I get asked if I'm a contractor.
Other parts of CA you'll get a lot of campers, boats, dirt bikes, mountain bikes... so yeah.
I'm a well-compensated white collar professional in the bay area. I drive a 23yo bigass diesel pickup that I use for offroading, towing, hauling, camping, etc.
I don't get judged hard at all. Most folks thing it's quirky. I'd say I get judged more positively than not.
In NorCal outside of the bay area there are plenty of pickup trucks and the culture that goes with that.
There are a few perks to being country in the city.
I think Tesla could've met that desire without making the truck look like a low-polygon model from a teenager who just learned to use Blender.
Tesla's design language from it's other models could have been smartly applied to a truck design and they would've had a winner.
Also the older the truck, the more OK it is (ironic considering older trucks are horrible on gas mileage) because then its a quirky hipster thing.
Suppose thats kind of the point you're making though, they're building a pickup that has indicators that its OK for "classy" people to drive.
A more-useless-than-average truck (no bed capacity; a back seat w/ headroom for children only; difficulty refueling or getting repairs in the backcountry; very high center of gravity) will have limited appeal aside from the novelty from being the first to own one. But that will fade within year one of ownership. Then where will non-pickup owners find themselves? With an especially fashion-motivated vehicle that's no longer fashionable. Or useful. Strike three.
Because I'm in Dallas, and wealthy white-collar professionals driving big pickup trucks is pretty normal here. I could point out several in my company's parking lot.
* 10 times the PRICE. 10 times the cost means taking on 10 times the risk if units don't sell, while keeping the same reward (profit). :)
Weird how some people have different opinions on subjective matters right??
I think what we're seeing is what happens when there is no one around to say 'no' to a company. Tesla is being fed, by everyone in at least the US, that they are the future and are prophets of what is to come.
So you take the attitude of 'I can do nothing wrong' and add a dash of Musk's inherent God-Complex, and mix it into the culture there.
And this is what you get.
That's my theory.
Maybe Tesla is banking on luring people who don't usually buy trucks, or that truck buyers are so hungry for an EV that they'll go for it. But someone who doesn't usually buy trucks, would just buy a Model 3 or Y.
Traditional truck buyers tend to be fiercely loyal to their brand so they'd probably be more likely to wait for EV versions from the favorite truck brand.
Trucks are very much a product that identifies you as "one of us" vs "one of them". The Cybertruck will fail that test utterly. Owning one screams "I'm one of THEM". Not what you want if you want to make inroads in the mainstream pickup market. (Not to mention that recharging a truck with a 220V line in rural America, where folks often park nowhere near their house, will be a major problem.)
Yes, this truck will be popular initially among well-heeled yuppies who want to stand out -- probably taken entirely from the existing Tesla S market (or S wannabes). But unless you leave SF/NYC/Boston every once in a while, you don't realize how small that world really is. No more than 5% of this country can afford an S. And while this truck is more affordable than an S, its appeal is much narrower. It will attract only the vanishingly small Venn intersection space that's Tesla S + pickup-drivers-who-don't-actually-haul-anything.
This thing will flash on the radar for a year or two, in small sales numbers, then die utterly, with poor sales used thereafter, once the fashionista bloom fades.
Good point though about the outdoor charging, but running an external charger is cheap and easy on rural property. Some diesels have block heaters anyway.
What will be interesting to see is the range when towing. This thing will have the torque of 350 diesels, but what about the range in towing, compared to dual tanks. Operating costs could be far less with electricity.
The Tesla Pickup was never going to make inroads there. The way is blocked.
They are focusing entirely on the small but growing market of democrats who demand EV's, and may also need a truck.
Are there enough buyers out there of quasi-trucks for the Cybertruck to thrive (no) much less survive (doubtful). Even now, Honda isn't selling as many of their quasi-trucks as they hoped since that market stratum is not as predictable as other more stereotypeable strata like minivans or commuters or... big pickups.
I don't know what motivates a mainstream carmaker to build a niche product like this. But whatever is motivating Tesla to build the Cybertruck smacks of the same cluelessness that gave us the Hummer. And the Edsel.
Seriously, the cluelessness that gave us the Hummer didn't matter when Arnold Schawzenneger made it the only car he drove.
The Rock could do the same thing with the Cyber Truck.
Translation: "I've never been to Dallas or Houston."
I'd say "off-road-capable truck that requires no gas and has better specs and lower pricepoints than nearly all other electric pickups" is pretty compelling. The only electric pickup coming up (to my knowledge) that looks more compelling than this is the Atlis XT.
But only because of the cult-like following of Musk and Tesla.
So I guess, it's a chicken an egg question with this thing. Will it be popular because of what it is, or will it be popular because of who made it.
And they'll be faster in a straight line too, so they can now get their e-peen off beating out the big, modded 600hp diesels and laughing about how they are so much more eco-friendly.
They’re quite possibly the only car company who has had actual skin in the game in recent years.
The rest of them just went begging to Daddy (Congress) when they got themselves fully fucked.
Your notion that GM, Ford, etc are somehow living in “the real world” seems willfully ignorant of history.
Who, in your mind, are the companies other than Tesla, if not Ford, GM, et al?
my comment: >I 100% disagree, and believe what you're doing is the classic English Major grasping for meaning where none was implied.
>I think what we're seeing is what happens when there is no one around to say 'no' to a company. Tesla is being fed, by everyone in at least the US, that they are the future and are prophets of what is to come.
>So you take the attitude of 'I can do nothing wrong' and add a dash of Musk's inherent God-Complex, and mix it into the culture there.
>And this is what you get.
>That's my theory.
Where are you reading whatever it is you're reading about "the rest"? Who are you replying to?
I agree! But at the same time I want one right now :-)
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1015/7033/products/Centaur...
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi...
Not if it's made of stainless steel - stuff is hard to cut and hard to weld (though might be easier in a non-oxygen rich environment like Mars).
For ease of manufacture and maintainability, plus a lot of other "pluses" - I actually like this truck:
Too bad it's unlikely it will be available for purchase in first world countries, if it ever gets to that phase.
[0] https://rmsothebys-cache.azureedge.net/a/a/2/9/4/f/aa294f0f2...
Coke's response:
"Some cynics will say that we planned the whole thing. The truth is we're not that dumb and we're not that smart."
Let me try to beat that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Multipla#/media/File:Fiat...
Reference: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer
I can get behind the ugliness of vehicles like the Cybertruck because it just looks absurd, but the Fiat is just grotesque.
The Cybertruck is overtly synthetic and brutalist. It's to be admired for its impressiveness, not its beauty.
I recommend not looking at pictures.
As China's economy grew a number of American truck/van designs started looking more weird to western eyes like the Multipla than anything the likes of Dodge had previously designed. Designs target intended markets first and foremost.
I don’t think the mandate was “make this look strange” as much as it was “make this thing rugged and fast and powerful and we’re perfectly fine with it looking strange”.
We’ll see if they were successful, but I like the ambition. I’ll be curious, too, to see if some of this more radical thinking comes over to the Tesla Semi.
Sure, if you’re just throwing a tool box in the back then you’re fine. Then again you didn’t need a truck to begin with.
Granted, that's not a lot of construction trucks. But quite a few.
That's only going to add to its dystopic future flair.
That design element alone has turned this into primarily a fun/status vehicle IMHO.
the bed cover looks awesome though, and I love the ramp from the tailgate. that's fantastic.
2. How do you carry a ladder, roof rack, or box on this thing?
3. Where do I tie down the countless odd-shaped items that a work truck carries?
4. How do I mount a deck for bigger equipment on this truck?
5. Is 250 top range enough for a work truck that does field service and likely hauls significant weight?
This thing is less truck than the original Honda Ridgeline and that's saying something. You'll see one at the mall before you see one in the field.
My hunch is that this is because we use some of the same mental wiring for processing human faces to process the front of a car. (Automotive designers refer to the front of a car as its "face".) So we think it's ugly because some of the same wiring that recoils to disfiguring human faces is kicking in.
I just stumbled onto: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26181746
They were fairly popular 10-ish years ago but I don't think Fiat will ever do that again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_S-Cargo
Also, it has a pun in the name.
https://media.wired.com/photos/593252a1edfced5820d0fa07/mast...
I think there is something insect-like about the bulbous part that houses the lights - I wonder if perhaps something about the shape is triggering something innate, similar to how we may be hard-wired to fear snakes?
"Tesla Cybertruck (pressurized edition) will be official truck of Mars"
They have designed it to drive on Mars.
On Earth, it's ugly.
I've done it of course.
Most people would put 'buying access to a track' into the 'things I will never do'-box.
Track nights can be as low as $125 and you will hit triple digits.
But yea, $125 is equally as out of reach as being dropped on Mars.
The first thing I want to send to the moon is a bulldozer, you could make one based on that platform.
Also it would be fun to road trip on the moon at the right speed to stay in the sun all month.
Premature Optimization if I have ever heard of it.
Having to remove a space suite so you can adjust the atmospheric controls sounds stupid.
Anyways, SpaceX space suits are compatible with touchscreens... And that seems unlikely to change given how easy it is to make them that way.
I definately chose the wrong parents.
Even then, this truck doesn't appear particularly light compared to your average vehicle. It also has a ton of added weight from things that would be wasted on Mars like huge acceleration, unnecessary top speed, and the ability to withstand vehicular accidents that would never occur on Mars. Maybe Tesla tries to preserve the look of this car for whatever they may or may not eventually put on Mars, but I doubt it is going to be close to being this car.
The first car on the moon was unpressurized because the program was a once-cancelled afterthought designed to fit into a spare cargo bay and unfold, with tight mass constraints. MOLAB was impractical because of the upmass required, not because pressurization wouldn't have been useful.
Fair point. I don't see how that would work on this specific vehicle, but it is certainly works in general.
>The first car on the moon was unpressurized because the program was a once-cancelled afterthought designed to fit into a spare cargo bay and unfold, with tight mass constraints. MOLAB was impractical because of the upmass required, not because pressurization wouldn't have been useful.
A lot of those requirements still stand regarding mass. It isn't a question of whether a pressurized vehicle would be useful on Mars, it is a question of whether its usefulness is enough to justify its weight and this vehicle appears to have a lot of extra weight that would need justification.
It doesn't have to happen on the first trip. They could send the truck to Mars on one of the current rockets and just have it sit there until they're ready to use it. It's an electric vehicle. There's plenty of solar exposure on Mars, they can charge it over the course of weeks if they needed to, even though they don't, and the durability would guarantee that it could serve up there for years. It could literally just sit there and do nothing for the 3-5 years it takes them to build out a basic hab and a dock for it.
All your points about the benefits of an electric vehicle apply just as well to something lighter that is specifically and only designed for travel to and on Mars.
In general, Musk treats engineering as a scarce resource. If he can use a Tesla vehicle instead of designing a special rover, he will, even if it weighs a little more. Starship can handle more than 100 tons of payload and its successor will do four times that.
The steel is cheap on mars too (initially), since you ship it there anyways as part of the cargo starships, which aren't return to earth (since the energy to make fuel is initially really expensive on mars). Manufacture it in Mars and your basically just talking about shipping the batteries, motors, and a small amount of electronics (and machinery you will need anyways).
> true all-terrain body-on-frame construction
Why would you prefer this? It's just a form of construction that requires more materials, and results in a weak body that can be damaged. Furthermore, we get all the materials for the unibody design (lots of stainless steel) free from starships that won't return, and the material is easy to work with.
Mar's terrain is pretty simple. Rocks, and sand. We almost certainly will choose not to land on sand, so we only really need to deal with rocks. Cybertruck, really any earth vehicle with a reasonable clearance, should be able to deal with that well enough, maybe with some custom tires.
Thermal management, and problems relating to pressurization, are the only things that jump out as me as real difficulties. Neither sounds like it needs fundamental reworks though.
This will appeal to businesses that need to broadcast their eco sensibilities to us.
1970 Lancia Bertone Stratos http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nZhhAcyh9Qg/VQxxoTBLCeI/AA...
1979 Insomnia, Dome Zero P2 http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g6cc2DJRJIM/VQsxHX-ND0I/AA...
Maserati Boomerang http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bkKWE1sC_dU/VQsxP3_Uk0I/AA...
1976 Alfa Romeo Navajo http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-11k8tJ20DtQ/VQsxIvr7Y1I/AA...
1980 Citroën Karin https://cdn0.wideopenroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ft...
Even if you don't like it you have to applaud the vision here. The vast majority of car companies are too afraid of getting out of the conformist design taste of the majority of people.
The truck bed opening up was something out of a sci-fi movie. Looking forward to smoking F-150's off the line with this.
As a very security and privacy conscious person, my main quibble has been that I don't like drive by wire products. I don't want to get Michael Hastings'ed... but the fact is even the big truck companies are starting to get rid of mechanical throttle, so I might as well give up on that is how it feels.
What better way to merge my mountain man and hacker sides than with a Tesla truck. Now if I only had the money laying around... and I do think many of you underestimate how much in truck culture having something that looks different can be the biggest part of being "cool". I got more compliments on my Suzuki Samurai with a lift and 36ers than you would ever imagine. I blacked out a 91 YJ and also got nothing but compliments. This thing is going to do well, mark my words.
I prob won't go get a cord of wood in it, (I might) but that's what the old 84 beat up GMC camper special is for.
But there's no avoiding that the thing is just ugly as can be.
Frankly I'm just waiting for an all-electric replacement for the bigger Tacoma / smaller F150 niche. I don't want or need an 80s stainless steel wedge that can tow a 747. Rivian doesn't appear to be interested in that segment. Toyota isn't going to do it until 2025 at best. I was hoping Tesla might, but I'm not surprised that their first foray barely qualifies as a truck.
[1] https://www.kbb.com/car-news/pricing-your-next-ford-f-150-it...
1. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-20/america-s...
2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...
3. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/05/09/study-links-rise-of-s...
4. https://nypost.com/2019/10/24/transportation-chief-says-suv-...
As a CEO that is particularly overly in control, ultimately he'll decide how to present, when to present, what to present. It's a take it or leave it package, Musk is a very abnormal executive. He'll rehearse slides if he feels like it, that's clearly more like his personality.
> 429 Too Many Requests
I trust the glass will be fully bulletproof by end of year, if not some time next week.
I for sure can't believe anyone would ever build this or that anyone would ever like it.
She called him her "creator". Just an actress (Grimes) on video with weird almost-flailing gestures or was it an animated AI from a secret Elon project made in the likeness of Grimes?
https://youtu.be/0y3wE0pgXcM?t=131
For real. When she's done talking her expression just goes full neutral like she's waiting for input.
edit: this is not criticism, I loved it, I am genuinely curious if that introduction was artificial. Felt uncanny valley.
And does it only come in one color (stainless)?
Source: https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi...
That doesn't look bad for sales. I'd rather have a group of enthusiasts that love the product, and a group of haters, than have everyone going "meh". Firstly because many of the enthusiasts will probably buy the product, and secondly because controversy is free advertising.
Personally I do like the aesthetics, although I'm not in the demographic that buys trucks.
Surprising.
I can't but notice how the "futuristic" car designs from my childhood are now pretty common in mass-produced cars. I suggest the recent sci-fi movie esthetics are going to be common soon enough, and this truck is an example.
This is possibly the ugliest car I have ever seen - its less lovable than the Aztek.. somehow.
Finally something that looks a bit different than all the VW and Audis you see on the street, reminds me of the Countach or brutalist buildings.
If this is the "Tesla Pickup" count me as bitterly disappointed.
If Tesla had introduced a factory version of Simone's, I'd be screaming at them to shut up and take my money.
This thing...I'm sorry, I can't get over the styling. I love the numbers, and don't even find the pricing to be too horrible, but there's no away I'll have something that looks like that. Maybe Tesla truck 2.0 will be worth looking at.
* Its capacity of 7,500+ lbs isn't too shabby. Not F150/1500 class. But Jeep Gladiator territory, which is another much-awaited domestic truck getting some attention.
* I'm assuming the 250+ mile range drops significantly when towing.
* When camped at sites serviced by electricity, it's often 30/50 amp service and unmetered. Good for recharging!
I'm unlikely to jump on board yet, but this is a beautiful experiment and there will be many trucking niche users watching!
Just get the 200kwH model (my est for the 500 mi range), plug the RV into the truck, and go boondocking for a week with A/C, fridge, induction cooker, and no propane. Extra bonus if the truck supports charging from the 2kW array on the roof of the RV.
> With the ability to pull near infinite mass
That's the opening line from one of the slides on the slide show...
That seems a like a bit of an overstatement... Just a tad.
I would rather see these type of cars in the future than what Chevy Bolt, Prius look like. Really looking forward to seeing this on the streets.
Are they being serious?
Very very risky move on styling
Ya right, production starts in 2 years. I would guess 4 yrs and I know nothing about car production. But I do know that just getting the subcontractors in order will take more than a year even if you have an assembly line in place already. Why is Tesla so optimistic about timelines? It just hurts it's reputation when they are years late.
I was looking for an electric truck to buy and was hoping this Cybertruck would be a replacement, but I think I’ll stick with my gas sipping sedan for awhile longer after seeing this announcement.
I’ll wait for the next iterations or a better alternative offered by the competition. I just can’t see myself driving this “box.” Reminds me of those early 90s SUVs, but like 10x uglier.
Specs are impressive but I just can’t get over the aesthetics.
But this looks like just an early concept. Those always look much more spectacular than the final, real-world version where physics and laws need to be respected. We can probably expect it to end up looking a bit more round and less exciting.
Form has been getting seeping into "aesthetics", which is good and all, but is that really where it should go? Sure, it's nice to look at something pretty, but why not have some cases where form fits the functionality perfectly.
I think this is a good implementation of mending the two practices into one harmonious product where function and form balances each other out.
Function: strong outer body, powerful, and everything serves a purpose.
Form: tesla's well-known low-drag design, probs makes manufacturing simpler (not easier per say, but simpler), etc.
I can't think of all the reasonings of functions and forms, but I just think this cybertruck would be super useful to have in particular blue-collar jobs.
Too Many Requests
Guru Meditation:
XID: 2262329
Props for an error page that tickled my nostalgia in a most geeky way.
Any idea what the curb weight is?
So much for that book being well researched...
Gas stations? Where we're going, we don't need gas stations!
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2010/02/03/the-futuristic-cars...
Though I admit the longer I've looked at it, the more neutral I feel about it, but maybe that's just a personality defect.
Elon said in advance he doesn't care if people don't like how it looks, so clearly he anticipated some negative feedback about the look. I can see it in a lot of scenarios, but just not in my driveway.
I probably hate this even more for the fact that I adore the angular Fiero/Lambo/DeLorean/Blade Runner aesthetic. This is such a poorly botched, cluelessly literal interpretation of that.
I really like the dent free exterior and the color.
1. I thought Teslas where all wheel? Ie, the nature of how they work is such that each wheel was a motor. Is that not the case for this one?
2. Isn't all-wheel a valuable offering? This doesn't seem to be an off-road focused vehicle.. but nevertheless I personally value all wheel. Am I wrong in this?
I find this weird. I can't afford it anyway, BUT, I have often joked that I need a small Tesla truck to replace my Prius. However, strangely nothing about this interests me. Even if I had the money.
I drive a Dodge 2500 4x4 and my roof is 1/3 the size of that beast. And it's 6'6" high which makes it awkward to be able to remove ice. If ice flies off and hits another vehicle while I am driving I am in big trouble, and rightly so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehi...
John Delorean is back!
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_Rider_(1982_TV_series) [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj80Kwenh6I
If you really want to bet against Tesla, buy one of these and wait for Tesla to fold. No one will ever make anything like this again.
I could even imagine them only making a few hundred of these and them all being worth a million dollars after the company collapses.
Tesla has been really bold with the design, I love it, and I hope Tesla will be rewarded for it.
This is a really well orchestrated publicity stunt designed to boost the stock price. They calculated that even the failed shatter proof windows wouldn't matter much in public opinion because the car itself is so ugly.
Acceleration is going to be impressive and CoG will be lower than for similar vehicles but likely much higher than say for a BMW M2 or similar sporty car, so cornering isn't likely to be anywhere near as good which coupled with the extra weight, it seems that this will be good for a pick up truck but no competition for a car in a circuit.
Jobs understood the power of great design: Conceiving a product that people don't know they want until you show them. Not normally a big fan of Musk or Tesla, but this feels like one of those products. It feels like the future.
Anyway, the design is certainly getting people talking. We’ll have to wait and see if Ford and Chevy have any response to this in terms of how their design language changes.
These are categorically opposite things in terms of impact force. How gullible must they think, their audience is?
This is what I imagine a luxury vehicle looking like post zombie apocalypse. Most of the world falls apart, but the 1% create disconnected suburban paradises and this is what you drive to get between them.
Interesting that they reversed it with this truck, and I wonder how it'll affect the market of potential truck buyers.
Would personally only want a van version, or possibly just the ability to take out the second seats and barrier. Would be great then for urban travel and camping.
Also would love to learn more about the engineering trade-offs in their exoskeleton structure over traditional frame on body designs.
Anyone know if this truck could withstand the scenario? Hopefully someone smart with the Physics or Engineering can help me out with an answer.
I just found this! https://www.motor1.com/photo/486061/1980-citroen-karin-48606...
EDIT: Was the link changed right after posting? Everyone's talking about a failed glass demo with Elon and all I'm seeing is photos of an odd looking truck.
So I guess this one won't be marketed for its safety and its ability reduce traffic deaths, like the Teslas with Autopilot. Or will this also have Autopilot? That sounds even worse somehow.
EXOSKELETON
Cybertruck is built with an exterior shell made for ultimate durability and passenger protection. Starting with a nearly impenetrable exoskeleton, every component is designed for superior strength and endurance, from Ultra-Hard 30X Cold-Rolled stainless-steel structural skin to Tesla armor glass.
https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck?redirect=no
The steel exterior coupled with the flat square front seems to me like a perfect combination to kill in a collision with a person.
By the way, visiting the website I can confirm that the word "safety" is nowhere to be found.
Stainless steel body
Smaller auto manufacturer with potentially dubious finances
Charasmatic founder with a host of drug use
I feel like I've heard this story...before...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_Motor_Company
So I just wanna step aside and stop drooling over how handsome/ ugly it is and ask a real question.
Has a prototype been created, and shown at any expo?
Or Elon is just gonna squeeze money out of starry eyed buyers now and only then start design + production?
In the past he has been late by months in delivery after making customers shell out money.
I suggest he hires Hasselhoff for the promotion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTidn2dBYbY
It does have way too much of the "in case I need to flee the mob to my private jet to flee to New Zealand" flavor to it though.
Hopefully this will light a fire under Ford/Chevy to actually giving us some tangible value.
Elon prefaced it best by stating the inspiration was early 007. How amazing a large-scale mfg can do such a thing. How dare Ford, Cadillac, etc waver from their aesthetic. It's possible for Elon and he does it.
Many of the safety gains that cars have shown in the past few decades come from strategic crumple zones and the like.
So how does this stand up in terms of actual safety? This seems like it reverses many of our advancements.
https://alienanthology.fandom.com/wiki/M577_Armored_Personne...
Those who can't accept the anesthetic couldn't accept current iPhone design in if they are in 2005 either.
It makes me want one just to satisfy my inner child. :)
Now if only my wife will be seen in one, we'll be able to tow a travel trailer and drive on the beach guilt-free!
(But how do we back into a super charger while towing?)
Is there a source for this? I'd press parts if I were designing it - unless you want welds showing at the corners!
It's going to drastically reduce production costs.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi...
People fold prototypes because the press dies are expensive to make, but when made, a press can fold all the edges at once.
Even cheap washing machines are all pressed steel.
The "Homer" was a car with a million little crazy details added onto it. It was bubbly and green.
This thing has all the details removed from it (it doesn't even have side mirrors!), and it's flat and black and gray.
There's zero resemblance? Is the joke just that "it's different from other cars"?
Hardware Eng #1 turns to Hardware Eng #2: "Wait... where does it say that in the spec we received..."
Also, "truck" doesn't seem appropriate at all, maybe "tugcar" would be?
Bravo.
What is "near infinite"? Ten?
I'm not a fan of this marketing faux pas. Also, the carousel moves too fast for me to read it.
VH1 interns could produce a better event than this.
These “Product” unveils are designed to pull in cash deposits to fund current expenses and massive cash incineration, not future development.
This will likely never be built and if you are thinking of giving Tesla a deposit for anything they currently are not producing I implore you to look at Tesla’s balance sheet.
Jokes apart, what is the target demographic and what about the unusual aesthetic?
Not something great for our European roads though.
Plenty of Tesla design concepts online that were way better: https://www.behance.net/gallery/78909965/TESLA-Pickup
I didn't expect future to materialize like this...
Also, the ugliest car ever. Worse than the latest Batman car.
I think if I had to render the term "alt-right" in vehicular form, it would look something like this. It seems to me an disturbingly accurate reflection of our polarized times.
I don't know whether your premise is correct or not, but if it is, this might be genius.
Strange, I thought the alt-right meme was that brutalist design was a Marxist demoralisation psy-op; surely an alt-right design would be more akin to the Beetle (as partly conceptualised by Hitler).
I'm thinking they go more Futurist than Socialist. And if they did fall for a style they previously claimed to despise, well, it wouldn't be the first time they were caught in a contradiction.
That being said, as this truck is not made out of concrete, I'm not sure the brutalist label applies. ;-)
Well, we're there folks. Just needs VTOL. ;)
Seems to have vanished from the net.
EDIT: It's like the first time I saw The Rock. I thought his head was too small and his face was stupid. Now I love Dwayne Johnson.
Wait, what?
https://www.italdesign.it/project/boomerang/
BTW, it is the same company that design famous Back to the Future car DeLorean DMC 12.
Paint it black and I’m in.
So far it is more like all things:
Linux, Rust, AMD, ThinkPads, Elon Musk, Rick and Morty, Stanford, MIT, Web-Tech, Stripe Design, Mr Robot, Space Travel, Kubernetes, Data Structures and Algorithms, and now Telsa.
What are they thinking...?
My first reaction to this truck was along the lines of "this is the very definition of ugly". From there it moved to "well, that was stupid" (the glass). And, slowly, once past the shock, it morphed into "it seems to have lots of practical features". Now I want to see one in person and explore it a bit.
A few random thoughts:
We are in the market to purchase two vehicles within the next, say, 12 months, with one of them likely in the next four months or less. We thought we would go electric...until the fires here in California caused us to rethink things.
Simple issue: The infrastructure for conventional vehicles is ubiquitous. You don't even have to think about the availability of energy at all. Simple example, yesterday one of our cars was down to 7 miles of range left in the fuel tank. This wasn't a big deal at all. There are easily twenty gas stations within that driving distance, if not more. And topping-off takes ten minutes or less total time.
From my perspective, and some might disagree, at the current time the weakest point of any electric vehicle, Tesla or otherwise, is the --and I think I can use this word-- fact that they cannot be relied upon during emergencies. The infrastructure isn't mature and ubiquitous enough to match the degree of reliance one can place on IC vehicles. If your life and that of your family depends on being able to travel, electric vehicles are a bad idea.
Because of this we went from really wanting to transition in to electrics (we even installed a 13 kW solar system in preparation for this transition) to now thinking timing isn't quite right.
A brief comment for those disparaging the "American obsession with large vehicles". I'll just say you likely lack context. I don't own a truck, I've always been as sports car guy. I've probably owned more sports cars than anything else. However, most (all) US cities are very different from European cities. There are no problems with the size of roads, all the way down to business districts and neighborhoods. I've traveled all over Europe and other parts of the world. And, yes, in a lot of the cities and towns I have visited US-style SUV's and trucks would make no sense whatsoever.
Don't think Americans are ignorant or less sophisticated because they are buying SUV's and trucks. If they were not practical there wouldn't be a market for them. It's the same for what we call minivans --not sure if the same term is used in Europe. We have a Toyota Sienna with 220,000 miles on it. We bought it new. It is incredibly practical in the context of family life, home renovations, dealing with our three German Shepherd dogs, going to the lake, going camping, loading it up with friends and family for travel. Form follows function AND needs, and in the US trucks and SUV --large and small-- exist because they are practical, useful and deliver value.
Sure, it is disconcerting to see just one person effectively commuting in a truck. The perspective here is that not everyone is a software engineer, most people have limited financial resources and they can't buy both an efficient small "green-er" vehicle and the truck or SUV they need for family and home use. So, again, they make a choice based on form, function and needs, and if a truck, minivan or SUV make sense, well, that's what they buy, and that's what they drive every day.
Back to Tesla...
One possible perspective on this is that of what I am generally going to put under the umbrella of fiduciary responsibility.
One could rightly argue that coming out with something like this is a breach of that responsibility to investors. Tesla has excellent technology and could become a massive company. The truck market can support millions of units per year in sales just in the US (about 2.5 to 3 million per year). This radical design is, from that perspective, irresponsible. It will capture a very, very small percentage of the 250,000+ trucks per month sold on average in the US. It's a shocker, like the Hummer, but it isn't going to make a dent on overall truck sales. If anything it might signal that Elon isn't interested in growing Tesla beyond a certain level.
These are not decisions you make if you want to beat the other guys at their own game (or even redefine the game). In an industry where historical P/E ratios are in the 10 to 15 range, Tesla will eventually have to face that hard cold reality. Sure, today investors ignore this but, at the end of the day, when everyone is making electric cars and batteries, Tesla might not be able to escape the fact that it will be just another car company. In that context, I think this truck might be an irresponsible waste of an important competitive advantage.
Two of the worst things you can waste in life are time and trust. This offering is guaranteed to waste a ton of time. Years. And trust also. Anyone who wants a "real" or, let's just say "traditional" truck is going to ignore Tesla and assume they are just crazy. There are 250,000 people making a decision to buy a truck EVERY MONTH, and the VAST majority of them are going to laugh at Tesla and move on. It will be year, maybe even a decade, before anyone looks at Tesla as a serious truck company. So, yeah, time and trust wasted, unnecessarily.
I need to see this Tesla thing (that would have been a good name "Thing") but I don't think I am buying one. Next iteration, perhaps.
Looks like a concept car (truck).
They'll probably make their money off of it (with tax subsidies, which is still keeping most of Musk's enterprises afloat .. so we're all paying for it, sadly), but it's because they target the demographic clearly represented in a lot of these comments.
Personally, I think the design looks awful and terrible. I don't even really like the current Tesla with their terrible UI, stupid "touch-screen-everything" and lack of tactile buttons. But whatever, I'm sure it will sell.
Shocking that people can like different things, I know.
You want him to fire live rounds in a room full of people. Live rounds that we are expecting to ricochet.
Stop watching action movies and go the fuck outside, you absolute unit.
Jay K.