I'm planning on having a cybertruck as our car for town and trips, and keep my 1500 for actual work and recreation.
I generally want an extra can of gas to fill up the truck when on the trail and on the ranch.
Do you live during the zombie apocalypse? It seems so unnecessary and unsafe to those around you especially pedestrians.
Elon was a marketing genius here.
Anything that destroys petroleum demand is welcome, even if impractical. Not my money.
(the US is responsible for ~35% of global gasoline consumption [1] [2] [3])
[1] https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/gasoline-superusers-only-...
Tesla built out their >$1B global supercharger network and manufacturing base on luxury vehicle sales (S, X), for example (until they could spin up 3, Y, and utility scale storage manufacturing). And their profit margin is still higher than legacy auto.
TLDR Sell to people with money and who aren’t price sensitive, pour that cashflow into spinning up a flywheel. Fighting reality will lead to disappointment, ignore feelings and operate according to the data. Go where the money is. Buyers with only opinions are not worth chasing.
Yes they do. You'll never complete the EV transition by only selling 50k+ Euro EVs. Eventually you'll run out of people with disposable income to buy your pricy EVs and those are the minority of consumers, not the majority.
China leads the world in EV sales precisely because they didn't start at the top selling premium EVs first, but started instead from the bottom by selling cheap EVS to the mases.
My opinion as well. There's no way Tesla can deliver everything, or at least most of what they promised about the Cybertruck at that price point, considering the manufacturing challenges of that thing.
If they are Philadelphia pedestrians, they are the zombie apocalypse.
Cars are meant to crumple and protect those inside and outside the vehicle, not plow through them.
At this point it’s slightly more than marketing puffery.
"An IIHS study found that vehicles equipped with automatic braking that detects pedestrians had a 27 percent lower rate of pedestrian crashes than vehicles without such technology."
Teslas typically have the most advanced crash avoidance systems on the market. Virtually all Teslas have 5 star safety ratings in crashes, both in Europe and U.S. [1]
[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-s-receives-5-star-euro-ncap...
Some cars are designed to crumple when it makes sense for crash safety. Crumple zones primarily affect the passengers inside the vehicle, it doesn't change the amount of energy delivered to the point of impact, they simply extend the amount of time it takes to dissipate the energy.
But higher strength steel is often better for this purpose, and reduces the length that a crumple zone needs to be, as is common for passenger vans.
SUVs, by the way, (which the Cybertruck more closely resembles than a traditional truck), are safer in accidents than passenger cars, by nearly a factor of 8 [1][2].
[1] https://www.carlsonattorneys.com/news-and-update/10-dangerou... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-vehicles-smal...
[1] https://www.dlawgroup.com/top-safest-most-dangerous-cars-202...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/business/boxy-trucks-suvs-ped...
That being said, even the article mentions the primary factor in pedestrian deaths is the shape of the hood and the height of the hood:
"Even when the hood isn’t that high, a boxy front-end — with a grille that’s nearly vertical and a hood that goes almost straight out from the windshield — is more likely to cause death or serious injury to a pedestrian. In general, vehicles with box-shaped front ends, even when they’re only medium height, are roughly 26% more likely to kill a pedestrian, according to the IIHS."
Seems like it's at least partly a visibility issue (I'm not convinced that height matters as much as the angle a driver sits at from within the truck to be able to see what's in front of it), also the odds of getting slammed under the vehicle rather than rolled over the top of it.
That being said, none of these apply to the Cybertruck, which has an almost entirely sloped frontend with a low hood height and massive windshields for visibility paired with probably the most advanced pedestrian detection systems on the market.
I don’t see how that can follow from that article, as it says
“Researchers at the institute looked at records of almost 18,000 incidents in which vehicles struck pedestrians”
That, to me, indicates they looked at P(death|being hit), and ignored P(being hit)
The original article (https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2294) and its blog post (https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...), to me, say the same thing.
That also describe the reasonably well-known reason for the increased risk, once hit: for pedestrians, it’s better to end up on the bonnet than under the car, or, as you phrase it ”the odds of getting slammed under the vehicle rather than rolled over the top of it”
Of course, decreasing P(being hit) also helps, but doing both is the best option.
Very simply, if you don't see a pedestrian approaching from the side due to the limited visibility of the vehicle, then as a driver you have less time to react and slow down. The slower a vehicle is going at the point of collision, the more likely a pedestrian is to survive.
If a vehicle is going 45mph and hits a pedestrian, it doesn't much matter the aerodynamics of the vehicle or even the weight or size of the vehicle, that is an incredible force of impact.
So of course visibility is a factor in deaths and that's why newer SUVs and trucks with collision avoidance systems reduce deaths by 27%.
From [1], "SUVs, pickups, vans and minivans are substantially more likely than cars to hit pedestrians when making turns, suggesting that these larger vehicles may not afford drivers as clear a view of people crossing the road, a new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows". Notably, these types of collisions would not result in a roll over the top of the vehicle in any case as the pedestrians are being struck by the corner of the vehicle at an angle.
"Earlier studies have shown that A-pillars — the struts connecting the roof to the vehicle’s body on either side of the windshield — can create blind spots that can make it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians and that these blind spots grow larger as A-pillars become wider."
[1] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/suvs-other-large-vehicles-o...
When a pedestrian gets hit by a car, it takes out their legs and they bounce on the hood. When a pedestrian gets hit by a large truck, they take the full impact instantaneously due to the large blunt front, and then fall on the ground and get run over. The car collision has much higher survival rates.
The Cybertruck with it's lack of broad flat front, should behave more like a car in a pedestrian collision.
This isn't to say Lightning is all bad, but it's a fundmentally limited product right now compared to a real pickup. It's almost like what's suited for an urban lifestyle isn't for everyone.
This sounds a lot like the classic "no true scotsman" fallacy.
I don't mind if things are done other ways, as long as they are practical.
No purity test needed, just practicality.
Currently EV trucks are impractical outside of using them in town / on highways and they are not practical to haul range-wise.
If you don't need that stuff, what's the point over getting a car?
But since they only work well for in town and on highways, they don't work well to replace my truck for ranch and recreational off-roading use.
These categories are based on my own needs, but they aren't that unique.
Why is that?
and my truck can haul a lot more at a longer range.
love ev's for casual roadtrips and jetting around town, but not for 4x4 adventures.
use whatever definition you want for it though.
No, you use a truck to accomplish tasks for which vehicles don't get named "truck". That's perfectly fine; you can and should do whatever you want with the vehicles that you buy. When you go out in public and say "that's not a truck" about something that clearly is, it's you who is "using whatever definition you want", not everyone else.
If it's the latter, you'll have to do so amongst yourself.
Does any established definition of the word "truck" agree with you?
obviously it can meet a wikipedia definition, that doesn't really matter too much to me though.
You're going to say "I wasn't trying to be" yet your rhetoric above contradicts that.
don't worry, I don't have the power to change definitions, you can rest at ease.
you're deliberately focusing on the phrasing instead of the substance of my post so you don't have to talk about my point.
I think gating the definition of "truck" behind "not electric" is stupid, which is what I thought you were doing (and to be honest, your comment is worded to make that a reasonable interpretation); but if you just meant "these trucks are stupid and don't do what I need a truck to do" then I can't disagree.
I one day hope that EV trucks will be useful to me to replace my ICE truck, but for me none of them hit the boxes.
some of them are logistical in relation to charging vs having an extra can of gas though, so it's hard to say.
my point was I don't consider it a truck as it doesn't meet my needs for a truck.
I don't see how that wasn't obvious, you're being pedantic.
Helpful rule: Don't start a semantics debate and then complain that people are having a semantics debate with you.
It's being very pedantic.
There's no electricity in large parts, and often we'll be out there for the full day.
An extra can of gas is cheaper and easier than getting the electric company out to run a line so I can install plugs.
I guess I could haul a generator but... uhm, kind defeats the purpose right?
Body on frame? Solid axles? Lockers?
Missing any of those, not a truck.
Looks like the lightning is just missing the solid rear axle, which is fair. I agree: it's not truck.
>Body on frame?
Check
>Solid axles?
Not required for EVs.
>Lockers?
Not required for EVs.
Final score: It's a truck.
Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components.
This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543
No, EVs do not require those for the same reason they do not require gas tanks.
>Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components.
You have it backwards: ICE trucks will never be able to mimic the instant torque and torque vectoring that EV motors provide. Rivian is a good example of this:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/rock-crawling-with-a-stoc...
>This video is embarrassing: https://twitter.com/ferio_252/status/1723139057314873543
That's not a Ford F-150 Lightning. The Rivian stock will outperform almost practically every other stock vehicle as shown above.
They have their niche, but that's what they are, niche tools that got heavily pushed/marketed to everyone when a car/van or actual truck would be so much better of a fit for their needs.