A Cultural Critique of the Tesla Cybertruck | Hacker News Reader

A Cultural Critique of the Tesla Cybertruck

roadandtrack.com

49 pointsMBCook58 comments

We had a test run for the apocalypse in 2020, and the vehicle of choice was a bike.

The cybertruck isn't built for the apocalypse, it's built for the I got mine class.

SUVs are mobile gated subdivisions. The cybertruck is a mobile safe room.

Indeed if you want to be mobile during an hypothetical societal collapse/apocalypse, few vehicles would beat a (mountain) bike, possibly a slightly older model that uses common parts and doesn't require exotic tools for repairs.

Toyota Hilux has been the truck of choice for the Taliban since the 80s.

So that’s what I drive (or close - 2001 Tundra)

I'm not a big fan of the fire resistance of newer Toyotas.

They spontaneously combust frequently enough to merit multiple recalls and there have been a number of unexplained fires reported in the news and on forums outside the recall model years.

In most cases the source of ignition has been treated as the defect for the recalls, but I'm of the opinion that the design of the undercarriage of many of the newer Toyota trucks is simply a fire hazard waiting for an excuse to become an insurance claim.

It's essentially a forced draft chimney with a plastic gas tank at the end practically sitting on the exhaust, without heat shielding, inches from the suspension (confirmed cause of fire recall #1) and bearing the weight of the plastic bed (confirmed cause of fire recall #2).

Oh, right, and I almost forgot the bed! The bed sitting over the barely shielded exhaust and unshielded plastic gas tank is also plastic in most of the newer ones too... yep, they're pretty flammable.

All the correct criticism about what the car represents culturally aside, the article also hints at what is for me the biggest aesthetic issue:

"He [Musk] has called the Cybertruck “what Bladerunner would have driven”

The car reminds me of what Mark Fisher called the "spectre of a lost future". Instead of imagining genuine futures the most "sci-fi" car imaginable is something that looks like it could come out of a 40 year old movie set. It's the same kind of design sentiment you see with skyscrapers in the Emirates were you can almost guess they were demanded by people who grew up on 80s science fiction with a 30 year delay.

Yeah, it's extremely galling to see lines like "the future looks like the future" or "it looks like it was designed by aliens from the future" in reference to a car that is constantly being compared (by the same guy) to 30-50 year design languages.

(I also want to emphasize that the car everyone remembers from bladerunner is the police spinner, which looks absolutely nothing like a swollen Lotus Esprit)

The ironic thing about the cybertruck being some prepper vehicle for the apocalypse is when the lights got out so does the cybertruck.

During apocalypse, you’d be able to recharge a cybertruck through solar panels.. Batteries are also a thing..

I am not sure you’d be able to find working refineries, gasoline that hasn’t evaporated, or oil…

During an apocalypse, neither type of vehicle is likely to be particularly useful versus a horse or donkey.

Fuel everywhere, making new ones is easy, and a bonus emergency food source.

I concur, I am just saying in the context of the original comment, an EV is likely a better vehicle than an oil-chugging ice vehicle.

Maybe, I'm just saying that's a "what's the tastiest poop?" sort of question.

I ... don't disagree.. Thanks for the laugh :)

And where, pray tell, will you be procuring a horse or donkey suddenly once the apocalypse arrives? It seems like the best vehicle is actually a bicycle, or perhaps simply walking.

There's a horse barn about a mile from my house.

The horses and donkeys there can carry a lot more than your average bike, don't need stuff from halfway around the world like rubber to maintain, and can even be used to plow a field.

If you look at special forces in Afghanistan, they use donkeys, not bikes.

Most people in an apocalypse will not be in rural areas, as the majority live in cities. There are no horses or donkeys there. There, bicycles are better initially until their rubber wears out, then walking is the next best and most expeditious option.

Most people in an apocalypse will die, yes. Even with bikes and donkeys.

I would not want to be in NYC during the collapse of civilization.

If you have both a bike and a donkey available, grab the donkey.

Sure, I am talking about the average case, however, not rural preppers.

Maybe you can swap it for a course of antibiotics or something else of actual value.

> Apocalypse

> Solar panels

We have different ideas of apocalypse, my friend.

I hope you know how to manufacture solar panels.

I can steal those, there will be plenty around. Gas(oline) though evaporates.

Like a lot of products I think part of it's appeal is a feeling of security which doesn't necessarily equal practical security, in the same way a 4x4 might appeal to someone wanting to feel "rugged" even if it never leaves asphalt. I think to some extent Tesla employed a similar strategy with it's other models and green appeal.

This is exactly the key point that I think the author just missed entirely. People don't appreciate the Cybertruck being bulletproof because they think they're really getting shot at. They appreciate it because in their mind it makes the car cool and they want to drive a car that they think is cool. It's not about the real life need but the capability.

As you mentioned, the same goes for 4x4's, but also motorbikes, sports cars and almost any type of car but the cheapest or most reliable one. Car purchases are not driven by need or rationality. Like Dieter Rams puts it, cars are people's avatars.

Yeah, but _why_ having a bulletproof car is cool these days in America? I think in your cultural programming (nothing bad in it btw) you may not be realising that this is not universal cool and this sort of cool is definitely very specific to both mid-America and the current zeitgeist.

Eg, having lived in Europe, it’s _very_ hard to imagine for me having a bulletproof car being perceived as cool (actually, rather opposite). This is the authors’ point. Utility and fears as its projections are connected with the culture.

To take the point seriously: electrical generation, something that can be done at small scale with passive/reliable components and/or recreated from scratch using century-old methods, is vastly more likely to survive an "apocalypse" than a gasoline production economy.

You know how to frack your own well? Me neither.

I thought this article had a pleasant historical summary of car related culture in the US but thought the parts about the Cybertruck fell kind of flat.

To my read, the author sets up owning a Cybertruck up as the vehicular equivalent of owning an assault weapon: "A bulletproof three-and-a-half ton stainless-steel truck equipped with “Bioweapon Defense Mode” designed to slam through other cars is the perfect vehicle for a society where over a third of people are scared to walk around at night." Hard to support that without hearing from buyers, but I thought that was rather pointy.

That statement is entirely factual though.

Musk has continually promoted the car as being bulletproof.

And we know from regulators and crash tests that it's going to be a nightmare for pedestrians. To the level where in many countries it is likely to not be street-legal. Factor in the sports-car level acceleration and it is going to be an unprecedentedly dangerous car.

If I have to choose between a "comfortable" car to be hit by without active safety features and an uncomfortable car that has active safety features, then I rather choose the latter. In other words, rather a car that is driven by a human and might break from itself than a "comfortable" car driven by only a human.

That's a total false dichotomy though. No new consumer vehicles in that price range lack active safety features like automatic breaking.

The cybertruck is just unnecessary in its disregard for other people.

Didn't they roll down the windows when they shot it? Pretty sure the standard windows aren't bulletproof (and therefore the vehicles with the standard windows aren't bulletproof either).

So in the end it's mostly just for show.

We don't know that. I think its likely safer to pedestrians then an F150 because the hood is significantly lower. The steel ia irrelevant, trucks don't crumple already for pedestrians, they crumple for other cars.

> Musk has continually promoted the car as being bulletproof.

South African aparteid mafia understands what the up-and-coming dictator aspires to.

There are lower-hanging, pointier fruit to be plucked there but the author didn’t pick them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_security_vehicle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casspir#/media/File:Caspir1.jp...

It felt like all lead-in no body.

Ordered a tri-motor on announce day (over four years ago now). I was not interested in a race car, or a bulletproof car, or a car that looked weird. I was interested in the 500 mile range, which Tesla has failed to make good on. Musk was marketing the car as a toy (which it is), but I saw some practical advantage, such as obviating the need for a powerwall for my solar plant, and being able to make a regular commute of mine without stopping for a charge.

I don't know why the other 1.9 million people ordered one, but probably at least some of them will be cancelling like me because of Tesla's failure to meet the promised range specification.

I don't see the article as written in good faith. There is a tiny bit of justified criticism, but the rest is just stereotypes and politics.

Cybertruck is extremely heavy and therefore inefficient. It has a boxy look that may be esthetically unpleasing for many people. But having a HEPA filter is not something to make fun of, driving in polluted cities or behind an old smoky car is nothing to make fun of. The rest of the article is worse.

Great article, all very true. Just look at the patent absurdity of modern American pickup trucks. What this article was missing (for good reason) is tying this to politics more directly; IMO “I want a car that will ‘win’ if I get in an accident” is based in the same toxic intuitions as “America First”

>“I want a car that will ‘win’ if I get in an accident”

That's not at all an American exclusive. I live in Europe and everyone parrots the same line when they justify why they're getting a SUV even though they live in the city and never go off-roading.

A work colleagues who just got a baby recently told me he had to get a SUV even though he wanted a sedan because his wife pushed for the SUV with the same argument: "I feel safer in one." What's a guy to do? Do you want to risk for your wife and child to "feel unsafe" because you're too cheap to buy your family a SUV? Same with my cousin, she just got a baby and pushed her husband to get a SUV for the same reason, so I'm definitely seeing a pattern in my circles as well as on the streets.

The estate/station wagon and the mini-van were the traditional vehicle of the family here but now SUVs and the jacked up cross-over abominations are flying off the shelves here. Just look at Volvo's UK line-up[1], it's 8 SUVs and 1 crossover. WTF?!

Justified or not, consumers are noticing this arms race, and manufacturers are more than happy to market and sell you bigger and taller cars for you to "feel safer" in, if you've got the cash.

[1] https://www.volvocars.com/uk/

IME it is often the female pushing for the bigger vehicle. My ex-wife kept pushing to upgrade our Subaru Outback to something bigger and we only had 2 dogs and no kids in the suburbs. Similarly, my wife hated my Chevy Bolt because of its size. I think folks stereotype big vehicle purchasers as males looking to compensate for feelings of inferiority, but from what I've seen(beyond just the examples given) is that this isn't really true. I'm sure it sounds good to folks looking to denigrate people with vehicles that are deemed excessive but is trite and silly.

We seem to be conflating different vehicles/demos in these comments. SUVs and pickups.

Large SUVs for sure are appealing to women.

The negative stereotypes of male compensation etc though are associated with large pickup trucks not SUVs no?

When we think “large SUV” we think soccer mom.

When we think “large Pickup” we think male ego compensation/etc.

I'm saying the same thing about both SUVs and pickups. Many times it's the women who want the bigger vehicle.

In my experience, people in huge vehicles are either bad drivers or drivers who lack confidence (or both).

I'm pretty sure females in general have less confidence than males. At least in my family.

I don't think it's just about superiority or safety in the event of a crash. I almost always buy Coupes for my personal vehicles, but was hired to drive an F150 pickup truck to transport materials throughout the city. It had two advantages. One was being able to see what's behind me and estimate with high accuracy the distance from me things were, but that's less relevant. The other major advantage was that my head was higher than almost everyone else on the road, allowing me a much better 360 view of what's around me. However, I was also obstructing the view of every other driver, which is why only a complete douchebag gets one for a personal vehicle.

Yep. I like smaller cars, but when I moved out of the bay area I rented a big truck that sat high and had excellent visibility. I loved it. I wouldn't buy a truck based on that, but I see why people do.

People want the wrong things damnit! They should want to be in a bus or on a scooter so that everything can be easier to plan. Instead they want to be happy, safe, and comfortable!

It's not just the first not-ugly Tesla, but it is culturally appropriate product. I don't know if it will be a successful product but this thing will be in museums.

You know the Apple's famous ad:

"Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Musk fits that perfectly. With all his faults, he has some answers(some good, some not so) but more importantly he has risen some questions and this particular vehicle is a question on design.

The world is changing, mostly for the worse and its time to ask questions so we can have answer on how to have a new normal that is better than the one before everything started crumbling.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'd say the Tesla Roadster is pretty not-ugly to me!

I don't think the cybertruck is "pushing the human race forward" in any capacity. It's a unique looking truck, big whoop. The only museum it'll be in is Elon's mausoleum.

> I don't think the cybertruck is "pushing the human race forward" in any capacity

I suspect, It can have the iPhone effect on the car design the upcoming years. When it's radical enough, the boilerplate doesn't work and makes you ask the fundamental questions that boilerplate was keeping you from asking because it was good enough.

The answer might not necessarily be "Cybertruck", it can even be public transport but just the fact that it strays far away from the current state is enough to push humanity forward.

Why did you ignore the article?

Because I don't think Musk's collapse of society paranoia is something I would like to discuss. The designs says it, that's why I don't directly address the article.

> not-ugly Tesla

I tell ya I gotta disagree. It is a boxy and weird looking thing. It's how I'd imagine a PS1 era graphic of a first generation Honda Ridgeline (also ugly).

I know the meme but I disagree. Actually, the boxy design is not even completely new trend - the European manufacturers like Audi, Opel, Peugeot already updated their designs to more boxier and sharper ones. Tesla Cybertruck however, goes all the way.

Note they have no cultural problems with a $150k gas guzzling SUV: https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a44600208/2023-cadillac...

Follow the money here folks.

Aside from that being a complete different byline:

Tesla is worth more than GM and Musk is one of the wealthiest people on the planet.

he is "the money"

Different money though.

It's a fascinating phenomenon, the "People's billionaire" thing. Reminds of the movie "Don't look up" where they phrase it as "The working class, the cool rich and them".

It's the classic "high-and-low vs middle" dynamic.

This article has a very narrow view of the Cybertruck phenomenon, as seen through a prism of lefty emotionalism. It is more a view of the general sociological scene of the early 21st century United States, than about its motor vehicle component. The author wanted to be a cultural critic, but is writing for Road and Track as a fallback. In addition, she left rural Idaho and moved to Seattle, which is telling.

"Musk’s bulletproof wedge-shaped machine is the physical manifestation of America’s fear, and whether it is good or bad, we deserve it. "

Reply on news.ycombinator.com