Tesla Has a Design Problem
feedme.design
feedme.design
The entire project, at its heart, seems like design self-indulgence, a masturbatory creation for one, rather than the practical application of vehicle design for the many.
There are a lot of practical issues with the car which I find just dumb and I personally love the way it looks so I find these issue really disappointing.
Need a replacement wiper? Can't be towed. A screen is required to see out the back window. Regular tires look like shit, how do I get winter tires? It's bullet proof, but it's not really bullet proof...
It feels a lot like "The Homer" on The Simpsons.
You've just hit the nail on the head with that.
So where I probably would have been negative on this a few months ago, I don’t think this would be a deal killer for me now.
He created a look in 2012 for the Model S that’s still in use with only minor variations across the company’s range. The best-selling Model Y is instantly recognizable as a cousin of the original S.
The design doesn’t look like most American cars from the same era. It eliminated grilles and other aggressively masculine elements. It has a sophisticated softness that would pass for European, yet it also has an edge that communicates the hidden power of the full-electric system. It’s pretty unique that one design manages to hold desirability for a decade.
Other car makers would have revamped a design several times already. So Tesla is clearly taking a risk that their signature look grows tired and commonplace.
The Cybertruck seems like overcorrection in the other direction. It also smells of the CEO’s influence overriding the car industry experience of von Holzhausen. Musk’s companies seem to do best when he’s focusing on fundraising and hiring, leaving product and operations to others.
When I look at a Tesla on the streets these days they start to look like the past is coming to them, of course this view is pretty shallow but I can't shake it.
The Y looks like a bloated 3 though. It's ok.
This word should be synonym to 'SUV'.
What?
>It has a sophisticated softness that would pass for European, yet it also has an edge that communicates the hidden power of the full-electric system.
Er...fucking what?
Rule of thumb is that the bigger and more attention grabbing it is, the more masculine it tends to be. Use lots of straight lines and (faux-)chrome elements to grab attention for maximum masculinity. Or just use the hot rod style cheat code and completely break the contours of the car for ultra masculinity.
Simple example would be comparing the front of a VW Golf with the front of a BMW M3.
With the Golf, most people don’t even realize they’re staring at the air intake, whereas with the M3 it’s staring you in the face, some might even call it “aggressive” looking.
That's also why tech companies, following Facebook's lead, redesigned their icons/website to be less marked, a bit more unisex.
It's also why I think that if X don't want to be an incel's nest, will have to redesign sometime soon. Its users are 4% more male than last year (59%), and it was one of the most masculine social network already.
It would be a mistake to think that Elon Musk don't have a hand in the Model S design. He's that kind of person who obsess every little details, regardless of his expertise or how ill advised his choices is.
Musk is a product person, not a fundraising and hiring person.
People said the same thing about Steve Jobs.
This was in part because he would even focus on design details on the inside of devices that most would never see, the iMac G3 would be the first example of this.
Somehow I suspect that Jobs would have an aneurism if he’d be heading Tesla and saw the paneling issues and the welds his cars would be delivered with.
Perhaps Musk should do some more obsessing.
Anyway... personally I'm happy for the CT's design. All other cars look exactly the same. Which I'm not a huge fan of CT, but I'm a fan of change, finally. We haven't had such a brave design since the Fiat Multipla. But this one doesn't look like the new car of Mr Bean.
Personally, I'd like a variety of cars on the road. Right now, the industry has converged on about a half-dozen types of cars: SUV, sedan, pickup truck with an oversized cab, sub-compact, (rapidly disappearing) van, ... and that's all. There's also the pricey sports car, which varies a bit more.
I can buy a subcompact from any company, and it will be almost identical except for the brand logo (and to some extent, reliability).
I'd like to see much more variety, including bringing back classics like the classic pickup truck (designed to be maintainable, modifiable, and good at hauling stuff), the classic station wagon (designed to fit a family at the cost of a sedan and better fuel efficiency than a SUV or van), as well as a variety of new cars which look different. We used to have things like the VW Bug.
Yes, I think the Cybertruck is a horrible, horrible car which I'd never buy and which I'd never recommend to anyone, but personally, I'm glad for some innovation, for someone trying something new, and for someone as Apple put it, Thinking Different.
I agree it’s like housing everything is just cookie cutter and just gets boring to look at. The constant exposure to unchanging uninteresting uniformity I think subconsciously cumulatively adds to dread. Only diff is bad car design can kill bystanders more than bad house design or bland fashion choices.
* Cookie-cutter designs mean better safety and reliability in the short-term. We learn a lot about those designs, have volume to optimize them, etc. However, innovation stagnates.
* Diverse design means we try new things. 95% will be bad ideas, but 5% will be good ideas which can then disseminate. We make much more rapid progress, and learn more.
As much as I'm convinced the Cybertruck (and cars like it) will result in more deaths in the short term than if we all drove sedans, I'm not sure that it won't result in fewer deaths in the timespan of a few decades, simply by virtue of seeing what works and what doesn't. I'm not sure it's a fundamentally worse design, so much as one which hasn't had 50 years of safety (and other) optimizations like the current cookie cutter ones.
And SUVs are classified as light trucks, hence the push by manufacturers for people to buy SUVs.
Not Just Bikes has a pretty extensive video on it: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
Didn't Musk literally say "and if you're ever in an argument with another car, you will win" at an event, emphasising how the Cybertruck is terribly unsafe for everyone else on the road?
S,3,Y are sedan and would do well on those tests.
Why do you think it does not have a crumple zone?
However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be made, or tesla shouldn't have tried.
I do like that it tries something (old) new. What I don't like is that other designers then copy the obviously shit parts (I'm looking at you touchscreen buttons, and really poor fucking visibility from the back) because its "new" and "fresh"
The Cybertruck resembles an armored fighting vehicle. sample here:
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/98/76/de/9876de62de664087f06b8be34...
Had to laugh at that bit, and then sigh :(
On the one hand, it's great that he takes nothing for granted, and does his own thing. On the other hand, it's sad (for everyone) that he can't listen to reason at the same time.
https://youtu.be/XxOh12Uhg08?t=1759
Timestamp 29:19
The article is an ignorant hitpiece and spreads misinformation.
de gustibus non est disputandum
The lack of handle for blinkers and handle for cruise is why my next car will be a mercedes. I have the older X with physical handles now.
Or maybe I should say part of why, it’s almost embarassing to drive a Tesla these days with Commander Dunnig-Kruger at the helm of the company :(
The review I looked at when considering the new plaid X (before Musk went completely batshit crazy) specifically said that blinking out of roundabouts was almost impossible to do without giving it waaay (as in traffic dangerous) too much attention.
The steer by wire thing fo sho makes it better, but I still want stalks for this stuff.
there are thousands of roundabouts
- Steering: indeed the CT uses an innovative, triple-redundant steer by wire system. The steering wheel, which is a squared circle, not a yoke, turns 380 degrees lock to lock, so you never need to reposition your hands. It adjusts steering ratios dynamically according to speed and other factors.
- Crash safety: The 4 other Tesla models all had record-breaking safety scores, each the highest ever tested at the time of release on both European and U.S. standards. CT will undoubtedly continue and likely exceed that record. In any case, it would not be on the road if it had not passed U.S. safety standards.
- Pedestrian safety: This one is Bizarre. The CT front profile is about 2 feet lower than every other full size pickup sold in the U.S., yet not a peep heard about any of them being dangerous to pedestrians. “But no crumple zones!!” —- pedestrian safety is not primarily achieved through crumple zones, rather by the shape of the vehicle and how impact is likely to move someone who was hit. The CT is infinitely better on this metric.
- No crumple zones: See the crash test videos of the CT to see what an absurd assumption this is. The front deforms beautifully and the passenger compartment is fully intact. Same for the 30 MPH side impact test.
- Not mentioned: the first full-car 48 volt architecture in history, which paves the way for this much-needed innovation for the rest of the industry.
- Further extension of Tesla’s astonishing electrical architecture, where all functions in the car are performed by a few high-density PC boards running industrial PowerPC processors rather than having 100+ “ECUs” bought off the shelf. This architecture is what makes it possible to control (and fix and refine) nearly all aspects of the vehicle THROUGH SOFTWARE (and explains why no other car makers can do this).
- The CT pushes this forward by making nearly every electrical device a peer on a redundant gigabit ethernet bus (greatly enhanced CANBus). Each device then has a single power lead—-as short as possible from any convenient location—and activates itself by commands on the bus. 48 volts plus this reduced the weight of the wiring harness by 80% over a typical vehicle.
- Looks: I thought this site audience was made up of engineers or those who appreciate engineering. The look of the CT follows its function. Using castings, a structural battery pack and durable, paint-free stainless steel, it makes one of the toughest, most durable and most structurally rigid vehicles ever made. Yet, compared to an F150 Lightning, it has more interior space, a bigger bed while weighing significantly less.
- Economics: Ford in recent quarters is losing around $36,000 per EV they sell, despite the prices charged being quite high. CT is designed for manufacturing simplicity and architectural efficiency. This difference means that Ford is stuck at high prices and big losses while Tesla has ample price flexibility. As they have with their other vehicles, they can bring down prices as market conditions warrant and as materials and economies of scale make possible. No other EV maker has ever been profitable, and none have ever dropped prices as aggressively as Tesla has this last year or so. There is every reason to assume this will continue with the CT, once the first early-adopter wave subsides.
I get that Elon Musk infuriates many people (as he frequently does me). But it’s just dumb to disparage the achievements of the most talented and innovative team of automotive engineers since Henry Ford just because you don’t like the boss.
> Steering: indeed the CT uses an innovative, triple-redundant steer by wire system. The steering wheel, which is a squared circle, not a yoke, turns 380 degrees lock to lock, so you never need to reposition your hands. It adjusts steering ratios dynamically according to speed and other factors.
I’ll take most of what you’re saying here at face value because I haven’t looked into the steering that much. That said, can you elaborate on how one would turn the wheel 380 degrees without ever needing to reposition their hands? Other than that, I’m not sure innovation for the sake of innovation is necessarily a good thing. The blinker buttons on the wheel, placed above each other, already are causing issues in day to day driving[0]
> Crash safety: The 4 other Tesla models all had record-breaking safety scores, each the highest ever tested at the time of release on both European and U.S. standards. CT will undoubtedly continue and likely exceed that record. In any case, it would not be on the road if it had not passed U.S. safety standards.
This is a non-sequitur for a couple of reasons. For starters in the US car manufacturers self-certify, there is no pre-approval before cars can be sold. It’s one of the many reasons why the NHTSA and US regulations are a joke.
The CT hasn’t been rated by the NHTSA yet[1] and isn’t scheduled to be rated in 2024[2].
As for using prior achieved scores as an indicator for future scores; that’s silly in the best of times, but outright ridiculous when you’re talking about a model with a design that’s nothing like the other models you refer to.
> Pedestrian safety: This one is Bizarre. The CT front profile is about 2 feet lower than every other full size pickup sold in the U.S., yet not a peep heard about any of them being dangerous to pedestrians. “But no crumple zones!!” —- pedestrian safety is not primarily achieved through crumple zones, rather by the shape of the vehicle and how impact is likely to move someone who was hit. The CT is infinitely better on this metric.
Here you’re rolling multiple things into one.
For starters there are plenty of “peeps” about trucks and SUVs being dangerous for pedestrians. Both from “full time dissidents”[3], mainstream media[4] and studies[5] alike.
With regards to the CT, I hope I don’t have to waste time explaining how stainless steel v. pedestrians is more likely to cause injuries.
> No crumple zones: See the crash test videos of the CT to see what an absurd assumption this is. The front deforms beautifully and the passenger compartment is fully intact. Same for the 30 MPH side impact test.
The debate isn’t just crumple zones v. no crumple zones and keeping the cabin intact. If that were the case then we shouldn’t even bother testing because almost all cars crumple to one degree or another.
The purpose of a crumple zone is to absorb as much of the forces as possible. When I look at the Tesla provided test video I see a very short crumple zone with a lot of the forces ending up being absorbed by the dummies. In particular the dummy in the back without airbags is being flung into the well in front of that seat (to the point I’m wondering if those seatbelts were malfunctioning, but let’s not get distracted).
This is far from “beautiful” as you describe it.
> Not mentioned: the first full-car 48 volt architecture in history, which paves the way for this much-needed innovation for the rest of the industry.
Cool. Normally those are things you focus on when everything else is up to snuff.
> Further extension of Tesla’s astonishing electrical architecture, where all functions in the car are performed by a few high-density PC boards running industrial PowerPC processors rather than having 100+ “ECUs” bought off the shelf. This architecture is what makes it possible to control (and fix and refine) nearly all aspects of the vehicle THROUGH SOFTWARE (and explains why no other car makers can do this).
All I’m hearing is more points of failure. I don’t think this is a matter of other manufacturers not being able to do, rather a matter of them not willing to do it because they understand the risks of failure better than Tesla does.
> Looks: I thought this site audience was made up of engineers or those who appreciate engineering. The look of the CT follows its function. Using castings, a structural battery pack and durable, paint-free stainless steel, it makes one of the toughest, most durable and most structurally rigid vehicles ever made. Yet, compared to an F150 Lightning, it has more interior space, a bigger bed while weighing significantly less.
Looks are in the eye of the beholder, so far most beholders seem to have a different eye than Tesla does.
> Economics: Ford in recent quarters is losing around $36,000 per EV they sell, despite the prices charged being quite high. CT is designed for manufacturing simplicity and architectural efficiency. This difference means that Ford is stuck at high prices and big losses while Tesla has ample price flexibility. As they have with their other vehicles, they can bring down prices as market conditions warrant and as materials and economies of scale make possible. No other EV maker has ever been profitable, and none have ever dropped prices as aggressively as Tesla has this last year or so. There is every reason to assume this will continue with the CT, once the first early-adopter wave subsides.
Respectfully, this just sounds like copium. Even if Tesla would cut the price of the CT in line with prior price cuts, it will still be nowhere near the price he originally stated. Unless somehow you see a big brain move behind announcing a low price and then launching it with a price that’s not even in the ballpark of the original promise, I can’t take this seriously.
0: https://www.threads.net/@hoon_kim/post/C1KHqzNr920/?igshid=N...
1: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2024/TESLA/CYBERTRUCK%2520%28A...
2: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/12/23998308/tesla-cybertuck...
3: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
4: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...
5: https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Pedestrian%...
Also, I wouldn't judged a car's or a truck's safety without a crash test report. I like the big touchscreen, but I must admit that I also like buttons. That said, I prefer using buttons on the steering wheel if possible. The yoke design is probably not a problem if you don't ever need to rotate it like 180 degree or something.
I think the simplicity and minimalism stems from Elon Musk's drive to reduce the amount of parts and weight in a car. I agree that some functionality is lost, and maybe a little bit of safety as well, since it's hard to do certain tasks without physical buttons.
Are you an oil tanker captain perhaps?
I am talking from a manufacturing standpoint as well, not just making sure that the truck doesn't weigh too much. To be fair, EV just weigh a lot, but you can do a lot worse.
The cybertruck is a luxury vehicle, but it also weigh less than the Ford Lightning F-150.
Tesla by contrast said "yoke look cool !!!" and shoved it onto the same stalk as a normal wheel without bothering to do any of that other tuning and engineering to make the design work, much less work safely. It's a theme that echoes throughout many if not all of their "innovations"
Yeah, early versions. So what.
> pedestrian safety
Far better than other equivalent size vehicles.
> apparent lack of crumple zones.
Apparent? What!?
> a fear of saying no to Musk
Zero evidence.
The only valid point in this silly article is on the design of the door handles.
[edit - whatever it is - it works]
Certain types of trucks are probably very dangerous to pedestrians because they have very high grills. But that is really more of an indictment of the lacking US safety standards here than any praise for the Cybertruck.