At least they've only sold 3800 so far. But what are the odds this is the only thing that will need to be recalled?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/cars/toyota-bz4x-tundra-recal...
What is their reputation on reliability on here? How many decades have they been making cars compared and how mature is their manufacturing process?
You just don't hear about other carmakers' recalls on here, so everyone makes those assumptions you just did, that Tesla is disproportionately bad with quality issues..
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2024/01/12/vehicle....
edit: To add, this isn't some one off event. In 2022 Ford recalled 8.6 million vehicles.
I think the NHTSA was only formed in 1970.
https://i.imgur.com/bygtzk2.png
What data are you using?
How many of Ford Motor's 58 recalls in 2023 made HN's front page?
Meanwhile Tesla updates the car UIs icon sizes via a software update, and there are headlines all over the media including HN stating that Tesla recalled millions of cars, omitting that it was a software update.
That makes people like the GP think Teslas have disproportionately worse issues, which appears to be the objective.
By that metric Fords 58 are normalised by 40 odd models (only counting current) while Teslas 20 are normalised by 6 models (counting any car/truck build).
I’m not the one claiming anything about proportions. I didn’t claim to have any data. How did you arrive at your proportions?
Whether this product line will be sustainable (or exist) 1 year from now is unlikely.
Lackluster sales. Poor public perception. Truck would likely need another overhaul (more money burned) and another 1-2 year loss leader phase to test the market, and get their build processes updated to scale.
Tesla's mission was "to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" which they were doing by making solid and affordable EVs and electric storage solutions.
One of the biggest reasons of the success of Model S was because it had a modern but conventional design unlike the other toy-like EV cars on the market at the time. Model S proved that it is possible to build a modern conventional EV car that people can buy.
It feels like Cybertruck is coming from a completely different mission statement. Actually most of the decisions they have been taking for the last 2-3 years feel like it.
I saw a Ford F-150 Lightning the other day, looks practically the same as an ICE F-150.
Since far before Tesla, selling cars at high profit margins has ultimately been about selling power/attention/sex-appeal, not to advance an objective like "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. That's a nice side effect, but it's not ultimately what sells them. Otherwise, all of the original fan base of Tesla would have bought Nissan Leafs (which preceded Tesla).
Trendsetting companies need hero products that capture (or even set) the zeitgeist.
Teslas older models once played that role, but no longer, since they are so common at this point in their primary target markets.
To recapture customer imagination, the Cybertruck is promoting the "faux survivalism" hero narrative. It's the same narrative that is selling Rivians and F150, but taken to the aesthetic extreme.
If the customer buys it, they switch to an EV platform, thereby accelerating Tesla's mission of "transition[ing] to sustainable energy".
Leading with "it's an EV" is the primary reason why "legacy auto" has been scaling back their EV manufacturing, because people generally don't care about "EV". They do care about something "cool" though.
If that's not enough, there's a long list of celebrities that now own cybertrucks, including Kim Kardashian, Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, Jay Z, Steve Aoki, Pharrell, and more. Might not fit your definition of "cool", but clearly, it does for a lot of people.
Cybertruck tried to be over the top cool, and sacrificed some basics like time-to-market, easy production, range, safety... And it was a totally unnecessary change of strategy. Cybertruck really didn't need to be stainless steel or low-poly in order to sell. Model Y being one of the best selling cars in the world proves this.
I'm going to stereotype a bit here, but Tesla YouTubers/Tweeters/Fanatics and the two groups above aside, everyone else is generally "against" EVs. If you own one, you know exactly what I'm talking about. The Cybertruck is Tesla's attempt to change that. Don't convince them on the green-ness or potential cost-savings of home charging, convince them because it's cool. It's something that no other manufacturer can compete against. (for now)
I often think this, but then I think about how it would have actually happened. Right now, Tesla doesn't have enough domestically produced 2170s to supply both 3 and Y production. The 4680 ramp has been so slow that it is barely ahead of CT production anyway.
I think some of their failures on the battery supply chain side are bleeding over into product failures at this point.
The thinking being, of course, that if/when they get it nailed, they've potentially got an advantage to leverage over other manufacturers for future cars such as the Model 2.
Only time will tell whether this is the case, and whether it worked.
Thanks; I'd be interested in learning more about this, if you have links to share?
I don't see moms picking up their kids with these trucks. I don't see people using them for camping. The unnamed companion ATV seems to have been recalled for not being roadsafe and doesn't seem to be coming back any time soon.
It's possible there will be a revised Cybertruck eventually but this thing has so many design flaws and underdelivers on so many promises (e.g. "you could use it as a boat" when taking it to the carwash voids your warranty) that it's not mass market compatible. Heck, it's not even possible to make it street legal in Europe without massive changes.
As far as Musk's ventures go, the Cybertruck is up there with the Hyperloop in terms of what it is and what was promised. Remember the unprovoked throwaway claim that it'll let you use it as a source for compressed air to drive pneumatic tools? Or the talk about selling a version of it to the military as an APC?
Is it just me or many people don't seem to understand fixed costs vs. variable costs that I learnt about in high school while growing up in the third world?
Don't people have to take Econ 101 in the USA or whatever the equivalent is in their countries? Or is it optional.
Not even going to bring up "advanced" concepts like COGS that I know about while being a CS major and never taking an economics course.
What you said doesn't many sense, because, say they sell 100 million trucks, according to your logic they would end up with a huge loss. But in reality they would make a big profit.
Sometimes that's a supermarket selling 'loss leaders' to get people into the store where they'll hopefully buy other things - or a games console manufacturer planning to make up the loss because they get paid for every game sold.
Other times a manufacturer wants to hit a promised launch date, and hopes to get manufacturing costs down later. Maybe they haven't had time to set up certain cost-saving automation, or a planned lower-cost component wasn't ready in time for launch. Maybe their widget supplier has promised a lower cost when they're ordering 10,000 a month but right now they're only ordering 500 a month.
Of course, without access to insider information we can only guess if this is really occurring...
No need to guess, the GP poster confidently stated this:
> Tesla is losing money on every truck sold at this point.
They must be an insider or have reliable insider information.
But that is not what Tesla is doing, is it?