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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 , 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.
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.
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.
There's other stuff out there, sure, but what people are actually buying is well north of the Tesla base price.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
But to answer your question YES you can do your own maintenance.
"How Much To Service Your Tesla? "
This myth about owners not being able to perform basic (pretty much non-existent) maintenance on Teslas is way overblown.
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.
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.
Well, that escalated quickly.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Payload is bed capacity not tow capacity.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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:
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.
The concept renders both assume, which we all did, that Tesla would remain consistent with a design language that's been successful.
This truck gets attention. It's a loud status statement that looks cheap to build, costs less than $50k. Well done Tesla.
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.
Out of curiosity, which generations? I'm in my 20s and most of the friends Ive talked to think it's comically ugly.
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.
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.
Good thing is: You won't have to buy it.
Yeah that's for Elon's other company.
How the tables turn.
More than ugly, it looks like a parody.
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.
but nope, apparently not. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/07/while-other-countries...
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.
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"
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.
"(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
I don't see how this advice implies that laws are in place?
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
and you can get this thing with 3 motors.
The Rivian has 4 motors by the way...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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 the near term Bollinger Motors 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Tri-motor is 14k lbs, a 2019 F150 is 13,200 lbs.
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  mostly tow between 8-10,000 pounds.
 - https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/f150-xl/
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.
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).
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.
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.
Not too surprising. According to , 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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks sweet though.
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.
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.
Disagree? Why? Active crash-avoidance aids seem to be getting pretty impressive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't most of that just the special consideration that all electric vehicles will need in order to isolate the battery voltage?
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.
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.
So maybe that means it's not so hard to get into if needed.
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
Breaking the window creates an instant smaller opening that's still big enough to get out of.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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...
While I've never considered purchasing a new pickup, I'd sure like to have one of the cybertrucks to haul with.
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)
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.
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.
(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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
Would all fit in a compact
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.
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.
Honestly if my family is going to own just one car, it will be a SUV, instead of a sedan/compact.