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.
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.
Brussels - Bilbao at the end of Dec is 1500EUR for 3x tickets. Driving there & back is around 5-600EUR, including diesel, tolls and a cheap hotel half way.
There's cheaper tickets with budget airlines but getting to some rural Ryanair airport by 6AM with a toddler and a baby, no thanks.
A car like this should be able to do 80K Km before needing any serious maintenance / repairs so a 2500Km round trip doesn't worry me too much. It is indeed also about convenience.
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.
Toyota trucks are everywhere and our family 1995 Toyota t-100 regularly had people stopping us making offers on it from about 2005ish until I gave it to my half-brother in 2013 with almost 140k miles on it (which is nothing for a Toyota), I even had people knock on the door of our house offering to buy it when it wasn't for sale. The Indiana State Police (I live in Indiana) even had some of their fleet as Toyota pickups for years (they still might). Actually, I'm quite confident I received more offers for my t-100 than I did for my '67 c-10 and I'd regularly get stopped and asked if I was willing to sell it too (which I finally did when someone offered me twice what I'd paid for it, which I'm still sore about I really miss that truck).
To be fair though, Toyota does manufacture a lot of vehicles in Canada and the United States which gets around the 'chicken tax'.
The reason you don't see a lot of imported pickups is because most of them are absolutely tiny, when you see an Isuzu truck for example it looks about as practical as an El Camino.
A small Peugeot diesel crossover, weighing 1392kg, will cost you €1484 per year in road tax. Meanwhile a Toyota Hilux at 2030kg will cost you €496 in road tax. Even a Ford F250 with the 7.3L V8 and 2850kg will cost you only €692 per year. Less than half of a family crossover.
The worst thing is that some pickup trucks don't have a bed big enough to qualify as a work vehicle, so they cut the bed and make it longer (VW Amarok) or they take out the rear seats and put a divider in between to create a cargo area. Or people just buy a bigger truck so it's big enough to qualify. It's also exempt from CO2 tax giving you between €5000 and €72,000 (not a typo) off your initial purchase. So the €256,000 Range Rover SVA suddenly becomes a whole lot more affordable at €184,000, just by tossing the rear seats, calling it a utility vehicle and registering it on your business.
Mind boggling that we do this while construction of new homes is shut down all over the country because of the nitrogen crisis.
I've seen an Audi RS6 like this.
That's absolutely nuts.
The only thing I heard of is that older cars can be registered under a company and the market value used for tax purposes. That's why you see a lot of these massive Mercedes on the road..
I should add that only 1 percent of nitrogen is caused by construction, compared to 40 percent being caused by agriculture.
The Titan is made in Mississippi.
The Ridgeline in Alabama.
Those who identify as Republicans seem to indicate willingness to pay more for Made in USA than Democrats according to the polls I've seen.
What else is really surprising to me is their resale value, especially when they are optioned with desirables such as 4x4 or a diesel powertrain; 10-15 year old Dodge Rams with the Cummins are still selling in the $10k+ range, with some of the nicer 10-year-old examples fetching closer to $20k, roughly half the original MSRP
But they’re trucks and not cars, so things randomly falling off is part of the appeal.
It seems like you wanted to show off your knowledge of the chicken tax and just threw it in an answer to whatever thread came up first.
It doesn't make them more practical, just more common.
Cheaper relative to the foreign competition, but the prices of American trucks are not reduced by the tax.
>It seems like you wanted to show off your knowledge of the chicken tax and just threw it in an answer to whatever thread came up first.
Maybe, but I'm sure there are a lot of people here who don't know about the chicken tax. It is relevant to a general discussion of trucks.
UK has Chelsea Tractors.
They're used a lot as utility and work vehicles. Road conditions can be pretty bad especially during the rainy season.
In Bangkok small cars are more popular.
I suppose you have never been in Crete, Greece. :P
We use my wife's crossover for all of the family trips, so it's usually just me in the truck. Before I owned a home I enjoyed driving a nicer sedan but now I would now I prefer the utility of a mid-size truck.
I've been toying with the idea of getting a hitch installed on my Prius.
Here are much smaller (10x and smaller) taxes on vehicles, that is probably the reason.
I also doubt you are taking fuel into account with this comparison, which was the primary source of savings mentioned when you own a small car and rent a truck as needed.
Large trailers (if they’re big enough to be worth hiring instead of a van) will for most people likely need additional qualifications on their licence to be allowed to drive with so they’re less popular.
Front-wheel driver cars in the United States are generally not rated for towing, and can void your warranty. (It's silly, because as I understand it, the exact same car in Europe usually is rated for towing).
Minivans are the exception; they are rated for towing more than some compact pickups. Unfortunately, seat design means that many minivans no longer meet one of the original design criteria of the first minivan: the ability to carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood.
That is crazy, no wonder many Americans think you need a monster-truck to tow a trailer. My small Audi A3 is rated with a trailer weight of 1400kg in Europe
I wasn't aware those laws were so strict in the US, perhaps that is why trucks are so much more common. Owning or renting a trailer isn't uncommon here.
I don't know about "most". Current Honda, Toyota, and Chrysler vans are still up to the task.
Always hated filling a sedan with trash, yard garbage, or landscaping materials though.
I used it to move a queen size bed, refrigerator, washing machine: stuff you'd normally need a ute or van to transport.
But I guess in US this usually wouldn't be viable because of the big land and less population density.
I recently bought a pickup knowing that the number of days in the year I need to transport bulky stuff can't really justify owning a truck. But since it (a Honda Ridgeline) is about as livable as an SUV, I didn't feel too foolish. Given that few luxury SUVs can be had for the $US 40k I paid, and given this truck's many upgrades that help it to rival a luxury car, I was sold.
However, in my immediate social group, there are LOTS of smaller trucks or smaller SUVs, mostly because of the practicality for bicycling trips. Sure, you can do a roof rack or a hitch rack, but if you want to go out to the hill country with you and your wife and both MTB and road bikes, you find yourself wishing for a truck bed pretty fast.
There's lots of overlap in this group with other outdoor activities -- camping, hiking, some fishing, a very small amount of hunting -- that reward actual trucks. My friend J has a full-size (read: HUGE) Ford with back seats and a long bed, and uses the HELL out of it, since he travels back and forth to Colorado with bikes pretty frequently.
But he and his wife also have a VW they use for most urban driving. ;)
Absolutely will be buying a truck in the near future for these purposes- and selling this compact to a high school student or somebody else willing to drive a ragged out hybrid.
Small / compact trucks like the Toyota Tacoma have become much bigger, and other models like the Ford Ranger disappeared and have been reintroduced in larger sizes.
This is annoying, because the previous gen size of the Ranger (e.g.) is a really great and useful size. Most people who could use a truck don't need the giant "full size" models, and yet the market ignores them.
If you do this a lot and can afford it, a larger vehicle is a great option.
1. It is a status symbol (as in "my car is bigger than your car")
2. It is sturdier and has more weight so it will physically dominate the average car in an accident and provide more security to it's passengers.
There are plenty of trades that benefit from using a truck other than just farming.
This is just such an American way of putting it. Sounds so much nicer than "kill everyone in the other vehicle to provide a marginally higher chance for its owner" but it's basically the same thing
I'm not saying escalation is a Good Thing™, only that it's inevitable when people are culturally obsessed with driving absurd bullshit.
To be clear, I agree that humans being humans, we do love to get into escalating arms races.
I agree that it is probably inevitable but there is also people who don't join the race and that is lifting my hopes.
It’s actually one of our bigger problems (it has big implications on safety, infrastructure, urban planning, &c.), but not many people really care. Cars are too deeply associated with “freedom” and “success” and individuality; for a lot of people I’d say they might be the biggest icon of America after the flag.
People will come up with all sorts of justifications for what is really an emotional purchase.
If you don't believe this take a look at the marketing for cars, the further upmarket you go the more it is laden with emotional triggers. Buy this car and your wife will become slim and attractive, your kids will love you, roads will become empty and smooth before you, that new speed boat will suddenly be within reach and trailerable.
Never mind the reality of endless car payments, clogged up streets, increasing pedestrian deaths, kids not being able to play outside, particulate pollution and climate change.
If you're going to have a vehicle the flexibility of a truck is second to none.
No seriously, trailer would be the sensible option if you only use the bed sporadically. Why ride around with lots of unused spaced and dead weight?
Why have a guest room when there are hotels you can send visitors to?
Why have a 4 door car that incurs most of its mileage in a commute with 1 or 2 people?
People should just do the math and decide for their own particular case if hauling around a huge vehicle with all the disadvantages that come with it (maneuverability, fuel consumption, parking, etc.) actually pays off when they need the capacity, or if they're better off always using the right tool for the job (regular car for most of the needs, rent big one for the rest). YMMV.
I’ve seen several comments in this thread that conclude that it’s wasteful to have the truck bed when you are not using it. Going one level deeper, to the owner it doesn’t feel wasteful on a day to day basis because you forget it’s back there when you’re not using it. But it’s so handy when you do need it.
Former truck owner myself, I downsized to a car after moving to a more urban setting. It’s often on the weekends that I loathe not having to pickup for various furniture moves, gardening, etc. since I now have to borrow and friend’s or rent one.
How many times per year would you say you need to move furniture? If you do it 1 day per month but carry around a full truck and the above mentioned disadvantages the other 30 maybe it’s not that bad of a trade off.
I really wouldn't recommend that the average American driver use a trailer. renting a pickup from home depot is a good option though.
I live in Los Angeles. Four years ago, I bought a pick up truck.
In my case, I don't have a long commute. I can bike to work. So when I need a vehicle, it's to take my kids around, haul something I can't carry with my bike, or head out of the city for camping/adventuring/etc. The truck has been perfect. As it is, I use the bed of the truck at least once a week. I use it like all the other SUVs on the road, only I much prefer the flexibility of a proper truck, let alone the real offroad and towing capabilities.
Moreover, I know it's going to last pretty much forever and should I get a second, electric vehicle, there really won't ever be a time when having a truck on hand won't be useful.
There are mosquito fleet trucks in SF whose whole purpose is to collect recycling and take it to the recycling center.
In western cities there are off-road enthusiasts who camp at places you can’t get to without a modified vehicle and winch (no crowded campsites).
Some people just like trucks and will buy them because why not?
Backpackers seem to manage just fine.
* Hauling stuff from the home improvement and warehouse stores. Single family houses are a bit of work depending on age and when they are not, HGTV is the devil's workshop that invents the work.
* Safety: the feeling that regardless of who is at fault, you will live in a car crash. I have seen plenty of sad news reports where in a truck+car collision, the people in the car paid for it with their lives while the truck driver walked away.
* Status: possible - just don't have enough social understanding to know whether this is still a thing. I can imagine a jacked-up F350 or Silverado may be a status symbol.
Weird reason to own truck if you only do it so your friends will call you over to help them move.
You can certainly make do with a smaller vehicle, but there are these occasional things that make having a truck suuuuper convenient. Some personal examples from the last year:
* Needed to top dress my lawn and it only takes 3 loads of soil from IFA to cover my 1/4 acre
* My father (who lives very close) bought a boat knowing he could use my truck to haul it when necessary. And yes, he talked to me about it first, and my family gets to use it whenever we want.
* I built a treehouse in this giant willow in my front yard and could not have hauled the lumber or fireman's pole without a truck
* With 5 people in the family we get huge Costco runs regularly, these are moderately easier to haul in the back of the truck.
* I get social capital when bringing my truck to any family or friend moving parties
* Used it to haul lumber, tools, and people when the extended family participated in our family cabin area's work day
* Hauled my father inlaw's motorcycle+ATV trailer on a family outing
IMO not everyone needs one, but in a community or geographically close family it is always nice to have that person you can call to borrow their truck, and if you're the one that has the truck then you get social capital when lending it and you also don't have to borrow one yourself.
For us since it's a second vehicle it does sit idle most of the time while we use the minivan for typical travel needs. But I have space to park it, and the truck obviously isn't wasting gas when we're not using it. And since we paid cash and it was cheap, there's just not much of a downside to keeping it around.
I am 6' 2", Climbing in and out of a Car that sits 6in's off the ground is not fun for me, and I do not want to do that every day.
I prefer lateral movements, and a Truck or Full Size SUV's standard Height is just about perfect for me
(And they will tow the things that most people tow, like a trailer that weighs a ton).
VW Touran has a ground clearance of 156MM or 6.14 Inches and to total height of 1659mm or 65in , my Truck as a ground clearance of ~10in and a total height of 77in, that may seem like a small amount but is huge difference to me.
a VW Touran is exactly the type of vehicle I avoid
Further while available are not practical because there are very few mechanics that can work on them or have parts for them it has to go to the dealer which is $$$$$$
I tend to Stick to American Manufactured vehicles from Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc.
If you are 98 % of time driving on good roads, the generally lower center of mass makes things like a Touran or Toyota Verso safer and better to drive than a truck.
If you really need some more ground clearance, then there are things ranging from Honda CR-V (a very nice drive but a ground clearance closer to 8 inches) to Suzuki Jimny (a vehicle with actual off-road capability, but driveable on roads and small).
Of course there are people who actually do need a truck, but very often the cited reasons sound more like excuses.
Buying American, when you are yourself American, is of course a thing for many.
They are proportional, most Seats sit about the same height from the floor, so Ground Clearance it an accurate measurement to know how far the seat is from the ground.
I don't want one myself, but I can understand the appeal.
Look at businesses and what their fleet vehicles are. No one uses an F150 in the city. Why? Because thieves very often steal stuff from the flatbed. If you actually want to transport large, bulky items in a city environment, you need to close off the back so that no one can look in and see the cargo.
2020 Ford Transit-350 Cargo is $35k.
F150 comes more in handy in rural areas, where there aren't thieves around. The flatbed is useful for hauling very large, oversized items, such as mountains of topsoil / compost, or rocks for your garden, or bundles of hay for stuff.
But when it comes to "city items" like furniture (often valuable furniture, so thieves want it), or large equipment like computer racks and servers... a van wins.
Hard to judge which demographic you're looking at while driving around.
They are also useful if you own your own business that requires moving things around.
Note that I do not own a truck, I just wish I did.
(the other big reasons for their popularity is status signalling, and perverse incentives created by regulation of "passenger cars" as a category that have negatively impacted the quality of "regular cars" in the US.)
Yep, Americans love to overcompensate. It is in our DNA.
God save us...
Really though, why not follow the rules at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart instead of getting serially banned? It's in your interests for at least three reasons. First, those rules are what keep HN interesting and prevent it from burning to a crisp. Scorched earth is no good for anyone, and there aren't that many places like HN on the internet, which for all its faults is worth preserving. Second, if you just blast the things you dislike with a flamethrower, it only discredits your positions. Keeping your cool, staying neutral, and explaining your point of view in a positive way would be more effective and have more dignity. Third, following HN's rules takes discipline and self-control, classical virtues which we all profit from cultivating.
Btw, I'm not an American. Normally I wouldn't say that because the rules don't depend on what I am, nor is "American" somehow a bad thing to be. I mention it because you said "clearly". A lot of things—maybe most—that people perceive "clearly" on the internet are actually untrue. This is what happens when users function in flamewar mode. If you switch to thoughtful mode you are more likely to get your facts right and to help other people do the same. Basically the idea is to learn from each other. Don't you think that's worth doing?
It's just so outrageously different, offers the functionality of both a truck and the tech and performance of a Tesla, and isn't comparable with other 'trucks' which I'd argue are homogeneous in nature, cliche, particularly un-aesthetically pleasing and are synonymous with gas-guzzling North American indulgence.
Regardless, it's another instance of Musk pushing boundaries which I find myself continually applauding.
I’d totally buy a reasonably priced car with this aesthetic.
Related, this seems to be something of a theme with Musk's companies. Landing rockets is an old-school concept, and Starship looks like it was taken straight from the cover of some pulp sci-fi work from the 60s.
Now that spirit has largely faded away, the West seems to have lost faith in progress in exploration and is focused in preserving what we already have - sometimes for good reasons (environmentalism and fight against climate change), sometimes not (disproportionate attention to minor threats like terrorism, fear of immigration, etc.)
Musk clearly still believes in progress and exploration, hence it's not surprising that his designs end up evoking reminiscences from that era.
And this new Tesla seems reminiscent to me of that pessimistic idea of the future, trying to survive the apocalypse on Earth. Not like the optimistic future of 2001 A Space Odyssey.
Welcome to the desert of the real.
As soon as I saw it I thought "dystopian future military transport". Then I remembered Blade Runner is set this month, of this year, and uncharacteristically giggled.
Looks like Ark II style scifi from the 80s.
This dystopian cross between stealth bomber and Mad Max is angular, but straight in all the wrong directions.
It looks like it's going to be a challenge to pass EU pedestrian safety regs, but I'm quite impressed they have achieved the ugliest road vehicle bar none. I'm amazed the balance of comments here seems hugely in favour - to me it looks like a wind up!
I love how this thing has the dystopian look, yet it doesn't need gas. Mad Max was all about gas. Maybe gas would make a comeback in a Mad Max world since chargers might become hard to come by.
If ugly was a goal, this was an interesting way to accomplish it. This is ugly that I would be okay caught driving in. This is ugly which achieved a goal, rather than not attempting to be ugly but horribly failed. ;)
There's still some time before this thing actually ships. Maybe they'll make some changes so that truck people could properly attach things like gun racks and winches.
0-60 wouldn't care about drag much at all. Highway cruising would.
I'd be amazed if Tesla simply chose to ignore the whole market though...
I wasn't aware the US didn't have regulations for that.
Do I see this turning up on construction sites in the next few years? No, probably not, for many reasons. Can I see it capturing some of the market of recreational truck buyers? I can, just as the Model S took part of the luxury sports car market by appealing to people who could likely afford more expensive "status" vehicles by being different.
It has status like having the new iPhone on day 1 has status. Different than big money status, but still status.
The type of status that this truck is trying to market to is like the `I paid 1.5 million cash for this crazy pentagon` status.
The only other option I might add is a battery charger for hand tools. I know they can plug into the normal outlet but it seems inefficient to go from 400v --> 110v --> 12v.
You can still haul 4x8' sheets, you just have to be more creative and haul fewer at a time. Otherwise if you need so many you'd reach capacity in an 8' bed, you'd likely have them delivered to the jobsite (yes, even if you own a truck).
_Everyone_ is going to see this, have an opinion on it, and want to know what everyone else's opinion on it is.
This is a great example of the marketing strategy that advocates focusing on a small group of very passionate customers. If you can create a set of fanatical early adopters for a brand-new product, you're on your way to success. Very few products achieve immediate mainstream success and assuming that Tesla won't likely have the production capacity to meet mainstream demand anyway, this is a very smart play.
Reading these responses makes me think I’m out of the loop on some joke. Seriously. I had no doubt when I came to the discussion that all the comments would be about how ugly it is.
Maybe this is one of those white/gold vs. black/blue dress things. Or the “yanni” thing.
I’m blown away by any of the comments that find the design appealing.
In a world where every manufacturer makes cars that look basically the same as every other car in the world, I'm fucking stoked on this.
Pontiac Aztek and Jeep Gladiator.
It's also strange that you can sell it in a context of 'being prepared', with the offroad capability and everything - I don't know a better example for a vehicle being dependent on an always-on infrasructure than an armored electric truck.
Why? It is so, so much easier to produce your own electricity than your own gasoline. A truck running on slightly impure ethanol or gasified wood would still be more independent, but there are performance issues to consider there.
It seems to me people like the martial aesthetic and function(!) as a status symbol, maybe without reflecting why the martial aesthetic is what it is. To keep people in a metal shell with guns on it from being shredded.
A civil society should find these things ugly but respect their necessity, not celebrate them. And if civil society has a real need for these things, it's in a sad state.
Also, weapons and weaponry can be aesthetically pleasing without accepting the inevitability of violence.
- <insert delorean bare metal>
You can even see a little Mad Max oriented punk on elon buddies clothing on stage.
Note that Peugeot attempted a similar thing with the 508 electric revival recently.
Just needs more spikes on the front ;)
Seeing the truck I was immediately reminded of the original Death Track game.
The funny part to me is that this design is something I saw often maybe 20 years ago. It's the stereotypical future car that major automotive design departments often came up with, and sketched up in programs like Alias AutoStudio, back when it was still Alias. None of the designs ever saw prototypes let alone production, I'm guessing largely because they were too radical for the time and thus seen as too risky.
It's like it's half future car of the early 2000s, and the other half a nod to DeLorean.
Flash forward to 2019, the world's falling apart and going crazy at the same time, things feel a lot more surreal, advancements are becoming too numerous for the average person to keep track of, AI is a big deal, smartphones and all manner of tech are just a boring fact of life now, and as always the future is right around the corner, but for real this time.
Likewise, 80s and early 90s nostalgia is in vogue right now. Cyberpunk 2077 is nearing release. For the target audience of this car, they remember the 80s because they either grew up in it or lived it.
When you lay eyes on this thing, you immediately go "What the fuck, is that a real car?" I can think of no better marketing.
It's a rather genius design in my opinion, a retrofuture tribute to a future that never was, but now is.
Analysis aside, I tend to agree with you: it's pretty ugly, but for some reason I really like it.
Fugly is in the eye of the beholder. To me this is an outstanding design, with crazy cool cyberpunk inspiration, and finally a fucking bold design move -- 99% of cars looking the same shit, even sports cars like Lamborginis sticking to the same designs since the 80s...
I've had to see such an interesting take since the DeLorean....
You'll notice this pattern with many of the really high end cars. Some signature elements are always present and evolve only very slowly over time. You could call it the master stroke, it's what makes a particular brand distinct from others. This is deliberate and I for one like that.
A complete newcomer can design whatever they want right away.
Your opinion may vary somewhat
But it’s absolutely hideous without taking it in the context of resembling sci-fi. The wheels just look goofy.
Now if it concealed the tires, it’d look great. Just a solid block of metal. But it’d also be hell for maintenance.
I hope they've included biodefense mode.
Apparently the F117 looks like that because they didn't have enough computational power to simulate more complex surfaces.
Except the base Tesla is $20,000 cheaper than the base Rivian.
The High end Telsa (with 500+ miles of range and 2.9 0-60) is the same price as the base Rivian.
Rivian are shitting themselves right now about pricing.
The Model S has been awarded as one of the best vehicles ever made, and has the highest safety rating of any car ever made.
Same for the Model X, and the Model 3.
Why do people still think Tesla "can't do it" when they already have, time and again?
To be clear, I think it looks freaking awesome and I would love to own one. I also think they still have not shipped the Roadster or Semi, the Model S and X refresh is next year and the Model Y is still a year plus away even though it shares most parts with the 3. This is the same story as Apple's iOS 13 launch, they have packed their schedule with cars to finish while building a bunch of new factories, while just a year ago they were taking all of Tesla Solar's employees and putting them on the model 3 R&D line. I'm bearish on this not because I hate what they have done in the past but because I want them to actually succeed mass market and be stable. Keep in mind, the truck market is supposed to be a larger market in the US (but more than 2X) than the Model 3's segment. Why can't they just ship a good, shippable, profitable truck with Tesla's DNA? It's like the falcon doors, a bit power mad, in a year this is going to be the example people use to say why Elon should not be CEO of Tesla and it sucks, because Elon at his best is probably the best CEO around, at his worst he will trash the company for a cool looking truck.
Re: rear visibility, in the test-ride videos the rear mirror is actually a video feed from the rear AP camera, the same that is done in the Chevy Bolt and has worked well there. Works even better if the cab is loaded.
For brake lights, they should use Apple's technique of laser cutting the metal, so the LEDs shine through: https://venturebeat.com/2011/11/04/apple-laser-manufacturing...
As a rider who hates breathing diesel particulates, I love it.
Having grown up in the 90s with a dream of becoming an automotive designer one of my favorite designs was that of the Lamborghini Countach (1974). The Cybertruck design is reminiscent of that design (to me), and I think that's one of the reasons it's drawing me in so strongly.
This car looks like I could beat the fuck out of it and the fix it with a sheet of metal and either a welder, some bolts, or some rivets. I see beauty in adaptability, which is something modern cars have none of.
Why would you say that? I think its ugly but maybe if all trucks looked this way we'd think the current ones are the ugly ones.
I'd say it looks like this BECAUSE it's rugged and practical.
The rear tray is also looks smaller than the renderings make it out to be. They have a quad in one picture that takes up the full length and then a sleeping fitout in another that also takes up the full length, either it's a really long quad or they are really short people.
I'm sure this will become more fleshed out over time, I doubt this is the final specification for the car.
I can't wait to see all the different renderings people come out with, to show potential aftermarket parts for this thing. I think that will be the real display of whether or not it will make for a good utility vehicle. I can imagine this looking extremely purposeful and rugged with the right equipment on it.
Then we will transition into a feminine, high quality style for 2028.
To me it looks like the Tesla is for people who want that truck and the Rivian for people who need a truck.
And yeah imho the Cybertruck is very ugly. It looks like a copy of the Maserati Boomerang (1971) which was futuristic back then.
But maybe Shirley Bassey was right: it's all history repeating.
I know it can't be, the design has come out too soon.
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.
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.
This is going to flop, big time. This is the worst looking Truck I have seen in a LONG time, this will not appeal to people that buy the Best selling Truck on the market, The F-150.
I have no interest in buying this, and i would not drive it even if they gave me one for free. Sure the performance is there, ofcourse when Ford and other manufactures release their Electric Trucks then when can do a Apple to Apple comparison.
I will be waiting on the Electric F-150, which should have comparable specs to the Rivian, and I would much rather have a Rivian Truck than this monstrosity
Oh, geez. "Truck guys" in the US are some of the most opinionated, style-conscious folks you will ever meet in an automotive context. They're really something if you ever find yourself hanging out with them.
Even if the Cybertruck kicks ass on the road, it's not going to impress these guys. And if they're the target market for this new truck, Tesla's in trouble.
Interior aesthetic is a different matter though. Strange how culture winds that way.
Not every buys a Truck purely for work. Just like not everyone buys a car just for transportation.
Further even if you remove the Aestetic debate over the Cyber Truck, for Work is not practical, any contractor will tell you side access is VERY VERY important, the truck bed on this is completely impractical for traditional work people do in a truck
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.