Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Tesla Cybertruck (tesla.com)
1765 points by sahin on Nov 22, 2019 | hide | past | favorite | 1929 comments

Unlike any other previous Tesla, or for that matter any other previous electric car, this is a reasonable value proposition. Everyone is so busy panning the looks they are overlooking the utility of this truck. Even the Model 3 is expensive compared to its peers at $35k. This this is priced competitive with non-electric trucks, heck, it's priced extremely well versus electric trucks. A 6 seat truck with a 6.5 foot truck bed and a 3500 pound capacity for $40k is genuinely competitive with GM/ Ford, likewise $50k for a 4WD truck which tows 14k pounds is absolutely reasonable. Unless you are regularly driving more than 250 miles per day, being able to charge at home is way better than filling up at gas stations.

> Unless you are regularly driving more than 250 miles per day, being able to charge at home is way better than filling up at gas stations.

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?

Work trucks are those plain white base model trucks with steel wheels and plastic interiors. You get them cheap and they will basically approve anyone for cheap financing of a few trucks through their business. Nobody is catering to those buyers when they design a truck. You look at those things on the lot and they look like one of the nicer trucks except only partially assembled.

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.

> 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.

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.

Let's be honest, this truck won't replace Chevy/Ram/Ford trucks on work sites. This truck will primarily be used to haul mountain bikes, soccer equipment and the occasional run to Home Depot.

those are literally the three things that are a major pain in the neck for me [sedan], and when I saw that tesla was developing a truck, I was like "oh sweet! Now I can hit the trails and haul garden supplies with a greater level of convenience, and without smuggering up the earth as much!"

> without smuggering up the earth as much.

Rental might be a “different” option than buying a newly produced 2.7 metric tons truck?!

You're right of course -- however, I don't really like going off-road in rental vehicles

>those are literally the three things that are a major pain in the neck for me [sedan]

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.

In case you haven't seen it yet, the Rivian R1T is explicitly targeting that use case.

nice, thanks for the tip!

Not everyone who buys trucks uses them as work trucks, but for the people who are looking for work trucks, why wouldn't they use this truck?

You'd need charging stations - an added cost/inconvenience to the ordeal. I don't know if you've been around many job sites and/or locations where they might store the trucks - charging infrastructure isn't there. It's going to vary a lot on the company though - tbh. Work trucks have so many varied uses that it's hard to say. Some people take their trucks home - but then they're not gonna wanna charge at home because then that costs them $$$ and tracking that expenditure might be annoying every night. (Versus filling up whenever you need and saving the receipt or using the company card) This is presuming they can charge at home - which some workers won't be able to.

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...

> You'd need charging stations

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.

Tools can be put in either the cab or the bed, and presumably both can be locked. I can see where some people might not like the high side-walls on the bed where you can only really get stuff in and out through the back.

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 [1], 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.

[1] https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-wo...

> 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

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.

I think the point I'm making is that a work truck is more about efficiency and ease of use. Having to open a door and sift through a bunch of tool bags or whatever isn't going to be fun, fast, or easy. Same with the bed - I would not want to get into the bed of a truck and go to the very back to get my tools every time. And if I had loaded the bed with something - I'm really gonna be feeling the crunch.

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're hauling bulk building material (plywood, sheetrock, soil, rock, brick, etc) I think a van is likely to be superior on all counts (and if may be superior for non-loose material like plywood and sheetrock still). Anything you can go to the back of a truck for, you can go to the back of a van for, but you can actually have multiple levels of items there if you set it up that way. Anything you would acess over the side of a truck bed should be easily accessed through a side door. A van can also support a small workspace within it, if that benefits your job. Since there's no wind or elements, you can store stuff in open topped containers inside, making access easier while still being secure and secured. You can also get a much larger cargo area in a van that in a work truck of the same size, being it easier to maneuver.

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.

It's already quite awkward getting in and out of trucks so this is something of a solved problem. For tools and gear there are already solutions for getting things deep in the bed of the truck.


It's expensive for starters and the bed is small and odd.

If you're buying a new truck, this is not outside of your price range.

There are many cheaper alternatives for new trucks, some in the low 20's.

Base for the major models is just shy of $30k, and average is a hair's breadth from $50k. That's the market.

There's other stuff out there, sure, but what people are actually buying is well north of the Tesla base price.

This looks more like an SUV alternative than a truck alternative, for either the legitimately eco-conscious (but not eco-conscious enough to buy used) or those looking for certain social signaling.

It's not expensive for a 6 seat truck with a full sized bed though.

> in that market how important are the extra cargo pounds or trailer capacity?

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?

Sure, embrace the future. But it looks like something out of Mad Max, attenuated with the macho looking guys piling out of it. It has a very "me against the dangerous world" tone, something Musk has expressed before (in denigrating public transportation). It's a very aggressive introduction, highlighting the worst aspects of private vehicles, and a very poor direction to set.

Mad Max is set in the future...

It's set in the 80's future. Just like this truck.

That's my point, a dystopic future.

Yep, and that's one of the possible futures we do have.

Also Mad Max might have as well been set on Mars, aesthetics matches :)

Watch Tesla come out with a trailer which includes extra batteries and maybe even torque... hahah

WHAAAAAAT? didn't think of that. A trailer with extra battery and can actually haul stuff on top of is an AMAZING idea.

Gas truck ranges go down when hauling too.

Right, but if you're hauling all day you can stop and fill up in five minutes.

250 is the range of the base model. The top end model doubles that.

The top-end model also nearly doubles the price and puts it in an entirely different class of competition. The $50k Cybertruck, comparable in price to something like the F-150 Raptor or Tacoma TRD Pro, is "only" 300 mile range. At the top-end model's $70k you're deep into Ford Super Duty territory

Raptors at local dealers near me are all selling for $72-75k

Where can I find NEW F-150 Raptor for $50K? Cause I'd sure love to buy one! Heck, I'll even give you a $1K finders fee.

Both those ranges are (I assume) with the truck empty, or with just a driver.

TFL hooked a Model X up to a trailer and it basically reduced the range to a joke

That's not true. I watched the whole video and their charging practices were a joke. They knew they were driving too fast, they knew they didn't charge enough before they left.

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.

TFL is a joke. They don't even know that you can open a Model 3 charge port by tapping at it. That is after owning the car for weeks. AFTER they were shown how to do so, when they took delivery.

They were bitching that it's so inconvenient because they thought you have to use the app. That's seems disingenuous t me.

You don't get anywhere near rated milage/ range on a normal truck when hauling loads either. The truth is even for work trucks, most trucks spend 80+% of the time lightly loaded or empty.

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.

Bed will be used to hold soccer ball.

BTW, you're ignoring potentially huge cost savings with gas. Trucks are notoriously gas guzzling, many people spending 2-500 a month in gas. Cost would drop dramatically if you could plugin every night and wake up with a full 'tank'.

Trucks are gas guzzlers as compared to gas sedans. There’s no reason an electric truck of similar utility wouldn’t be similarly an electricity guzzler without making some sacrifices. The only benefit is that all-electric brings significant torque improvements even at low horsepower, but with modern turbochargers low-rpm torque has long been solved (my 2.0T sedan can tow!) and people won’t stop “horsepower shopping” just because the torque numbers are high as it’s mainly for bragging rights anyway.

Sure, it will guzzle electricity, which is still way cheaper than guzzling gas. The more energy being consumed the better the electric vehicle equation looks. This is why Tesla's semitrailer tractor is exciting.

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.

Eh, doesn't have to be this way. What we need are smaller, lighter trucks; this message seems to have been missed by Ford who have released a new Ranger that's bigger than the F150 used to be.

No, because that’s just going to bring you unibody junk like the Ridgeline.

What? No, a smaller truck is something like a Suzuki Carry[1]

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.


I would definitely be behind that. Saw plenty of them when I wasn’t living in the States. Very reliable, affordable, and practical.

However, I would not expect that to be what corporate America of today would produce.

This isn't something I'm ignoring, not having to deal with fuel ups and maintenance is one of the big reasons I've wanted to buy an electric car for several years. But every time I've priced a Tesla in the past, the premium for electric has been too high for me. That's what really caught my eye about this.

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.

12000 miles a year at 13mpg and 2.5$ gas is $2308 per year. With a 5 year ownership time you are saving only [$11500-charging electricity costs]. So mid range $57000 AWD becomes $45500. Still pricey for most people.

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.

There are additional TCO for internal combustion vehicles that EVs do not have, such as maintenance on a vastly more complex set of components. If you amortize the costs of the EV over ten years you would likely see double the savings you cite.

This is so overblown, it's not even funny.

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?

> 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! https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/battery-coolant-does...

But to answer your question YES you can do your own maintenance.

"How Much To Service Your Tesla? " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meJp2lj_NnM

This myth about owners not being able to perform basic (pretty much non-existent) maintenance on Teslas is way overblown.

Last time I heard, insuring a Tesla is more expensive. And wait times for repairs can be ridiculously long (and expensive). For a work truck, unpredictable down-time is a serious problem. Might have changed though.

I doubt the economics around the battery pack allow for a 25k price point.

I didn't like the looks of this thing when I saw it, probably because it looks so different.

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.

> Even the Model 3 is expensive compared to its peers at $35k.

I thought I read around a track, the Model 3 gives a BMW M3 (which is $60k-$80k) a run for its money.

The $35k model 3 does not.

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.

The P3D doesn't have the same heat problems the Model S has.

And you could buy two for the price of that Porsche.

Not if you have to do a number of laps, though. Heat issues, etc. - the M3 is nearly track ready off the lot, the Tesla is really just a luxury car that happens to go fast from time to time.

Is the base Model 3 giving the BMW M3 a run for its money, or a higher end Model 3?

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.

The towing capacity is as follows for the Tesla truck, 2WD $39K=7K lbs, 2Motor AWD $49K = 10K lbs and 3Motor AWD $69K = 14K lbs

When I’m hauling around a 10,000 pound airstream trailer on highways that 500 miles becomes 250 and 250 becomes 125 on flat land. Now consider going uphill on mountains and the range drops even more. There’s a real possibility of being stranded with no place left to charge in the middle of nowhere where I could be easily killed without anyone even knowing.

> I could be easily killed without anyone even knowing.

Well, that escalated quickly.

haha, thought the same thing.

I don't think it's as extreme as you're making it seem. Going uphill on mountains means you're going downhill which not only doesn't use power but regenerates power to the battery. It's obviously not insignificant of a cost but adding a trailer doesn't immediately halve the usable range.

>Going uphill on mountains means you're going downhill which not only doesn't use power but regenerates power to the battery.

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.

That's OK. It's not like the potential energy goes away just because you stay overnight. Plus there's a solar panel for all that power you are going to use while making hot toddies in the camper.

You vastly overestimate solar power. There’s no way you’ll get an appreciable charge on your Tesla battery using solar panels. It’s enough to run things in your trailer, but no way will you charge a Tesla in any reasonable time. I suppose if you are stranded with no way to charge you could get enough to go somewhere after a few days of constant charging, but that’s an emergency situation.

I guess, but I've never driven 100 miles up a mountain to stay for a few days.

From Vancouver (sea level) to Whistler is 7000 ft but only 80 miles. I wonder if you could pull a trailer up that height and over that distance.

> It's obviously not insignificant of a cost but adding a trailer doesn't immediately halve the usable range.

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.

> Going uphill on mountains means you're going downhill

Not if the mountain's big enough. You might only go an appreciable distance downhill on the way home.

Barring something like a city decimating earthquake - for every foot you ascend, you must also descend. There is just as much uphill as downhill. This is true for any trip with any two destinations on the planet (a round trip between a beginning and a destination). This is equivalent to conservation of potential energy in physics.

There are a lot of mountains in the US where you're going to spend hours driving up steep inclines. I used to live on the wrong end of a 2 hour uphill drive with one gas station in the middle. That road was steep enough that even a gasoline car couldn't make the trip without a full tank of gas.

Your comment makes you sound like a city boy.

I drive through mountains all the time, and have to fill up my car all the time. GP didn't say anything about multiple stops; what I inferred (because it's literally what he said) was that you can have unequal ascending and descending on a round trip - which is geometrically impossible! And even if we are talking about having to stop and get gas, you still get the same benefit of regenerative braking when you are descending, whether it be the first half or the second half of the trip.

> Your comment makes you sound like a city boy.

Is this supposed to be an insult?

Around where I live the preferred term is "cidiot". I find it to be refreshingly creative.

Ontario, Canada?

Or maybe it’s generally a midwestern North America thing?

Then that means that you stopped somewhere along the way.

Have you never been up a mountain? You can go up one very steep portion at 45 degree incline and then come out the other side going on a very long down hill at like 5 degree decline, basically flat.

It doesn't matter. The battery is still regenerating on the way down until you're back at the start point. A less steep angle might even be better because there's no potential to lose energy since the battery can only regen so much at a given time.

On less steep inclines the car still has to do more work to move it’s wheels at a desired speed, even if gravity helps.

My truck goes from 22 mpg to 10 mpg when I hook up my RV. Utility trailers aren't nearly so bad, but an RV trailer is like an open parachute behind you.

Towing puts a toll on any vehicle's gas mileage, and you can run out of gas in a normal truck too. Tesla's have range indicators built in and let you know how far you are from the nearest charging station. Turns out people who are traveling pay at least a little attention to vehicle range, particularly when hauling a load. This isn't unique to electric vehicles, regular trucks fuel economy goes way down with a load as well and gas stations are often few and far between in the mountains.

Several of Musk's numbers don't add up. No pickup has a bed capacity of 3500 pounds. That's 1.75 tons. Even full sized US pickups top out at 3/4 ton, unless they're super duty which adds greatly to weight and lowers MPG painfully. A 1.75 ton load, especially raised as high up as shown in this prototype, would flip the truck in the slightest of turns. 3500 is surely a fake number.

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.

> Several of Musk's numbers don't add up.

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.

> A 1.75 ton load, especially raised as high up as shown in this prototype, would flip the truck in the slightest of turns.

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.

I think you got confused. These weight numbers are for towing, not to be put into the truck bed.

"With up to 3,500 pounds of payload capacity and adjustable air suspension, Cybertruck is the most powerful tool we have ever built, ..."


Payload is bed capacity not tow capacity.

Ah, yes, you're correct, I am wrong.

I was wrong too in thinking that no mainstream pickup has a 3000+ pound payload. It turns out the F150 does (in its maxed out config), so the Cybertruck's 3500 payload isn't necessarily that implausible.

I know a lot of folks are walking away from the puzzling aesthetic but I think that’s the point. Existing Tesla owners with a taste for existing design cues won’t push Tesla sales any further. They’ve got to expand the demographic and this design has a chance to do this.

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.

Whether people may like this exterior design or not, it's a display of bravery from Tesla to steer away from old conventional shapes and forms. Strong innovative design deviations like this should be praised.

my assumption was that people who ride this kind of car want to stand out in the first place. Most pick up trucks and other kind of trucks all look pretty weird like the slideshow at the start. Square cars, weird dimensions, etc. I think they're appealing to the right demographic here

>my assumption was that people who ride this kind of car want to stand out in the first place.

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

Looking at pictures on their site I keep having to remind myself that it's an actual physical thing because it looks so much like render.

It looks like a videogame incorrectly rendering a “low level of detail” model when the player is too close.

It reminds me of the game "Another World"

> walking away from the puzzling aesthetic

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 hated it at first. But the more I look at it, the more I like it. It's crazy and totally memeable, like a cross between Guy Fieri, Cosmo Kramer, and Jeff Goldblum.

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.

Unless your use of ironic is in the vein of Alanis Morrissette, I doubt many folks have the funds to buy a vehicle...ironically...don’t cha think?

I don't think a car is something you purchase just for the meme.

There is a very interesting study done on Prius owners, where they are buying them for the smugness of the vehicle.

That has nothing to do with buying stuff for the memes

Yup. You need to apply only very little imagination here - this is just a paint job away from designs used in half of the sci-fi series of the last 20 years.

I explore, study, read and think about design a lot. This truck is giving me mixed feelings.

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.

Someone's gotta turn retrofuturist sci-fi into reality

They are doing that well with Starship. I guess this fits the theme.

In fact it's made with the same steel alloy. I think I want to buy one now.

I wonder about that alloy decision. Starship needs to be strong at cryogenic temperatures, and strong after being used as a heatshield to burn off energy from an interplanetary orbit. Both temperatures change the properties of the material it's made out of considerably.

Is the same alloy really also the best at everyday -50 to 50 (c) temperatures?

Dunno but apparently it's used for that kind of stuff a bit https://www.upmet.com/products/stainless-steel/301

You also need to look at the Eastern market - Chinese/Middle East markets are apparently what is driving the outrageous size of BMW's grills, and many other extreme design elements currently en vogue.

In the Middle East the Land Cruiser V8 is king. It's not because of looks (although IMO they don't look bad), but what it can do.

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.

Yes. This probably works better in sand than almost any ICE.

It looks like a gonzo ball. I'm gonna take some time to come round to this, if I ever do.

> gonzo ball

What do those words mean? Google Image Search isn't helping.

Wow, clearly I'm showing my age here because I can't find a picture either. Back in the 80s a gonzo ball was a bouncy ball cast into a roughly round, irregular polyhedron so that when it hit the ground it bounced at some unpredictable angle.

"Z-ball" seems to be the common name

"gonzo" means crazy or over-the-top Not familiar with "gonzo ball" but it probably means "large amount of craziness"

This doesn’t look militaristic, rough or unpolished. It looks like a high tech El Camino.

Yeah, because that's what all the F150 buyers of the world really wanted, an angular flat-paneled ridiculous movie prop.

This thing alienates far more than it attracts in the pickup truck market.

Flat panel is what trucks have needed to go back to. Get a bad dent or the garbage is rusting out? Cut it out and weld some sheet on top. No need buy an entire door or go to a body shop.

Are you being serious? This is a Tesla. You think people are going to repair them by welding steel sheet on top?

Not immediately but if this thing is as indestructible as it looks, after 10 years of hard use, new battery pack, it's not hard to imagine that it'll be fixed by welding steel panels on it.

The DeLorean isn't exactly famed for body repairability and this is just that, a DeLorean grotesquely inflated to light tank scale.

Flat panels are less secure, because flat surfaces are less stiff than curved or creased surfaces (theory you can easily test with a piece of paper).

Did you watch the video? They "tested" it with a sledgehammer.

Yes, and the panels in this truck have a reinforcing crease.

I was referring to parent comment

ok sure, but what if they paint it red?

What if they anodized it red?

you don't anodize steel.

They said they would vinyl wrap for different colors.

F150s have been getting more and more like this, this is exactly what they want.

F150s still have curved sections... this is more like the F-117.

Did you see the photo of the F-117 when they were showing inspirations for it?

Which makes perfect sense, pickup trucks do benefit from a reduced radar signature greater than lighter weight body panels that are equally strong...

As a Long time F150 Buyer, no we do not

Hear hear.

I genuinely had to double check my calendar to make sure it wasn’t April 1st.

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.

This is the first time I have seen a production vehicle's design to be less realistic (in terms of usability, component reuse, artistic freedom, etc) than it's artistic renders.

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:

- https://inteng-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/img/iea/JYG0mpkD61/s...

- https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/tesla-p...

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.

These look so so boring

Funny enough my first impression was that the teslarati-image was the real one and the official one from tesla was the fake one. Had to double check.

This new truck doesn't follow Tesla's former design language.

Absolutely bizarre.

The concept renders both assume, which we all did, that Tesla would remain consistent with a design language that's been successful.

Neither of those renders follows the Roadster / S / 3 / X design language. They look like something Honda or Nissan would come up with.

Still closer than the Cybertron, sorry, Cybertruck, so.

The divisiveness of this design is precisely what will propel its success. It's the coolest production car I've ever seen. And I expect >50% of the population to strongly disagree, mostly people from different generations. "Appalling" designs get free viral marketing; the trick is to still appeal to enough of your target market.

This truck gets attention. It's a loud status statement that looks cheap to build, costs less than $50k. Well done Tesla.

This thread already has more comments than anything I've seen in months. The design is absolutely doing its job as a marketing tool.

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.

>I expect >50% of the population to strongly disagree, mostly people from different generations

Out of curiosity, which generations? I'm in my 20s and most of the friends Ive talked to think it's comically ugly.

Looks cheap overall.

"production car"

Actually mass produced, not a concept car.

This vehicle, of which Tesla expects to sell at $39k the cheapest model containing $33k of batteries, has definitely been mass-produced.

I actually like this design because it's not the same old boring style of nearly every other vehicle these days, but I've always been pretty nonconformist.

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.

And the sides of the bed of the truck come down at an angle so you can't lean over the side to grab something out of the bed or sit on the side of the bed. Strapping things down at an angle like that will be difficult as well.

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.

It’s the lovechild of a Honda Ridgeline with a Pontiac Aztec. Vanity truck for old guys.

You can’t use it as a work truck as when you damage something, the part will take 3 years to arrive.

I don't think this meme is as true any more.

Source: I've had to do major repairs to my Model S twice now and the parts always arrived within a week.

A week is too long to be out of commission -- most parts for a Ford/GM/Dodge/Toyota, especially stuff that gets damaged are <2 hours away for like 10 years. Tesla's vertical model is a liability for a work scenario.

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.

I feel like this is aimed as a similar demographic as the Ridgeline is: people who want a lot of flexibility out of their vehicle, but don't need a dedicated workhorse.

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.

My first thought was that the 3D model accidentally used the low-poly LOD for far-away rendering instead of the high-poly one.

It looks like something you would find on Kickstarter by someone with a bit of 3d modelling experience.

I think it's the exact opposite: It's sleek, beautiful and futuristic without being pretentious.

Good thing is: You won't have to buy it.

It will also be illegal in any country that cares about pedestrian safety.

What's not safe about it? The truck drives itself, and on day one Tesla autopilot will have already statistically proven itself as a far safer driver than a human.

I think it looks incredible. I love it.

I really just looks like a car in Playstation 1 era graphics

> I love the fact that Tesla are moving away from the boring

Yeah that's for Elon's other company.

Well if he's going to use these to go on mars it's got to be functional without anything frivolous.

I'd buy this one in a minute if I had the need for a truck. It's so beautiful. I totally dig into this retro futuristic design. Wish they made a car like that. Tesla is killing it.

April 1st was my first response too. I mean, seriously? This is ridiculous. Is aerodynamics just out the window now?

funny because tesla began by making normal looking cars when everyone else were making i3s and Zoes and Leafs.

How the tables turn.

I absolutely love the design! It's so new, so unique, and so bold where as I am not certain I'd be able to tell a ford a chevy and a ram apart without their logos

Under the "Versatile Utility" heading, the third set of text refers to "the ability to pull near infinite mass".

A vehicle out of TRON that carries bags of dirt and pulls a horse wagon.

More than ugly, it looks like a parody.

I agree, it's seems there's too much edge in the design of this vehicle.

Does the US not have pedestrian safety standards? An all metal front grill must be horrible on any safety tests.

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.

Don't be ridiculous. The US has no pedestrian safety standards whatsoever. In a sane world, the NHTSA would have outlawed bull bars and required trucks to have sideguards.

I had to look this up because i figured you must be talking out of your ass, there had to be some pedestrian safety standards.

but nope, apparently not. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/12/07/while-other-countries...

The US is one of the most anti-pedestrian countries I've been to. Everywhere else I've been to, drivers are supposed to watch out for pedestrians crossing the road. In the US, they've managed to make it illegal!

In CO drivers must yield to pedestrians in cross walks. Now many drivers don't know this so resort cities put up flashing lights and warning sides for drivers. Personally, I've gotten use to the angry, honking drivers when I'm in the crosswalk but no one in their right mind is going to risk actually hitting a pedestrian.

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"

Where exactly have you been? It's definitely illegal to cross the street outside designated pedestrian crossings (where available) where I live - and you will get fined if you're impeding traffic by doing so and are seen by the police.

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.

That means "don't step into traffic". It doesn't mean "you're not allowed to cross the road unless there's a pedestrian crossing". Crossing the road outside of marked pedestrian crossings is perfectly legal here (Germany).

"(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

That's not illegal here (the UK), and the link you've posted seems to simply recommend using a crossing where one is available nearby (which is mostly common sense).

I don't see how this advice implies that laws are in place?

Your link itself says that it's not illegal, only that it is recommended that pedestrians don't walk in the middle of the road for their own safety.

Not true. Pedestrians always have the right of way, whether they’re ‘jaywalking’ or not.

It's nice to say that, but enforcement generally doesn't reflect it. Failing to yield to (or killing) a pedestrian on the road outside of a crosswalk often has no legal consequences.

"I didn't see them!" is such a common response for bicyclist and pedestrian deaths, it makes me sick. In 95% of cases, drivers are either distracted, driving too fast for conditions, or not fit to be driving.

This is definitely not true. I got hit by a car while crossing at an intersection (I had a green light, but no walk signal). The police report said I was at fault.

Spend some time in Brazil and you’ll realize just how pedestrian unfriendly a place can be.

I wish we could hold these regulators personally accountable for every pedestrian death that could have been prevented by safer regulations.

That's what the ballot box is for. You can.

The regulator of the regulator is your legislator.

I hate this answer so much. The US has 300 million people with diverse interests. About 40% of the countries GDP is spend by the government and the rest is regulated.

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.

In your average State: Senator, US Rep, State upper house, State lower house, President, Governor, DA, State AG, State Treasurer, Lt. Governor, County Rep, City Rep, probably the Mayor (depending on if strong or weak Mayor), Sheriff and/or Police Chief and a few others. You might even get to deal with ballot propositions! The exact makeup of your ballot will vary from State to State, but there’s usually at least 7 or 8 positions you’re directly electing (notably Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, so no upper house).

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.

What? I thought the pedestrian safety standard was they have right of way.

Well, that's just state driving law. They're talking about design standards. That said, this thing fails in one way for sure... they can't have their brake lights on the tailgate like that. That does not meet the standards. So, there will definitely have to be some design changes before this becomes final.

So, is this basically illegal in other countries? Does that mean we should expect the Cybertruck to be US-only?

That was my immediate thought. Granted, I've not watched the video as I'm at work so if it was covered then I've not seen it, but that thing looks like it has absolutely no crumple zones, and the lack of curved surfaces would cause horrific injury in a pedestrian collision.

Tesla Model S and 3 in terms of collision safety are the safest cars ever sold in America. There is a giant crumple zone where the engine would be in an ICE vehicle. The Cybertruck will be the same.

Those are not made out of this apparently super-hard steel. This thing's sales pitch sounds more like a tank than a car.

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.

So would this make the truck unsellable in other countries?

I mean I don't have proof positive that it doesn't meet those requirements, but if it doesn't do so then yes, at least here in AU if it doesn't meet those requirements then you simply cannot register them and therefore they're not road legal.

You could technically still buy one, just as you can a non-road-legal track car, but that's it.

I'm not sure that this would have big market outside USA regardless.

No they aren’t. Model 3 doesn’t score perfect in the all the IIHS injury categories which Mercedes, Lexus, and Volvo do for the vehicle class. It got the top pick but so did 15+ other models.

Pedestrian or passenger safety ?

The model S and 3 are built almost exclusively from aluminum and aren't marketed like tanks.

Most of the 3 body is steel. I believe the fenders and frunk/trunk lids are aluminum.


I guess for pedestrian impacts it does not matter what the frame is build from. It's the shell. Because if you (as pedestrian) already went through the aluminum shell, chances are you are already pretty much done :(

Not meant to be mainstream. It's meant to be f'ing tough and show how much of a beast the electric vehicle can be. Really takes the air out of being 'Built Ford Tough' Likely just following the Roadster play book. Get the toughness doubters out of the way, then a more traditional truck to follow.

Does it not being mainstream even matter, though? Because at least here in AU, and I believe in the EU, to even register it as roadworthy it needs to not compromise its collision protection which includes pedestrian collisions.

I don’t think it’s for those markets, at least certainly not the EU.

Naturally. Even here in AU, the people that buy US-sized utes tend to be in the vast minority. I'm sure it's a negligable market that they can safely ignore, it was just an interesting thing to note as an outsider.

Can pre-order it from the UK, so there is at least intention of it ending up here. Also, I love it!

I see Belgium as an option on the region-selection page at the front of the website.

Ever seen a train pulled by a ford? I have. Built Ford Tough is TRUE

The physics of pulling something with steel wheels on a steel track make the demo a lot less impressive than it sounds.

To illustrate, consider that the world record for a single person towing a train by a strap held by their teeth is 280 tons.

How fast you can accelerate that mass it is the real question.

Humans can pull trains. There's plenty of video of that on YouTube. They're made to roll as effortlessly as possible.

Here's a bunch of HO scale (1:87) trains pulling their full sized version, too: https://twitter.com/mrtimdunn/status/1101414657418498049

You can literally push a train car on flat ground by leaning on it long enough.

Didn't Top Gear once pull a train with an MGF? I'm not sure this proves anything.

I would love to see the frowns of the EU regulators when they wake up and see this.

I guess it’s a good thing that trucks like this aren’t really a thing in the EU.

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.

Most commercial dealers will have them - the same places you'd go to buy a van (in the UK at least). I've used them for work in a couple of contexts (usually Mazda ones for whatever reason) and they've been great.

Even then, I'm not sure they're that common. Most contractors/plumbers/movers/etc will have a Transit or something similar. There are a few, farms sometimes have them, but I would find it strange to see one parked outside someones house.

Never going to pass, those sharp edges and corners would give negative EuroNCAP ratings.

Doubt they're even going to try to introduce it on the EU market, there's very little demand for pickup trucks here...

In urban areas, yes. In rural areas- in Greece they're like a stereotype, farmers with pickup trucks. I know at least one person who has a pimped-up one with rollbars (bullbars?) and big lights and so on.

> In urban areas, yes. In rural areas- in Greece they're like a stereotype, farmers with pickup trucks. I know at least one person who has a pimped-up one with rollbars (bullbars?) and big lights and so on.

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.

You can pre-order it in Belgium, Germany, etc. Not all countries, but a significant list.

They would promote the Semi pickup instead.

For it to be sold in Europe doesn't it also have to comply with European laws? Would Tesla create a second version of the truck for Europe?

> Would Tesla create a second version of the truck for Europe?

I don't think I've ever actually seen what Americans call a 'truck' on a street in Europe.

(Slight exaggeration, but not really.)

Some Dodge Rams and Ford pickups in Finland. They barely fit in parking lots and are ridiculously huge and polluting.

Not a whole lot but you do see them. Naturally, nobody ever uses it for working neither catched one ever hauling a payload. But they do look really great.

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.

I've seen a F150 once in my life, and that's pretty much the only pickup truck I've ever seen (Bordeaux, France).

You can see odd Toyota Hilux (I think that counts?) now and then.

Should be, those Toyota Hilux trucks found plenty of use in real situations, e.g. war in Syria [0].


[0]: https://www.globalresearch.ca/dutch-government-provided-terr...

Or the so called Toyota War in Chad in the 80s.

I think you might see some in the countryside, so not exactly in the streets. But I've only seen one myself.

There's a Dodge Ram parked outside my door (Paris). It only moves on the weekend...

Parking in traditional Paris-style by making the slots larger himself?

Don't Teslas have some sort of collision detection that will automatically apply brakes in case of an object in the road?

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.

Tesla pedestrian collision warning is dangerously ineffective. It passes some tests with flying colors and completely fails other pedestrian safety tests.

Plays into the inconsistent nature of autopilot.

It's not an easy feature to test. A lot of magazines have used really fake looking inflatable or cardboard people. Radar systems are going to see those really well. Machine vision solutions may correctly classify the objects as non-human. You don't want your emergency breaks to go off every time a plastic bag floats in-front of your car.

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.

To be honest, that is also a problem with human drivers

Hence, regulations requiring specific designs to lessen the effects of a human being run over by a car.

As do a lot of other premium-brand cars, nothing special about it anymore.

I bought a new Subaru Forrester. Even the base model comes with cameras which do a lot of work, including automated braking

Not really. Many people in the south and more rural areas use large trucks as a daily driver. Many with custom front bumpers that are solid steel.

Sure, but a manufacturer couldn't sell a car with a solid steel bumper. In the US you have lots of freedom to modify your car after you buy it, but manufacturers have strict regulations.

Just went to Jeep’s site. Steel front and rear bumpers are a $1,395 factory option on a 2020 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon.

An interesting point: the oneupmanship game of aftermarket car customization will be the worst deficiency this thing has in terms of appealing to what I presume must be the target audience. Perhaps a radically modular interior could partially make up for the lack of exhaust systems etc to replace with custom counterparts? (the "back to the future air intakes" joke will get old very fast)

lol. hitting a pedestrian and killing them is essentially a traffic ticket in the US

>Does the US not have pedestrian safety standards?

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.

>>Does the US not have pedestrian safety standards?

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 :)

Turn all parking spaces into buildings and you can pretend you live in space, except without leaving Earth :).

As a truck guy who has owned a lot of trucks and currently owns a 2017 Ram 2500 CTD 4x4 and a Land Rover Defender 110, I'm telling you right now: this is going to kill it. This is the suburban status item of 2022.

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.

> As a truck guy who has owned a lot of trucks and currently owns a 2017 Ram 2500 CTD 4x4 and a Land Rover Defender 110, I'm telling you right now: this is going to kill it.

We'll see.

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.

This demographic will love the look. Have you seen pickups lately? The Big 3 have been chasing an industrial aesthetic for years. This was a very bold move and I feel very strongly that this will shake up the market.

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.

Have a model Y on order... was waiting to see what this would look like as I've got an older truck I'm kind of sick of maintaining and I fall square into "the demographic" you speak of. This is maybe the ugliest truck I've ever seen in my life. I desperately wanted Tesla to come out with a 3/4 ton frame and a semi-normal looking truck. Instead... this. This is 100% NOT what the big 3 have been chasing, and this isn't shaking up the market. I just hope it doesn't bankrupt Tesla in the process... Here's hoping the final product looks a LOT different than what they had on stage tonight...

This thing is Pontiac Aztec bad.

>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

same for me lmao

I'm 100% with you on this. That c-pillar makes it a non-starter for me.

Can I ask where you are located, or what kind of truck owners you know? I can't see anyone, like 0% of the rural owners I know, thinking this truck looks good. It's crazy, I would be embarrassed to be seen in it.

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.

One thing that could really hurt Tesla down the road is the new platform-architectures existing car-makers are coming up with. Pick-Ups in the US are one example, another one is the new Peogeot / Opel Corsa plattform in Europe. The latter one, while not a dedicated EV-plattform, is able to be used for both, EVs and ICE-powered cars. Granted, these small EVs are still rather expensive but offer a ton of extras and are with sibisidies under 35k €. Big bonus, they are produced at the same assembly lines as the big-volume ICEs. So once demand for EVs increases they can easily switch, with economies of scale these small EVs are becoming cheaper and scaling volumes won't be such a big issue neither. I guess the same can apply for pick-ups in the US. And than again, Tesla never had one single face-lift or model replacement behind them.

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.

That's what I thought when the young kids started lifting their trucks. But now it's common.

and you can get this thing with 3 motors.

Are you really equating the styling of this pentagon-on-wheels with a lifted truck? This is bosozoku levels of crazy. And that sure isn't common.

The Rivian has 4 motors by the way...

It’s incredibly masculine looking and that coupled with the power seems like a no brainer for a lot of people around me (I also live in a rural area)

The Tesla truck thing has always surprised me a bit since it feels like a misreading of the audience.

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.

>The Tesla truck thing has always surprised me a bit since it feels like a misreading of the audience.

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.

While they may stand out, only a tiny percentage of pickup truck drivers are like this.

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.

Exactly. My F150 bed currently contains 6 egg boxes of children's clothes to donate, two folding chairs, a foot locker sized rubbermaid container filled with emergency gear & camping stuff, a large Patagonia duffel full of sports clothes, a smaller duffel with cleats & soccer ball, two pairs of basketball shoes + ball, an extra jacket and a large umbrella. Yes, I don't need to keep all this crap in the truck all the time, but it sure is convenient to have that option!

> currently contains 6 egg boxes of children's clothes to donate

How do you fit clothes in an egg box?

Egg boxes hold 12 (I think) flats with 30 eggs each.

You can get them from supermarkets. And they're thick cardboard. Great for moving books.

This is an egg box where I’m from. You wouldn’t get anything in it except eggs or maybe thimbles. I guess yours are different.


We call that a carton not a box.

Ostrich eggs?

I largely agree with your points, but anecdotally, I want one.

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.

Hi, F-350 owner here. My wife and I's other car is a Prius.

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.

You sound like the ideal person for the cyber truck then - are you excited about it? Is this something you really want to buy?

I am excited about the potential of EV trucks and a Tesla truck especially. Absolutely I'll consider it once it's reviewed well and it actually ships. After the Model 3 situation I'm not going to put down a deposit or anything, I'll wait and see. But it's certainly a vehicle I'd strongly consider switching to.

Thanks - it'll be interesting to see how many people like you there are, hopefully a lot.

I think this is going to be more of a fleet niche -- companies and gov't agencies that have a ZEV requirement for some percentage of their fleets, such as in California.

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.

I'm thinking the rural/agricultural market might be quite a factor - I was pretty excited about the pneumatic option, if it can work as a small tractor that needs fewer repairs and recharges for pennies, it could catch on no matter what people think of the aesthetic.

Have you considered that your assumptions may be heavily flawed?

> 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.

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"

I have been 'coal rolled' before so it's a real thing, but I could be overgeneralizing from this and videos on Reddit of trucks blocking superchargers.

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.

I was waiting for something similar to the early sneak design that took a conventional pickup design and pushed it a bit.


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?

I know what you mean. I think of the "rolling coal" type of person too. Maybe they hate Teslas because they felt excluded by the trend...

> Most pickups are driving office dudes like me to our office jobs every day.

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.

That's the thing people miss. A lot of people that buy Teslas don't really care about CO2 emissions that much. Really it's just a bonus. That's kind of the point of Teslas, make a car so fun and cool that you buy it "despite" being electric. I bought mine because of the performance and technology. Only after having it do you realize how nice it is to recharge at home, etc.

Every time Musk starts taking pre-order $ on a new model, it comes out ultimately at least a year later, the low priced option gets scratched, and the specs get curtailed some.

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.

It is only asking for a $100 deposit.

The 35K model 3 is available and better than what was originally announced.

This is a truck designed for people who don't need a truck but would like to appear as though they do. It's like a fake status symbol of being working class for someone who buys 40k plus vehicles but wants to downplay their wealth. Basically for the Range Rover crowd except they put a bed on it to show how serious they are about its truckness.

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.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume the Cybertruck look is what most pickup owners are going for. Maybe eventually...

In the near term Bollinger Motors[1] 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.

1: https://bollingermotors.com/

> This demographic will love the look.

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.

Do people in the rural/suburban US really tow that much that often? Seeing the number of trucks just doesn’t make sense (especially given how few are towing anything). Is there a little measure of lifestyle signaling or macho involved in truck ownership, or towing capacity comparison?

Car companies don't limit themselves to selling people a car based on what their life is like now, people have already got something that lets them do the things they currently do.

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.

Spot on, this is also while many people back in the early 2010s were so turned off of laptops without CD drives, they might not ever use it, but they want to know they can. (ev dn through they didn't realize the tradeoff was battery)

There is an exceptional explanation of this in the Adam Curtis documentary "The Century of Self." In the 20th century, advertizers pivoted from marketing on the basis of need to the basis of identity.

Its like asking if people in US really shoot to defend themselves that often?

Nah I think that’s a more valid “I don’t know when I might need it”-situation. I never felt that “who knows, I might need to tow a sailboat any day now”-feeling though.

Whenever someone I know moves, everyone with a truck comes along to haul stuff.

Why are trailers so unpopular though? I see the appeal of the truck when it’s needed but unless that’s a large fraction of my total trips why wouldn’t I rather have a regular car and tow a trailer when I need to move or take away trash? The flatbed is an extreme waste of space when it’s not used for hauling anything.

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...

I know several people with campers, horse trailers, car trailers, boats, etc. Most aren’t maxing out their towing capacity, but if you’re driving through any mountains, you’ll want to be well within those limits unless you want a white knuckle experience.

I have a Silverado diesel truck which I inherited. I don't tow often, but I do use it a lot for landscaping work -- hauling mulch, brick, and lumber in and yard waste out to the recycling center.

I do that with my small car and a trailer (Granted, I can only do around 500kg/1000lb on it, but it's usually enough). It's at least definitely worth the economy given how far I drive between every time I need to dump/tow.

Its going to sell well, like every Tesla. I suspect that it won't sell well to people who buy trucks for their actual utility, but you're right that this thing will totally be a status symbol; just not among people who would utilize its capabilities.

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 G-Wagon is a very high end luxury SUV with a huge profit margin. As such, MB can afford to sell only a handful. But at the advertised price, the Cybertruck offers no such margin. It'll surely will be a money-loser for Tesla which they'll have to sell like F150s for a decade just to break even.

The Cybertruck isn't about profit. It's about making Tesla's name synonymous with shock and awe.

Wow, really? I feel the completely opposite.

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!)

So you're going to downgrade from a 3/4 ton frame to something that falls between a dodge dakota and ram 1500...

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 vast majority of SUVs and trucks are bought to signal some sort of status or affiliation to a group. Just look at how clean these vehicles are. And some of the brands. Porsche SUV. Mercedes pickup.

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.

>In other words you overbought and don't use the diesel or the 3/4 ton frame?

I think you just described 80% of truck owners.


95%. Myself included.

Let some reverse marketing lose:

Cybertruck: Not Your Urban Cowboy’s Truck

The trimotor version claims to tow 14000+. A 2019 Ram 2500 tops out at around 19K, but my 2017 is a little less. The 2019 F150 tows about 11K.

This truck is no Dodge Dakota. This sits between a half-ton and 3/4-ton truck.

I suspect the electric motors will - in practical terms - tow vastly more than gas or diesel trucks.

and they will get the energy back going downhill.

It will ultimately be limited by it's cooling, as all Teslas have been. Can it manage long, steep grades while towing? Downhill, ICE motors can be driven by the wheels to preserve both fuel and brakes.

If regenerative braking is good enough technology for trains, it ought to be good enough of a technology for a light truck.


Note that trains are a very different scenario due to not being battery powered.

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.

Of course there are many differences between a train and a car.

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.

Of course, except that normal cars have no component to dissipate the load. The battery is the only way, and it has significant limitations.

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.

There’s probably a few things this truck has that normal cars don’t have.

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.

My PHEV minivan (Chrysler Pacifica) does close to 100 kW of regen in hard braking. I imagine the Cybertruck could easily double that, probably a lot more.

Peak dissipation is not particularly interesting in this context.

That current is charging the battery—not dissipation. I have no idea what kind of energy the friction brakes dissipate (that's not reported on the dash like regen braking is).

From the perspective of braking a motor, charging a battery is just a way to dissipate energy. A bad one at that, considering that there must be ample room for charge, and the charge rate must be limited.

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).

I'm not following some of your logic (especially the "bad one" part). Unless you start your journey downhill (which does apply to some people, I realize), you should always have room in the battery to store whatever energy you're dissipating—you had to get the energy to accelerate in the first place from somewhere, after all.

Also, peak braking performance is much different than effective regen potential, since you shouldn't need to do hard braking very often.

> I'm not following some of your logic

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.

Engine braking with ICE is practical, but is pretty much pointless to compare with regenerative braking capabilities of an electric motor.

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.

>where an ICE has a pretty fixed resistance.

That's what the gearbox is for

Apart from inertia on initial clutch-in, there are diminishing returns from increasing the gear ratio when it comes to compression losses.

It's not very useful on gas engines but it is for diesel

Towing capacity tends to be limited by braking/stability, not power.

It would need a compressed air brake system for the trailer, wouldn't it?

Not at this size. Electronic brakes are king when you’re sub-fifth-wheel.

As far as I know, at these trailor weights you have to seperatly brake the trailer itself, which you use compressed air connected to the trailer at the moment. I would guess unless you can brake the trailer electrically as well you would still need it. not sure how many traileros with electric brakes there are.

With the exception of rental trailers and boat trailers electric brakes are literally the standard until you get into trailers big enough that any vehicle you'd tow them with will have air brakes. Electric drum brakes are literally the standard. For the sizes of trailers a truck like this would be expected to tow you would have to go out of your way to find a trailer that does not use electric brakes (once again, boat and rental excepted).

Which is my point, in order to pull "near infinite loads" you most likely reach trailers that require air brakes. e.G. my Range Rover is allowed to tow up to 6.5 tons with the air brake system installed (which it isn't anymore because I never ever need it). And at these loads, the towing vehicle's brakes are much less relevant than the trailer ones.

When he said "near infinite loads" I was thinking more like the Toyota space shuttle stunt which is just something for the internet cheerleaders to jerk off to and doesn't actually say anything about the vehicle's real world performance.

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 single motor version is 7,500 lbs - almost exactly the same as a Dodge Dakota.

The Tri-motor is 14k lbs, a 2019 F150 is 13,200 lbs. https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/2019/features/capability/f1...

I stand by my comment, this thing falls between a dodge dakota and a ram 1500.

"The towing capacity of the 2019 Ford F-150 ranges from 5,000 lbs. to 13,200 lbs., depending on how the vehicle is configured.*"

There is exactly one model of F150 that can tow 13,200. The other 47 models [1] mostly tow between 8-10,000 pounds.

[1] - https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/f150-xl/

There’s exactly one model of cybertruck that tows 14k lbs. what’s your point?

My point is it outperforms the top-end F150, just like Elon promised it would, while also beating a Porsche 911 in a drag race. Just like Elon promised it would.

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 am not sure if this will become a status symbol, but I 100% agree that that is the market it is going for.

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).

Re: Hummer H2 and H2 Truck, except it has an option with 2.9s 0-60!!¡ It will be a staple.

By track you mean drag strip because mass and high C of G are going to make this thing difficult to corner/handle.

Why would it have a high centre of gravity? Wouldn't the battery pack be most of the mass and live right at the bottom?

The model S has a ground clearance of 6 inches and a center of gravity of 17.5 inches. This thing has a ground clearance of 16 inches. Assuming similar weight distribution, that's a center of gravity of 27.5 inches. Compare that with:

BMW 3 series: 20 inches Subaru BRZ: 18.1 inches Porsche 911 GT3: 17.9 inches

It has a ground clearance of 16 inches with the suspension at max height. When it lowered itself for the tailgate ramp, it was probably closer to 10 inches off the ground.

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.

Based on the stated ranges of 250, 300 and 500miles (!), I would guess those battery sizes are 75, 100 and 150kWh. I hope the upcoming triple motor model S, will get that 150 battery pack next summer. That would mean 600miles of range for the new model S.

The 500 mile range is 200kWh I believe. There’s a penalty because they are literally stacking a second pack. Probably not enough room to do that in an S, but I’m sure by then the S will see other upgrades.

>This thing has a ground clearance of 16 inches. up to 16 inches, which may (or may not) indicate dynamic suspension

Your wife drives an Audi that can't do better than 0-60 in 6.5 seconds?

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.

>>Your wife drives an Audi that can't do better than 0-60 in 6.5 seconds?

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.

>How is that surprising?

It's pretty surprising because the comment seemed to imply that the same Audi might also end up on a track.

> Your wife drives an Audi that can't do better than 0-60 in 6.5 seconds?

Not too surprising. According to [1], 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.

[1]: https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/audi-0-60-mph-tim...

The A1s and A3s I see on that list seem to beat 6.5s.

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.

They don't sell the A1 in the US, and that version is actually the S1 and cost £27k for the base version when launched here in the UK. It's a bit of a one-off they sold hardly any of them.

Again, there are fast A3s but the vast majority sold aren't that quick.

At 6000 pounds and a high CoG, this thing is going to handle worse than most ladder frame trucks. And that's bad.

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.

The tri motor does 0-60 in <2.9

Fair enough, but that still doesn't make it a track car.

it'll smoke most anything on the dragstrip and corners are unamerican so they don't matter.

Love it or hate it seems to be the case here - not many fence sitters. Been reading TMC and FB Tesla Owners group the past hour and reactions are I’d estimate about 80% negative.

Also a truck guy here, and totally concur. I reserved mine within 30 seconds of seeing the site.

I agree and think this could possibly replace many SUVs in suburban areas. 6 person seating is another great selling point for many, just look at all of the third row vehicles like the Honda Pilot. The base price of the Cybertruck is similar to a Pilot. Which would you rather drive?

Agree. I'm in love.

isn't the electric-grid dependency completely antithetical to the ownership of an off-road, off-civilization vehicle ?

(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

Mad Max notwithstanding, you can only store gasoline less than a year, so it's not like the alternative is really any less reliant on civilization.

People who truly care about that will likely be using diesel instead.

500 miles is fairly substantial range. I can see this being useful for a very wide variety of use cases, but obviously not those longer-term multi-day excursions into the wilderness.

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.

You can also easily google that photograph of a Mitsubishi MiEV being charged on the roadside by a Honda gasoline generator. That needs to be scale up a little bit, but it's possible to charge electric cars like that - inefficient, but enables driving out of the range of the electric grid.

However, 99 % of drivers of a "truck" like this will be commuting between a suburban home and an office.

For the one lap until it overheats, or until this pig needs to hit an apex.

It looks like something my son would have designed when he was 5.

As someone looking at a Tacoma TRD Pro or Ram Power Wagon this thing just shattered my midsize vs 2500 internal debate.

Your wife races her Audi at a track?

Really weird if you read that post and that was your only take-away.

> This is the suburban status item of 2022.

Yeah I don’t think so. Trucks are not suburban status items. This is more like the El Camino of 2022.

> Trucks are not suburban status items.

Have you ever been to Texas?

Or pretty much anywhere outside of urban centers... and even there, many in the South, West, and Midwest US have giant trucks (big enough they don't fit in a standard garage) in their urban centers.

They're definitely a suburban status item in much of the West of the US.

> suburban status items

I have found the single stupidest thing in this thread.

Only thing that is missing from this comment is a disclaimer about you holding TSLA stock.

Hacker News never fails to amuse.

Will they be able to survive until then with this though? Because I seriously doubt it.

$100 initial deposit is to show wall St demand. That will keep borrowing costs down.

Oh boy, you aren't going to make friends here. Upvoting you just to mitigate the damage.

Is this satire or are rich car people really this insufferable? This may be the best/worst comment I've ever seen here. The level of status projecting and suburban truck guy cringe is through the roof.

I think it looks pretty awesome. The ATV that charges in the back as the "oh, and one more thing" moment was also great. I can see this being very popular. There is something very masculine and forward looking about the design. The interior shots on the website are also impressive-- I wonder why they didn't show that tonight in the demo (probably it's just a rendering and the prototype version has a bare-bones interior). The glass breaking was tough to watch though-- I'm sure it threw him off during the rest of the presentation.

See people getting a ride in it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTDztHFa0_Q

Skip to around 15 minutes in unless you like watching terrible smartphone footage of a bunch of people standing around waiting for the truck to turn up.

It somehow looks way, way better in normal use than during the presentation. How weird, it's usually the other way round.

I wonder if they cut the presentation a little short because of the glass issue . Then again, Musk isn't exactly the greatest presenter so I don't think he could play off someone talking in his ear to cut it short.

To be honest, I reckon the fact that he’s a terrible presenter adds a certain level of charm.

Where’s the ATV order site?

As the current owner of a 2017 F150 long bed 4x4 with an ARE bed cap, I'm super-tempted by the Tesla. It's a total no-brainer for the people buying things like the Honda Ridgeline. It's less so for people who treat their truck like a work vehicle.

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.

It has a 6.5' bed, and I look at the bed to judge whether it's used as a truck or not. Shortbeds are unusable and nearly useless for any real work. They're so frustrating, that I don't even consider a shortbed truck a truck at all. It's a family sedan masquerading as one. Tesla very wisely delivered a real truck.

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.

6.5' is a short bed, though - it's the same length as most short-bed full-size 1/2 or 3/4 ton pickups.

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

6.5' is a 'standard bed' in the F-150 line. 'Short bed' is 5.5', 'long bed' is 8'.

You're not exactly wrong, but you are kinda wrong if you judge based on the which bed length is most commonly purchased by consumers (as opposed to contractors). On almost any dealer lot, you'll find maybe 1 8' bed, and it'll probably be a base model 1/2 or 3/4 ton with a bench seat, perhaps 90% 5.5' bed trucks, mostly in luxury trim, and a small handful (if you're lucky) of 6/5' bed trucks.

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.

I had a short-bed diesel for 5 years or so, and put it to plenty of use. Yes, it's not ideal for common dimensions of lumber (but you can just pop the tailgate down and put some little red flags on stuff), but it will still haul tons of random things (for me: large trash dump runs, car engines on stands, a set of 16 car tires, several 55 gallon drums, a full bucketload of topsoil, a pallet of landscaping rock, etc). IMHO, a short-bed truck is still a truck.

You used yours like a truck, yet would've been better served with a standard or longbed. I'd be surprised if you ever bought a short bed again, as most people who do use their truck as you did find the disadvantages.

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.

Given the sledgehammer test, at least from the side that thing will be very aggressive in a crash. As in, if it runs into you, or if you run into it you will be more injured and/or dead. You generally want a little give on the road in both directions.


Looks sweet though.

That's a pretty common reason people cite for buying big SUVs. A belief that being the bigger car in an accident makes you safer.

It's more than a belief... the statistics bear it out. "The lowest 2015 death rate by vehicle type is for very large SUVs: 13 deaths per million registered vehicles. The highest is for mini cars: 64 deaths per million registered vehicles." https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-...

That could just mean SUV drivers drive less, or a myriad of other things. PG posted on Twitter a while back a study that showed SUVs were _less_ safe (per mile driven? I think).

This is a very simple matter of physics. Do you know what typically kills in a car crash? Extreme G-forces generated by near instantaneous deceleration. Big, heavy things have to expend more energy to decelerate, so they tend to do so at a relatively slower rate. Small things can be stopped very quickly. Therefore, someone in a big, heavy SUV is going to have much higher chances of survival than someone in a Mini.

You're completely ignoring higher center of gravity and rollovers.

But more importantly, "deaths per registered car" is meaningless to an individual make a purchase.

Ah, I found it: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/business/safety-gap-grows...

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.

It means that F=ma - the bigger you are, the safer you are. The driver of a small 2 seater car is going to be worse off than a huge semi if they both collide.

What you're talking about is "which is safer in a collision", which is an entirely different question from "which car is safer per mile to drive?"

Would really have to be a myriad of other things if that’s supposed to explain a 5x difference without the obvious reason for it.

What's the reason? That's it's bigger? But what if bigger cars crash more often? So yes, it does have to be thought about with clarity.

I think a perception of additional personal safety is definitely a reason people like SUVs.

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.

"crash partner"? That's a really weird and indirect term. If I'm in a collision with another driver, he's not my "partner".

I'm not in the field; I just picked it up from the wikipedia page. They call it the "crash partner vehicle". Searching reveals that's what it's sometimes called in the vehicle safety industry.

Maybe he should be.

A lot of problems with driving come with people treating it as adversarial situation, instead of cooperative one.


More mass = less acceleration when the same force is applied, and acceleration is what really kills you. You can't argue with physics.

There's also strain in an inelastic collision. More strain = less acceleration = more living. Super rigid structure = less train = more acceleration = less living. No doubt the airbags and whatnot will make this very safe from the inside. I'm just worried about from the outside. But whatever. Not too worried. Plus, who knows, maybe they did design in strategic crumple zones. They never said they didn't. Just got me worried with the sledge.

At least in principle, modern cars should be getting better at not running into things to begin with. The most survivable crash is one that didn't happen because HAL stepped in at the last minute to apply the brakes or stabilize the vehicle.

Disagree? Why? Active crash-avoidance aids seem to be getting pretty impressive.

Yep, if you're going to crash, better to be in as big a vehicle as possible. There is an argument to be made that smaller, more nimble, faster braking vehicles have a better chance of avoiding the crash in the first place, but the statistics do still show SUVs are safer overall, not just on a per-crash basis.

That works until you encounter a concrete wall or solid telegraph pole.

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.

Unfortunately, a vehicle can only be as nimble as its driver is. Most vehicles out there are driven by average, distracted, exhausted humans.

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.

Don’t think I’ve driven a car without ESC, it’s been mandatory in new cars for almost a decade now.

It depends on the country. ESC became mandatory in most large markets since sometime between 2012 and 2014, but lots of cars are older than that. Unlike phones, automobiles can easily last 15 years or more if well cared for. Which is great in one respect but also a nightmare when it comes to safety and emissions.

I was going to make a comment about the hood not being soft enough for pedestrians hitting it, but maybe the computer would prevent such a collision.

That is a poor, poor substitute for passive safety measures...

Why? In principle, it should be possible to build a car that couldn't be used to mow down a pedestrian or cyclist if the driver tried.

Broadly speaking, active safety systems in any industry are generally considered less reliable than passive ones due to things like software bugs, unforeseen circumstances, malicious tampering, power outages, etc.

But hey, that's why we're both here, right, shooting the shit on a site called "Hacker News." Because we believe there are -- and will continue to be -- better ways to do things through the appropriate application of technology.

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.

Bio's not a joke, I actually design nuclear reactors. In fact, my experience in that field is why I believe what I said above.

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.

Passive safety sounds like exactly the kind of thing you'd want to focus on when designing nuclear reactors.

Ha, the comment right above yours, 7 hours after it, is someone that designs nuclear reactors stating just that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21606744

That was Boeing's approach for safety on 737 MAX.

Great truck. Very exotic design, excellent price point, However, there was one statement that stood out as a MASSIVE mistake:

>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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4peF1EYke8

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.

Not sure what you're worried about; all you need to break in is a lightly thrown metal ball.

The actual video (not related to me)


I’m hoping for Jeremy clarkson to take a whack at “killing a Tesla” a la the infamous hilux that wouldn’t die:


Considering the first part of that challenge is that they submerge the hilux in the sea, I can't see the tesla holding up too well. Would love to see it though!

I wouldn't be so sure.

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.

I want to see the cybertruck vs wrecking ball and caravan... that would be pretty epic.

I'm not sure the lightly thrown ball can break the polymer layer. Just because the glass layer shatters it doesn't mean you can go trough it.

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.


I still can't tell how much of that was planned.

Ok, how/where do I acquire one of these in <insert entropic stereotypicality here> disaster situation?

It was a joke making fun of the fact that the windows broke during the demo.

It's possible to build a stronger window that's still vulnerable to those "Window Punch" devices that all firemen carry these days. I'm sure this was considered, I believe it's regulated in some regions.

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.

One of the bullet points was that it seats six. Pretty sure this'll be rolling through suburbia delivering tots to Montessori schools.

> Teslas are already unique enough to require their own first responder procedure to perform an advanced extraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4peF1EYke8

Isn't most of that just the special consideration that all electric vehicles will need in order to isolate the battery voltage?

Model X doors are pretty mechanically exotic and the normal way they're opened requires electric power. E.g. the prying done at 15 minutes into the video is not at all how you'd force a normal car door.

I couldn’t disagree more.

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.

The extra strong steel panels also raise questions about accidents and crumple zones. Modern vehicles are designed to absorb as much force as possible instead of deflecting the impact.

My first thought is that it's not even a truck. The price will likely be increased and it will be unrepairable. You can't drive a car down the street without side mirrors.

Some cars are replacing side mirrors with cameras now to help with drag and cabin buffeting. It's legal in Europe but not yet in the US.

The new Honda e is going to do this.

Audi gt as well

And you definitely can't tow without side mirrors.

As long as it's got cameras like the Audi e-tron, why not?

The problem is the point of view. Towing a trailer of considerable length requires mirrors that stick particularly far out. If your vehicle doesn't have them front the factory then you can buy clip-ons that attach to your current mirror.

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.

It'd be interesting if they went with additional cameras for this. For example, the rear-view mirror is a video feed already. It could stream from a camera you attach to the back of the trailer instead.

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.

But it's Tesla so it's better in every way...or something.

I heard that Tesla is bypassing that on the Roadster with removable side mirrors which you can install cameras there instead. Not sure on the specifics, but something along those lines (although I'm not sure about the legality and please don't quote me on this).

The glass fractured pretty easily. The demonstration didn't go as planned:


So maybe that means it's not so hard to get into if needed.

>Great truck. Very exotic design, excellent price point,

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

sure and if it breaks down a tesla should do just fine toeing it.

In my multiple decades as a Ford Truck owner, never once has any of the trucks left be stranded, Sure they had mechanical problems, ran rough, etc but they still got me home.

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

did not mean any disrespect. just wanted to make a off hand reference to the presentation video which shows the cybr-truck pulling a f150.

Great point! But, to be fair, the glass didn't look that strong in the demo :)

I had to refresh my memory on the M577 Carrier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVLBLJOCBg8

In the grand scheme of things, what are the chances of getting in a car accident that leaves you alive, but traps you, and also causes life threatening injures or situations, but only at the level where if first responders can't reach and extract you in the average amount of time? And how many people are afraid enough of becoming submerged in water to even have the tools necessary to shatter a regular window? And even if they have the tools, what are the chances they'd be in reach and that you'd be able enough to reach them?

Pretty high? You need only be unconcious to end up dying in a burning car because no one could extract you. Cars also deform in weird and chaotic ways in a real world accident, who knows what will be the final piece between you and safety. People sometimes exit via their rear windows because the front of the cabin is crushed and the glass there broke, but the doors and windshield frames were also crushed so you can't exit. Cars are pretty good at absorbing the impact so your body can tolerate it non-fatally, but you may still end up broken, trapped or simply unconcious.

Or reinforced windows might be the thing that prevent injury and death in the unpredictable scenario someone ends up in. I'm just saying, I don't think a strong case could be made for or against stronger windows. Statistics might give a good idea over a long enough timeline, but until more people are driving around with stronger windows, getting in accidents, how can we be sure?

Unless you're worried about getting shot at while you're in your car or a random brick flying through the windshield then you don't need this.

You should be concerned about debris from the truck in front of you flying through your windshield. Unfortunately, I don't think anything short of an armoured hull will stop that. The stronger glass is useless.

You can flip your question around and say what are the chances that you need stronger windows than the rest of the vehicles on the road?

I like your inversion method. For public consumers, we may need a stronger windshield glass for better protection, yes! For side windows though, probably not so much.

Dude, I grew up in Fresno. Duck yes I want bullet proof glass.

Doors unable to open + fire is all it takes.

So then you just need explosive bolts, right?

The door is either bent and can't physically separate from the opening or it's jammed against something like a tree/rock/road/another vehicle. Either way explosive bolts wont help you.

Breaking the window creates an instant smaller opening that's still big enough to get out of.

All the doors would need to be bent and can't physically separate or jammed against something to prevent EMS from pulling someone out. It's possible, but unlikely.

Not really that unlikely I'd say. From major pile ups where you'd want to get our PDQ, accidents where the doors are pinned, to more mundane mistakes:




All it takes is some fire.

The second accident should be something EMS can pull someone out of from other doors. People would be stuck in the first and third, but those images don't show vehicles being incinerated.

It's possible, but not likely to have both a multi-car or large vehicle pileup that blocks all the doors and a fire.

It's likely that your spine will have sustained some damage in an accident that jammed your doors. That means you want level extraction, which requires removing both driver's side doors and the B pillar ("total sidewall removal"). Pulling a healthy person (or an injured person if they need to be removed from the car right now) out of a car is easy, doing it without further spine damage is a lot harder. Practising it is great fun, though :)

I'd rather have as many options as possible in an emergency, however unlikely, especially since this has already been tried and tested by other luxury auto makers before.

Open the pod bay door, HAL !

You can never tick enough masculine boxes.

The main reason cars with internal-combustion engines catch on fire during collisions must be a breach in the fuel system. While your point about rescuing passengers is valid, I'm not sure fires alone could support it.

That’s what this guy thought, too, just a few weeks ago. The URL tells the tale: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/man-died-...

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.

The big chunk of lithium that powers a Tesla will burn just fine. I think it’s a valid point.

Tesla's catch fire as well - [pdf warning] https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/2016_Mod...

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...

Conceivably, the fire could be another car burning. If you have two disabled cars next to each other after a collision and one of them is on fire, people in the car next to it could be cooked if they don't get out.

There are many valid reasons first responders might have to remove people from cars quickly.

The person(s) you hit, or that hits you, may be driving a petrol vehicle.

Not at all. A key point is protection from attackers.

But they need ballistic glass.


> A key point is protection from attackers.

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.

Carjackers, kidnappers, assassins, etc.

Maybe not many in violent places could afford these things, but they're the ones who'd be targeted.

Like I said, these things aren't common occurrences in Western countries. You know... the countries that can afford the Cybertruck (I don't give a shit about an authoritarian of an impoverished nation buying this truck. There are so few of them it doesn't even make sense to market to them, and why should we condone that?)

American neighborhoods are typically either like Switzerland or Swaziland. Most neighborhoods have low crime, low gun violence, and high income comparable to Switzerland. The other neighborhoods are comparable to Swaziland in terms of violent crimes. Don't be so quick to call someone's fear irrational if you haven't lived in Swaziland neighborhoods.

If you live in Swaziland you’re not likely to drive a Tesla.

I disagree, I wish we could have fewer vehicle restrictions for a certain class a vehicles for people who accept the risks associated. A truck with bullet proof windows might be nice for people who live or drive through certain areas.

That sounds like exactly the sort of statistical analysis people tend to get spectacularly wrong. I'd be surprised if more than a single-digit number of people get shot while driving even in the US. For Europe, you probably need to express it in years/incident if you want to use integers.

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.

Most of these types of vehicle will be owned by a suburbian parent driving his/her kids to some variant of organized recreational events. The rest is just marketing.

I'd be wary about buying one for this application. I read underfloor compartments somewhere, and these tend to preclude the use of ISOFIX rear-facing car seats. A problem I'm facing right now; we didn't take a future child into account when buying our current car those two years ago, and now fitting a child car seat is a PITA.

It's not like you can't get your own bullet proof glass installed. It seems pretty silly on a consumer vehicle meant for suburbia.

Stupid question: what’s up with trucks in urban areas? I understand the utility of a truck in rural/farm setting but never figured why folks want to lug around that pointless empty half while living in cities. Two of the folks I know who owns trucks have used empty halfs probably twice in a year when bringing home some furniture but that too could have delivered free by the store. Again, as I said, stupid question.

In some cases it seems like pure conspicuous consumption. The sheer impracticality of it is a badge of honor. This is not atypical for American consumerism.

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...

That’s so true, trucks and SUVs like the Mercedes G Wagon, the Ford Raptor (the F150’s rowdy cousin) and maybe even the Range Rover HSE are typical Veblen Goods. They do really well in urban areas specifically because they are over-engineered and are overkill for the purpose they are used for and are not afraid to show it off. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Cybertruck does well for the exact same reason.

"overkill" may be an unfortunate word choice, if you're the pedestrian who has a close encounter with one of these.

A pedestrian encounter with any vehicle is likely to have the same result.

No SUV's and trucks are wildly more dangerous to pedestrians.

The design of the vehicle has a significant impact [sorry!] on the pedestrian's chances. All those sharp edges can't be good.

Yeah but the glass breaks really easily so it should help disperse the impact.

The overall height, especially of the hood is also really important for the pedestrian's chances. if a sedan hits you, ideally you can roll over the top. if a truck or suv with enough size hits you, you go under it.

Somehow I think the mass and speed is far more significant than a pointy bumper.

Mass probably is only significant because it makes the stopping distance longer.

Mass also adds to the force of the impact

Should be safer with self-driving versus human-driven pedestrian crushers (SUVs)

Not that it's a guarantee but at least tesla's emergency breaking detects pedestrians already. We're still a couple years from release. I'd like to think the long-term solution is to just stop hitting pedestrians with cars.

TIL what a Veblen Good is. Thanks

To save others the googling

> 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.

TIL what TIL means (also Veblen Good). So today I learned 2 things.

I agree with you on many pickup purchases being conspicuous consumption, but I think you're underestimating how many people would happily display conspicuous green consumption. This has all the "look at my big powerful toy" but acceptable for someone wanting to display how environmentally aware they are.

> This is not atypical for American consumerism.

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.

> 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...

They could always shoot a hole in the battery pack to do that.

I hope someone invents a "coal"-roller add-on that emits high pressurized steam (builds it up for 5 minutes, then releases it when the engine is pressed hard). But it's got to be white vapor not black, as it will need to represent the green nature of what Tesla owners are buying into.

... and give validity to these assholes' hobby by playing along with their game?

yeah that sounds like exactly their attitude, fun but useless.

Having learnt the term 'rolling coal' just now, I would sincerely hope the morons doing this are in a minority amongst truck drivers. I find it far more likely that conspicuous consumption is to blame for the truck/SUV trend than anti-environmentalism.

Don't come to the Midwest... Rural towns are full of folks who love to mod their trucks so they can be seen/heard/smelled.

Or the intermountain west. Utah is the home of the Diesel Brothers. If you want to feel like garbage, go down that hole.

It is definitely a minority. If that is any consolation.

Same here, I went and looked it up on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

I mean... why the hell would you do such a thing?!

I stopped reading at "... as a form of anti-environmentalism", what the actual fuck?!

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.

Environmentalism has become a tribal trait, and of the tribe opposing them. Therefore, you become anti-environmental, as a way of showing your tribe.

You should probably avoid ever visiting the Southeastern US...

Think about conspicuous energy waste with Tesla coils. Rolling coils.

But clean green energy.

I live in a city and have used my pick-up truck for 15yrs constantly to move furniture, haul trash to the dump, and bulk material (mulch, dirt, sand, pavers, etc) for myself and friends. It's a major time and money saver. Yes, parking is a PITA and the gas is horrendous. However, with the population density, the utility need to haul materials is compounded - especially now that you have increasing #'s of DIY renovations and things like urban farms.

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.

Indeed. It looks to be inspired by the RAH-66 Comanche stealth helicopter [1]. Currently operators are known to use (through Mil-COTS) the Toyota Hilux. Maybe Elon is after an influx of SOCOM/DARPA money for Tesla (increasing his association with Tony Stark in the process).


I got a speech like that from a co-worker, who has since called me to help him with my truck multiple times. Not so useless, it seems.

Your co-worker is trading carbon credits. Keep it up.

I live in a northern Midwest suburb, in a region that receives a lot of snow in the winter. I have driven older trucks my whole life, in part because of of the 4x4 capability for winter driving. I also enjoy being the guy who keeps a tow strap in the toolbox and hauls people out of ditches. Hard to do that without a heavy 4x4 vehicle.

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.

How much snow do you get there?

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.

It's not just amount of snow but terrain. A fair bit of snow on a flat surface might be fine, but even a little bit on a slope can quickly become problematic if you don't have 4x4.

I wonder how this sounds to people who live in, say, Switzerland, where it is very mountainous, snows frequently, and literally nobody drives a truck, and even the cars are not AWD.

I mean, I _know_ how it sounds because I am one of those people. But I wonder how Americans think this sounds.

European countries are much more compact, which makes public transportation much easier to justify. By contrast, the US is extremely spread out and public transportation yields much less ROI even in many urban areas.

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.

The OP wasn't arguing for public transport, so I don't get where your comments on that came from from. I totally get what you mean about "symbols" though.

> 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?

I drive a normal FWD car during winter weather almost nobody will go out in. I drove it cross-country through the worst snowstorm the midwest experienced in the last 10 years where I couldn't see more than 10ft in front of me.

All that said, I would have been much safer in a truck.

> 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?

It really depends on the depth of the snow.

I'm with you - as long as you don't have a RWD car, winter tyres on a FWD car make a huge difference, and they deal with ice and snow just fine.

Switzerland is about 41000 km^2 in area. The US has about 660,000 km^2 of fresh surface water.

The scales of the US and Switzerland are incomensorable.

Ohio has the same population density as Spain. American exceptionalism is just American ignorance of geography.

Alabama is the size of England. Using individual US states as points of reference for entire European countries is one form of the incomensorability. Columbus, Ohio is as far from San Diego, California as Barcelona is from Moscow. Except there's pretty much nothing but empty plain, mountains, and desert in between. Ohio has 10,000 km^2 of fresh water...about a quarter of Switizerland.

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.

Unless you are suggesting that the typical American pickup truck trip is across Lake Michigan and back your comparisons of scale are irrelevant.

Inyo County, California is 1/3 the area of Switzerland. At population 18,000, it has fewer people than any Canton save Appenzell Interhoden (~16,000). Inyo County is surrounded by more Mojave. The Mojave Desert is the size of Portugal...nearly thrice that of Switzerland.

No driving in water.

Yes and nobody lives there. Are you always this obtuse? Ford is not selling 1.5 million trucks per year to the residents of Inyo county.

Sorry, I don’t seem to understand the point you are making.

You also forget that gas is super cheap in the US so buying a truck with its sub 20mpg fuel consumption is a no-brainer.

The long-term utility of this Tesla truck will be interesting to see. Even though new trucks are insanely priced right now, they do have very good longer-term value compared to cars.

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.

That’s exactly what gets me about Tesla. This is a truck you will probably never be able to repair yourself or at local shops (for software reasons alone) and is totally dependent on Tesla’s attention span and staying in business to hold its value.

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...

I own two Chevy 2500's, a '99 and a '00. They both have the 6 liter engine, very hot roddy. Bought them both for less than $3k used. One is 4WD and the other is 2WD. I used them to haul sheds that I manufacture and they are the first pickup that hasn't disintegrated under this abuse. My shed trailer and heaviest building weigh 7500 lbs together, and there is significant wind resistance towing buildings.

While I've never considered purchasing a new pickup, I'd sure like to have one of the cybertrucks to haul with.

My Honda Civic does just fine in the winter in Michigan. A good set of snow tires is all I need.

Yeah, FWD with snow tires is like 1000x better than AWD with "all season" tires.

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)

It turns out that all cars have four wheel braking... Actually, unloaded pickup trucks don’t use their back brakes very effectively.

Everyone I knew in the midwest with a pickup weighted the back in the winter.

> there are a lot more uses for it than you might otherwise think

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.

No wasted “fuel” for an electric car, especially if it comes from 100% solar power...

Moving a total of 2600kg with only 150kg of "useful load" (2 people) is a waste of energy.

Sun shining on your roof is also a waste of energy.

The top end model S weighs about 2300kg, so it's not really much of a difference.

That doesn't make it better. Moving around by yourself (like most drivers out there) in a 2300Km vehicle is not efficient. It's just better by comparison because at least it's an EV. But you still use a lot of (not so clean in the majority of cases) electricity to move a lot of weight just so one person gets from point A to point B.

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.

It's all relative. You could build something that weighed 100kg, so anything heavier is a waste of energy if we only look at ability to go from point A to point B.

But it would be a death trap to drive around other 2000kg vehicles, and it wouldn't be comfortable.

>5Km commute

Almost no one in the US has a commute that short.

99% of the people could do with a sub-compact 99% of the time as seen everywhere else in the world. Are the only 2 options you see a 100Kg dingy or a 2500Kg fat-mobile? It's like saying you can't have electric cars because how far can they go on 2 AA batteries.

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

I'm sure more people could live with a subcompact car than currently do, but it's nowhere near 99%. I can drive a subcompact but they aren't made for tall drivers and anything more than 20 minutes or so hurts my knee.

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.

I find there's only a tenuous relationship between overall car size and space for tall drivers. e.g. a Nissan Leaf has about the same leg and head room as a Subaru Ascent.

See how fast you can go 250 miles on foot power.

Like me, you probably live in the vast majority of the Midwest that is as flat as a pancake. I would argue in that scenario 4x4 is not very important: if there's no incline, two wheel drive will work in almost any weather situation.

(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)

I once pulled a rather Jeep out of a ditch in my old Volvo 240 station wagon. At low speeds basically every 100+ HP vehicle is traction limited. It also did surprisingly well in the snow with a little practice and good tires.

How do you justify having much dirtier and far more carbon emissions than people who have appropriately sized vehicles? Granted, you could use it a few times for the bed, but why not just rent a truck and save the environment the other 95% of trips?

Trucks in urban settings are an exclusively American thing. Because of the chicken tax [1], a 20% import duty on trucks, foreign trucks are unprofitable in the US. This lack of competition incentivizes American auto makers to create as much domestic demand for trucks as possible.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

Urban pickup trucks in particular are very American, but the ever increasing number of SUVs in places like central London is just as absurd, not to mention problematic[0]. I'm guessing one reason Europe favours SUVs over trucks is because the roads are generally much narrower here.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...

As someone with two kids, massive storage space appeals to me very much.

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.

As your example numbers here show though estates are often better for storage than crossovers. So there must be other factors behind crossover popularity.

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).

The fucking problem is now that everyone has an SUV, driving something of a normal size makes you feel like you're going to get crushed to death in an accident.

The trick is to accept your fate. I daily a Miata.

Ah, I used to have one for a while. Great fun.

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."

You usually can but than there are the moments where you can't. Like that 1.3 parking spots the SUV took (https://i.imgur.com/RGxHHkF.jpg) because...well nobody knows because it should actually fit but the driver couldn't park it in despite the x amount of cameras and assistants or maybe just didn't want to because he/she needed more space to get out of it in the end (actual reason presented to me once). Parking with one wheel on the street/bike lane is quite common too. However probably not because of the same reasons as the street should be wide enough to get out so maybe there are just not enough parking sensors in there. Or that SUV in a narrow city road-fun: driving with too much distance to the right side so everybody coming from the front has to wait for the city tank to pass them because somehow SUV drivers don't have a good feeling about how wide it really is.

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.

Not as small, but my car is a Prius C. I feel dwarfed by most cars on the roads these days. I'm always needing to inch out juuuust a little further for a turn just so I can see if the road is clear for me to proceed.

I used to, until my MR2 was run off a road by a careless truck driver. I was fine but the trauma persists - the sickening sound of running into hard items at 70+ mph is hard to forget.

I weekend a tiny roadster as well.

The fact you sit higher and the extra visibility that gives on the road is indeed a huge plus. Car salesman told me "everyone's ditching estates for crossovers nowadays" and almost every brand makes one.

Conversely, a low center of gravity and the superior emergency handling that it gives a car is also a huge plus.

My wife used to own a Mercury Sable. I literally dodged a deer with it one day without rolling the vehicle. Ended up in the next lane over in less than half a second still going down the highway.

With my big pickups, I just try to center the deer on my massive grill guard so they don't dent the quarter panels.

You can’t get more American than this comment. Cultural clash at its finest.

I'm with you on this. I recently drove an BMW X5, a 350D M-Sport, and the high level of body roll was a real surprise - straight out of the showroom I turned at a set of lights and thought I was going to roll the bloody thing!

Also, realistically I don't think sitting slightly higher up gives much better visibility.

> Flying somewhere for vacation now costs $$$, so driving say to ...

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.

My current car is a BMW X1, which isn't really a big car at all. But I do need more space a few times a year, usually on extended trips.

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.

I was recently shopping for a car with loads of space - it's actually surprising how little storage space there is in most SUVs, especially compared to larger saloons, estates and hatchbacks!

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.

does the math really work out? You will also have to spend quite some money on fuel and should factor in the depreciation and maitenance costs of your car to make it comparable. And flights on popular routes in Europe are pretty cheap nowadays.

Estimated cost both ways is about 600EUR, that includes fuel, tolls, a cheap hotel half way. Brussels - Bilbao is always an expensive flight for some reason. There's Ryanair airports nearby but it's a huge hassle and we'd still have to rent a car upon arrival.

SUVs are the minivans of rich suburban soccer mums.

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.

They are often called housewife tanks in Germany.

"Hausfrauenpanzer", pronounced somewhat like "House-Frown-Pun-Tser". In case anyone was wondering.

As a bit of a WW2 historian/wargamer, that is the most hilarious thing I've heard in a long time... thank you from my particular context :)

Interesting. I’ve never heard that before, but I have heard them called Einkaufspanzer (shopping tanks) several times. The implication being it’s the tank you use to do your grocery shopping in.

That's brilliant.


Hilarious - my family and I joke and call the inevitable massive chevy suburbans "Mom Tanks"

Chelsea tractors

but now we're putting people in the position where if you're not driving SUV and you're in a collision with an SUV you come off worse. so your option to remain safe is to buy an SUV so that if you hit/get hit another SUV or you hit/gethit another vehicle you end up in a better position

I don’t think that’s true and it’s possible to design small cars to fare well. I had an old Saab 9-3 that was t-boned by a Chevy Avalanche at about 40 mph.

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.

It’s not so much about the design than the impression. Lots of people don’t like driving and would rather a bigger car because they feel unsafe next to those other giant cars. Nothing to do with actual danger, just perception.

I think people like excuses to drive SUVs. I had a friend who drove an SUV and talked about the safety and space needs. But the SUV had worse safety and space than many sedans, wagons, and hatchbacks. I always thought it curious about why they would cover up whatever the reason was for driving an SUV but was never able to talk about it because they got deflective and defensive.

Modern safety features certainly help, but ultimately physics is still physics.

There can also be serious problems when modern vehicles have collisions with older vehicles that don't have those safety features, for similar reasons.

Whoa, freaky. My 9-3 was rear ended by an Avalanche. Luckily no one was hurt and insurance didn't total my car somehow.

I wish it hadn’t totaled mine. It was a 2000 so before GM turned Saabs into Malibus.

The downside is that an SUV flips over without any effort. Especially with the high greenhouses and unavoidable sunroofs nowadays. I've seen SUVs flip over just from being rear-ended.

I saw a Defender flipped on its side after being t-boned by a Mercedes taxi.

Notice how one of the first marketing points of this new monstrosity is "passenger safety". Because the safety of the passengers in a vehicle the size of a truck with the performance of a sports car is really important. Given the poor standard of driver training it's going to be suicide to drive smaller car soon, let alone be on a bicycle or walking.

This is why I exclusively drive a Mac truck.

Oh dear lord, what's Apple gone and done now? Semi rigs?

It's "Mack" truck

speaking of weight

over/under 2.5t on weight of that tesla cyberwart?

Definitely over. A claimed 500mi range on the upper model with three large motors is a LOT more copper, steel, and lipo cells than the X.

> have no need for that capacity

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)

The thing is, if you the math, owning a small car and renting a larger vehicle the 2-3 times a year you need it is vastly less expensive.

I own zero cars and rent when required. I save a fortune.

By myself I can live with my bicycle and motorbike but once kids, daycare, schools and 10Kg of groceries per week come in to your life things change.

Most grocery stores in the places I’ve lived offer online shopping. From Amazon Fresh to Carrefour. Try it, it will save you so much effort.

For sure! If your living situation allows it that’s definitely the cheapest option, at least for car budget.

Better for the environment too.

Not the case in central/eastern Europe (where most personally owned vehicles are second hand)

>people driving it have no idea what they are doing + have no need for that capacity.

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.

Get a MiniVan (called a people carrier in the UK) if you need the capacity, not an SUV. Better MPG, less likely to flip over, similar or greater capacity.

And sliding doors, which are one of the best inventions ever when it comes to getting kids in and out of the car in tight spaces and garages.

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.

SUVs have a dreadful record for safety. They feel safe, because they're so big, but they really aren't more safe than smaller vehicles.

>3 kids that fit in 3 car seats

Would all fit in a compact

Car seats are massive and I’m pretty sure they’re deliberately designed so that few models will fit three to a row. They certainly don’t fit in my compact or my crossover. Putting them in my compact also requires me to drive with my chest on the steering wheel.

show me a compact that can take 3 car seats and have isofix mounts for all 3 of them.

Here's a long list, along with a list of carseats that have been tested "3 across" in those cars. A minivan or SUV would undoubtedly be easier to load kids in and out of, of course.


There isn't a single compact car on the market which fits a family of five - three children in ISO-fix seats and two adults in the front.

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.

Agreed, there are very few cars on the market that fit the bill. There's the Ford S-Max, Peugeot 5008, and the Audi Q7 (which is ludicrously big) - I think that's it.

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.

I have the Citroën c4 spaceturer which also does this.

The ww Turan is also a option.

Maybe because not many people have triplets? My parents had five children and never had more than one baby seat in the car at a time (they only ever bought one baby seat).

Laws have changed over time. When we got our third our oldest was 6. She was still required to be in a kid seat.

Most of those have the "third" set of mounts in the front passenger seat. Is it common to put kids in the front seat in the UK?

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)

I don't know if its a legal requirement, but every car with passenger airbags I've ridden in over the last five years at least has had the ability to disable the passenger airbag, and clear warnings that you should do so if a child is in the front seat.

A lot of those cars arnt compacts. Something like the Grand C4 Picasso is SUV size. And for the compacts they say:

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.

The ISOFIX requirement is the big constraining factor. Ditch that and you can find combinations of compact car and child seats which will fit three across, though you’ll have less choice in terms of child seats.

Even if you ditch the ISOFIX requirement, it's still difficult to find a combination of 3 car seats that will fit across the back bench, even with large cars.

Technically, all cars can take 3 car seats (1 in the front, 2 in the back) if they have the mounts for it.

No kid who is small enough to be in a car seat should be in the front passenger seat.

And the space. I doubt any normal family car I've ever driven could fit a rear-facing baby seat behind a tall person in the driver's seat, for example.

Roads that have always been able to pass sensibly-sized cars on either side are effectively one-way now because of all the outsize vehicles.

You see them everywhere in urban and rural Australia too, though the aussies call them ute.

Honestly if my family is going to own just one car, it will be a SUV, instead of a sedan/compact.

Ute for utility vehicle, I presume?

Reminds me of My Cousin Vinny.