Jump to content

Why not Cybertruck?


Is the Cybertruck worth the money?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Cyber truck

    • YES
      11
    • NO
      10
    • I am a Ford loyalist WHO WILL DIE to see this thing fail
      0


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Looks weird. Also the bed looks microscopic...

Bed is the same as every other crew cab PU with a short bed (F-150 Raptor Crew Cab at ~54k$ for example). 6.5 feet.

People keep comparing it to full size beds (huge trucks that can drop 4x8 sheets in with the gate closed), and not the other crew cabs.

I need something to haul yard debris to the dump, buy stuff at Lowes, or sometimes furniture, camping, etc. It takes 4x8 sheets like other shortbeds with the tailgate down.

I'd prefer the 500+ mile range, but not as keen on the 69k price for that, but the 50k$ one is right there with other 4x4 crewcabs in decent trim, and it has everything included except full self driving (comes with highway self driving, and you can add the full driving later if it actually starts working).

It also has 16" clearance (and nothing underneath to alter that). I assume since it lowers on the highway, it can also "kneel" for entry (the Rover does that, which my wife likes when she wears skirts that are too tight to really climb up, and needs to sort of rotate in).

I haven't pre-ordered, though I'm honestly thinking about it.

50 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Looks like a joke that went over a lot of people's heads. Also, poor aerodynamics.

Compared to other pickup trucks?

Also, 0-60 in 2.9 seconds (high end), 4.5s mid level. Seems OK, that's faster than my BMW (and the high end is the equal or better to 60 than 6 of 9 current model Ferraris).

Edited by tater
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

Also, poor aerodynamics.

Source?

According to an engineer that's modeled the airflow it's surprisingly aerodynamic. More than traditional Ute's anyway.

https://electrek.co/2019/11/25/tesla-cybertruck-aerodynamics-cfd-rendering/

Not having flat sides might make loading/unloading more difficult, as well as lack of tie-downs (unless inside the bed area?). On the other hand, the sides look like they protect the load more from wind.  The integrated loading ramp in the tailgate is awesome (has anybody else done that before?).

Personally I like it, although not in the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add something else about it. If they had shown the truck, and mentioned 3 trim levels, with the stated 0-60 speed, range, etc, and didn't announce the price---what would people be guessing about the price?

The high end would have to be Model X Performance level territory, right? That's 110k. This has more range, and is faster for the same-ish seats (there's a 6 seat and 7 seat X, 6 is more, oddly)---so maybe more than the X? 120k? 140k? It's stunningly reasonable for what it is. The fact that it's so... cheap, is just astounding to me. I was honestly expecting full "Apple" pricing on it. Look, an iMac Pro starting at "only" $4999!

Even the high end one would be cheaper than what I'm driving now (and with full self driving added), and it would be more useful for me to have a PU bed sometimes (generally I borrow my buddy's beater PU for that).

If it wasn't so far off, I'd be more likely to just buy one, frankly, that's the problem with these long time frame dev cycles, if it's available in 2021, that's when I'll think about it again.

Edited by tater
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tater said:

Bed is the same as every other crew cab PU with a short bed (F-150 Raptor Crew Cab at ~54k$ for example). 6.5 feet.

People keep comparing it to full size beds (huge trucks that can drop 4x8 sheets in with the gate closed), and not the other crew cabs.

Oh, I'm aware. I say the same thing about short bed pickups. A bit of an exaggeration, sure, but I just don't see the point of short bed pickups, besides maybe towing. The bed is too small to really be useful and there are better options for passenger transport. Heck, I've transported things in my minivan that are too big for a short bed truck, and I can reconfigure it to transport people as well. Actually I think some minivans can also tow small trailers as well. (Yeah I'm a bit biased towards minivans... though actual vans have even larger towing capacities rivalling trucks)

If Cybertruck had a longer bed and didn't have that weird slope-down it'd look much better imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tater said:

n 2.9 seconds (high end), 4.5s mid level. Seems OK, that's faster than my BMW (and the high end is the equal or better to 60 than 6 of 9 current model Ferraris).

You can usually compensate for high drag with a high power powerplant. Mileage, on the other hand, will be decreased due to the bigger energy consumption compared to a less draggy design that could use a smaller engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bill Phil said:

Oh, I'm aware. I say the same thing about short bed pickups. A bit of an exaggeration, sure, but I just don't see the point of short bed pickups, besides maybe towing. The bed is too small to really be useful and there are better options for passenger transport. Heck, I've transported things in my minivan that are too big for a short bed truck, and I can reconfigure it to transport people as well. Actually I think some minivans can also tow small trailers as well. (Yeah I'm a bit biased towards minivans... though actual vans have even larger towing capacities rivalling trucks)

If Cybertruck had a longer bed and didn't have that weird slope-down it'd look much better imo.

Yeah, the look is growing on me, actually---all PUs are ugly (the Land Cruiser Crew Cab PUs (FJ45) are super ugly---and I love them for it). Short bed? Drop the tailgate, throw the xmas tree in there, or bags of cement, etc? Hauling to the dump? That works for me, I don't need that often, but when I do I have to pay someone to haul stuff, or borrow a truck from a friend.

As a 6 seater car? Works for me, we don't put that many in often (kids with friends, or kids plus a couple grandparents is the only time we hit 6).

I haul stuff in the rover, fold the seats down, and get a surprising amount in. Heck, when I had my old Saab 900, I put an entire patio table, chairs and umbrella in the back, the people at the loading dock were amazed... so yeah, you can get a lot in even a hatchback. That said, the ability to just hose it out is nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, micha said:

Source?

According to an engineer that's modeled the airflow it's surprisingly aerodynamic. More than traditional Ute's anyway.

https://electrek.co/2019/11/25/tesla-cybertruck-aerodynamics-cfd-rendering/

Not having flat sides might make loading/unloading more difficult, as well as lack of tie-downs (unless inside the bed area?). On the other hand, the sides look like they protect the load more from wind.  The integrated loading ramp in the tailgate is awesome (has anybody else done that before?).

Personally I like it, although not in the market.

This also showed up on my feed today. From what I've seen in other sources, though, the dude used Re = 5000 for his simulation - completely inappropriate for a car, resulting in completely different results when compared to real tests. A car would be in the n * 105 to 10range, and sharply angled surfaces aren't exactly low-drag in that range.

CFD is one of those things where getting results is easy. Getting correct results, on the other hand, is a completely different subject.

Edited by Aperture Science
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aperture Science said:

You can usually compensate for high drag with a high power powerplant. Mileage, on the other hand, will be decreased due to the bigger energy consumption compared to a less draggy design that could use a smaller engine.

All electrics are going to clobber gas engines on torque, hence 0-60. Driving in performance mode will certainly lower range, but my friend gets ranges he'd expect on trips with his Model 3, I bet this is similar. I'm sure the range figures are with the cover deployed, too, range will suffer as a bed-open PU, to be sure. Of course for that use, it's likely in town anyway.

One thing from riding in Teslas, the accelerate is... unlike a gas car, even a fast, high end gas car. 0-60 feels like... the only analog I have is aerobatics in a Stearman biplane ride I took years ago. Then on the highway at 65, and punching it felt exactly the same as 0-60, I could feel my organs shifting as we went to 90 (standard mode, not performance).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

the thing looks like a combine apc from hl2, I'm guessing someone at tesla got overexcited for half-life alyx

119.jpg

I honestly like the SF look of it, I won't lie. And the raw metal, reminds me of an older car of mine...

j13UPPB.jpg

^^^the 109, with an aftermarket overdrive might get to 60 going downhill, and it would take half an hour, not 4.5 seconds ;)

 

 

Edited by tater
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aperture Science said:

CFD is one of those things where getting results is easy. Getting correct results, on the other hand, is a completely different subject.

Thank you for elaborating; I saw that analysis a couple of days ago but took it at face value as I have very little clue about aerodynamics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. 

Because the "unbreakable" glass this and other new cars use should be illegal. I've watched enough people roast to death while trapped in cars for one lifetime. Safety glass exists for more than one reason.

Plus I'm happy with my (weak) 300HP/300lbft gasoline-electric hybrid that can move lumber just as easily as this Tesledge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it works as long as your conscious. You need to allow firemen to access people inside the car, no matter what (yes, they can probably use those saws they have to cut down the car, but it usually is faster to break a window or remove the windshield).

It really seems to me that the Cybertruck is going backward on the road safety thing. The angled shapes for instance, I think they're quite bad when hitting pedestrians. A lot of car design try to account for the fact that the car will hit people, and tries to actually reduce damages and inflict damages on body part that are easy to fix or not to bad to hit (they try to hit for the legs instead of the knee or the torso, etc). With all this reinforced hull which does not seems to bulge in impact, means that it does not absorb kinetic energy either, which is then transferred to the people impacted by the car. There's a reason cars deform themselves on impact.

But then, I haven't see if there's any crash tests at low speed (30 to 50 km.h) results published and maybe I'm wrong about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cydonian Monk said:

Because the "unbreakable" glass this and other new cars use should be illegal. I've watched enough people roast to death while trapped in cars for one lifetime. Safety glass exists for more than one reason.

This is actually a pretty reasonable issue that I have heard no one else mention. Agreed.

That said, I'd be OK with the side glass different from the windshield. I'm driving with a crack right now because 5 days after replacing my old windshield, I got hit by a huge rock, and the windshield cracked during that trip (no time to resin it, was taking my wife to testify in a malpractice lawsuit (she repaired the other guy's mistake) a few hours from here, by the time we got home, crack). I've since gotten 2 big rock chips. That's $1500 in insurance deductible I would have spent to replace them. I'd love the windshield to be at the very least chip proof from 60mph rocks.

3 hours ago, Okhin said:

Well, it works as long as your conscious. You need to allow firemen to access people inside the car, no matter what (yes, they can probably use those saws they have to cut down the car, but it usually is faster to break a window or remove the windshield).

It really seems to me that the Cybertruck is going backward on the road safety thing. The angled shapes for instance, I think they're quite bad when hitting pedestrians. A lot of car design try to account for the fact that the car will hit people, and tries to actually reduce damages and inflict damages on body part that are easy to fix or not to bad to hit (they try to hit for the legs instead of the knee or the torso, etc). With all this reinforced hull which does not seems to bulge in impact, means that it does not absorb kinetic energy either, which is then transferred to the people impacted by the car. There's a reason cars deform themselves on impact.

But then, I haven't see if there's any crash tests at low speed (30 to 50 km.h) results published and maybe I'm wrong about it.

Yeah, but this is no worse, and probably better than other trucks. Pickup trucks here are huge, and the fronts are simply walls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, but this is no worse, and probably better than other trucks. Pickup trucks here are huge, and the fronts are simply walls.

Yeah, I'm european, I tend to forgot how huge those trucks can be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Okhin said:

Yeah, I'm european, I tend to forgot how huge those trucks can be.

gmc-life-sierra1500-AT4-Reveal-1-19PGSR0

^^^this is what it's competing against (same size). And this:

2019-ford-f-150-raptor-001.jpg

Here are the last (blue) truck and Cybertruck superimposed:

190516_009_764A0802_FordF150-tesla-2-2-6

On the road the Cybertruck is supposed to lower from the huge clearance shown to improve range, so maybe that helps (depends on what speed it takes to do that).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cydonian Monk said:

Because the "unbreakable" glass this and other new cars use should be illegal. I've watched enough people roast to death while trapped in cars for one lifetime. Safety glass exists for more than one reason.

 

That glass appears to be all but unbreakable, as what the "guest" used against the window (and the door) seems to be a demo blow hammer. Without counting that standard glasses are already resistant to hammering:

Also, don't forget that the demonstration model is currently without any side-mirrors, making it illegal in the U.S.

 

 

Now "beauty" is relative to everybody. In my case, it's a no-go. I like straight lines rather than curved ones, but here I just can't stand those (while I really like their Model S' lines). This re-design shared on Reddit would already attract me a bit more:

hfjyl3pz52141.jpg

 

While being all but a pickup and SUV fan, if I had to chose an electric one for now, I would go for the Mustang-E (by the way, shame on Ford for transferring such an iconic name to an SUV).

 

Right now it's just a wait-and-see to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, XB-70A said:

That glass appears to be all but unbreakable, as what the "guest" used against the window (and the door) seems to be a demo blow hammer. Without counting that standard glasses are already resistant to hammering:

I'd think that that hammer would dent the $#@! out of my rover door. Also, does it matter what the hammer is, if it dents a regular door, and not these doors?

A better test might be to park it next to a large SUV, and have some kid slam the door open into Cybertruck and see if it dents/scratches it. We all have dings like that in all of our cars, probably.

EDIT: The guy that made the video is a wuss, IMO. If you're gonna post a "busted" video about that, you should get a similar hammer, and hit your own car with it.

 

7 hours ago, XB-70A said:

Also, don't forget that the demonstration model is currently without any side-mirrors, making it illegal in the U.S.

Yeah, this was interesting to me. The Roadster is the same, I think. All the vehicles have multiple cameras, and the Cybertruck rearview mirror is in fact a screen, using the rear camera, it's not a mirror (so it works with the bed closed/blocked). Maybe there is a camera solution possible (put screens for the mirrors, and use cameras).

7 hours ago, XB-70A said:

Now "beauty" is relative to everybody. In my case, it's a no-go. I like straight lines rather than curved ones, but here I just can't stand those (while I really like their Model S' lines). This re-design shared on Reddit would already attract me a bit more:

The only functional reason for this change is side access to the (short) bed. This comes at the expense of having better aerodynamics, probably reducing range. All this for the aesthetic of signalling "pickup truck" via a notch. I tend to think the polarizing design is actually a feature.

What's the most common, deeply ugly car of the last XX years to me? The Toyota Prius. It was designed to obviously be Prius at any angle, from most any range of view. Studies (a brother and sister pair of economists that I heard on Freakanomics, I think) showed that similar hybrids in capability sold equally well in places like TX, but in the Bay Area, nearly 100% of hybrids were Priuses---it was about signalling, not capability. I think from a branding POV, this truck is pretty brilliant. There will be no mistaking it, it's a rolling advertisement that brands Tesla as futuristic (whatever you might think of the looks). Yeah, many might consider it ugly, but no PU is pretty, really, and the PU market is something on the order of 100 billion a year. If even half of the pre-orders they got actually buy ($100 refundable to pre-order, so many won't buy), they've already sold almost 8 billion worth. There's a sustainable market for people who think it looks cool that's worth some billions a year, certainly.

 

Edited by tater
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...