Tesla Unveils the Cybertruck...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70
  1. #1
    feelin' Freddie Mercury
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    33,036

    Tesla Unveils the Cybertruck...

    ...and even I don't like it.

    Yes, the specs (payload, towing cap, 0-60 times) are all pretty impressive, and it's more affordable than I thought it was going to be ($40-70K, depending on model level). The stainless steel body is also pretty cool (shout out to the DeLorean!), as is the built-in ramp.

    BUT, styling-wise, it looks like it escaped from a 1980s sci-fi movie set. You know, the kind of movie where they try to imagine what cars will look like in 2025. And in this case, they imagined an angry-looking low pyramid on wheels.

    I can only imagine the reaction on the job site if you pull up in one of these. For that reason alone, I think the market for these will be limited.

    Still though, it'll draw lots of attention and mindshare, as most polarizing things do.






    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...sk/4268316002/
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  2. #2
    feelin' Freddie Mercury
    Reputation: SystemShock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    33,036
    ps – I do get that in a market segment as crowded and competitive as the pickup truck, Tesla couldn't really just release a 'safe, me-too looking' pickup and expect it to make a splash. It did have to be a bit edgy and disruptive-looking.

    But man, there is such a thing as not going full retard. They went full retard.

    Maybe something more like the speculative render below would've worked better... one foot firmly set in the future, but not 'a bridge too far', either.



    ..... (^ what could have been)
    Monkhouse: I want to go like my Dad did – peacefully, in his sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.

    System: Fake news?? Trump's a Fake President, for God's sake.

    Plat: I'd rather fellate a syphilitic goat than own a Cervelo.

    Homer: I believe that children are our future. Unless we stop them now.

    Seam: Saw Bjork poop onstage back in the day. It blew my teenage mind


  3. #3
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    28,441
    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    ...and even I don't like it.

    Yes, the specs (payload, towing cap, 0-60 times) are all pretty impressive, and it's more affordable than I thought it was going to be ($40-70K, depending on model level). The stainless steel body is also pretty cool (shout out to the DeLorean!), as is the built-in ramp.

    BUT, styling-wise, it looks like it escaped from a 1980s sci-fi movie set. You know, the kind of movie where they try to imagine what cars will look like in 2025. And in this case, they imagined an angry-looking low pyramid on wheels.

    I can only imagine the reaction on the job site if you pull up in one of these. For that reason alone, I think the market for these will be limited.

    Still though, it'll draw lots of attention and mindshare, as most polarizing things do.






    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...sk/4268316002/
    Falcon 3.0 called. They want their low-poly truck model back.

    Sarcasm aside...I doubt there is anyway in hell they can get something that unaerodynamic to have a 500 mile range for $80,000USD. You need a battery cell so large it costs more than the street price a fully kitted out Performance model Tesla. Ford's BEV truck was spec'd for a 400 mile range and estimates are it is well into 6-figures, due to non-aerodynamics and the needed size of the cell.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  4. #4
    Seat's not level
    Reputation: Chain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    19,288
    it also comes with a full race suit....
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • This forum requires that you wait 2 days between posts. Please try again in 17 hours.

  5. #5
    Darling of The Lounge
    Reputation: Retro Grouch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    4,360
    Musk's interpretation of a truck is an interesting one. It may play well with an urbanite who needs to purchase some slabs of Italian marble at the local Home Depot for a kitchen renovation project or for hauling trail toys from the cul-de-sac to the great outdoors. I'm not sure if it will appeal to a flannel shirt consumer that eats lunch from a pail and drinks from a thermos.

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    3,329
    Truckstang!
    BANNED

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Wetworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,140
    Did anyone not see the issues with the durability demos? The door panel actually wavered from the sledgehammer hit, and the ballistic windows spidered from what looked like a lob from the guy. Or maybe I'm not seeing this correctly.

  8. #8
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    ...The stainless steel body is also pretty cool (shout out to the DeLorean!), as is the built-in ramp...
    In this "race for efficiency", and with "range anxiety" concerns, I really don't understand why manufacturers are putting out vehicles that are increasingly heavier...EV and combustion alike. Shouldn't lighter weight be a focus as well? Powered doors/latches, cappuccino machines (new S8 option...that is kinda baller though), adjustable ride height systems, heated/cooled/massaging seats, seem to be becoming standard options, and all just seem like unnecessary weight keeping range extension from advancing.

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: pulser955's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,683
    I think this is nothing more the Musk trolling everyone. I don’t see how this is a finished product. It doesn’t look like it would pass any kind of crash test or pedestrian safety standards. I think what’s under this truck is going to be in the final product. But what your seeing is not what people will be buying in a year or 2. Tesla needs money to make this truck and Musk and a few of his engineers got together and came up with a way to get people to throw money at them and screw with all the people that think Musk is some kind of god.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: davesupra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,899
    What was up with breaking the unbreakable windows? lol
    Liars often accuse you of lying. - Steve Maraboli

    The word of the week = racist.

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,542
    It’s certainly different, but I can’t say I totally hate it in the context of a utilitarian truck. Trucks aren’t supposed to be pretty, they are supposed to do stuff, and other than awkward bed access, this seems to be pretty good at that.

    In this case, the angularity seems to be a big manufacturing benefit. The thick stainless steel body panels can be stamped flat. I think the idea is that they can produce stainless panels for close the cost of normal curved non-stainless panels. Then, because they are using stainless, there’s no paint. The odd overall shape is likely an aero thing- can’t fault them for that.

  12. #12
    Seat's not level
    Reputation: Chain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    19,288
    Quote Originally Posted by colnagoG60 View Post
    In this "race for efficiency", and with "range anxiety" concerns, I really don't understand why manufacturers are putting out vehicles that are increasingly heavier...EV and combustion alike. Shouldn't lighter weight be a focus as well? Powered doors/latches, cappuccino machines (new S8 option...that is kinda baller though), adjustable ride height systems, heated/cooled/massaging seats, seem to be becoming standard options, and all just seem like unnecessary weight keeping range extension from advancing.
    It's a status symbol with a thin veil of "I'm being efficient". Kind of like an well insulated McMansion... it still takes a carpload of energy to run, but it uses state of the art insulation and heating... I'm saving the world, but dang, I want to be comfortable..
    • This forum requires that you wait 2 days between posts. Please try again in 17 hours.

  13. #13
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Reputation: old_fuji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7,710
    It looks like a low-poly render of a non-player car in an early 1990's racing videogame.
    I lost my phone number. Can I have yours?

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,542
    Quote Originally Posted by colnagoG60 View Post
    In this "race for efficiency", and with "range anxiety" concerns, I really don't understand why manufacturers are putting out vehicles that are increasingly heavier...EV and combustion alike. Shouldn't lighter weight be a focus as well? Powered doors/latches, cappuccino machines (new S8 option...that is kinda baller though), adjustable ride height systems, heated/cooled/massaging seats, seem to be becoming standard options, and all just seem like unnecessary weight keeping range extension from advancing.
    The weight has a lot to do with crash resilience. It's really hard to make a light weight vehicle that does well in crash tests. For EVs, more weight means more battery cells- so it directly helps increase range.

  15. #15
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    28,441
    Quote Originally Posted by colnagoG60 View Post
    In this "race for efficiency", and with "range anxiety" concerns, I really don't understand why manufacturers are putting out vehicles that are increasingly heavier...EV and combustion alike. Shouldn't lighter weight be a focus as well? Powered doors/latches, cappuccino machines (new S8 option...that is kinda baller though), adjustable ride height systems, heated/cooled/massaging seats, seem to be becoming standard options, and all just seem like unnecessary weight keeping range extension from advancing.

    Some of those things don't add much to weight....although they do add to range worries (seat heaters). The ultimate problem...lighter weight is "easy" to do if you either raise the price astronomically (carbon fiber body like some "race" cars that cost 7-figures) and/or you make durability a real problem. In China, right now, they have some crazy light BEVs right now with amazing range consequently---but are also dirt cheap compared to any new US auto...but I would wager money there is no way on Earth they'd pass a proper safety inspection and/or collision test.


    Durability ends up being a real problem, with any contemporary auto. Cars of course crumple by design....but with BEVs and even ICE-hybrids they can easily crumple in a minor/moderate collision enough to damage the battery cell....at which point the car is for all intents totaled, due to the cost of replacing the Cell. My 2010 Honda Insight I bought used last year for $5500USD (pricing error on dealership's part), I looked it up and the cost of a new Cell was $4,500USD.

    What is more, even non-hybrid ICE cars can have obnoxious cost to fix body damage. Many cars have gone to lighter-weight "unibody" construction. Which is great for lowering curb weight. But in a collision you can no longer just replace a crumpled body panel from a minor fender-bender. My Honda is a unibody--idiot backed into my rear quarter panel/door and did "minor damage" as such things go in a Honda versus Hummer collision (yes, of course he drove a Hummer)---cost to fix it was $3,000USD 2/3 of which was fixing the unibody of the car.
    "Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity "

  16. #16
    Cleavage Of The Tetons
    Reputation: rideit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,372
    Does Musk have a seven year old boy?
    Because a seven year old boy drew that truck on some lined paper in crayon.

  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by old_fuji View Post
    It looks like a low-poly render of a non-player car in an early 1990's racing videogame.
    Further back.



  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by SystemShock View Post
    Maybe something more like the speculative render below would've worked better... one foot firmly set in the future, but not 'a bridge too far', either.



    ..... (^ what could have been)
    More like nostalgic render.


  19. #19
    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
    Reputation: old_fuji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    7,710
    Quote Originally Posted by bvber View Post
    Further back.


    https://www.myabandonware.com/game/stunt-driver-10x
    I lost my phone number. Can I have yours?

  20. #20
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    The weight has a lot to do with crash resilience. It's really hard to make a light weight vehicle that does well in crash tests. For EVs, more weight means more battery cells- so it directly helps increase range.
    I get that batteries are heavy, and the weight of wiring for "EVs" is significant and not often thought about. However the heated/cooled/massaging seats, powered charge door/rear hatch door and door handles, entire car that raises when you open the door so you don't have to bend down as much, are all examples of "non-necessities" which do not require significant investment ro lower weight... again, in both EV and gas vehicles.

    A 15lbs basic manual seat vs. 100lbs+ "luxury" seat is a good place to start to shave 200-300lbs. The cumulative affect of removing these comforts, even in the lower end models, would be significant, before you even start talking about light weight materials. At least offer a stripper model. The damage resistant body panels Saturn was using 30 years ago should have some use these days, or at least serve as a good starting point for additional development.

    Point is, having half my cylinders shut down for better highway efficiency doesn't mean as much to me if the car is 300lbs heavier than the last model. It just seems like industry goals are counter productive.

    Side note, I'm hating the move towards "all touch panel", and the inherent need for extended glances. I balked at having to pay $1,000 to replace my '92 Corrado's instrument cluster. I can't imagine what it will cost to replace an automotive grade display.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,823
    Still the 80's.


  22. #22
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: nealric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,542
    Quote Originally Posted by colnagoG60 View Post
    I get that batteries are heavy, and the weight of wiring for "EVs" is significant and not often thought about. However the heated/cooled/massaging seats, powered charge door/rear hatch door and door handles, entire car that raises when you open the door so you don't have to bend down as much, are all examples of "non-necessities" which do not require significant investment ro lower weight... again, in both EV and gas vehicles.

    A 15lbs basic manual seat vs. 100lbs+ "luxury" seat is a good place to start to shave 200-300lbs. The cumulative affect of removing these comforts, even in the lower end models, would be significant, before you even start talking about light weight materials. At least offer a stripper model. The damage resistant body panels Saturn was using 30 years ago should have some use these days, or at least serve as a good starting point for additional development.

    Point is, having half my cylinders shut down for better highway efficiency doesn't mean as much to me if the car is 300lbs heavier than the last model. It just seems like industry goals are counter productive.

    Side note, I'm hating the move towards "all touch panel", and the inherent need for extended glances. I balked at having to pay $1,000 to replace my '92 Corrado's instrument cluster. I can't imagine what it will cost to replace an automotive grade display.
    Weight doesn't matter much for freeway cruising efficiency anyways- it's mostly aero and motor efficiency there. It's mostly important for acceleration.

    Panel displays really aren't that expensive, and getting cheaper. Wouldn't surprise me if it's not much more than your Carrado's instrument cluster (inflation adjusted) in a few years.

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by pulser955 View Post
    I think this is nothing more the Musk trolling everyone. I don’t see how this is a finished product. It doesn’t look like it would pass any kind of crash test or pedestrian safety standards. I think what’s under this truck is going to be in the final product. But what your seeing is not what people will be buying in a year or 2. Tesla needs money to make this truck and Musk and a few of his engineers got together and came up with a way to get people to throw money at them and screw with all the people that think Musk is some kind of god.
    If there is one thing Musk is good at its selling hype. No need to trade in your F-150 just yet

  24. #24
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Henry Chinaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,552
    I ****ing love it. It's a goddamn Aztek.

    It's gonna be a tough call between this and the electric Mustang SUV when the Alfa lease is up.

  25. #25
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by nealric View Post
    Weight doesn't matter much for freeway cruising efficiency anyways- it's mostly aero and motor efficiency there. It's mostly important for acceleration.

    Panel displays really aren't that expensive, and getting cheaper. Wouldn't surprise me if it's not much more than your Carrado's instrument cluster (inflation adjusted) in a few years.
    Fair enough, but most commutes aren't uninterrupted highway cruises.

    As far as panels, a dead section of screen, or bad connection would necessitate an entire panel replacement. Compared to the cost of a bad button or knob, its significantly higher. But the need to scroll, or dig through a menu to reach a function while driving is a bad move IMHO. Some menus literally scroll like a web page. With companies touting their great new safety features, I'm not seeing how the touchscreen is helping...but I guess that's why all the autonomous safety features are being added.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-30-2015, 10:16 AM
  2. Discovery Unveils New Team Bicycle
    By Art853 in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-02-2006, 08:53 AM
  3. HED Unveils STALINGRADS!!!
    By Akirasho in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-01-2006, 01:44 PM
  4. With Input From Ullrich, Giant Unveils New Team Time Trial Rig!
    By Akirasho in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-23-2005, 12:15 PM
  5. Sheldon Brown Unveils New ''Nanodrive"!!
    By Akirasho in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-03-2004, 11:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.