I'm nostalgic about those things.
So this polygonal look is targeting my demo.
...
That is the goddamned ugliest vehicle I've ever seen.
Let me try to beat that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Multipla#/media/File:Fiat...
My hunch is that this is because we use some of the same mental wiring for processing human faces to process the front of a car. (Automotive designers refer to the front of a car as its "face".) So we think it's ugly because some of the same wiring that recoils to disfiguring human faces is kicking in.
I just stumbled onto: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26181746
They were fairly popular 10-ish years ago but I don't think Fiat will ever do that again.
I don’t think the mandate was “make this look strange” as much as it was “make this thing rugged and fast and powerful and we’re perfectly fine with it looking strange”.
We’ll see if they were successful, but I like the ambition. I’ll be curious, too, to see if some of this more radical thinking comes over to the Tesla Semi.
Sure, if you’re just throwing a tool box in the back then you’re fine. Then again you didn’t need a truck to begin with.
That's only going to add to its dystopic future flair.
Granted, that's not a lot of construction trucks. But quite a few.
2. How do you carry a ladder, roof rack, or box on this thing?
3. Where do I tie down the countless odd-shaped items that a work truck carries?
4. How do I mount a deck for bigger equipment on this truck?
5. Is 250 top range enough for a work truck that does field service and likely hauls significant weight?
This thing is less truck than the original Honda Ridgeline and that's saying something. You'll see one at the mall before you see one in the field.
That design element alone has turned this into primarily a fun/status vehicle IMHO.
the bed cover looks awesome though, and I love the ramp from the tailgate. that's fantastic.
Reference: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer
As China's economy grew a number of American truck/van designs started looking more weird to western eyes like the Multipla than anything the likes of Dodge had previously designed. Designs target intended markets first and foremost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_S-Cargo
Also, it has a pun in the name.
I think there is something insect-like about the bulbous part that houses the lights - I wonder if perhaps something about the shape is triggering something innate, similar to how we may be hard-wired to fear snakes?
I can get behind the ugliness of vehicles like the Cybertruck because it just looks absurd, but the Fiat is just grotesque.
The Cybertruck is overtly synthetic and brutalist. It's to be admired for its impressiveness, not its beauty.
I recommend not looking at pictures.
https://media.wired.com/photos/593252a1edfced5820d0fa07/mast...
I honestly feel like it could be something out of Altered Carbon, or Cyberpunk 2077.
Id love to drive a road car that looked like this.
Also, the geometry of the body is more functional that it is for form and that probably puts at least a few people off.
Will be very interesting to see how middle America responds. Truck buyers tend to be a traditionalist bunch.
The design was very divisive when it rolled out but I find it still looks awesome ten years down the road.
I think it's one of the reasons I like cars like the Kia Soul so much. They look… fun.
I think what we're seeing is what happens when there is no one around to say 'no' to a company. Tesla is being fed, by everyone in at least the US, that they are the future and are prophets of what is to come.
So you take the attitude of 'I can do nothing wrong' and add a dash of Musk's inherent God-Complex, and mix it into the culture there.
And this is what you get.
That's my theory.
They’re quite possibly the only car company who has had actual skin in the game in recent years.
The rest of them just went begging to Daddy (Congress) when they got themselves fully fucked.
Your notion that GM, Ford, etc are somehow living in “the real world” seems willfully ignorant of history.
Who, in your mind, are the companies other than Tesla, if not Ford, GM, et al?
my comment: >I 100% disagree, and believe what you're doing is the classic English Major grasping for meaning where none was implied.
>I think what we're seeing is what happens when there is no one around to say 'no' to a company. Tesla is being fed, by everyone in at least the US, that they are the future and are prophets of what is to come.
>So you take the attitude of 'I can do nothing wrong' and add a dash of Musk's inherent God-Complex, and mix it into the culture there.
>And this is what you get.
>That's my theory.
Where are you reading whatever it is you're reading about "the rest"? Who are you replying to?
Maybe Tesla is banking on luring people who don't usually buy trucks, or that truck buyers are so hungry for an EV that they'll go for it. But someone who doesn't usually buy trucks, would just buy a Model 3 or Y.
Traditional truck buyers tend to be fiercely loyal to their brand so they'd probably be more likely to wait for EV versions from the favorite truck brand.
Trucks are very much a product that identifies you as "one of us" vs "one of them". The Cybertruck will fail that test utterly. Owning one screams "I'm one of THEM". Not what you want if you want to make inroads in the mainstream pickup market. (Not to mention that recharging a truck with a 220V line in rural America, where folks often park nowhere near their house, will be a major problem.)
Yes, this truck will be popular initially among well-heeled yuppies who want to stand out -- probably taken entirely from the existing Tesla S market (or S wannabes). But unless you leave SF/NYC/Boston every once in a while, you don't realize how small that world really is. No more than 5% of this country can afford an S. And while this truck is more affordable than an S, its appeal is much narrower. It will attract only the vanishingly small Venn intersection space that's Tesla S + pickup-drivers-who-don't-actually-haul-anything.
This thing will flash on the radar for a year or two, in small sales numbers, then die utterly, with poor sales used thereafter, once the fashionista bloom fades.
Good point though about the outdoor charging, but running an external charger is cheap and easy on rural property. Some diesels have block heaters anyway.
What will be interesting to see is the range when towing. This thing will have the torque of 350 diesels, but what about the range in towing, compared to dual tanks. Operating costs could be far less with electricity.
Translation: "I've never been to Dallas or Houston."
The Tesla Pickup was never going to make inroads there. The way is blocked.
They are focusing entirely on the small but growing market of democrats who demand EV's, and may also need a truck.
Are there enough buyers out there of quasi-trucks for the Cybertruck to thrive (no) much less survive (doubtful). Even now, Honda isn't selling as many of their quasi-trucks as they hoped since that market stratum is not as predictable as other more stereotypeable strata like minivans or commuters or... big pickups.
I don't know what motivates a mainstream carmaker to build a niche product like this. But whatever is motivating Tesla to build the Cybertruck smacks of the same cluelessness that gave us the Hummer. And the Edsel.
Seriously, the cluelessness that gave us the Hummer didn't matter when Arnold Schawzenneger made it the only car he drove.
The Rock could do the same thing with the Cyber Truck.
I'd say "off-road-capable truck that requires no gas and has better specs and lower pricepoints than nearly all other electric pickups" is pretty compelling. The only electric pickup coming up (to my knowledge) that looks more compelling than this is the Atlis XT.
But only because of the cult-like following of Musk and Tesla.
So I guess, it's a chicken an egg question with this thing. Will it be popular because of what it is, or will it be popular because of who made it.
And they'll be faster in a straight line too, so they can now get their e-peen off beating out the big, modded 600hp diesels and laughing about how they are so much more eco-friendly.
Weird how some people have different opinions on subjective matters right??
A well compensated white collar professional will get judged hard for driving a pickup in some social circles and I think this styling is to help get around that.
Is this a fact in (I'm assuming) NorCal?
I'm in one of the parts of the country where everyone drives pickups, so it kind of boggles my mind.
Does no one tow or haul things there?
I'm a well-compensated white collar professional in the bay area. I drive a 23yo bigass diesel pickup that I use for offroading, towing, hauling, camping, etc.
I don't get judged hard at all. Most folks thing it's quirky. I'd say I get judged more positively than not.
In NorCal outside of the bay area there are plenty of pickup trucks and the culture that goes with that.
The rest are pristine showroom objects that have never even touched a gravel road, let alone dirt.
And that haul one single person to the office and back every day at 12 MPG. Hooray.
edit: woops 12.7 l/100km is actually 18.5 mpg. All these years I thought 10l/100km was 30 mpg! must have done the conversion wrong once and been basing my whole life off it ever since. It's great to find out something you thought was true is not sometimes.
https://www.homedepot.com/tool-truck-rental/load-n-go-truck-...
I don't know about an F-250, but the last time I rented a car it was a walk-in at an Enterprise in Harrisburg, PA and I walked out with a Nissan pickup 30-ish minutes later.
Also, your average Home Depot or U-Haul typically has pickups for rent, specifically for this use case.
Last time I had to leave my car in the body shop after it was hit, my insurance got me a rental car from Enterprise. The only rentals available at the time were F-250s, so I drove a pickup truck to work and back for a week.
Why do you think that pick up trucks are unrentable?
Other parts of CA you'll get a lot of campers, boats, dirt bikes, mountain bikes... so yeah.
If anything I get asked if I'm a contractor.
There are a few perks to being country in the city.
Also the older the truck, the more OK it is (ironic considering older trucks are horrible on gas mileage) because then its a quirky hipster thing.
Suppose thats kind of the point you're making though, they're building a pickup that has indicators that its OK for "classy" people to drive.
A more-useless-than-average truck (no bed capacity; a back seat w/ headroom for children only; difficulty refueling or getting repairs in the backcountry; very high center of gravity) will have limited appeal aside from the novelty from being the first to own one. But that will fade within year one of ownership. Then where will non-pickup owners find themselves? With an especially fashion-motivated vehicle that's no longer fashionable. Or useful. Strike three.
I think Tesla could've met that desire without making the truck look like a low-polygon model from a teenager who just learned to use Blender.
Tesla's design language from it's other models could have been smartly applied to a truck design and they would've had a winner.
Because I'm in Dallas, and wealthy white-collar professionals driving big pickup trucks is pretty normal here. I could point out several in my company's parking lot.
* 10 times the PRICE. 10 times the cost means taking on 10 times the risk if units don't sell, while keeping the same reward (profit). :)
"Tesla Cybertruck (pressurized edition) will be official truck of Mars"
They have designed it to drive on Mars.
Premature Optimization if I have ever heard of it.
Having to remove a space suite so you can adjust the atmospheric controls sounds stupid.
Anyways, SpaceX space suits are compatible with touchscreens... And that seems unlikely to change given how easy it is to make them that way.
Even then, this truck doesn't appear particularly light compared to your average vehicle. It also has a ton of added weight from things that would be wasted on Mars like huge acceleration, unnecessary top speed, and the ability to withstand vehicular accidents that would never occur on Mars. Maybe Tesla tries to preserve the look of this car for whatever they may or may not eventually put on Mars, but I doubt it is going to be close to being this car.
The first car on the moon was unpressurized because the program was a once-cancelled afterthought designed to fit into a spare cargo bay and unfold, with tight mass constraints. MOLAB was impractical because of the upmass required, not because pressurization wouldn't have been useful.
Fair point. I don't see how that would work on this specific vehicle, but it is certainly works in general.
>The first car on the moon was unpressurized because the program was a once-cancelled afterthought designed to fit into a spare cargo bay and unfold, with tight mass constraints. MOLAB was impractical because of the upmass required, not because pressurization wouldn't have been useful.
A lot of those requirements still stand regarding mass. It isn't a question of whether a pressurized vehicle would be useful on Mars, it is a question of whether its usefulness is enough to justify its weight and this vehicle appears to have a lot of extra weight that would need justification.
It doesn't have to happen on the first trip. They could send the truck to Mars on one of the current rockets and just have it sit there until they're ready to use it. It's an electric vehicle. There's plenty of solar exposure on Mars, they can charge it over the course of weeks if they needed to, even though they don't, and the durability would guarantee that it could serve up there for years. It could literally just sit there and do nothing for the 3-5 years it takes them to build out a basic hab and a dock for it.
All your points about the benefits of an electric vehicle apply just as well to something lighter that is specifically and only designed for travel to and on Mars.
In general, Musk treats engineering as a scarce resource. If he can use a Tesla vehicle instead of designing a special rover, he will, even if it weighs a little more. Starship can handle more than 100 tons of payload and its successor will do four times that.
The steel is cheap on mars too (initially), since you ship it there anyways as part of the cargo starships, which aren't return to earth (since the energy to make fuel is initially really expensive on mars). Manufacture it in Mars and your basically just talking about shipping the batteries, motors, and a small amount of electronics (and machinery you will need anyways).
> true all-terrain body-on-frame construction
Why would you prefer this? It's just a form of construction that requires more materials, and results in a weak body that can be damaged. Furthermore, we get all the materials for the unibody design (lots of stainless steel) free from starships that won't return, and the material is easy to work with.
Mar's terrain is pretty simple. Rocks, and sand. We almost certainly will choose not to land on sand, so we only really need to deal with rocks. Cybertruck, really any earth vehicle with a reasonable clearance, should be able to deal with that well enough, maybe with some custom tires.
Thermal management, and problems relating to pressurization, are the only things that jump out as me as real difficulties. Neither sounds like it needs fundamental reworks though.
The first thing I want to send to the moon is a bulldozer, you could make one based on that platform.
Also it would be fun to road trip on the moon at the right speed to stay in the sun all month.
On Earth, it's ugly.
I've done it of course.
Most people would put 'buying access to a track' into the 'things I will never do'-box.
Track nights can be as low as $125 and you will hit triple digits.
But yea, $125 is equally as out of reach as being dropped on Mars.
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi...
Not if it's made of stainless steel - stuff is hard to cut and hard to weld (though might be easier in a non-oxygen rich environment like Mars).
For ease of manufacture and maintainability, plus a lot of other "pluses" - I actually like this truck:
Too bad it's unlikely it will be available for purchase in first world countries, if it ever gets to that phase.
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1015/7033/products/Centaur...
If the Porsche Cayenne is anything to go by it will do well
I agree! But at the same time I want one right now :-)
Brutalism has a deep beauty, that ramifies intricately as you examine it further, in the thought and process that went into this triumph of function.
Much of what we describe as beauty is no more than skin deep - a veneer of curves and shine, under which lurks incredible ugliness in both function and intent.
Perhaps we are confusing pretty and beautiful.
Well, yes, well-executed things tend to imbue some value or ideal. The vast majority of humans are exposed to extremely poor brutalism that is simply oppressive.
Whether you find that beautiful probably depends on how jaded you are. But it’s a matter of taste.
Source: I worked in a brutalist building for several years. It literally stood in as a prison in movies: terrible every day environment.
The truck is such a slap in the face to the standard car aesthetic. It’s jarring because it feels different and causes dissonance with what I know cars are allowed to look like. Some people will hate it purely because of that knee jerk reaction.
I’m not sure I like the look but I really like how iconoclastic it is.
Although maybe when it was trendy, brutalism looked like it was from the future too. Maybe in 20 years, this truck will be “just ugly” as well.
https://www.phaidon.com/agenda/architecture/articles/2018/se...
As is the nature of futurism.
https://d14e8oeg5e788p.cloudfront.net/content/56310/c8d68987...
http://oldconceptcars.com/wp-content/uploads/lancia_stratos_...
it's definitely not what is considered futurist today. It's not only ugly, but doesnt even fit well in a retro futurism classification. i know that there's no accounting for taste, but this is a uniquely ugly car, and not in an innovative way.
This will appeal to businesses that need to broadcast their eco sensibilities to us.
[0] https://rmsothebys-cache.azureedge.net/a/a/2/9/4/f/aa294f0f2...
Coke's response:
"Some cynics will say that we planned the whole thing. The truth is we're not that dumb and we're not that smart."
1970 Lancia Bertone Stratos http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-nZhhAcyh9Qg/VQxxoTBLCeI/AA...
1979 Insomnia, Dome Zero P2 http://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-g6cc2DJRJIM/VQsxHX-ND0I/AA...
Maserati Boomerang http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bkKWE1sC_dU/VQsxP3_Uk0I/AA...
1976 Alfa Romeo Navajo http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-11k8tJ20DtQ/VQsxIvr7Y1I/AA...
1980 Citroën Karin https://cdn0.wideopenroads.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ft...