Hacker News Reader

Comment by AYBABTME | Hacker News Reader

The author is trying pretty hard to pull this narrative. When I first saw it, I thought the Cybertruck looks hideous. But then, I don't care much what my car looks like. I often wished the outside of my Golf was more scrappy, rougher, something I don't need to care about denting. The Cybertruck would be perfect for me in that sense: you can use that truck and do a lot of work with it without having to worry about the paint or breaking something. It's a perfect design for it's intended purpose. To me, it doesn't paint a dystopian future. It paints a future where appearances serve an intended purpose, instead of the current opposite. A pickup truck is an utilitarian object. The cybertruck design is purely utilitarian. I love it.

Now if they could make a Cyberhatchback, I'd buy it right now.

View on HN

Yeah, the author is really making a mountain out of a molehill. They're moving into a new vehicle class, and that vehicle class values durability, resilience, and power more than most, so they made something that embodied that. It's not a vehicle for everyone. It's a vehicle for a certain set of someones who already value that stuff in the present day.

The Roadster is also a future vehicle (well the new one is at least) they're bringing to market, and it's got a pretty different design. So either you interpret it as the future might be as multifaceted as the present, or that actually cars don't forecast the future... but rather reflect the present.

There is absolutely nothing utilitarian about the design.

Trucks in the 1920s and early 1930s were utilitarian. This thing is 100% about the look.

Agreed. In fact one of my biggest arguments against the design is that it will NOT appeal to the average truck owner, because the design gets in the way of the utility. For example, a lot of trucks have toolboxes on the front side of the bed. Due to the triangular sides that pitch at the front of the bed, you can't reach into the bed there from the side of the truck. That's already a nonstarter for a work truck. Another thing is bed rails. The triangular design again prevents the installation of horizontal rails that keep things relatively level. Same story for a roof rack. It's nearly impossible to craft a roof rack for this design that doesn't look goofy and ride extremely high.

Look we can argue about stagnation in truck design but there's something to be said about a timeless design feature, like the classic truck bed. I think Tesla misses here and so their main market for this will be competing against off-road SUVs like Jeep Grand Cherokee or Range Rover. The Cybertruck will not compete directly with say, Ford's F150 and the Silverado.

Don't know if it was designed this way, but if it has a "frunk" like most electric vehicles do, that would ideally be where the tool box goes. Much more accessible.

>> It's nearly impossible to craft a roof rack for this design

I think it is too early to make this call, especially given the fact that they haven’t event gotten around to side mirrors and windscreen wipers (legally required in some jurisdictions)!

> it will NOT appeal to the average truck owner

Clearly it's not meant to appeal to anybody average. It is supposed to make extremists salivate. Have you seen what pick-up truck buyers are buying, lately? Nothing about them says useful.

I don't doubt they will sell. Just not to people with work to do.

Your opinion contradicts everything reported by https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi.... The article was written by auto journalists who had access to the design team and the truck, and who studied it weeks before it was revealed to the public.

What do you imagine they had to sign to get in weeks ahead of time? Very obviously, something deeply compromising.

Car news is, first of all, a business.

So you're imagining that Tesla went to various publications and only let Motor Trend access their new product because MT consented to spread lies? What did the other media do, they turned the offer down and still keep their mouths shut about that deal?

They would all have more to gain by revealing these kind of practices (since Tesla is the only company not to buy ads in the media) than publishing bullshit articles that you didn't even read or that you can't trust because... they discussed the design with the product's team.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

The Business is far more mature and sophisticated than you imagine. All the kinks were worked out long before you were born. The gravy train depends absolutely on a reliably massive wave of hype, each year. Everyone knows their lines. Anyone without a sterling portfolio doesn't get hired by Motor Trend. Anyone who ever gets out of step does not make Editor.

So, no, Tesla never "went to various publications". Nobody else did, either. That is not how the machine works.

> you can use that truck and do a lot of work with it without having to worry about the paint or breaking something

No. The flat shiny surfaces are more expensive, harder to manufacture, more brittle and more susceptible to denting/scratching than a normal curved car surface.

That thing is a nightmare to take care of. Best keep in the garage unless someone breathes on it and ruins the look.

For those downvoting, this comment does have a nugget of truth: it holds if the materials are equivalent. Curved surfaces are a lot stiffer and deform less easily than flat surfaces because they have some out-of-plane depth to their overall shape.

If you formed curved sheets out of this steel, it'd be tougher again than it is with flat surfaces.

>No. The flat shiny surfaces are more expensive, harder to manufacture, more brittle and more susceptible to denting/scratching than a normal curved car surface.

Where do you get that? How do you explain that the design team chose these flat surfaces in steel precisely for their lower cost, solidity and ease of manufacturing (source: https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-cybertruck-electric-pi...)

> Where do you get that?

An easy analogy to explain why curved surfaces are stronger: imagine an egg that is a cube instead of a spheroid.

You see how an eggshell cube would be vastly more brittle than an egg, right?

> chose these flat surfaces in steel precisely for their lower cost, solidity and ease of manufacturing

To make an equivalently robust structure out of straight edges you need the steel to be much, much thicker. So yes on 'solidity', but no to the other two claims.

Did you just ignore the entire article I linked in the comment you're replying to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com