With all this being said, however, there are quite a few positives, the biggest of which is the “beyond great” sound system.
Brutal.
Brutal.
400-500mi I can understand. My gas truck goes about that far. But <200mi is a joke…
In the market, it really competes with 1/2 ton vehicles, so I'm going with that, but there are good arguments that it doesn't really fit that class well.
Case in point: I know of a Minnesotan business with South Dakotan vendors. A trip is only needed once a month.
That’s a “road trip”? The real joke is people who have never used or needed a truck passing judgement on truck owners.
Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips.
Trucks are outselling sedans and lighter cars in North America because of poor regulations and lobbying from the car industry. SUVs and light trucks do not have to have to meet the same emission standards as lighter vehicles, so manufacturers have basically abandoned that market segment and selling nothing but trucks.
There is a video from "Not Just Bikes" [0] which goes deep into this. The title could be a little less clickbaity, but it's worth to watch it in full.
[0]: https://nebula.tv/videos/notjustbikes-these-stupid-trucks-ar...
It’s the same reason people buy insurance. I’m sure you won’t tell me, “99% of people buying health insurance at 25 years old don’t file claims, so it’s a complete waste of money. A stupid first world luxury, even.”
> Also, anyone with a modicum of sense could see that it would be better to just rent a truck if you only need one for monthly trips.
At that kind of wear and tear? Not necessarily, especially with tax advantages for depreciation. Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy.”
No, that's not what I am saying at all. What I'm saying is that the majority of people would be better off if they bought a smaller/cheaper/more fuel efficient car and using those savings to rent a truck for the occasional need.
> It’s the same reason people buy insurance.
Not at all. People buy insurance as hedge against catastrophic losses. They are totally rational, and the cost of insurance is correlated with actual risk, i.e, a 25 yo will pay less health insurance than a 50yo, so it is not like there is a opportunity cost curve here.
> especially with tax advantages for depreciation.
You can also rent and deduct it as a business expense.
> Also, this reeks of the spirit of “you’ll own nothing and be happy.
On the contrary, this is the same advice that really wealthy people will give you, because they know that there are better uses for their capital than buying things they don't need.
I don't know, it is hard to square the depreciation on cars. I bought both a car and a truck around a decade ago. The car is now worthless. The truck is still worth about what I paid for it. The deprecation cost alone on that car has exceeded the cost of operating the truck over its lifetime thus far. Trucks are the most popular type of vehicle around these parts because they are, frankly, cheaper to operate in most cases.
Certainly you can buy junkers that have already had their depreciation fully realized, but that is not a free lunch, it's just a different trade. Depreciation isn't some magical force. You're trading something for the lower initial cost, such as your time. If you have the money, money is no doubt what you will be most willing to part with. The other things you could trade are quite likely more valuable.
There is no reliably chosen investment I know of that provides ROI anywhere close to what my vehicles facilitate, though. It is possible you could win the lottery investing elsewhere, but that is pretty high risk. The vehicles provide decent, steady returns.
But it is clear that trucks are cheaper than cars.
What gave you the authority and moral credibility, over the perspective of people voting with their wallets, to make that assertion? I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not.
It would be like if I made the unfounded assertion that almost all programmers would be better off on Mac. And most that think a Mac is unsuitable are in denial.
I lived in an US suburb (Natick, West Mass). I lived in the city center of two American cities (Boston, NYC) for almost 5 years. I'm living in a large European city (Berlin) for 10+ years.
Aside from the suburbs, I never had the "need" to have my own car to do anything. Public transportation and biking were the main modes of transportation, but I never restrained myself for getting a taxi or a ZipCar for the occasional longer trip.
It's not about being "anti-car". The thing is that I have actual data and I can tell you from actual experience: the majority of people living in large urban centers will be better off if they don't have a car, let alone a truck.
> over the perspective of people voting with their wallets.
People "voting" with their wallets is not a reliable measure when the ballot does not have all the actual viable candidates.
People started buying SUVs and trucks in North America not because they are the obvious superior alternative, but because car makers started removing the other alternatives from the market for not being as profitable.
> I would think the people who are actually spending their money would be better at knowing what they need, than internet commentators who are not.
In the US, trucks were almost 80% of all auto sales in 2023 [0]. Are you really willing to defend the position that the majority of people bought them because of "need"?
Is there? Logistics aside, it is more sensible to put the load that 3-ton is carrying on a highway tractor/train/boat along with other things going over the same long haul. If your only load is people, you most certainly don't need a 3-ton truck. A car, hell even a light truck, will carry them just as well, if not better.
Where logistical problem aren't solved, other 3-ton trucks are actually designed for hauling, not just glorified pickup trucks. If you truly have a niche need for a 3-ton for long-haul transport, the Cybertruck isn't going to be your choice anyway, regardless of range.
That's what the parent is calling out (IMO).
Those conditions aren't true yet, but hopefully will be.
Many Tesla owners are coming from Toyota or BMW 3 series.
So Tesla owners’ bar for “dream to drive” is very low.
Why don’t you like BMW 3?
I feel like the claim that the sound was the best thing about it is slightly negative editorialising. It sounds pretty cool, except for range, charging time, bay needs better waterproofing, and road noise. Those all seem improvable.