Tesla Cybertruck

spwolf

Expert
Messages
3,508
Reactions
3,437
I don’t buy that. The Rivian is a rethink and doesn’t look like a 3 year old designed it in and out. Quite frankly it’s attractive inside and out.. I refuse to accept trash because people want to rationalize how it’s “different”.

Let’s be real. If Lexus designed and debut this the internet and every soul on earth would bash it. If Ford debuted it everyone would have bashed it. If BMW debuted it, it would fit in the lineup 🤣.

Elon is saying all sorts of crazy **** on twitter, interviews etc and his cult overlooks it. Imagine Toyota’s CEO talking like that? or Ford’s? or VW’s? They would have to resign immediately.

Elon gonna tell yall meet him in Guyana and drink some kool aid next.

apperantly it is all about Elon, and not about Cybertruck. So I assume you and many others would have had same reaction to it, even if it was actually exactly the same as Rivian.

Stupid stuff is that this car will smash it in many ways. Probably be the safest and most off-road capable of all the pickups.
Forget about Elon, drive it when it is out and let us know how you like it.

I am not the truck guy, and american pickups look silly to me... CT looks ridiculous to me.

But I give props to bunch of stuff engineers did there - from EV stuff thats new to Tesla, to actually putting a f mechanical lockers both front and back in every single LR model. Something our bean counters took out long time ago.
 

ES300h

Fan
Messages
32
Reactions
34
The CyberTruck is a meme joke. I wish Elon would leave the company completely so I could consider buying another Tesla. Elon is the biggest douche-bro on the planet so as long as he's affiliated with Tesla it's a real hard buy.
 

Will1991

Moderator
Messages
1,572
Reactions
3,205
The irony is that the best part of the CT is the one you don’t see…

48V system
Integrated computer for simple car loom
800V battery

Just put all of that in a Model S!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAL

ES300h

Fan
Messages
32
Reactions
34
48V system
Integrated computer for simple car loom
Time will tell. Being Tesla, if one component fails we may have an issue where it takes out or can't see multiple other systems/modules. I've owned two Teslas so I assure you that you definitely roll the dice even today in terms of quality. I had so many repair visits I traded both my Teslas in for a Toyota and Lexus. Still interested in the brand in general but I wish they had higher consistent quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAL

Sulu

Admirer
Messages
979
Reactions
1,247
A lot of the regulations are set at component level, no?
Dont some even require DOT markings on the component?
I thought NHTSAs minimum safety performance standards were mandatory for lighting, tires/brakes, etc?

In any practical sense youre not developing a vehicle without considering meeting requirements being foundational.

I get the distinction youre trying to make, but you cant compare few thousand unit per year business of airplane sales to consumer automaking. The government would get log jammed. Also reducing NCAP to a shaming tool seems a bit reductive.
Safety standards are mandatory but meeting them is at the word of the automaker, not checked by a government regulatory agency before going on sale. NHTSA may checks after a vehicle is on sale, but it does not even check all (100%) of the vehicles sold each year.

Here, in a nutshell, is the difference between a post-market compliance check (for automobiles) and a premarket certification (for aircraft).

For automobiles, a regulatory agency publishes standards that must be met (for components, whole sub-systems, whole vehicle, etc.). The automaker self-certifies that they have met them and puts the vehicle on sale. The regulatory then does checks after the vehicle is already on sale.

For aircraft, a regulatory agency publishes standards that must be met (for components, whole sub-systems, whole aircraft, etc.). The airplane (and component) manufacturers claim to meet them and the regulatory agency checks (and foreign agencies may double check). The regulator (or designated representatives not employed by the regulator but qualified to perform certification checks on behalf of the regulator) does this for all the engineering designs of all components, sub-systems, airplanes. Aircraft are incredibly complicated and complex, and these certification checks take years before an aircraft type is approved for commercial flight; approval for foreign flight may add to the certification time. Aircraft engineering designs do not change every year but only every few years (or decades) and each re-certification takes a lot of time.
 
Last edited:

Och

Admirer
Messages
560
Reactions
519
Absolutely hilarious video, love the little drawings of the cyber truck and the glorified beetle he drew on his board. 😂😂😂
 

Och

Admirer
Messages
560
Reactions
519
I don’t agree. Many brands meet or exceed targets.

I've never had a single car/truck/motorcycle that achieved their claimed fuel economy. All were a minimum 10-15% worse, and got worse with age. EPA ratings are generally provided for the best possible scenarios, which are rarely achieved in the real world. Now, if the Teslas can't even achieve their claimed range under similar best case scenarios, that a different story.

The way I see EV range is its at least 10% too optimistic from the get go, and then it is common for lithium batteries to quickly lose 10% of their efficiency within the first year. The suggested charge range for driving is from 20% to 80%, which is only 60% of the overall remaining charge. And it can be cut nearly in half when you factor traffic, terrain, sub freezing temperatures, and extreme heat. So if you take a claimed 330 mile range, it can be 100 miles of real world practical range under less than ideal circumstances.

A conventional ICE vehicle can also return less than half its estimated fuel economy in certain circumstances, but it only takes mere seconds to refill.