[HN Gopher] The Tesla Semi cab from the practical POV of someone...
___________________________________________________________________
The Tesla Semi cab from the practical POV of someone who drives
trucks
Author : danso
Score : 317 points
Date : 2022-12-09 21:19 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| impulser_ wrote:
| This seems to be a trend with the latest Telsa future products.
| They don't seem to be engineered for the actual user, but
| engineered for marketing to people that wont use them.
|
| The Cybertruck is another example of this.
| Havoc wrote:
| That makes an alarming amount of sense
| redox99 wrote:
| Most of these flaws are because Tesla optimized for
| efficiency/range/tco, and not actual driver comfort. After all,
| the driver is not the one buying the truck.
|
| They probably figured they wanted that shape for maximum
| efficiency. However maybe that narrow shape forced them to go
| with the center driver and all the things the author dislikes.
|
| The logistics of just slapping a couple screens are much simpler
| than designing and manufacturing an interior with physical
| buttons.
|
| Also they'll surely plan to drop those mirrors anyway, and use
| the screens as mirrors (which solves his cleaning complain,
| cheaper truck, more efficient, etc).
| justinhj wrote:
| There is really no easier path to high engagement on a tweet than
| dumping on an Elon venture. Not to discredit his opinion as a
| truck driver but I'm pretty sure his mind was made up when he saw
| the brand.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I love this thread so much. Every issue he mentions is obvious
| _once pointed out_.
|
| This is a great example of something I repeat to myself all the
| time, particularly because I find myself surrounded by people who
| don't: I might be clever and perceptive but I do not know better
| than the user.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| This seems to assume the Tesla semi should meet every demand from
| every kind of trucker, but it's simply not meant to and no truck
| is perfect for every trip.
|
| The Tesla semi seems geared towards short haul rather than long.
| It's range may sound somewhat long, but I suspect many of these
| will "return to dock" in the same day, charging in the same
| warehouse yard each day, and if not, within a small network of
| warehouses. It's not meant to go interstate and roam far and
| wide, charge multiple times, then return to home base.
|
| Well, maybe it is. I just don't have that impression. If Tesla's
| not aware of how impractical that would be then the whole world
| is crazy. It seems like they do know though and these are
| intended to operate in relatively small networks where conditions
| are easier to control and anticipate.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Lot of these are good points but I think we would really need to
| have the guy actually test one of the Tesla trucks to know. The
| center position thing, for example, does sound shitty. But how do
| we know that the driver could not simply lean to the side
| temporarily to reach out the window? That seems like it would not
| be THAT hard.
|
| The tablets though I agree - it is ridiculous that all Tesla
| vehicles rely on them so heavily. If that tablet breaks you now
| have a fairly useless vehicle. Just lazy design at this point and
| dangerous. What they really need is the Saab night mode design -
| that was super cool!
| fooker wrote:
| Until this month, the primary mode of criticizing the Tesla Semi
| was demonstrating infeasibility of electric trucks with
| misunderstood high school physics.
|
| Now, it is just about driver convenience.
|
| What's next? Upholstery perhaps?
| fasthands9 wrote:
| > And if you really want an electric truck, then just get Nikola,
| that uses Iveco Stralis cab, with the design perfected over half
| of century
|
| I honestly didnt know they are still shipping. Their numbers are
| very small (under 50 a quarter) which admittedly makes me feel
| like the rest of that post has some elements of bias/screed to
| it. Is it really a logical alternative to buy an EV truck from a
| bespoke manufacturer known for (criminally proven) fraud?
| riffraff wrote:
| I thought it had been proven beyond doubt Nikola was a scam,
| I'm honestly surprised it's still active.
| zardo wrote:
| I don't know if the whole company was a scam, but they did do
| 'a' scam, pretending they had a functioning truck when they
| didn't by rolling it down a hill.
| faebi wrote:
| I do really wonder what the Euro-style Semi will look like. Will
| it be complete redesign or will the just replace the cabin?
| izzydata wrote:
| I wonder how long it will take for this user to be banned from
| Twitter.
| mlindner wrote:
| This reminds me of something like what was written when various
| other Tesla models came out with tons of people complaining about
| the design, only for them to go on to sell extremely well.
|
| The vehicle had been in testing with real drivers for years. This
| is one of the longest development periods for a new Tesla vehicle
| ever. I'm much more likely to trust that over someone on Twitter
| who starts his first comment with a clown emoji and makes large
| parts of the post about Elon. He won't buy it but plenty others
| will.
| qwertox wrote:
| > Tablets are simply not designed for use in moving vehicles. You
| need a physical button, so you can reach for it even without
| taking your eyes off the road and feel it.
|
| This is generally an issue. I really don't understand how car
| manufacturers believe that a touchscreen is a good interface in a
| car where you often need to look at the road and touch the
| controls in order to feel at which button or knob you are.
|
| I'd rather have high quality resistive touchscreens where the
| surface can be touched but a good degree of pressure needs to be
| applied in order to execute a command. Ideally it would have some
| sort of vibration feedback when I cross a boundary between
| buttons.
| dools wrote:
| Somewhat related is the new Janus electric truck retrofitting
| system rolling out now in Australia
| https://www.januselectric.com.au/
| henvic wrote:
| Not even worth sharing this. Mostly bad takes.
| a4isms wrote:
| If there are some bad takes in TFA, please list the bad takes
| and why they are wrong. That would add value to the
| conversation. And frankly, sometimes a wrong essay or rant
| makes for a good HN post if it serves to provoke informative
| conversation.
|
| But only if that conversation is informative. So add some
| information!
| bravetraveler wrote:
| At risk of being a hypocrite, this isn't worth posting without
| reasoning
|
| I'm about as ignorant as one could be with this topic and folks
| like me would be better served by elaboration or bowing out
| cjdoc29 wrote:
| I'm a big fan of Tesla. I own their cars. I even own FSD for
| each of my cars. But I was not informed on why their new Semi
| might be badly designed for the use case they were designed
| for. Tesla designs some things stupidly (i.e. they aren't
| perfect) - for example, have you ever tried to change the air
| filter in a 2019 Model 3?
|
| Maybe you should support your post with why their take is
| invalid. Each of their takes has a reason why they hold their
| opinion.
|
| Yours does not.
| spamizbad wrote:
| This mirrors some Facebook comments from my trucker buddy that
| had a few of the same complaints, although his take was a bit
| more optimistic (he thinks Tesla will fix the flaws in an updated
| model soon as he doesn't think this will sell.)
| jsight wrote:
| Yeah, its not as if a cab redesign would be difficult if that
| ends up being an obstacle. TBH, though, I'm guessing it works
| better in practice than they let on. They've had a few years of
| testing, for better or worse.
| bombcar wrote:
| I really think the difference is going to be long-haul vs
| short delivery trucks.
|
| Also remember the people buying the short-haul delivery
| trucks ain't the ones drivin' them.
| jsight wrote:
| TBH, the Semi was designed with that thought in mind, for
| better and worse. I'm sure its a very different market from
| the owner operator.
|
| I can't imagine a single case where this would be practical
| for an owner operator at the moment, but I'd love to be
| corrected.
| johnthuss wrote:
| "Drivers sits in the middle. This makes overtaking or looking
| ahead more difficult. But also makes it impossible to reach out
| of the window to pass the paperwork or to talk with the guy in
| the gatehouse when you enter a port or a factory or, say, a
| tollbooth."
|
| This one seems like the worst one of all these criticisms.
| pastor_bob wrote:
| Do these front windows even roll down? Might be a moot point
| [deleted]
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Its not a problem in the states, but in the EU/country with
| cyclists, you'll never see the 20/30 of them that are sneaking
| down the inside of you at a junction.
| feifan wrote:
| The displays have downward-facing cameras covering what looks
| like the blind spots next to the cab
| ortusdux wrote:
| I wonder how this cab design would affect interactions with the
| police. I did not realize that you enter via a corridor behind
| the driver seat. US officers do not respond well to people
| getting out of the vehicle during stops.
| mediaman wrote:
| True, but I don't think police are as worried about long-haul
| truckers behaving well, versus someone in a civilian car. The
| trucker needs to keep their CDL, and they do trucking
| professionally.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| It's almost as if Musk and his "designers" have never seen a
| weigh/inspection station.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I've ridden shotgun through weigh stations and ag inspection
| sites (family member is a truck driver). Nothing challenging
| about the Tesla design. Lots of weigh in motion installations
| replacing weigh stations (where Prepass data is associated
| with the weigh observation with no stopping).
|
| As always, give the market what it'll take, not what HN says.
| Electric operating cost savings paves over a lot of minor
| issues, or driver complaints.
|
| https://prepass.com/
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weigh_in_motion
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| I highly doubt it, but unless it's some crafty scheme to sell
| the same cabs to both the UK/Australia/Japan and the USA
| without modification.
|
| Doubt it though, the simplest explanation in this case is
| probably design ignorance.
| function_seven wrote:
| My guess is that they needed to get the drag coefficient down,
| and did so by first raking the windshield back, then pinching
| the cab horizontally to get some more gains. That narrowing of
| the cab then led to the center-seat arrangement?
|
| Bonus being that you don't need to configure a LHD and RHD
| version of this truck for different markets.
| eastbound wrote:
| Different markets can't be addressed with the same truck
| anyway. Lights are different, mandatory equipment is
| different, EU trucks are limited cabin-inclusive, US trucks
| are cabin-exclusive, etc.
| adwww wrote:
| Lots and lots of LHD trucks serve the UK making daily cross
| channel trips, or even just based here full time from Dutch
| / Eastern European shipping firms.
| MBCook wrote:
| Efficiency seemed like the reason for the tilted windshield
| too.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| LHD/RHD swamp doesn't really matter given that the truck is
| probably too long for UK.
|
| They would still need to swap out headlights anyways.
| zizee wrote:
| UK is not the only country to drive on the left of the
| road, including Australia, India, Indonesia, and Japan.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-_and_right-
| hand_traffic
| potatochup wrote:
| It's possible to have that same hardware headlight and
| control distribution patterns/behavior in software
| [deleted]
| lamontcg wrote:
| > This one seems like the worst one of all these criticisms.
|
| Weird that so many people can't figure out what was meant here.
|
| I know the literal English is ambiguous but it should be
| obvious what was the intended reading.
| raldi wrote:
| Worst as in most salient or least?
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| As in, the most damning, or the least relevant?
| jjulius wrote:
| Most damning. The driver being able to easily lean out the
| window to talk to people as it passes tolls, inspection
| points, hell, _weigh stations_ , is important. That all of
| these engineers and designers massively overlooked such a
| vital component of truck driving out of Tesla's own hubris is
| hilariously embarrassing, IMO.
| newsclues wrote:
| All of these factors can have the infrastructure updated to
| the 21st century. We don't need coins for tolls, or
| paperwork.
| mediaman wrote:
| That's hilarious. Okay, go tell every warehouse and
| factory with a loading dock out there that their systems
| are out of date and they need to use RFID for everything.
| And if they don't -- well, we won't send this truck to
| your facility!
|
| A little bit of humility when it comes to appreciating
| how sectors of the economy you have zero experience with
| would go a long way.
| labcomputer wrote:
| Maybe, but trucking is a low-margin industry. If the
| "fuel" savings are even half as big as Tesla claims,
| there is going to be a strong incentive to switch to this
| truck.
|
| Suddenly, the warehouses that refuse to switch are paying
| more for shipping via ICE truck... that is their choice
| of course, but I don't want to hear any whining about how
| unfair it is.
| rsynnott wrote:
| That only really works if Tesla has a monopoly on
| electric trucks, though. They do not.
| jjulius wrote:
| Coins and paperwork will not be gone by the time this
| truck is on the market, just as coins and paperwork
| aren't the only reasons the seat placement is flawed.
| rsynnott wrote:
| "This design is fine provided that you change all the
| infrastructure in the world" isn't a _great_ argument,
| honestly.
| macspoofing wrote:
| > We can only assume they overlooked it.
|
| I don't think they overlooked it. I think they designed the
| cab to be as aerodynamic as possible, so as to squeeze out
| every bit of range they could ... and this dictated the
| driver position.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| So ignored key usability requirements for an arbitrary
| product management goal. :thumbs-up:
| nine_k wrote:
| A microphone and a speaker allows customers to talk to bank
| clerks sitting far behind thick bulletproof glass. They
| could implement that on a truck.
|
| Handing papers over is harder, but I wonder if making a
| small window that can be opened would be really hard. The
| driver would need to stand up, though.
| simondotau wrote:
| We can only assume they overlooked it. The opinion of
| someone who has actually driven a Tesla Semi through a
| weigh station would be infinitely more relevant than
| anything you, I or the OP have to say.
|
| And like most things, it's going to be a series of trade-
| offs. Perhaps they decided that in a big picture analysis,
| the disadvantages are fewer than the advantages.
| Alupis wrote:
| If you want industry buy-in, you generally need the
| industry to be on-board with what you are doing.
|
| Building some product in a dark warehouse, then thrusting
| it onto the industry is a recipe for rejection and
| failure.
| jjulius wrote:
| >The opinion of someone who has actually driven a Tesla
| Semi through a weigh station would be infinitely more
| relevant than anything you, I or the OP have to say.
|
| Thank you for quickly dismissing the opinion of someone
| who has experience driving semi-trucks and currently
| works adjacent to that industry, interacting with truck
| drivers on a daily basis.
|
| I see a massive, massive flaw in this design based on my
| own experience but, "Nope, shut up, you haven't driven
| the new one, your opinion is invalid". Got it.
| simondotau wrote:
| I didn't say shut up, and I didn't say your opinion is
| invalid. Your opinion is valid. Please stop putting words
| in my mouth. All I'm saying is I don't feel there's a
| need to come to any conclusions about the design until
| we've had feedback from people who have actually used the
| product in the real world. I can't believe anyone would
| consider this an unreasonable stance.
| Alupis wrote:
| The most damning in that they obviously didn't consult any
| real truck drivers or truck manufacturing companies to figure
| out why things are the way they are, before setting out to
| try improving them.
|
| We see this a lot with smart inexperienced developers taking
| on entire industries with hopes of "disruption" - but lack
| even the most basic understanding of that industry and it's
| problems. The hubris necessary to assume everyone in the
| industry are dumb and just haven't thought about these novel
| improvements is very high...
| jsight wrote:
| The project was originally lead by the former lead of the
| Cascadia program.
| Alupis wrote:
| Perhaps you are talking about Feightliner's eCascadia
| truck? If so, I think we're only making this case
| stronger. The eCascadia is a traditional semi, but
| electric and a technology improvements here and there.
| It's not a "throw everything out and start from scratch"
| thing. Perhaps there's a reason he is the former lead...
|
| The Tesla Semi is a fantasy semi that no one asked for
| and I suspect no one will buy. There's plenty of electric
| semi's already available...
| three_seagrass wrote:
| I dunno. I get annoyed just having to unbuckle and get out of
| my seat for parking tickets that are out of reach.
|
| I can't imagine having to do repeatedly do this while
| maneuvering a big rig around a stockyard. Or did you mean it
| was one of the most valid criticisms?
| newsclues wrote:
| Good, we can go paperless and minimize human contact and viral
| exposure with digital paperwork and authorization systems and
| intercoms. No need to roll down the windows and let the climate
| controlled air get dirty and hot/cold.
| greedo wrote:
| You do realize that there are literally thousands of weigh
| stations in the US that would need to be upgraded? They're
| run individually by the states, who will have minimal
| incentive to cooperate.
| belval wrote:
| Indeed, I wonder if they will be able to address this fast
| enough because it does seem serious. Same goes for the mirrors
| that are out of reach of the driver for easy cleaning. It could
| be a pain point.
|
| I guess the author wanted the pile-on a bit, but the rest feels
| a bit more like "this isn't how we are currently doing it so
| it's just wrong", especially when it comes to the shape of the
| truck. Being aerodynamic seems like a good way to increase the
| range.
| nine_k wrote:
| Mirrors this big can have sweepers, like the windshield.
| S0und wrote:
| Valid points until he brought up Nikola as an example. A terrible
| example.
| MBCook wrote:
| Why?
|
| He only brought it up for the cab shape. Is their cab
| problematic as well?
| mwint wrote:
| Works great as long as your warehouses are all downhill from
| eachother.
| avgDev wrote:
| "Build around driver" - Tesla
|
| Designed by a tech bro that lives in a city and uses public
| transportation, also hates driving.
| suzakus wrote:
| Loves public transport and hates driving? Not awfully likely in
| the US. Our public transport is fairly abysmal outside a few
| large cities.
| stonogo wrote:
| Did you upgrade OP's words from "uses" to "loves" or did
| someone edit their comment?
| suzakus wrote:
| I can't remember now, sorry; I might have upgraded it
| mentally as a parallel to his use of the word hates. My
| bad!
| wilg wrote:
| It would be more useful to have the perspective of someone who
| actually drives one. When people see a different design it's easy
| to come up with lots of ways it's different from what you're used
| to but you can't really see which problems have been solved in a
| different way than you might assume.
|
| Plus, it's a day cab so it's not surprising there's no obvious
| place for a bed.
|
| Also, it's strange that someone would think it's a "rich boy's
| toy" like rich boys are going to be buying semi trucks for fun.
| MBCook wrote:
| Every single thing the author said seems like it would apply to
| drivers who don't need sleeper cabins, other than the lack of
| bed space of course.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Elon is the rich boy here.
| wilg wrote:
| Yes, I understand. But it does not make sense for this to
| somehow be a toy for him.
| jsight wrote:
| It makes even less sense if you watched the presentation.
| This was Jerome Guillen and the co-presenter's (Dan
| Priestly) toy, if anything.
|
| Musk seemed barely interested, compared to some past
| presentations.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It makes sense if you interpret it as a toy he invented,
| not a toy for him to drive. Like saying this is just a
| vanity project to build something Elon likes the idea of,
| but isn't otherwise serious about fitting into the market
| it is aimed at.
| wilg wrote:
| Seems like a strange vanity project then. The new
| roadster would be a lot more fun!
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Not that strange IMO. This is the same guy that wanted
| his own boring machine. I don't really have the
| impression that he's a sports car guy.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Elon Musk's image is built on the prestige of creating
| products that fit a specific niche. The entire product is
| the toy, not the individual object.
| bequanna wrote:
| Plenty of "rich" blue collar people in the Midwest have
| equipment that is much more expensive/luxurious than would be
| required for the job.
|
| For example, $100k pickup trucks are not necessary for farmers
| but still very common.
| kortilla wrote:
| > For example, $100k pickup trucks are not necessary for
| farmers but still very common.
|
| That's because they also serve as a daily driver, so that's
| not a good comparison.
|
| A pure overpriced utility would be like a luxury combine.
| adwww wrote:
| Plenty of over-specced tractors on farms too.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Noise I hear from my non media back channels is people that
| need trucks for business hate the new trucks.
| wilg wrote:
| Yeah but it being more luxurious than required doesn't make
| it ill-suited for the job.
| nluken wrote:
| Note that the author of this thread is comparing to European-
| style trucks. I am not a trucker so I would be interested to hear
| whether American-style trucks have similar flaws, or whether
| these are specific to the Tesla Semi.
| jjulius wrote:
| I work adjacent to truck drivers in the US and can vouch for a
| lot of these concerns, _especially_ the placement of the driver
| in the center. Being able to easily reach out of the window
| easily is _vital_ to that job.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| > I work adjacent to truck drivers in the US...
|
| Likewise. And you're correct.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The first American electric semi has a traditional layout,
| driver on the left, normal doors, normal ingress and egress.
| About the same as the European truck except it is not a cabover
| design and there is a nose in front of the windshield.
| pornel wrote:
| This sounds very much like a "designed in California" problem.
| Who would have thought about mud, frosted mirrors, border
| crossings...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Maybe 'designed in the Bay Area'. If you take a look at a map
| you'll notice that California has significant mountain ranges
| and shares a border with Mexico.
| sgc wrote:
| California is not all sunshine and beaches. They have been
| driving them over a mountain pass in the Sierra-Nevada
| between Reno and Fremont for years now. They are willfully
| ignoring problems, not unaware of them.
| jsight wrote:
| I'm always a little skeptical of long form complaints that mix
| seemingly important things (papers please) with seemingly trivial
| preferences (he doesn't like where he'd doff his boots?). Its a
| day cab, not a sleeper, so that whole section of complaints is
| fairly irrelevant.
|
| OTOH, he makes some good points about the ergonomics of seat and
| door placement. But are these really the things that will drive
| or diminish sales?
|
| Put another way, imagine that you were a truck driver and a day
| cab would be sufficient. Now imagine one saved a few dozen $$ per
| day in fuel costs. Would you put up with not taking your shoes
| off where you want to in exchange for a few dollars?
|
| These are good insights, but the framing seems a bit hyperbolic.
| albertopv wrote:
| My father has been a truck driver for about 30 years, Tesla
| truck was clearly designed by people knowing nothing about
| heavy transport stuff. Papers are still a thing, drivers like
| to have a clean cabin, really, but they don't like to waste
| time, especially when they have to in and out cabin several
| times in few minues.
| katmannthree wrote:
| Not to be patronizing but it sounds like you don't have much
| experience with work boots or jobs that actually need them. If
| a driver spends their time going between relatively clean
| locations then yes, it's a relatively trivial complaint. The
| problem is that's often not the case: If they have to visit
| remote, heavy industrial, or some types of farm locations their
| boots will constantly end up caked in mud, random chemicals, or
| various biological debris. As someone who has dealt with all of
| the above, I find the complaint about door placement to be
| every bit as big a deal as having to get out of the seat at
| guardhouses.
| jsight wrote:
| Fair enough. TBH, a lot of it is that I just misunderstood
| him. I get the concern that this will spread the dirt over a
| larger area, including some of the space that really should
| have been usable for storage. It looks like a bad tradeoff in
| several important ways.
| osrec wrote:
| Why not just stick to the older, more convenient design?
| function_seven wrote:
| The older design isn't as aerodynamic. And that's very
| important for a battery-powered truck.
| jcfrei wrote:
| Most of the aerodynamic drag is created by the long
| trailer, the front matters comparably little.
| epolanski wrote:
| Maybe electric trucks are not a good idea yet?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Didn't the guy in the video point out that there are
| already a few electric European trucks? So we don't even
| really need to speculate about efficiency, cabover
| design, and all that, we should be able to find real
| numbers somewhere. At least pretty soon if not already.
| lzaaz wrote:
| We shouldn't switch to battery-powered vehicles until they
| can replace our current ICE vehicles.
| cjdoc29 wrote:
| That's short-sighted. It's also possible to create a BEV
| that might not replace ICE vehicles for all use cases,
| but one that replaces the ICE vehicle in particular
| circumstances.
|
| A BEV fits into my lifestyle. So much so that I think
| owning an ICE vehicle would decrease my quality of life.
| I don't want to go to a gas station every week. I don't
| want to have to take my car in for tune-ups every year.
| lzaaz wrote:
| >I don't want to go to a gas station every week.
|
| But... you'd rather charge every time you use it? And
| what if you run out of energy in the middle of a trip?
|
| >I don't want to have to take my car in for tune-ups
| every year.
|
| What makes you think that electric cars don't need tune-
| ups?
| bagels wrote:
| In many cases they can. With the Tesla Semi they can
| replace some subset of trucks as well.
| draw_down wrote:
| tempestn wrote:
| That may be, but that's exactly the irritating thing about
| Tesla. They make great drivetrains, but then anchor them to all
| these "innovations" that most people don't want. These sound
| like the truck equivalents of falcon wing doors, yoke steering
| wheels and touchscreen HVAC controls.
| kodah wrote:
| I can't speak from the perspective of a truck driver, but I
| drove CAT vehicles in the military in-country. We lived in them
| as well. The reason the boots part is important is because if
| you're living in a vehicle the dirty parts house a lot of nasty
| stuff that will get you sick. To offset that, you pull
| everything out of the truck and clean it. If you have to keep
| doing this then it adds stressful and exhausting repetitious
| work to your work life. If you ignore it you get sick. It's
| easier to pick a truck that matches your needs, and frankly,
| it's usually the small things that matter in big purchases.
| jsight wrote:
| Oh, I get it now. This complaint goes back to the whole
| sleeper cab problem. Its not a sleeper cab, so
| differentiating a dirty section from a clean section like
| that seems less important to me.
|
| I get his point if he doesn't want his dirty boots near his
| bed in the back, but that's impossible with this setup
| anyway.
| mgrthrow wrote:
| I love how many comments here are, "I have no domain expertise,
| but these seem like nitpicks".
|
| If a user provides feedback like this, listen. Getting this sort
| of detail from a user about design decisions is _invaluable_.
| They know the ergonomic setup they need, what works and doesn 't,
| and they will have insights a non domain expert simply can't.
| osrec wrote:
| I actually think this is a very good analysis. A lot of Tesla
| vehicles feel like they value form over function.
|
| What really was interesting for me, was the fact that electric
| trucks from more established players exist already, but haven't
| really taken off.
|
| Maybe the Musk x-factor will allow Tesla to sell their truck
| where others have failed.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| For the life of me, I can't fathom the EV obsession with
| touchscreens.
|
| Why?! I can understand one touchscreen for complex functions,
| but at least retain buttons for core functions. No one wants to
| tap five different screens to control the AC direction or wiper
| blades.
| annexrichmond wrote:
| maybe one reason is that it's far cheaper to do touchscreens
| than a bunch of individual parts and circuit boards? And EVs
| are already pretty expensive and need to be competitive, so
| maybe they try to cut costs where they can.
|
| Add to that, I'm sure some market research is telling them
| either touch screens are popular, or that it's not a deal
| breaker for most people
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's not a good reason, but it cuts down on part count and
| assembly time (and complexity).
| yreg wrote:
| Also let's you change the UI at any time after shipping the
| product. Basically everything Steve said in the original
| iPhone keynote applies.
|
| Of course there are significant drawbacks as well.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Depends on hat you consider "function". All Tesla vehicles are
| very aerodynamic. That means of course a bit less "practical"
| body shapes. Like lower headroom towards the back. So the
| question is, do you define functional as the most easy to use
| design, or the most efficient design? Efficiency does mean
| higher range, which is important for electrical vehicles.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Has nothing to do with the body shape. 2 simple examples:
|
| 1. I don't think I've heard anyone (who doesn't work at
| Tesla) ever say anything positive about the driving yoke.
|
| 2. Using touch screens for _everything_. Obviously
| touchscreens have the benefit of allowing the UI to be
| reconfigurable, but other companies have done a much better
| job of having important physical buttons /controls where it
| makes sense.
| jsight wrote:
| I watched the yoke thing pretty closely. The positives that
| I've heard all center around the turn signals. Apparently a
| lot of people get used to them and actually like the touch
| buttons! A surprising number prefer them! TBH, this kind of
| shocked me, but watching them use it makes it make sense.
|
| The horn button gets universally negative reviews. The yoke
| shape itself is more mixed, but I don't think I've run into
| anyone who'd prefer it over a round one. It more mixed
| between "I hate it" and "its ok". :)
| servercobra wrote:
| I haven't read many people who actually have a car with the
| yolk have anything negative to say about it. Most of the
| comments I've seen are "yeah it was weird to get used to,
| now I like it" with a couple "I returned the car".
|
| Agreed it could use a few physical buttons (but not many,
| voice control + the steering wheel controls are the
| majority of my usage). They also really need a new lead UI
| designer.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > A lot of Tesla vehicles feel like they value form over
| function.
|
| As far as I can tell, that would be _all_ of them. And if
| rumors are true, Tesla might be about to escalate that to the
| next level with their bread-and-butter cars. Brave, or stupid,
| ask in a year.
| servercobra wrote:
| What rumors are you talking about?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That they're going to put the yoke on the Model 3/Y and
| remove the gear stalk. Like they did on the Model S.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Oh god. You can't even turn that wheel all they way
| around to park, but hey! F1 is cool, and they don't have
| a wheel.
| letmevoteplease wrote:
| The other electric semis have half the range.
|
| https://twitter.com/TheEVuniverse/status/1599487909156880384
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Due to battery size, or aero?
| nephanth wrote:
| I mean, a lot of car buyers value form over function
| Jonanin wrote:
| This may be a well informed take (or not), but it's hard to think
| he doesn't have an axe to grind when the first sentence is an
| information-free put down ending in a clown emoji. Would love to
| see a more neutral analysis.
| porphyra wrote:
| The cab forward design that OP prefers is so much more sensible
| and practical than the "standard" cab design that's so common in
| the US.
|
| The Tesla Semi is more aerodynamic than its peers though. I
| wonder how you can improve the aerodynamics without having a
| narrow front or sloped windshield.
| bombcar wrote:
| The most "aerodynamic" shape is a teardrop, with a relatively
| flat front end, so they could probably do something with that.
|
| The "roll down window" thing is relatively easy to solve if
| they want to; you either make a seat that can slide to the side
| or redesign the front end.
|
| I expect a redesign of the cab when the truck isn't selling
| every single one they can make.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| Not to mention skirts and tails on the trailer do more to
| improve aerodynamics than truck modifications. Still, every
| bit counts I guess.
| bombcar wrote:
| And the only time I see those tails unfurled is when it's
| an owner-operator driving at 55 (they know they're getting
| paid by the mile and so run as fuel efficient as they can).
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > make a seat that can slide to the side
|
| I wonder if that would even be sufficient. The sloped sides
| mean that even if the driver can sit directly next to the
| window, there's still a hard limit on how close he can get to
| whatever he is next to.
| modeless wrote:
| Yeah he seems to not understand the importance of aerodynamics,
| as demonstrated by his complaint that you need extra power to
| run the AC because of the sloped windshield. The Tesla Semi
| will be consuming around 100 kW at cruising speed. Air
| resistance is the largest single contributor to that
| consumption. AC is likely to take something like 6 kW even at
| the highest setting. I'd bet that even in worst case heat the
| difference in AC consumption between vertical and sloped
| windshield (1 kW? less?) will be totally swamped by the
| improved aerodynamics. And then in the winter extra heat
| capture will be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
|
| There are some good points in here but there's clearly a strong
| bias.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > you need extra power to run the AC because of the sloped
| windshield
|
| My impression was the the complaint about the sloped
| windshield was primarily about snow; the air conditioning
| complaint had more to do with the enormous size. It's a big
| glass greenhouse.
| modeless wrote:
| > "The angled windscreen means [...] cab overheating [...]
| You can solve it with A/C of course. Which will use even
| more power, shortening your range."
|
| He is explicitly claiming that the angled windshield will
| increase power consumption and shorten range. I think it's
| pretty clear that the opposite is true even in the worst
| case.
| simondotau wrote:
| A larger but well insulated cab could have a lower A/C
| energy cost than a smaller but less well insulated cab.
|
| More air volume doesn't dramatically change the energy
| footprint when a stable temperature is being held for a
| long period of time. With sufficient insulation, the main
| consequence will be greater hysteresis, i.e. bringing the
| cab to temperature might consume more energy.
| faitswulff wrote:
| It will increase power consumption if you are using the
| AC to melt accumulated ice or snow.
| ErikCorry wrote:
| The cab-forward design is driven by Europe having a max length
| for trucks that includes the tractor, whereas in the US the max
| length doesn't include the tractor.
|
| For this reason I don't expect to see the Tesla Semi in Europe
| soon.
| Alupis wrote:
| Which means more cabin room, which means more comfort for
| resting/sleeping/relaxing in addition to driving for folks
| that literally live in these vehicles for days or weeks at a
| time.
|
| > For this reason I don't expect to see the Tesla Semi in
| Europe soon
|
| I'm not expecting to see the Tesla Semi in the US soon
| either... it's a product in search of a problem.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I genuinely had the same thoughts. Just the fact that it was so
| clearly different showed that Tesla hadn't even talked to actual
| truckers about it. It's significantly more cramped than a roomy
| American style cab, and has very little room for the things a
| trucker might bring with them.
|
| Truckers also occasionally bring family with them on some trips,
| and this cab makes that kind of thing impossible.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I agree with the complaints it's not built for/around the driver.
| It's built for range. Having a vertical windscreen just isn't
| going to be efficient. The window deicing problem is worth
| solving to get the range of a streamlined front. The next
| iteration of this vehicle will likely solve many of these
| complaints (of which some seem poorly designed for no obvious
| reason) but I doubt it will ever have a vertical windscreen.
| andinaror wrote:
| glogla wrote:
| It is not interesting just to see that the design is bad, but
| that it is getting worse over time. Model S was relatively normal
| car. Model X added crazy doors. Model 3 has tablet in the middle
| and no physical controls and bunch of other stupid decisions (but
| normal doors). The Semi has all these issues. And the Cybertruck
| is just entirely plain idiotic as a whole.
|
| It is as if the Tesla designers (or Musk micromanaging them) are
| getting more and more detached from reality.
| wilg wrote:
| The Model 3/Y have many physical controls and is great to
| drive! The doors on the X are pretty silly though.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The Model 3 today is alright. Would be significantly better
| with auto presenting door handles, a normal latch for the
| glovebox, an infrared sensor for rain, and the option to use
| old school cruise control.
|
| The thought that they might do something silly like a yoke
| and "automatic" gear selection in the Model 3 is a bit
| horrifying. That will push away a lot of the regular folks
| who just want their car to be a car. Hell, I'd like to be
| able to turn OFF autopilot on my model 3 altogether, because
| I'd happily give up lane keeping just for the ability to use
| old-school cruise control.
| wilg wrote:
| The door handles don't bug me, but they do confuse people
| the first few times.
|
| Couldn't care less about the glovebox. I don't keep
| anything I regularly use in there and I like that it has a
| PIN for secure storage and is otherwise invisible.
|
| Haven't tried the yoke so who the hell knows.
|
| I would never want to use cruise control instead of
| Autopilot (though it does have it, sort of). I assume by
| "old school" you mean not using the Autopilot speed logic?
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > Model 3 has tablet in the middle and no physical controls and
| bunch of other stupid decisions (but normal doors).
|
| Which is a dealbreaker for me as well, but people seem to
| accept and/or like it. The number of orders speak for
| themselves and, while I hear a lot of complaints from owners,
| the tablet is usually not one of them.
| AndrewStephens wrote:
| These criticisms all miss the point, assuming that this vehicle
| was designed for drivers to use to ship actual goods instead of
| investors to view and throw money at.
|
| I suspect this design is quite good at that.
| samwillis wrote:
| My expectation is that Teslas real play with the Semi is a long
| term plan for self driving trucks.
|
| It seems to me that "backhaul" routs are the most likely to
| benefit from self driving, either with a person on board or not.
| Use a self driving truck, where you aren't paying a driver by the
| hour. It doesn't need to overtake, can drive at the most
| economical speed. It can stick to very well controlled and mapped
| routes. Restrict them to certain lanes on the road. Place depots
| at the exit/entry points to the backhaul where the cab is swapped
| out for one with a driver.
|
| They may claim this is "designed around the driver", but the
| reality is it's designed around (eventually) making the driver
| redundant.
|
| Why design a cab to be optimised to the driver when you plan to
| remove them. No, you design around efficiency, that's what they
| have done here.
|
| That's not to say I believe that Tesla will achieve that, or that
| this can is well designed. I think it will be companies with a
| long history in the industry, understanding of their local
| markets, that will do this.
| flutas wrote:
| > It seems to me that "backhaul" routs are the most likely to
| benefit from self driving, either with a person on board or
| not. Use a self driving truck, where you aren't paying a driver
| by the hour. It doesn't need to overtake, can drive at the most
| economical speed. It can stick to very well controlled and
| mapped routes. Restrict them to certain lanes on the road.
| Place depots at the exit/entry points to the backhaul where the
| cab is swapped out for one with a driver.
|
| Stage one of that is probably "Convoy Mode" as they call it.
|
| > "Convoy Mode," which optimizes efficiency while allowing
| several uncrewed trucks to follow a lead, crewed vehicle.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/16/tesla-semi-has-the-technic...
|
| NOTE: not talking about feasibility one way or the other, just
| mentioning that they have claimed similar goals in the past.
| InTheArena wrote:
| I'm guessing that this author is European. Just a guess because a
| lot of the criticism seem more applicable to Europe, as most of
| the complaints are ones that I have heard comparing a European
| cab over engine truck versus an American conventional truck.
| Also, there tend to be fewer situations where American drivers
| need to get out, except at rest stops and weigh stations. Weigh
| stations (from what I understand, not an expert in this field)
| are automated in the USA, while rest stops require disembarking.
|
| Cab over versus "Standard" almost always come down to the maximum
| length of a truck being determined with the cab in Europe, and
| without in the USA. The vastly shorter trip duty length is also a
| factor - you get in and out much more frequently in Europe.
| simondotau wrote:
| I'd be far more interested in hearing thoughts from someone who
| has actually driven the Semi.
| jedberg wrote:
| The Tesla cars have strange things in them too where it seems
| like they were designed by people who don't use the cars for
| work.
|
| The prime example being the lack of coat hangers in the car.
| People who use their car for work often have to carry dry
| cleaning or uniforms or other hanging items in the car. They
| eventually made one you can buy as an add on, but it was strange
| that it didn't have them.
|
| Also the whole tablets thing (also mentioned here). The cars have
| the same problem -- it's really hard to do anything by touch and
| they are always glowing at you. This sucks for everyone but
| especially people who use their car for work and most likely are
| trying to make a call or do other things they probably shouldn't
| be doing while driving.
| potatochup wrote:
| What the designers/engineers want (convenience, ease of use) is
| often sidelined in favor of making money (keeping mfg costs
| low, dealing with supply chain issues)
| moocow01 wrote:
| They do technically have coat hangers in back but they pop out.
| bagels wrote:
| My Model 3 has coat hanger hooks in it. Maybe only older or
| specific ones lack them?
| pastor_bob wrote:
| "What's the point of these complaints when the driver will be
| replaced by FSD in one year" - Elon
| rootusrootus wrote:
| One hopes that between boondoggles like this, the roadster,
| cybertruck, yoke, FSD, not to mention Twitter, that people will
| become more skeptical and realistic instead of swallowing
| everything Elon says without any critical thought.
| themagician wrote:
| Tesla knows all this.
|
| This truck is for a very specific niche: owned fleets near two
| warehouses or within a 500 mile round trip from a major port.
| Basically: all the warehouses in the Inland Empire near LAX and
| Long Beach and the warehouses in the Newark area that service the
| NYC metro area. It has the potential to dramatically reduce costs
| for some routes/corridors.
|
| It will be a big hit in these areas. It will have a large impact
| on a very specific niche. There's nothing wrong with that. These
| aren't going to be used by independent truckers. It's not for
| them. It's for drivers making the same 80-100 mile or so trip
| from port to warehouse every day.
| spoils19 wrote:
| Agreed. This Twitter thread just looks like someone trying to
| get their 15 minutes of fame by picking a fight with Musk. As
| we've been shown over the past few weeks, Elon always comes out
| on top.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Thread is written by trucker who is making correct points to
| a design made in an office, but never consulted with an end
| user.
| jsight wrote:
| TBH, I really wonder if fuel delivery would be a big market
| eventually. There seems to be a lot of traffic between near-
| urban terminals and urban gas stations that is very inefficient
| with diesel semis.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Also note that (nearly?) all EU trucks are cab-over-engine
| because laws in Europe on the overall length of the truck are
| more strict, so you get more cargo for the same LOA vs a
| conventional cab. Author of TFA certainly appears to be in
| Europe.
| jeffbee wrote:
| If that's the use case then Tesla has entered the market late
| and with an inappropriate solution. You can already buy that
| local route electric truck from 4 different legit truck
| companies.
| elijaht wrote:
| I don't see how that is relevant. Nearly all of the criticisms
| posed (maybe not the snow one?) would still be relevant to a
| driver in the situation you describe. This has nothing to do
| with range or even the fact that it's electric
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| While I largely agree with you, there are at least a subset
| of the complaints in the Twitter thread that are pretty
| inconsequential if the truck is only intended for < 500 mile
| routes (for example, the "no space for a bed" complaint).
| anigbrowl wrote:
| You think that drivers won't be asked to do 3 trips a day,
| or that the truck will never break down miles from
| anywhere?
| kristjansson wrote:
| The driver sleeps in the truck in neither of those
| scenarios. The driver drives back and forth from the port
| until his shift is over, then another driver takes over.
| If the truck breaks down ... you're in the middle of Los
| Angeles. Someone from the company picks you up, and you
| drive another truck, or go home.
|
| GP's (very reasonable) thesis is that these are for truck
| driving as a day-job, in fair-weather locales, which
| obviates most of the complaints.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Who cares if they do 3 trips a day, it's not like they
| won't need to stop and unload on each trip. Beds-in-cabs
| is really only a thing for long haul truckers. There are
| tons of vehicles used for trips of the length that the
| Tesla Semi is for that don't have beds, and nobody would
| expect they would.
| lukas099 wrote:
| > It has the potential to dramatically reduce costs for some
| routes/corridors.
|
| This alone is extremely relevant.
| themagician wrote:
| Most of the criticism assumes people will be in these cabs
| for 8 hours at a time. They won't. This is for very short
| trips. We are talking 80-100 mi each way. 2-3 hrs in each
| direction, max. It's not for independent truckers.
| another_devy wrote:
| Even in this case what advantage it has over existing
| electric trucks which don't have these design flaws?
| aliswe wrote:
| This is my issue. You're replying but clearly you are
| missing that there arent any electric semis to compete
| with.
|
| The author of the thread also clearly hasn't ridden a
| tesla semi, so he is just assuming that eg the mirrors
| can't be cleaned either from the inside nor the outside.
| Isnt that a bit too bad of a take?
|
| I mean I love to read about his experience, but many of
| his points of criticism seem hypothetical.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| What existing electric trucks?
| mentalpiracy wrote:
| Here are four examples for you:
|
| Mercedes: https://electrek.co/2022/09/19/mercedes-benz-
| eactros-longhau...
|
| Scania: https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/products-
| and-services/t...
|
| Volvo: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-
| en/trucks/alternative-fuels/e...
|
| DAF: https://www.daf.com/en/about-
| daf/sustainability/alternative-...
| ojagodzinski wrote:
| https://twitter.com/TOrynski/status/1600970796159336449
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Mercedes, Volvo, Nikola, Renault.
| themagician wrote:
| There are no other electric semis. But if you mean diesel
| cabs, the answer is operating cost. In an ideal
| environment the operating cost of a Tesla Semi is about
| 1/3rd (conservative estimate) that of a diesel.
|
| That environment is, again, very specific. But if your
| routes are short and predictable, you have massive
| warehouse space for solar, and you can get your average
| electricity cost as low as Tesla can then it pays off. 1
| million miles in a diesel is going to cost well over $1
| million dollars (including the price of the cab). With a
| Tesla Semi that cost is at least half... IF you can get
| the electricity cost low enough.
| ffssffss wrote:
| There are several other electric semis, the thread lists
| their manufacturers at the end.
| Chirono wrote:
| Yes there are: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-
| en/trucks/alternative-fuels/e...
| retromario wrote:
| What about the 4 examples of other electric semis shared
| at the end of the original thread?
|
| https://twitter.com/TOrynski/status/1600970796159336449
| eastof wrote:
| TFA references several competing electric truck makers
| such as https://nikolamotor.com/tre-bev
| jackmott42 wrote:
| The central seating position issues become less relevant for
| this use case.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > It's for drivers making the same 80-100 mile or so trip from
| port to warehouse every day.
|
| Why the range, then? Surely something lower-range (and thus
| cheaper) would be preferable there.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| It sounds like Tesla has a lot to prove to skeptical
| truckers, so a big number on range can head off some
| criticism.
|
| I think what people are saying is that there are a lot of
| 80-100 mile trips that this can serve, where the criticisms
| aren't really a big issue. But more range still means
| expanded use cases.
| TylerE wrote:
| Trucks tend to have lots of idle time - truckers like their
| comms and climate control to work while they're waiting to
| get loaded, for one.
|
| Also, you might have a local truck used in more than one back
| to back shift.
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm not following, how would it reduce costs over different
| trucks?
| feifan wrote:
| Cost-per-mile is cheaper from electricity than from diesel,
| and it's expected to have lower maintenance costs too (fewer
| moving parts, no oil changes, etc)
| epolanski wrote:
| > Cost-per-mile is cheaper from electricity than from
| diesel
|
| Depends where.
|
| > and it's expected to have lower maintenance costs too
|
| That's theory. Compare maintenance costs of a Tesla and any
| hybrid Toyota.
| foobazgt wrote:
| It's been almost four years for me, and I've had to spend
| exactly $0 in maintenance on my Model 3. We'll see what
| the future holds, but not bad so far.
| themagician wrote:
| The cost per mile will be radically lower IF (big if)
| customers can actually achieve the wholesale electric rates
| that Tesla estimates are possible. Like, dramatically lower.
| The cost of diesel over 1 million miles is going to be north
| of $600k easily. At Elon's "guaranteed" 7C//kwh the cost to
| run a Tesla Semi over the same mileage is about 1/3rd.
|
| This truck is designed to be an efficient workhorse for short
| routes with owned fleets.
| epolanski wrote:
| Electricity cost is much higher in the US and almost 10
| times more expensive in Europe.
|
| Also, a diesel engine can easily run millions of miles, I
| don't believe a battery's efficiency would hold even few
| hundred thousands. Teslas don't at least and degrade around
| 10% every 100k miles, with most dying before hitting 400k.
|
| Like everything those calculations seem always based on
| best case scenarios and ignore that batteries are super
| expensive and degrade at each cycle.
| themagician wrote:
| Hence the big "IF".
|
| Still, some companies will be able to realize the gains.
| They can invest in solar on site. The people purchasing
| these often have warehouses with 1,000,000 sq ft of roof
| space.
| maxerickson wrote:
| My residential retail electricity is 0.098 per kw-h.
| Midwest prices are generally decent, but the town is
| buying from ~1 large utility to get that rate, with a few
| solar panels perhaps lowering costs some of the time.
| Seems like there is room to do better just going to
| market, and there is certainly room to do better by
| buying directly from new solar installed in the next few
| years.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| > Elon's "guaranteed" 7C//kwh
|
| Can somebody say more about this? I'm struggling with
| finding more info on it.
|
| Further up, folk were talking about this being useful near
| LA in and in CA ... but the price of electricity is well
| above that here.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| You may be thinking of residential rates which are many
| times higher
| simondotau wrote:
| > how would it reduce costs
|
| https://youtu.be/BiJ45_hXJe0?t=69
| jeffbee wrote:
| Doesn't that work out to like 2C/ per ton-mile??? Don't
| confuse yourself by only looking at the numerator. It
| probably costs close to $100k to refuel a train.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Besides the fact that other electric trucks already exist, I
| question the roadworthiness of a design that doesn't have any
| instrumentation directly in front of the driver (like a
| speedometer...) and that puts the driver several paces and a
| corner away from a door, which seems like a distinct
| disadvantage in the event of a crash or a fire.
| quonn wrote:
| There is really no difference if the speedometer is in front
| (actually below) or to the right. In both cases your eyes
| have to refocus. I tried both. It's a non-issue in the Model
| 3/Y.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Still can't hand papers out the window, which happens to all
| trucks (weigh stations aren't optional, etc).
|
| Still getting mud all over the inside with the door behind the
| seat. Even if you aren't sleeping in it, you're spending time
| there.
| themagician wrote:
| Minor inconvenience. Pepsi doesn't care how you hand papers
| to someone. FedEx doesn't care if you get mud in the cab,
| you'll just have to clean it after your shift.
|
| This is the kind of efficiency tool that will be bought by
| large corporations and forced on drivers.
| nyrikki wrote:
| You still have to look over you shoulder when merging and
| need the ability to shift your body to see in the mirror or
| to check where your tire is when backing up.
|
| I get that lots of car drivers merge by faith, but you kill
| people and potentially spend time in jail in a CMV.
|
| Local deliveries are far more dependant on this than OTR,
| and even the drivers of front discharge cement trucks with
| narrow cabs complain about this.
| themagician wrote:
| Sucks to have to drive this then.
|
| If Pepsi believes it can cut its transport costs for
| certain routes by 20% it doesn't care how inconvenienced
| or annoyed you are.
| soheil wrote:
| Driver in the middle gives better visibility and command and
| control of the road. I don't understand the negativity here when
| the guy presumably a truck driver's tweet 1. ends up on top of
| hacker news! 2. complains about something he hasn't test driven
| or experienced.
|
| Look at McLaren F1 driver seating position [1] probably the best
| car ever made in terms of maneuverability, control and command of
| the road.
|
| I can't stop wondering if these are coordinated attacks on Musk,
| let's give the truck a chance before piling on. If other Tesla
| cars are a guide it will be a game changer.
|
| [1] https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-
| cars/a12019...
| a4isms wrote:
| I am not a trucker, so I can't comment on the veracity of TFA's
| claims. But this rant reminds me of many similar things I've read
| about products that were designed by people only had superficial
| experience with the industry they are trying to disrupt.
|
| A lot of the things that matter aren't necessarily obvious to the
| designer or engineer who knows little about the nuts and bolts of
| every field. The usual remedy is to either follow a design
| process that incorporates user viewpoints, or to hire people with
| direct experience in the field.
|
| Take the "wiping the mirrors" complaint. One design makes it easy
| to lean out the window and wipe the mirror by hand. Another
| design might make the mirrors retractible.
|
| If I read a complain that retracting the mirrors was unnecessary
| complexity, I would think "Hmm, maybe, but then again it's a
| tradeoff because the narrow cab is more aero and increases
| range." I'd have a feeling that the designers knew this was an
| important use case, but this person complaining doesn't like
| their solution.
|
| But it worries me that a number of use cases that seem quite
| obviously common even to a layperson... Are neglected outright. I
| don't get the impression that Tesla knew about all this and
| decided not to do anything about them, I get the impression that
| this is a company who thinks "design" is all about styling, and
| not about usability.
|
| Somebody resurrect Steve Jobs.
| jsight wrote:
| Considering that the original lead for the project was also the
| lead for the Cascadia, I don't think its fair to say that they
| lacked people with industry knowledge.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Devil's advocate: the buyer and operator of the trucks may not
| care what the driver thinks. Most of these complaints don't
| seem to hit at the truck's profitability for its target market.
| neither_color wrote:
| If anything it reminds me of all the arguments on slashdot when
| iPhone was announced that it would never take off because full
| touchscreen phones without a physical keyboard were a gimmick.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| But then we also had the cybertruck that seems stuck because
| of its design, or the hyperloop. It wouldn't be Elon's first
| dumb idea.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Is the difference here is there is already long running
| expectations? The iPhone was charting a brand new course
| across undiscovered seas, how trucks drivers interact with
| their vehicle is an experience with literally generations of
| data.
| TylerE wrote:
| Slashdot is the Jim Cramer of tech. ("No wireless. Less space
| than a Nomad. Lame").
| imperialdrive wrote:
| Heck, even most of what Microsoft designs/builds/releases is
| after-the-fact mind boggling un-user-friendly, and they are
| mostly working on their own and hugely deployed products with
| many years of real world experience already under their belt.
| And they still screw it up regularly! I don't readily know what
| one would call this phenomenon. Is it as serious as technical
| cancer? Dementia? If feels like a disease that is spreading to
| so many companies rather far, and fast. Perhaps the good news
| is that it _should_ result in more competition, I think. Tall
| growth getting hit with beetles, ideally leaving behind fertile
| ground for something else?
| blagie wrote:
| My general design process:
|
| 1. Design it myself. Get my ideas on paper before I'm biased.
|
| 2. Review designs. See how other people did it.
|
| 3. Talk to experts.
|
| 4. Integrate ideas and build it.
|
| Most of my clever ideas turn out to be dumb at step #2 or #3,
| but a few pan out, and those have been important. In many
| cases, there is some kind of fusion too.
|
| It seems someone missed steps 2-4 here.
| V__ wrote:
| That sounds intriguing. Can you talk about some success (and
| failures)?
| reaperducer wrote:
| _this rant reminds me of many similar things I 've read about
| products that were designed by people only had superficial
| experience with the industry they are trying to disrupt._
|
| I've had similar experience with silly old web development.
|
| I spent a week sitting down with actual users of the web site
| that I was so proud of and watched them use it. Oh, man did
| that hurt.
|
| All the "telemetry" in the world will never prepare you for
| actually watching real people at work and talking to them.
|
| It completely changed the way I build web sites.
|
| The Tesla designers should spend more time in truck cabs,
| shadowing actual truckers. Based on this Twitter rant, it
| should be illuminating.
| Eji1700 wrote:
| To me, this point alone continues to highlight that musk is
| just focusing on looks instead of function-
|
| > Tablets. I drove a modern Mercedes truck with tablets and
| it's pin in the arse. Tablets are simply not designed for use
| in moving vehicles. You need a physical button, so you can
| reach for it even without taking your eyes off the road and
| feel it. (10)
|
| This is a KNOWN issue. There's very very little upside to any
| sort of touchscreen in a moving vehicle. And while in normal
| cars they move units because features over functionality is
| acceptable, trucks aren't status symbols first. They do, at the
| end of the day, have to do the job they're designed for
| efficiently, and things like this are clearly just "trendy" not
| practical.
| powvans wrote:
| Not just efficiently, _safely_.
| andrepd wrote:
| Cars kill 1,500,000 people per year (= a 787 full of
| passangers every couple hours). What's the big deal about
| safety? /s
| crooked-v wrote:
| The reason for the touchscreens is simple... compared to all
| the design and manufacturing needed for a good console of
| buttons, it's cheap just to slap in an identical tablet unit
| in every car model.
|
| From the very start it was just Tesla penny-pinching.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| I'm not a designer but one principle I've adopted in most
| things I purchase is to minimize complexity. My goal is always
| to optimize for "least willpower consumed". Because I know that
| if its not easy to do, I'll just skip it after a long day.
|
| If I was making something for professionals who might use the
| tool for long, tiring hours, I'd probably want to give them the
| least bit of complexity possible. At the end of an 8 hour
| shift, how many truckers will have the energy (or rather, spare
| willpower) to press a button, wait for the mirrors to retract,
| clean it, and press the button to get it back into its original
| position? Compare that to the much simpler single-step current
| process (grab cloth, clean mirror).
|
| The fewer clicks, the fewer steps, the fewer movements
| something takes, usually, the better.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-09 23:00 UTC)