[HN Gopher] Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs
Author : futureisnow23
Score : 87 points
Date : 2023-11-30 20:57 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tesla.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tesla.com)
| RockRobotRock wrote:
| If Silicon Valley was still airing, Russ Hanneman would have one
| of these.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Please, it barely has thousandaire doors.
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Xe-U4NcyU
|
| _makes hand motions_
| jaggs wrote:
| OMG, that is probably one of the ugliest pieces of tin ever
| put on this planet. Subjectively speaking of course. :)
| bigkahuna1986 wrote:
| Do you have to roll down the window part way to open the
| door?
| losvedir wrote:
| This comment is so on point I'm sitting here in my chair
| giggling to myself. Ah, I miss that show.
| objektif wrote:
| Was incredible really how accurate it was.
| voisin wrote:
| Plate 3COMMAS
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Well, we can just see if Cuban is spotted in one. My guess is
| no.
| jansan wrote:
| Great thing of the Cybertruck's stainless steel is that you
| cannot scratch the paint with the rivets of your expensive
| jeans.
|
| I likes the Russ Hanneman character so much that during COVID
| lockdowns, when I was a bit down, I paid Chris Diamantopoulos
| (the actor) on Cameo to do a short motivational video for me.
| legitster wrote:
| It's amazingly bad timing that Silicon Valley ended before
| NFTs, OpenAI, and Musk's purchase of Twitter.
| outside1234 wrote:
| I can't wait to point and laugh at the first one of these I see.
| Just horrendously ugly.
| floren wrote:
| I saw one on 101 near the Oyster Point exit. Absolutely bizarre
| on the road.
| hyuuu wrote:
| let's not punish grand experiments like these
| nullstyle wrote:
| There's nothing grand here, just bad taste and a bit of
| grift. It's just a _bad_ experiment, IMO.
| hnhg wrote:
| It's all very subjective. I love them. I hope there is a
| version 2 at some point (I am not a Tesla/Musk fan boy, I just
| want to see what might be next).
| sonicanatidae wrote:
| Agreed. The Aztec was the same way. I hate them, my partner
| thought they were cool.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| I honestly think Musk kicked the designers out of the room and
| said "how hard can this be?", Then took up a pencil and ruler
| and drew _exactly what you see_ , and told everybody "This is
| what we're building because it fucking rocks". It doesn't. It's
| a 12 year old boy's shitty drawing of dream car, and I
| guarantee you that his drawing included lots of stupid specs
| and measurements in a box to the side of it. And his name and
| age, bottom right.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| Yeah, that's probably what happened.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Apparently this is something close to the truth.
| https://insideevs.com/news/686770/some-tesla-staff-hated-
| cyb...
| ldbooth wrote:
| I've seen a couple now. They look awkward and tacky in the real
| world.
| jessehattabaugh wrote:
| No thanks, I'm reserving an Alpha Wolf
| https://www.alphamotorinc.com/vehiclereservation
| photonbeam wrote:
| Thats a big list of models for a company Ive never heard of
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| Lol was thinking the same. Seems like some random newish
| startup? Love the look of it but not reserving a car without
| proof.
| jessehattabaugh wrote:
| > but not reserving a car without proof.
|
| and that's why you're a beta, not an Alpha
| jessehattabaugh wrote:
| Probably the same platform with different bodies. Might end
| up being vaporware, but I'm voting for the design language.
| tashoecraft wrote:
| Last I looked it was more of a design company than an actual
| car manufacturer. They seem to have a prototype, but I have
| doubts it'll ever arrive. Hope to be wrong.
| promiseofbeans wrote:
| These look really cool, but I've never heard of the company.
| Are they legit?
| bagels wrote:
| They are all renderings. On a vapourware scale of Faraday
| Future to Nikola, where do these guys sit?
| stetrain wrote:
| The specs mention a "range extender" option but there don't seem
| to be any details on what that actually is.
| idlewords wrote:
| Cool silvery bungee cord that hooks onto the car in front of
| you.
| Whatarethese wrote:
| Its a add on battery that goes in the bed compartment.
| grecy wrote:
| "Yep, a toolbox-sized battery against the back of the cab in
| the bed"
|
| https://twitter.com/baglino/status/1730337374058463305?t=Pb5...
| ugh123 wrote:
| How come the "Cyberbeast" model has the same 11k lbs Towing
| Capacity as the "All Wheel Drive" version ($30k cheaper)? The
| Cyberbeast has significantly more Torque at 10,296 lb-ft vs. "All
| Wheel Drive" at 7,435
| ajross wrote:
| Presumably the limit is the hitch, not the drive train. You can
| put only so much force on a standard-sized chunk of steel.
| xeromal wrote:
| Yeah, you'd need a goosneck at some point
| shrubble wrote:
| It could be a rating on the frame and hitch that keeps it at
| that level. Or possibly braking.
| mholm wrote:
| Likely what the frame/towhook attachment is rated for, rather
| than the motors
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Without knowing much about towing things, I'd guess it's
| limited by the brakes. Could also be whatever attaches the tow
| hitch to the frame.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| Towing capacity is not a function of torque alone. You need to
| be able to brake your load, keep it stable behind the car and
| have enough juice on board to actually get it somewhere.
| xeromal wrote:
| Probably limitation of the battery pack structure.
| blcknight wrote:
| 11kish is usually ther upper limit of most half ton pickups.
| Probably a function of what the frame can handle.
|
| But Towing 11k on that thing is already going to tank your
| range to ~100 miles. I couldn't imagine towing our camper with
| this thing (and the design is stupid enough that you probably
| can't tow a fifth wheel right the cybertruck anyway)
| Aurornis wrote:
| Towing capacity is generally limited by things like the frame,
| braking capacity, and cooling capacity.
|
| If you hook any automatic transmission truck up to a really
| heavy trailer (100,000 pounds) you can probably move it around,
| but if you try to actually tow it anywhere the truck will
| either overheat or crash into something when you can't stop it
| going down a hill.
|
| Torque really only determines how fast you can accelerate the
| load, not how much you can tow on the road.
|
| Also, EV "torque" specs are not comparable to traditional car
| torque specs because they're measured differently (ICE measured
| at the engine before the transmission multiplies torque to the
| wheels, EV measured directly at the wheels)
| sonicanatidae wrote:
| Also, traction.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| I apologize for adding to a load of already good answers, but
| towing capacity is often limited by tongue weight limits (how
| much weight is sitting on the tow hitch, and thus supported by
| the suspension), which should be 10-15% of the total payload.
| While it seems like they could just balance the trailer and
| reduce tongue weight, if it is below 10% the payload becomes
| extremely dynamically unmanageable.
|
| The other limits come into play too -- torque, brakes, etc --
| but tongue weight on suspension is often why there is a
| mismatch like this.
| esaym wrote:
| Towing is complicated. Here is an F-350 at full throttle in
| second gear barely making it through mountains:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoHDQ4SKpBI
| twobitshifter wrote:
| EST. $96,390*
|
| CYBERBEAST
|
| DELIVERY IN 2024
|
| 320 MI. RANGE (EST.)
|
| 2.6 SEC. 0-60 MPH+
|
| 130 MPH TOP SPEED
|
| 845 HORSEPOWER
|
| 10,296 LB-FT TORQUE
|
| 11,000 LBS. TOWING CAPACITY
| adfm wrote:
| Bed does not fit a full sheet of plywood, so a deal-breaker for
| practical truck buyers.
|
| You'd assume 96" would be a default parameter in any generative
| model focused on "optimum truck." Am I missing something?
| Enlighten me.
| neogodless wrote:
| Every full size pick-up truck defaults to a 6-6.5' foot bed
| size (in modern times). Some offer 8' beds but it's
| relatively rare in practice (as in, most people opt for a
| quad/crew cab without the long bed). All of them can handle
| 8' plywood with the bed down, just like this 6' bed on the
| Cybertruck. Even the Ford Maverick can handle an 8' sheet of
| plywood by using an adjusted-height tailgate and the wheel
| wells.
|
| https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/models/f150-xl/ (Note they
| offer 5.5', 6.5' and 8' beds. If you go to build, and just
| click through the defaults, you will not get an 8' bed.)
|
| https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/forum/threads/hauling-
| plyw...
|
| Nothing wrong with insisting on it if it fits your needs, but
| you do not need an 8' bed to haul plywood.
| dymk wrote:
| > Literally every full size pick-up truck defaults to a
| 6-6.5' foot bed size.
|
| Nope
|
| > Some offer 8' beds but it's relatively rare in practice.
|
| Also nope
| neogodless wrote:
| https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/short-bed-
| vs-lo...
|
| > The standard bed of a pickup truck is typically 6'5"
| long
|
| (So... yup.)
|
| I can't find statistics on sales, but I rarely _see_
| trucks with 8 ' beds. Sure there are people that buy
| regular cab, 8' beds, and even some serious professionals
| that get an HD crew cab with the 8' bed (which is a
| monstrously long truck!) But in general that is not what
| I see. Thus... "rare."
|
| (So... yup.)
| dymk wrote:
| "Standard" does not mean "the average". That's a
| marketing term of art. You won't see "Standard" beds on
| jobsites. You'll see long beds, because you can fit a
| sheet goods in them.
|
| > I can't find statistics on sales, but I rarely see
| trucks with 8' beds
|
| You probably aren't around job sites very much
| neogodless wrote:
| Sure. And I would agree that the trucks you see on job
| sites are, by necessity, more "practical" truck buyers
| than what is typical. That doesn't mean it's what most
| truck buyers buy though. (Since way more people buy
| trucks than those driving them to job sites.)
| grecy wrote:
| > _Bed does not fit a full sheet of plywood, so a deal-
| breaker for practical truck buyers._
|
| Specifically said it does with the tailgate down, which is
| the norm for anything that doesn't have an 8' bed.
|
| > _You'd assume 96" would be a default parameter in any
| generative model focused on "optimum truck." Am I missing
| something? Enlighten me._
|
| I can only assume they made a tradeoff between cabin space,
| bed length and overall vehicle length. There is no perfect,
| only tradeoffs.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| I'd say around 1% of new pickup trucks have an 8' bed, if
| that. You ever seen a super duty (1-ton) crew cab truck with
| an 8' bed? They're like 22-23' long, it's ridiculous.
|
| Not being able to carry sheet goods in the bed is something
| it shares virtually every other truck on the road. On a
| short-bed regular truck, you can get a roof rack along with
| posts that go in the back corners of the bed to create a rack
| capable of holding sheet goods, pipe, lumber, ladders, etc.
|
| Regardless, why would you schlep around sheet goods in a
| pickup bed when you can have the supply house deliver them?
| The contractors I work with don't waste time running to Home
| Depot to buy material, it's delivered to the site by a supply
| house, courier, or company truck. I work in commercial
| construction, maybe the residential world is different since
| the cost of labor is much cheaper for residential
| construction.
| turtlebits wrote:
| You can't get a Toyota Tacoma with an 8 ft bed, which IMO is
| the most practical truck model. An 8ft bed truck that can
| only carry 3 passengers is not very practical.
|
| I regularly purchase 8'x4' sheet goods in my Tacoma with no
| issue.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| So the $40K CyberTruck is actually $61,000 and works on the
| assumption of tax credits being available at the end of 2025, 2
| years from now... oh, and we've gone back to the bullshit of
| "subtracting gas costs from the "probable price"."
|
| Another Elon lie. Four, nearly five years after initial claims -
| meant to be available in 2021, and 52% more expensive.
|
| "Range: 250 - 500 miles". Another lie. Try 250 - 340. 33% less.
|
| No solar roof.
|
| The brake lights might be tied with the Mini for the worst/least
| intuitive brake lights in history (the Mini has the left light
| with the left half of the Union Jack, i.e. looks like a right
| arrow, and the right light with the right half, looking like a
| left arrow, while the Cyber Truck actually turns OFF lights on
| the light bar to signify braking is happening, and turns them ON
| when no braking is happening).
| martythemaniak wrote:
| Inflation exists independently of Musk or Tesla. $61k is $51.6k
| in 2019 dollars.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| This is backwards though. Musk announced the $40K truck in
| 2019 for initial delivery in 2021. $40K in 2019 is $42.3K in
| 2021. Even now, we're at $48K.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| The tax credit timeframe is already written into law, though?
| Of course Congress can't constrain itself so it could always
| cancel (or double!) those credits, but it seems pretty
| reasonable to rely on what the law currently says.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > So the $40K CyberTruck is actually more like $57,000
|
| $61k. Click on the tab that says "purchase price".
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Fixed that. Thanks. Love those dark patterns. I'd gone with
| Purchase Price + Federal Tax. Of course Tesla has also thrown
| in $3,600+ on "probable gas savings".
|
| Probable gas savings is odd, because they also base some of
| their comparisons on an arbitrary 20mpg for ICE. "We've
| assumed a fuel economy of 20.0 miles per gallon for a
| comparable gasoline powered truck"
|
| Odd, because let's see: the Honda Ridgeline starts at 21mpg,
| and getting better from there, Tacoma, Tundra, Ranger,
| Gladiator, Ram 1500 (now we're at 25mpg), F-150, Silverado,
| Sierra 1500. So you're comparing against 7 or 8 of the best
| selling pickups, and yet using an MPG that is lower than ...
| all of them ... for comparative purposes. Not misleading at
| all.
| nailer wrote:
| The whole Cybertruck site is really well designed - animations
| are subtle and way less choppy/annoying (on my M2 Mac) than
| Apple's website.
| tyingq wrote:
| Are there any videos of how well a driver can see out of this
| thing to the sides and rear? I can't imagine it's great.
| neogodless wrote:
| mkbhd will be putting out a review soon. Otherwise we only have
| Tesla's marketing materials.
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| i've had the cybertruck for a few weeks now, here are my
| thoughts
| kcb wrote:
| Continue...
| wnevets wrote:
| That isn't a 500 mile range for $40,000.
| idlewords wrote:
| You can get a 500 mile range by towing a second, fully charged
| Cybertruck and switching them at mile 250.
| wnevets wrote:
| Wouldn't the first truck's range be significantly reduced by
| the additional weight? The second truck will have to tow a
| third fully charged truck to get us to 500 miles.
| idlewords wrote:
| Right, but remember you can also subtract the combined
| length of all these cybertrucks from the 500 mile target.
| So there's a sweet spot in there somewhere around the 400
| car mark.
| felixgallo wrote:
| also, if you make the tires out of Menger Sponge, then
| range is infinite.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's the kind of math you use Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
| for.
|
| Best would be to do the EV equivalent of _asparagus
| staging_ - you have all trucks providing acceleration, but
| trucks 1 and 2 are also being recharged by truck 3. You
| then jettison it once its battery runs dry, leaving you
| with trucks 1 and 2, the latter also charging the former.
| Again, drop truck 2 as it runs out of juice. This lets you
| get rid of excess mass as early as possible, maximizing the
| benefit of extra batteries and thrust.
| eunoia wrote:
| Serious question: do any rocket launch schemes actually
| use asparagus staging?
|
| I vaguely remember hearing it adds too much complexity
| for a real world launch. Great in KSP though.
| FeepingCreature wrote:
| Technically the Space Shuttle, if you really stretch the
| definition.
|
| I'm not aware of any others. The crossfeed is just too
| much of a failure risk.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Falcon Heavy was supposed to, in early designs, but they
| abandoned this idea due to the complexity involved - fuel
| would need to be pumped, which means complex flow
| dynamics + extra hardware that could fail (and
| catastrophically so).
|
| Outside of KSP and some rocketry books, I haven't seen
| it.
| mcnnowak wrote:
| > Prices assume ... est. gas savings of $3,600 over 3 years.
|
| Seems shady
| tyingq wrote:
| Oh wow. I missed that. That even feels illegal. FTC might come
| calling on that practice.
|
| Edit: Other comments say they've been doing that for a while,
| even with the 3 series. So, I guess it's accepted? Urgh.
| natch wrote:
| I think they do it for the intentional Streisand effect.
|
| In other words it generates a new thread on social media once
| in a while, with people talking about whether or not there
| are cost of ownership savings, with the truth generally
| coming down in Tesla's favor. And still regardless of how you
| interpret the cost equation, the controversy brings
| attention.
|
| And more in line with Occam's razor it just spurs awareness
| in the user reading the web page. You could say "no, it
| deceives the user." I think it doesn't; more deceptive is
| having a published MSRP when dealers add thousands to that
| published price and lie about EVs while they sell legacy
| cars.
| ethanbond wrote:
| "The competition does shady things too" isn't really an
| argument for this not being a simple case of posting
| misleading prices...
| lallysingh wrote:
| Weekly I put $90 in the tank. Charging 100kw I believe would
| cost me $15. That figure seems about right.
| baking wrote:
| My brother spends $100 a month to charge his Tesla at home. I
| fill up my hybrid less than once a month at about $40.
| r00fus wrote:
| Without actual miles driven it's impossible to make a
| meaningful comparison. My wife spends less on her minivan
| than my EV - but she's not driving to work every day (and
| she prefers to drive the EV when she can).
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Call me crazy but I suspect you and your brother drive a
| different amount. $100/mo in a Tesla I ballpark at driving
| 1900 miles per month, so you're probably driving less than
| him, unless you get more than 150mpg in your hybrid.
| bagels wrote:
| I spend $15/mo to charge my Tesla.
| tills13 wrote:
| yes but it's not "saving" anything. You are still spending
| the money on the price tag.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Except that, if you own the Tesla long enough, the savings
| per month will eat up the difference in cost between the
| Tesla and significantly cheaper cars.
| maximus-decimus wrote:
| They're kinda all shady.
|
| "Our car is only 15k!*"
|
| * Except no manufacturer sells the base model. Plus they'll add
| their own add-ons like anti-rust that has no scientific basis.
| Also doesn't include the shipping cost. Also AC tax isn't
| included despite literally all cars having AC
|
| The only manufacturer website I've seen that isn't super shady
| and actually includes shipping costs by default is Subaru for
| some reason.*
| martythemaniak wrote:
| No $40k truck, but $61k is $51.6k in 2019 dollars, so pretty
| reasonable price and specs.
| addicted wrote:
| That's the estimated price for delivery in 2025. Things could
| change by then.
|
| Also, we're talking about a new industry here because of which
| a lot of costs are also likely facing downwards pressure (so,
| for example, batteries are almost certainly cheaper today than
| they were 4-5 years ago).
|
| Edit: This has caught me by surprise but EV battery prices seem
| to have started going up in constant dollars. It's still lower
| than in 2019, so the nominal dollars are probably slightly
| lower than 2019, but I haven't been following this for a few
| years and assumed battery prices were still going down in
| constant dollars.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/883118/global-lithium-io...
| idlewords wrote:
| And if they delay delivery another five years, it will come in
| below the promised price!
| sonicanatidae wrote:
| Yeah, but service takes weeks to months, body panels may or may
| not align, and I'm 173% positive that hardware that was paid
| for, will be put behind a subscription wall, just like the rest
| of the Tesla fleet.
|
| While I'm not a fan of this truck, Tesla remains the issue.
| mminer237 wrote:
| > Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for Rear-
| Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings of $3,600
| over 3 years.
|
| This seems like a new low in scammy marketing. I can't wait for
| everything to have wildly undermarked prices with small asterisks
| saying it's when you subtract all the ways it will save you money
| in the long term.
| mholm wrote:
| They've been doing this for many years now. The 3 was released
| with the prices calculated in this way on the website.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| "They've been lying for years" is hardly a defence. In most
| countries this kind of pricing nonsense is illegal.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| You can just click the "purchase price" tab instead of the
| "probable savings" tab.
| neogodless wrote:
| Totally missed that subtle dark gray on black design element!
| You have to begin scrolling immediately to see the three trim
| levels, and by then, the tabs are lost forever. Quite
| literally fits the phrase "dark pattern", ha!
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| It shows a reasonable disclaimer at the bottom:
|
| > * Prices assume IRA Federal Tax Credits up to $7,500 for
| Rear-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive and est. gas savings
| of $3,600 over 3 years.
| wilg wrote:
| I mean clearly you can read it since it's the same text
| color and background color as the price you are complaining
| about, as well as all the specs.
| chr-s wrote:
| They also do this thing at the top of their product page [0]
| where they say 11,000 lbs towing capacity, 340 mi. range
| (estimated), 2.6 sec 0-60 mph (with leadout). But they aren't
| selling a truck with those exact specs. The AWD has a 340 mi.
| range (est.) and a 4.1 0-60 and the Cyberbeast has a 320 mi.
| range (est.) and a 2.6 0-60 mph (with leadout). They pick the
| best attribute from each to highlight on the top of their
| product page. Note that they also advertise one model's 0-60
| with leadout and one without so the difference between them
| looks more substantial than it is.
|
| [0] https://www.tesla.com/cybertruck
| zeusk wrote:
| How is it any different from $10,000 Full Self Driving
| "Autopilot" will be out anytime next year(tm)
| constantly wrote:
| You get the credit on your taxes, enshrined in law.
| 7e wrote:
| In most (32) states there are extra fees added to yearly EV
| registration to compensate for the lack of gas tax revenue, but
| Tesla never includes them in their calculations. Insurance
| costs and tire wear are usually much higher for Teslas, too.
| Neither does Tesla include the costs of the charger or the
| electrician's installation fees (~$1,000). Supercharging fees
| on road trips are completely ignored. It's also highly unlikely
| that anyone considering the purchase of these cars meets
| federal tax credit income thresholds ($7,500). Borderline
| fraudulent.
| verdverm wrote:
| I'm looking at insurance plans and it is the same story, they
| show price as if you get the maximum govt assistance, even if I
| put in $1M for annual income.
|
| I see this style of price hiding more prevalent everywhere. Too
| much psychology and dark patterns have invaded everything we
| do. I cannot count how many times I click a cool new open
| source project link on HN, see a pricing page, and find a
| "monthly" price with an astrix and toggle to see the real
| monthly price
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| This doesn't seem very different than advertising a price after
| a rebate.
|
| Saving $1,200 a year on gas seems reasonable if you pay $4/gal
| and fill up a 14gal tank twice a month. I'm not sure about the
| tax credit -- I assume those are guaranteed to whoever
| purchases the vehicle, but maybe that's not the case.
| modeless wrote:
| The tax credit is guaranteed as long as you made less than 300k
| this year or last year (150k if not married), and it is now
| given directly at time of purchase instead of later when you
| file. Seems OK to include. The gas savings is much more
| speculative.
| microtherion wrote:
| Do people making less than 150k buy 100k cars? I don't have a
| good sense for how Americans budget their vehicle purchases.
| DennisP wrote:
| The $7,500 at least is pretty legit, since in 2024 the IRS will
| let you get the discount at point of sale.
|
| https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/ev-tax-credit-elect...
| nikcub wrote:
| If you switch the site to Australia[0] you'll notice they don't
| do this - it's because by consumer law they're not allowed to,
| and you have to quote the "drive away price"
|
| You can't even deduct the various gov rebates or tax
| exemptions; only mention that you _may_ qualify.
|
| They have a smaller and lower contrast "after cost savings" at
| the bottom of the page - but the price on the site is the
| price, as it damn well should be.
|
| [0] https://www.tesla.com/en_au/model3/design#overview
| siquick wrote:
| > With the ability to pull near infinite mass and a towing
| capability of over 14,000 pounds, Cybertruck can perform in
| almost any extreme situation with ease.
|
| This is direct quote from the Tesla site from 3 weeks ago.
|
| It's now 11,000lbs on the linked page. More Musk bullshittery.
| FredPret wrote:
| OK but nobody takes "pulling infinite mass" as an engineering
| specification. That's clearly marketing talking, something all
| car co's do.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| parent ignored "pulling infinite mass", I believe, and was
| pointing out the significant reduction in towing capacity.
| 14,000lbs sounded like a promised specification.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Just for reference because I was curious what the competition
| offered:
|
| R1T - 11k
|
| F150 Lightning (beefiest trim) - 10k
| shrubble wrote:
| It can pull infinite mass. Just not all at once!
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| What surprised me is the "order with card" choice. I haven't
| bought a new car in a while, but is it normal to be defaulted to
| putting a $100,000 purchase on a credit card?
|
| Edit: Nevermind, it's a $250 deposit on a later $100,000
| purchase.
| tracedddd wrote:
| That's because it's for the $250 deposit.
| unregistereddev wrote:
| That's just the $250 deposit. Car dealers also require deposits
| when ordering a car, and it is common to put that on a credit
| card.
|
| I would be surprised if Tesla allows placing the entire order
| by credit card.
| jayflux wrote:
| It's the deposit, the car payment isn't by card
| doitLP wrote:
| For the people that can afford one? Sure. AMEX has no limit and
| plenty of other cards for high net worth individuals are
| similar. Plus weirdly, people like that usually really like to
| collect the credit card points.
| chomp wrote:
| I've tried multiple times to pay the full balance with
| credit, the most I've seen dealerships be okay with is 3k or
| 4k of the balance.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| My father-in-law has done it. He was in a strong
| negotiating position; I'm not sure why he didn't just use
| that position to lower the price an extra 3% instead...
| sonicanatidae wrote:
| Amex Green, at least, has a soft limit.
|
| You can raise it, but you have to have strong financials and
| talk to them.
| ggreer wrote:
| You use the card to put down a deposit. Then you get a loan,
| and/or pay by check or bank transfer (or even cash, I guess).
| popcalc wrote:
| It's worth having the choice. Have a friend who was flying
| private to his college campus when he realized his tuition was
| due and got flustered. Pulled out the Amex and a couple minutes
| and 50K later it was no longer an issue. The convenience is
| appreciated at times like that.
|
| Moreover, a substantial amount of remote European contractors
| who use US LLCs put their personal expenditures on company CCs
| to evade CRS.
| thedaly wrote:
| How long will it take to get one? Three years?
| StephenSmith wrote:
| There's an estimate they have 1.9M reservations. Even at 1k
| deliveries a day, that will take another 5 years. I doubt they'll
| hit that delivery rate soon.
| tills13 wrote:
| It's a $100, refundable deposit to hold your position in line.
| I would be surprised if they convert even 1% of those
| reservations.
| idlewords wrote:
| According to the site it's now $250.
| Whatarethese wrote:
| Yep but the past 5 years its been $100 refundable to
| reserve.
| shrubble wrote:
| Even at $100 each that is a $200 million dollar interest free
| loan. Pretty nice!
| Ninjinka wrote:
| We all knew the pricing would never hold, but seeing it now it
| still hurts
| brownkonas wrote:
| The tri-motor 500 mile range was probably the aspect that I
| found most exciting, seeing that removed hurts as well.
| natch wrote:
| The race against the Porche 911 is hilarious:
|
| https://x.com/Tesla/status/1730326461469331929
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| I ordered mine for resale the second it was available.
|
| The more of a Clusterfuck this is the more valuable they will be
| to the current breed of nihilist capitalists.
|
| Knowing you can't resale for a year again, just ensures demand
| for Gen 1 Cybertruck will just be delayed but increases the
| scarcity fears of people who actually care for some reason.
|
| Reselling cult members their own merch is old magic
| unglaublich wrote:
| What kind of hatred for their surroundings needs one to consider
| buying this death-sentence-on-wheels?
| owenpalmer wrote:
| Why is it a death-sentence-on-wheels?
| Toutouxc wrote:
| It's huge, weighs three tons, has the acceleration of a
| supersport, has only sharp edges. Like your usual US truck,
| but somehow even more asocial. If this was construction
| equipment or any other kind of machinery, you'd need so much
| training and insurance to just be allowed to touch it.
| kcb wrote:
| Have you seen the massive flat surface on the front of
| pretty much every pickup? It seems like if anything the
| hood angle would make it better than those.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| Faster quarter mile drag speed than a Porsche 911 _while also
| towing a 911_
|
| That's incredible marketing.
|
| https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1730331223992472029
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I am a car enthusiast (although not one who could afford either
| a 911 nor a Cybertruck) but respectfully, who cares about
| quarter mile times? Most car people I know want a car with some
| poke, but care much more about how it handles twisties (and how
| much fun it is doing so). And I'd bet my bottom dollar the 911
| would beat the refrigerator-looking truck all day long.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| But what if you need to help your friends move a quarter mile
| at a time as fast as possible?
| vaidhy wrote:
| We call it a sprint in software engineering and that is how
| we run marathons :)
| brewdad wrote:
| Car people may want a car for the twisty roads. Average Joes
| want a car that will let them beat the line for the freeway
| merge and cut in ahead of all the losers in slow vehicles.
| adgrnhioaedntio wrote:
| Dangerous jackasses, you mean. Anyone who regularly floors
| the accelerator on public roads has no business driving.
| Any modern car has more than enough power for any practical
| purpose.
| m463 wrote:
| Most people don't need 16gb of ram, or a pickup bed, or more
| than one bathroom, or...
| tamimio wrote:
| Comparing apple to orange.. still will get 911 any day.
| grecy wrote:
| Elon said a long time ago they wanted their vehicles to be a
| smackdown for Internal Combustion Engines, and I think they're
| getting there. This is the kind of marketing that make regular
| people go "Wait, what? How is that possible?".
|
| More than about 10 years ago that was simply unheard of, and
| I'm certain people would have said it was impossible.
|
| Useful or not, it's a very impressive thing to do. 99% of
| automakers would be happy if they could build a sports scar
| faster than a 911, let alone a pickup with 11,000lbs towing
| capacity.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| AFAICT, sports cars faster than a 911 are relatively common.
| What automakers would be happy to beat would be the 911's
| handling.
| ska wrote:
| > a sports care faster than a 911
|
| Eh, it's not really interesting if you can't corner. Lots of
| trucks aren't actually bad at it, all you need is a ton of
| torque, tires that can take it, and enough weight and length
| to keep the front end down. Easy enough any automaker can do
| it if they choose, but 1/4 mile numbers are a mostly
| meaningless pissing contest unless you are actually building
| drag cars.
|
| Now if Tesla could build anything that handled up near
| Porsche territory, that would be interesting.
| rgmerk wrote:
| There is something quite shocking (pardon the pun) to older car
| enthusiasts about just how fast off the line dual-motor EVs
| are.
|
| The super coupes of one's youth are utterly obliterated on the
| dragstrip, not by EV coupes, but by family SUVs and pickup
| trucks.
|
| That said, just because they can go fast in a straight line
| doesn't make them in any way equivalent to a 911. Give me a
| mountain pass or a racetrack, (and no kids or stuff to carry)
| and I'll take the 911 every single time.
| JumpinJack_Cash wrote:
| > > That's incredible marketing.
|
| Still the best statement to describe Musk and his companies.
| hx8 wrote:
| Are you saying the best statement you can use to describe
| SpaceX is "incredible marketing"?
| burkaman wrote:
| That's a cool video, but very strange decision to have audio of
| Elon at some press conference or something instead of the
| actual race. You're expecting engines and tire screeches and
| instead it's like 5 or 10 mildly excited people that aren't
| there.
| adgrnhioaedntio wrote:
| The 911 Turbo S has a 0-60 time of 2.6 seconds, but Car and
| Driver clocked it at 2.2. Its quarter-mile time is 10.1
| seconds.
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/porsche/911-turbo-turbo-s
|
| I don't know what's going on with that video. If we take
| Tesla's specs at face value, which I definitely don't, the 911
| Turbo S is dramatically faster on the straights. Not that it
| matters, because no one has ever bought a 911 to drive in a
| straight line.
|
| Methinks Tesla is up to their old tricks!
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-autopilot-staged-engineer...
| danans wrote:
| The cheapest F150 Lightning (available today not in 2025) is $50k
| (vs $60k for Cybertruck), same 250 mile range but _AWD standard_
| , and is a regular pickup truck compatible with standard
| accessories and parts for doing actual pickup truck work.
|
| Of course, most of the buyers of either the Cybertruck or the
| F150 Lightning probably aren't getting much dirt under their
| fingernails. Everyone I know doing construction/trade work tends
| to drive much smaller pickups.
|
| We need a lot more Chevy Bolts and electric buses, and a smaller
| electric pickup truck with 2 doors, but instead this is what we
| will get due to the cultural moment we are at, and because of who
| has the money to spend on new vehicles today.
| redox99 wrote:
| > The cheapest F150 Lightning (available today not in 2025) is
| $50k
|
| Can you actually buy it at that price?
| danans wrote:
| I see several listed in my area for around $53k. So
| approximately yes.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| What you see listed and what the dealer will actually give
| it to you for are not necessarily the same thing,
| infamously so in the case of in-demand models like this.
| NewJazz wrote:
| _Car dealers say they can't sell EVs, tell Biden to slow
| their rollout_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38460281
|
| I wonder if the price-gouge-EV-customers and complain-
| about-EV-subsidies groups overlap... Hmm.
| jmacd wrote:
| I think the tide has turned on the Lightening. I know
| that dealers near me are trying to sell the ones they
| have.
| caycep wrote:
| I'd vote for updated bmw i3 as well. that thing was under
| appreciated.
| NewJazz wrote:
| I like the Minis personally. But they are 10k more than a
| bolt. Something about chickens not paying their taxes?
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| Everyone made fun of me for having one, but it was the
| _perfect_ city car. Great turning radius & it fit basically
| anywhere. And the plastic body meant that if someone opened
| their door into you, it just bounced off instead of leaving a
| dent.
|
| It's a shame they never made any significant improvements on
| the range. After degradation, the range on the i3 ends up
| pretty abysmal. The REx was a fun idea too and even let me
| take the car on multi-hundred mile road trips, without
| recharging, after coding the REx to one of the buttons in the
| car.
| caycep wrote:
| yeah, I wonder where it would be if they'd continue to put
| development money on the drivetrain and battery tech. It
| just seemed they left the concept behind despite growing
| sales numbers, and moved towards 6000 lb SUV EVs...
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| > Everyone I know doing construction/trade work tends to drive
| much smaller pickups.
|
| Smaller than an F150? Maybe it's because I live in the Bay Area
| where there's more money being thrown around but trucks of that
| size and larger seem to be common for trade workers.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Not just you.
|
| Anyone who uses a truck a lot will have a 150+
|
| ---
|
| How many programmers do you see with MacBook Airs
| BoorishBears wrote:
| I'd bet good money the average Ford Ranger/Maverick hauls
| more than the average F-150 today
|
| > How many programmers do you see with MacBook Airs
|
| The people working on some of the most complex projects of
| our times rely on compute that isn't available in a laptop,
| so they're perfectly fine taking an Air. I personally used
| an M1 Air for a couple of years.
| js2 wrote:
| I'd take that bet. The Ranger isn't manufactured anymore
| and I've never seen a Maverick used commercially. I don't
| think I've even seen one that didn't look freshly washed.
|
| I mean, this isn't even hard to figure out: the F-150 is
| the best selling _vehicle_ (not truck, but vehicle) in
| the U.S. for what, a decade or more?
| m463 wrote:
| Trucks last longer in the bay area. The cost is amortized
| over basically... forever.
|
| Take a 10-year old california pickup to anywhere with winter
| and people will be amazed.
| kubectl_h wrote:
| Yeah what a weird comment from GP. The refrain that no one
| needs a full-size truck, that they're mall crawlers or
| compensation for undersized you-know-what is common on this
| site but I've never seen it taken to the level that "trades
| workers largely don't drive full sized trucks, actually".
| microtherion wrote:
| Here in Switzerland, you sometimes see e.g. a Piaggio Ape:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_Ape
|
| And a number of construction jobs in our house were performed
| by a gentleman who arrived with a Vespa unless he
| specifically had to transport something sizeable.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Oh certainly. Trucks inside the USA are their own kind of
| culture (which I do not feel great about).
| js2 wrote:
| Ditto in NC. I'm not even sure what's smaller than an F150
| these days. The Maverick? Now that's a truck I've never seen
| used commercially.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Are all the future autonomy claims still a selling point or is
| Tesla downplaying that more these days?
| chollida1 wrote:
| > Everyone I know doing construction/trade work tends to drive
| much smaller pickups.
|
| Odd for me all my friends who farm or do construction own
| either the F150 or the equivalent dodge RAM truck.
|
| The other trucks either don't have cabs big enough to fit
| multiple workers or fit full sheets of drywall.
|
| Now I'm in Canada, perhaps you're European?
| danans wrote:
| > Odd for me all my friends who farm or do construction own
| either the F150 or the equivalent dodge RAM truck.
|
| From what I've seen at local lumber yards, new F150s and Rams
| are the trucks that the boss usually drives, not the workers
| who are actually picking up the material. They are buying and
| driving cheapest truck that gets the job done. It's an F-150,
| it's an older one. A lot of Toyota Tacomas though.
|
| > Now I'm in Canada, perhaps you're European?
|
| I'm in the US.
|
| > The other trucks either don't have cabs big enough to fit
| multiple workers or fit full sheets of drywall.
|
| Large sheet goods either go on the lumber rack or if it's
| enough, is delivered on a delivery truck. Usually not in the
| bed. That's for tools, bags of material, etc.
| imglorp wrote:
| This. Full sheets of almost everything are 4x8.
| al_borland wrote:
| From what I've heard, trucks are huge now due to various fuel
| efficiency regulations. A big truck is easier to make with
| fewer regulations. It seems like all the electric trucks want
| to prove they are bigger and tougher than the ICE trucks, but
| it seems like the perfect platform for small trucks, as the the
| efficiency standards would become a moot point. I'm looking for
| trucks like the old Ford Ranger from the late 90s to come back.
| The Maverick was a start, but they need to take it a step
| further.
|
| Maybe it's like with the Model S. First they have to prove it's
| cool and remove all the excuses (too slow, too weak, not enough
| range), then they can scale down to the smaller more mass
| market options at lower price points.
| jamie_ca wrote:
| Yep. And that's also why SUVs are the way they are - they fit
| the regulatory definition of "truck" and get different
| emissions and fuel efficiency rules as a result.
| danans wrote:
| > From what I've heard, trucks are huge now due to various
| fuel efficiency regulations. A big truck is easier to make
| with fewer regulations.
|
| That's only a part the reason. The more important half is
| that bigger vehicles, whether trucks or SUVs, have much
| higher profit margins.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| I don't think the perspective of selling product X should be
| judged in a vacuum because it can do things like subsidize
| battery costs.
|
| For video cards they got to the point where average consumers
| could buy them and then that started the road to accelerator
| cards. Saying that people shouldn't buy something is naive and
| disingenuous. People will buy things regardless of anything
| else.
| joewadcan wrote:
| When you say "we need" do you mean... "you want to see" ? The
| highest selling vehicles are trucks and so the company that
| makes the best selling car wants in. Seems logical and good for
| the industry
| Moto7451 wrote:
| The Rivian is probably their real competition based on price,
| specs, and trim.
| nosequel wrote:
| I would like to know the range when towing 11,000 lbs. In the
| full size market, I can only think of the Nissan Titan as having
| less than 12,000 lb tow rating. A base Ford F150 has a 14,000
| rating. When you move up to diesels, you can easily tow 20,000+
| lbs and even at 10,000 lbs you take very little hit on range if
| your load is somewhat aerodynamic. Pulling a full-size Airstream
| you can still get 20+mpg even in a small diesel like in the Chevy
| Colorado.
|
| Other folks mentioned the frame or brakes as the reason for the
| low tow rating. I imagine the cybertruck has a strong frame,
| Tesla has never gone cheap when it came to that sort of thing,
| and I'm sure the braking is fine for small loads. Most big loads
| require the trailer to have its own braking anyway, so that's
| almost a moot point, even in the biggest truck, I'm not pulling
| over 10,000 lbs without a proper brake controller. I'm guessing
| they set the rating at 11,000 lbs because anything over that and
| you probably end up with a very expensive 30 mile battery range.
| I would initially compare the cybertruck to something like a
| Tacoma which has more like a 7,000 lb towing capacity, but then
| you look at the weight of a cybertruck at 6800 lbs, the damn
| thing is nearly 2000 lbs heavier than a base F150. The curb
| weight of the biggest F150 you can get is only 5800 lbs, still
| 1,000 lbs lighter than the cybertruck.
| tyingq wrote:
| The electric F150 weighs 6500 lbs...1,800-pound battery.
| nosequel wrote:
| Yeah, reading my post, I didn't do a great job making the
| point I set out to. I was considering the size of the
| Cybertruck, wondering if Tesla were trying more for the
| Tacoma & Ranger sized truck market. I started to make that
| point and then looked up the weight of the Cybertruck and
| attempted (poorly) to use it as a metric for the size. I
| should've just used overall length, which would've been more
| clear and wouldn't have had the weight of the battery
| involved. Either way, at 223" inches, it is certainly in the
| full-sized market.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| It's about a foot longer than a Ranger Supercab and 10"
| shorter than an F150 Supercrew.
| TheSwordsman wrote:
| The 11,000 may be limited by the suspension system.
|
| So in terms of comparisons I don't think you're wrong, but it
| might be better to compare it to the F-150 Lightning for more
| of an apples to apples comparison. The F-150 Lightning Platinum
| vs Cybetruck AWD is probably the most fair comparison in terms
| of specs, but the CT is ~$20,000 cheaper
|
| If we compare the F-150 Lightning Lariat with XR Battery to the
| Cybertruck AWD, because of price:
|
| F-150:
|
| Range: 320mi
|
| Towing: 7,700lbs
|
| Curb Weight: 6,361lbs
|
| ---
|
| CT:
|
| Range: 340mi
|
| Towing: 11,000lbs
|
| Curb Weight: 6,603lbs
|
| ---
|
| F-150 Lighting Platinum to CT Cyberbeast, because of price:
|
| F-150:
|
| Range: 300mi
|
| Towing: 8,500lbs
|
| Curb Weight: 6,893lbs
|
| ---
|
| CT:
|
| Range: 320mi
|
| Towing: 11,000lbs
|
| Curb Weight: 6,843lbs
| liminalsunset wrote:
| Seems like there's been relatively less attention on the 48V/800V
| architecture and the Ethernet comms/steer by wire setup, but I
| think those are what make this particular vehicle quite
| interesting. Up until recently I think 48V power electronics have
| been fairly rare outside of telecom/other high cost situations,
| but I suppose one major difference is that at 48V, transformer-
| based DC-DC conversion is usually a better choice for digital
| electronics compared with a simple buck, which historically seems
| to be a significant jump in cost and faff to design. Perhaps PCB
| planar transformers will help here, but this may be one reason we
| don't see 50V EPR USB C devices yet (disappointed that the
| Cybertruck didn't decide to be the first 240W USB-C device, still
| stuck at 65W)
|
| Seems like if there were to be some kind of electrical failure,
| now with full steer-by-wire it could be quite a harrowing
| situation.
|
| Based on the images posted from the event [1] it seems to have
| two discrete power steering motors (we know from previous
| vehicles that these have two motor driver channels internally for
| failover), so there's probably a decent amount of redundancy
| here. There seems to also be some kind of a sensor that's only
| populated on one side, though I can't tell what it does from the
| picture (position sensor?)
|
| Given that the steering is variable gain now, seems like the
| vehicle speed data would also be important, as in, the
| communication bus is now quite important for the function of the
| steering module.
|
| With the Ethernet architecture they're using now, it's likely
| that it's not as problematic as with CAN bus (where water
| intrusion can take down the whole bus) but it would be
| interesting to see what the design choices there were.
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/DriveTeslaca/status/1730305183572177107/...
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| Audi A6 48V mild hybrid from 2018 -
| https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/02/20180228-audi.html
| liminalsunset wrote:
| This one is a little bit different since there are actually
| still two (well three systems here: 48V, 12V, and the ICE).
|
| These systems have existed for quite some time, since it was
| a lot easier to use high voltage rated components for all of
| the 48V high power stuff (e-turbochargers, e-hybrid-
| compressor-whatevers, other motor driven stuff) but keep just
| a single downconverter to 12V for everything else.
|
| The problem is that most digital electronics expect something
| like 1-5V to operate, including most controllers, processors,
| sensors etc, and typically this conversion is done at the
| module level in a distributed way. Going from 12V to 1V isn't
| really a problem (or 24V ish for that matter, which is what
| they use in notebooks), and 20V and 30V class semiconductors
| are easy to find and have desirable performance
| characteristics.
|
| Going from 48V at every module to 12V as an intermediate bus,
| usually requires a transformer because otherwise you'd be
| switching the current on for a very short time per cycle
| (duty cycle proportionate to voltage ratio), and this has
| implications for efficiency and component sizing. So I'd
| think this is quite a huge change compared to the old mild
| hybrid systems
| whelp_24 wrote:
| why do steer by wire at all? Is it cheaper somehow?
| m463 wrote:
| Hmmm.. I would guess decoupling would allow variable ratio
| steering based on speed or preferences.
| dymk wrote:
| Stainless steel exterior with sharp edges. Not looking forwarding
| to seeing pedestrians get gored when these things run into them.
| Not holding my breath on good crash compatibility with cars,
| either.
|
| If you care about humans, you won't get one of these.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| A low sharp front is what you want if you get hit by a vehicle
| at speed. A high blunt front might be less likely to break your
| legs but more likely to kill you.
|
| https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...
| dymk wrote:
| "Sharp" as in "low to the ground", not a literal sharp angle.
| A car with a low, rounded front won't maim as badly as the
| Cybertruck's sharp angle aimed at your torso.
|
| What the article calls "blunt" (the thing that kills peds the
| most) is pretty much what the Cybertruck maximized.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Sure, but you'd likely fare better being hit by a
| Cybertruck than an F-150 or a Ranger or a large SUV.
| dymk wrote:
| The people who would consider buying an F150 or a
| sprinter van are not the people who would buy a
| Cybertruck. Smaller bed, can't tow nearly as much, lower
| range. The dominant market for this truck is going to be
| people who may as well buy a Model 3.
| rgmerk wrote:
| All full-size American pickups are pedestrian killers,
| particularly of toddlers.[1] There's nothing unique about the
| Cybertruck in this respect.
|
| They also are more than twice as likely to kill the occupants
| of other vehicles in crashes.
|
| The public policy choices that led to full-size pickups as
| currently designed becoming the family transport of choice were
| incredibly dumb.
|
| So be mad about the Cybertruck, by all means. But all these
| vehicles are killers.
|
| [1] https://www.wral.com/story/car-tech-to-prevent-frontover-
| acc... [2]
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S15389...
| freediver wrote:
| Saw one on the street yesterday. It looked enormous and out of
| place.
| grecy wrote:
| It's smaller than a F-150, the best selling vehicle in the US
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Steer by wire sounds like a disastrous idea to me, especially in
| a car made with attention to detail of Tesla.
|
| I'm not even sure where to start. It's less reliable, surely it
| must be (at least without significant investment into QA and
| redundancy). A physical wheel physically connected to bits
| turning the wheels, well, the power steering can do, but you can
| still turn the thing.
|
| Then, it's all software driven. And it can't be air-gapped,
| because surely the various driver assistance programs need to
| turn the wheel. But so if the crappy OTA-updated software
| crashes, I can't steer? Or steering reverts, or who knows what.
|
| Finally, I'm not holding my breath on a new membership option
| including "you can steer your car again".
|
| I'm no Luddite, I'm keen for what technology can do for us, but
| some places I don't want it.
| shrubble wrote:
| Brake by wire has been a standard on many vehicles for at least
| a decade at this point.
|
| I would guess that steer by wire is a standard off the shelf
| module. Both Bosch and ZF at the least offer this.
| whelp_24 wrote:
| Brake by wire has a physical backup
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Given that my backup camera lags half the time I use it on my
| Model Y, I'm also not excited about this. But perhaps they'll
| have solved the whole real time thing in the process.
| baz00 wrote:
| Yeah look at planes. I'd rather have hydraulics and mechanical
| controls still in a car. Which is why I drive a primitive POS
| (Dacia Duster).
| psunavy03 wrote:
| Tell me you have zero flight time or aircraft engineering
| experience without telling me you have zero flight time or
| aircraft engineering experience. This is no different from
| Trump claiming he wanted "damn steam" for aircraft carrier
| catapults despite electromagnetic ones having clear
| advantages. This isn't 1969 anymore.
| baz00 wrote:
| I do actually but that's irrelevant. It's an engineering
| trade-off. In a car, it's a stupid one because its built to
| a cost profile not a safety profile.
|
| You can't compare a $200m Airbus to a whatever it's going
| to cost but is being lied about vanity machine kicked out
| by a vendor with a history of software problems.
|
| Actually the risk profile is probably higher on the damn
| car.
| dopamean wrote:
| I think all airbus commercial jets are fly by wire.
| baz00 wrote:
| Not totally. They have two redundant computers in the
| control loop. But they worked out this was a shitty idea if
| there was a failure so there are mechanical and electrical
| backup systems. Whilst "fly by wire" technically speaking
| they don't involve a computer in the loop.
|
| I'd still rather have a totally mechanical backup.
| m463 wrote:
| They have some mechanical bits. I think you can fly the
| a320 by modulating the engine thrust and using trim wheels.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| Drive-by-wire throttles have been a thing for over a decade,
| and the only company to epically screw it up was Toyota.
| teejmya wrote:
| Also Volvo. I'm sure there are others.
|
| https://www.matthewsvolvosite.com/volvos-electronic-
| throttle...
| ed_balls wrote:
| Steer by wire is ok. We had all pedals by wire for ages.
| Hopefully they won't screw up the implementation again
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMrewRJTow
| whelp_24 wrote:
| Gas not working is usually just inconvenient, brakes have
| physical failsafe, and steering is more important than both.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| i look forward to the recalls
| megaman821 wrote:
| I lost pneumatic steering during a turn, and it nearly tore my
| arm off. Not sure most people would be able to drive over a few
| mph without powered steering.
|
| Hopefully the steer by wire systems are backed by another steer
| by wire system, so it would be terrible luck if you lost both
| at the same time.
| caycep wrote:
| curb weight?
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Cybertruck Launch_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38465944 - Nov 2023 (476
| comments)
| ttfkam wrote:
| I see from the photos it will have side mirrors now, so no side
| cameras after all. Still haven't heard anything about crash
| testing, which I'm curious about since thick stainless steel
| isn't what one would usually associate with crumple zones. To be
| sure, I wouldn't want to be hit by one if I were a pedestrian in
| a crosswalk.
| modeless wrote:
| Side mirrors are required by law, but they were supposed to be
| easily removable after delivery. We'll see if that made it into
| the final version.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Interesting that the marketing image on that page is clearly
| meant to suggest driving around on Mars. I think it is clear from
| the design and marketing that this truck is meant as a fashion
| statement not a work vehicle. It will be interesting to see if it
| catches on. I like some of the ideas used in the vehicle's
| construction, though I do not like how dangerous it appears to be
| for pedestrians.
|
| If I made a prediction, it would be that lessons learned from the
| cybertruck will influence a new generation of vehicle designs. It
| seems to be a design that takes a lot of risks and tries new
| things, and I would expect some of that to stick. Tesla certainly
| has experience making vehicles and a desire to simplify and
| innovate, so I would expect at least something of this design to
| inspire new vehicle designs.
|
| A lot of people are saying its ugly. I feel that way too though I
| am unsure if it will grow on me. But as much as people say that,
| I think it will catch on anyway. It's a very flashy fashion
| statement and I think that will appeal to people with money and
| those aspiring to look like they have more money than they do.
| taurath wrote:
| I feel like it already has limited social value except as a
| sort of MAGA hat for Elon. I predict it'll have some rabid
| adherents but also develop a reputation as a vehicle for
| assholes - already in a lot of circles the Tesla brand has a
| negative association due to Elon behaving like a nepo bully.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| You know that's a good point. I know everyone in my circles
| will feel that way. You can get away driving a normal Tesla
| but this one is really going to say something in particular.
| That you also have this sort of immature brash attitude that
| has led to Musk's negative public opinion. So you are right
| that might tank the product.
| m463 wrote:
| I think there are lots of people that want an EV, but drive
| terrible roads.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I love the style of the cybertruck. But I will never buy a car
| that large. It's ridiculous. I hope they will make a car in the
| same style that isn't totally ridiculous.
| gonzo wrote:
| I'm assuming the torque spec is at stall (0 rpm)
| jasongill wrote:
| Funny that the cheaper model's 0-60 time is listed as "4.1 SEC.
| 0-60 MPH", but the more expensive model is listed as "2.6 SEC.
| 0-60 MPH With rollout subtracted."
|
| The whole rollout for 0-60 thing is a big fuss in the car
| magazine subculture - instead of counting zero to 60 from a
| standstill, they now count zero to 60 in a drag race style, where
| you have to trip the starting light by going forward a foot or
| two.
|
| What that most likely means is that the fastest model doesn't
| have enough grip to keep the tires from spinning off the line, so
| they are basically spinning the tires for a fraction of a second
| (or longer) and then once they start to move forward, they start
| counting the 0-60 time. I imagine if you did the same for the
| cheaper model, it's 0-60 time would look better as well.
| terminatornet wrote:
| god help anyone slamming their head into that angled dashboard in
| a crash
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-30 23:00 UTC)