Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Cybertruck

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#161

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

sixothree wrote: post #143
atonse wrote: post #64

You couldn't invent a more polar opposite of Steve Jobs than Elon Musk. VERY disorganized presenting. Badly rehearsed. Awkward speech. Speech is almost never in sync with slides. Demos failed spectacularly. The rest of the event was him with a backdrop of two broken windows. They didn't show the interior, and barely talked about the bed. Is this even good as a pickup truck? Is there enough storage? This all seemed ha…

My question: Can it fit a sheet of plywood in the bed.

in some orientation? most likely. but not flat, the bed is 6.5' long, so no 4x8s.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#162

Post by flukus »

gexla wrote: post #104

Yeah, a lot of people talking about how ugly it is. But that's exactly what a pick-up has always been. A big ugly thing with a bed in the back and a lot of utility most people didn't even use. Some models over the years have looked decent. Many have (Ford especially) have been dog ugly. I could see this thing taking off, though not sure how rural truck owners would take to electric. Edit: On second thought, rural tru…

> Yeah, a lot of people talking about how ugly it is. But that's exactly what a pick-up has always been.

That's not universal, these things are common in Australia and look pretty sleek: https://www.google.com/search?q=commodore+ute&safe=active&hl...

But even the less pretty ones had that sort of brutal, functional, serious look. This ... does not.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#163

Post by aaronbrethorst »

xxxtentachyon wrote: post #149
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #60

It kind of looks like a Pontiac Aztek to me—if the Aztek happened to exist in the 2019 of Blade Runner and not the 2001 of reality. https://www.thrillist.com/cars/the-pontiac-aztec-was-the-big...

This feels more like if Master Chief drove an Aztek

I hadn’t thought about this looking like the Aztek of Warthogs, but you’re right.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#164

Post by foxes »

Maybe this is controversial, but I really like the aesthetic. It definitely has a futuristic, industrial cyberpunk vibe. I wouldn't call it "pretty", but it's distinctive.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#165

Post by kijin »

ehnto wrote: post #116
acidburnNSA wrote: post #65

Given the sledgehammer test, at least from the side that thing will be very aggressive in a crash. As in, if it runs into you, or if you run into it you will be more injured and/or dead. You generally want a little give on the road in both directions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility Looks sweet though.

That's a pretty common reason people cite for buying big SUVs. A belief that being the bigger car in an accident makes you safer.

More mass = less acceleration when the same force is applied, and acceleration is what really kills you. You can't argue with physics.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#166

Post by gkoberger »

et2o wrote: post #145
atonse wrote: post #64

You couldn't invent a more polar opposite of Steve Jobs than Elon Musk. VERY disorganized presenting. Badly rehearsed. Awkward speech. Speech is almost never in sync with slides. Demos failed spectacularly. The rest of the event was him with a backdrop of two broken windows. They didn't show the interior, and barely talked about the bed. Is this even good as a pickup truck? Is there enough storage? This all seemed ha…

Does the presentation really matter? 99% of people who will buy one of these were not watching. They'll just see the pictures online later.

No, but I think a lot of people group Musk and Jobs together. It's not that one is "better" than the other or anything like that, but rather they're very different people.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#167

Post by et2o »

NamTaf wrote: post #141
Danieru wrote: post #62

Does the US not have pedestrian safety standards? An all metal front grill must be horrible on any safety tests. I can only assume this is a joke and in a few hours Elon will do a "one more thing" before showing the real Tesla Pickup. This take on a pickup looks like some engineer accidentally left their Halo fan-art on the shared CAD file server.

That was my immediate thought. Granted, I've not watched the video as I'm at work so if it was covered then I've not seen it, but that thing looks like it has absolutely no crumple zones, and the lack of curved surfaces would cause horrific injury in a pedestrian collision.

Tesla Model S and 3 in terms of collision safety are the safest cars ever sold in America. There is a giant crumple zone where the engine would be in an ICE vehicle. The Cybertruck will be the same.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#169

Post by dba7dba »

ip26 wrote: post #153
gexla wrote: post #104

Yeah, a lot of people talking about how ugly it is. But that's exactly what a pick-up has always been. A big ugly thing with a bed in the back and a lot of utility most people didn't even use. Some models over the years have looked decent. Many have (Ford especially) have been dog ugly. I could see this thing taking off, though not sure how rural truck owners would take to electric. Edit: On second thought, rural tru…

Solar has been a hit for some rural folks as you can go off grid & make your own power. An electric vehicle could theoretically go part & parcel with that, although you'd need a large array.

when the Fukushima disaster happened in 2011 and the surrounding areas became no-go zone, gasoline cars were stuck because no gas tankers were coming in to refill the gas stations.

But electric cars were charging from local solar powered recharging stations just fine.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck

#170

Post by acidburnNSA »

ehnto wrote: post #116
acidburnNSA wrote: post #65

Given the sledgehammer test, at least from the side that thing will be very aggressive in a crash. As in, if it runs into you, or if you run into it you will be more injured and/or dead. You generally want a little give on the road in both directions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_incompatibility Looks sweet though.

That's a pretty common reason people cite for buying big SUVs. A belief that being the bigger car in an accident makes you safer.

I think a perception of additional personal safety is definitely a reason people like SUVs.

But you can be super safe while still helping protect your crash partners. You can often improve both your and your crash partner's safety with more crumple zones.

I don't think the patrons of this thing are going to be thinking about this much.

Post reply on HN