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

The Cybertruck is not brutalist

inverse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 187 posts

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#151

Post by dividedbyzero »

app4soft wrote: post #144
thdrdt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of cars today are designed around regulations and with aerodynamics in mind. For example in Europe you can't have a spoiler that could catch a cyclist. And it is prefered that there is room between the hood and motor in case of an impact with a pedestrian. This is why a lot of cars start to look the same. This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe. A door that doesn't d…

> This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe. To be honest, Cybertruck may be not allowed in Europe for citizens, but I not see any limitations that could prevent allowing Cybertruck for farming in Europe.

Southern Germany is chock full of small to large-ish farms (all of which would be tiny to small for US standards I guess), but either people hide their pick-up trucks extremely well, or there aren't a lot of them around. Also, wouldn't not having a Straßenzulassung (permission for road use) mean you couldn't use it on public streets at all?

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#152

Post by Nursie »

darkr wrote: post #52
thaeli wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are exceptions. The Washington DC Metro, for instance.

London has plenty of well-loved and iconic brutalist examples. A far from complete list: Barbican Estate, Southbank Centre/Royal Festival Hall, Centrepoint, The Brunswick

I'm not sure many of those count as well loved. The South Bank is an abomination.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#153

Post by endorphone »

endorphone wrote: post #35
loa_in_ wrote: post #8

As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even muscle cars and luxury models. Cars up to 70's and 80's were really nice and aesthetically pleasing, and I find the Elon Musk's vision to be really nice and refreshing. It might be that I'm partial to science fiction in general, but I really would like to see this…

"As a person with personal interest in visual arts" With all due respects, isn't this an entirely meaningless saying? Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal, and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing. We are a social species so invariably people infect each other's opinion so we have trends and movements towards/from opinions, but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this…

Another post that strangely sees a flurry of downvotes long after the hype. Dropped from 3 to -3 in less than an hour, well over a day past when it was posted.

I don't mean to imply I care about this -- the HN illuminati continually vote AGW denier nonsense to the top -- but it does fascinate me. Is this some sort of mod-bomb that dang drops?

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#155

Post by JJMcJ »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #13
loa_in_ wrote: post #8

As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even muscle cars and luxury models. Cars up to 70's and 80's were really nice and aesthetically pleasing, and I find the Elon Musk's vision to be really nice and refreshing. It might be that I'm partial to science fiction in general, but I really would like to see this…

How do you feel about the Pacer? Edsel? VW Thing? There's good and bad cars from every era. Some vehicles have aged well. Some vehicles still look stupid today. I find middle of the road vehicles that were neither designed to make a statement nor was aesthetic design ignored generally look good regardless of the era they're from (which makes sense considering that a bunch of professionals had to sign off on its mass-…

The Edsel was actually pretty standard design for the time. I think that may have been one of the things that hurt it.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#156

Post by dfc »

thdrdt wrote: post #102
loa_in_ wrote: post #8

As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even muscle cars and luxury models. Cars up to 70's and 80's were really nice and aesthetically pleasing, and I find the Elon Musk's vision to be really nice and refreshing. It might be that I'm partial to science fiction in general, but I really would like to see this…

A lot of cars today are designed around regulations and with aerodynamics in mind. For example in Europe you can't have a spoiler that could catch a cyclist. And it is prefered that there is room between the hood and motor in case of an impact with a pedestrian. This is why a lot of cars start to look the same. This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe. A door that doesn't d…

I have heard people mention that European safety rules that would prevent sale if the cybertruck. But nobody says which rules and why. Can you elaborate?

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#157

Post by sudosysgen »

Aperocky wrote: post #132
thdrdt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of cars today are designed around regulations and with aerodynamics in mind. For example in Europe you can't have a spoiler that could catch a cyclist. And it is prefered that there is room between the hood and motor in case of an impact with a pedestrian. This is why a lot of cars start to look the same. This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe. A door that doesn't d…

Also, it looks like an aerodynamic disaster with its sharp edges and square shapes.

CFD estimations actually put it to be a bit more aerodynamic than the F-150, actually.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#158

Post by mcguire »

ctdonath wrote: post #115
endorphone wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook?" Engineering is objective . It is provable. It yields foundational precepts that, if you annihilated society and it grew again, would recur in the same form. Aesthetics/art has gone through countless cycles -- often completely contradictory states -- and at any one time you can find any number of adhe…

the disastrous CyberTruck, though, which subjectively almost everyone hates Your hate for it is subjective. Whether almost everyone shares your opinion is objective.

The question here, though, is whether the hideous abomination is Brutalist or not. I'll buy the argument that it doesn't satisfy the definition.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#159

Post by masklinn »

et2o wrote: post #14

It’s likely by this pedantic definition that no automobile could ever be brutalist. Architectural gatekeeping.

> It’s likely by this pedantic definition that no automobile could ever be brutalist.

Brutalist comes from the french "brut" meaning "raw". So a car could perfectly well be brutalist by not hiding its nature under paint and covers.

The unpainted Reventon replica[0] is conceptually closer: it's bolted and welded sheet metal, and that's left obviously visible.

[0] http://www.gadgetsandgizmos.org/man-builds-replica-lamborghi...

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#160

Post by dragontamer »

sudosysgen wrote: post #157
Aperocky wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it looks like an aerodynamic disaster with its sharp edges and square shapes.

CFD estimations actually put it to be a bit more aerodynamic than the F-150, actually.

Depends on the CFD estimation. This one puts it at 0.47: https://i.imgur.com/MnY9lDO.jpg

An F-150 is 0.40. So according to this simulation, the Cybertruck is roughly 20% less efficient than the F150. Of course, all of these simulations are a crap-shoot.

And secondly, towing efficiency seems primarily determined by weight / rolling resistance anyway. So I'm not sure how much CFDs really matter. On the other hand, electric batteries are more efficient. On the other-other hand, ICE gets more efficient the more weight you load on it. (Etc. etc. etc.)

We can sit around and compare apples-to-shotguns all day, but whenever the thing comes out, we'll just run tests on it then. No point trying to make hypotheticals, just test it when it comes out.

EDIT: Another point: the cybertruck, as revealed, doesn't have side-mirrors. So now we have to make a guess: will the final product have side mirrors? Is Musk aiming for a camera-based solution? Etc. etc. These sorts of details could change a CFD simulation significantly. Clearly, the design of the truck is in its early stages, and they still have a lot of work to do. We really don't know what the final product will look like at any detail where an accurate CFD-model could be made.

Post reply on HN