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

181–187 of 187 posts

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#181

Post by vinay427 »

merb wrote: post #168
vinay427 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a vehicle, the Audi e-tron, with virtual side mirrors that's on sale and on the roads right now in Germany and other EU countries. https://www.audi.de/de/brand/de/neuwagen/tron/audi-e-tron.ht... In German: > Effizienz, Sicherheit und ein neuartiges Technik- und Fahrerlebnis – der optionale virtuelle Außenspiegel des Audi e-tron bietet Ihnen einen echten Mehrwert. Der flache Träger reduziert die Fahrzeugbreite…

well it has a mirror. the camera is at the same position where the real mirror would be. you can look at the pictures of the car to see them. a mirror does not need to be a physical mirror. it just need's to have a view on the "dead" perspective of your car. a camera that shows that view and uses the same position as the old mirror actually is not against the law: > bei Personenkraftwagen sowie Lastkraftwagen, Zugmas…

Right, as with the Cybertruck, as far as we know publicly: https://insideevs.com/news/387847/tesla-cybertruck-sideview-...

The US and some other jurisdictions don't allow these cameras as an alternative, which was my point.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#182

Post by mcv »

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…

> "This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe."

No great loss. Europe isn't a big market for pickup trucks. The other Teslas are selling like hotcakes, though. The Cybertruck might create a market for pickup trucks, but in this shape that seems unlikely.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#183

Post by mcv »

petre wrote: post #149
app4soft wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Farming? You probably mean riot control. The thing looks as if it's taken straight out of Judge Dredd.

The angles remind me of Total Recall.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#184

Post by mcv »

FisDugthop wrote: post #11
spectramax wrote: post #7

I disagree. If one definition of Brutalism is to be honest about materials - then Cybertruck nails that. Unpainted stainless steel is as brutalist as it gets. We can argue about the design intent of the way it looks and whether that’s Brutalism. Aesthetics is only one aspect of Brutalism. Another aspect of Brutalism is to expose innards without guilt - If Cybertruck doesn’t have non-structural decorations, farings, e…

I'm not sure whether a covered car can be brutalist, to be honest. When I think of a brutalist car design, I think of go-karts. Other features of brutalist design: * By exposing the skeleton, the object shows itself as a platform that can be built upon. However, the Cybertruck's convex hull and covered, armored plating do not lend themselves to confident self-expression, but instead drown out any attempt at customiza…

Do brutalist buildings have their wiring exposed? I'm not so convinced that having everything open and exposed is all that essential to brutalist architecture (though I'm no expert on it).

> "The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civic."

Does making transportation less polluting not serve a civic function?

> "[But] we don’t see any bolts or gaskets or other details of joinery. Brutalist architects would never allow this. They wanted the method of making and the assembly of parts to be legible — to be put on display as a way of being vividly honest."

They might be on the inside. Again, do all brutalist buildings have their wiring exposed? Function still matters. I'm no expert, but I would assume that brutalism does not require being an idiot about such things.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#185

Post by mcv »

kodisha wrote: post #133

This chart [1] is awesome reminder of a current state in car design. Even without Tesla, a change is in dire need. https://www.dropbox.com/s/coe1mnbupjv8qbe/1_uEe9rvbQB8XM6uYW...

I totally agree. When I was a kid, you could recognise car brands by the shape of the hood. These days, Saab's distinctive curve is gone, Volvo's blockiness is gone, all the weird Renaults now look the same.

But it makes sense: all cars try to be as aerodynamic as possible, while creating as much space for the passengers in the smallest size possible. The better designers get at optimising for these requirements, the more cars will look alike.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#186

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

jiofih wrote: post #126
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #22

Brutalist or not, it’s not real. That car as shown will absolutely not pass crash testing, European homologation and pedestrian impact, both issues with it being 1/8” stainless steel panels (separate discussion how those make no damn sense!). It has no mirrors, or wipers. What has been shown is a roughly drawn concept. Anyone that thinks they’re going to get exactly that and exactly for $40,000 hasn’t been around the…

You’d think a billion-dollar car company with 17 years and three commercially-successful car models under their belt would have planned for that. We have no idea how the structure reacts to crashes, and any assumptions right now are pointless.

Yes. I would have thought that. Doesn’t change reality though. It’s a hype driven company, and that’s fine, just don’t be surprised when this thing has a bumper if it’s ever released.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#187

Post by derefr »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #142
no_flags wrote: post #36

Kind of reminds me of this copypasta that has become a meme in the emo music scene: "Real Emo" only consists of the dc Emotional Hardcore scene and the late 90's Screamo scene. What is known by "Midwest Emo" is nothing but Alternative Rock with questionable real emo influence. When people try to argue that bands like My Chemical Romance are not real emo, while saying that Sunny Day Real Estate is, I can't help not to…

"Leading Brutalist Expert" is a hilarious phrase. If almost everyone considers it brutalist, well, too bad expert gatekeeper of an ill-defined abstract notion.

Regular words work that way. Jargon words don't.

Jargon words are defined once, in an academic paper that introduces them, and then everyone else using the word in the jargon sense keeps using that exact definition. If the word becomes useless, they get a new word, since the old word still means—and will be preserved to forever mean—the old thing.

If you think about it, this is the only way that academia can "work" over a span of generations. We need to be able to differentiate statements about phlostigon from statements about calories; statements about the luminiferous aether from statements about electricity; etc. If we just re-used the word "phlostigon" for the concept of calories, we'd both render a lot of previous papers way more confusing than they need to be, and also make productive debate about which of the hypotheses is true basically impossible.

Anthropology (and so art/music/etc. history) is an academic discipline; words like "Brutalist" are jargon terms in that discipline. (They're also non-jargon words used by laymen like journalists, but that pretty much doesn't affect what the academics do at all.)

It all seems very obvious if you map it to your own discipline. E.g. if laymen, when they say "a matrix", mean some VR simulation thing, that doesn't change what it means when a mathematician says "a matrix", right?

Post reply on HN