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

Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 313 posts

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#261

Post by Retric »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #248
Retric wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX’s strategy has been really questionable for a while. Falcon Heavy has done 11 flights since 2018 and now they’re building an even larger platform despite heavy launch not really being a viable market segment. Starship has been slower than the now canceled SLS program run by Boing. If Starship succeeds it seems to guarantee than Falcon Heavy will have a negative ROI, but Starship needs to be wildly successful t…

Falcon Heavy isn't relevant to anything SpaceX is doing with Starlink. Seems you've never heard of creative destruction. The things they intend to do with Starship aren't possible with Falcon 9 or Heavy period

> Falcon Heavy isn't relevant to anything SpaceX is doing with Starlink.

You misunderstood my point, Starlink only cares about lower cost per kg to LEO. Spaceship is trying to do that and increase payload capacity.

Spaceship trying to do both is a major reason its R&D costs are so high. Where Falcon heavy is relevant is it demonstrates that there’s little demand for Shapeship’s significant increase in cargo capacity. There’s little economic justification that paying for the size related added R&D complexity driving up both timelines and costs is going to be worth it.

> Seems you've never heard of creative destruction

I was arguing for creative destruction namely killing off all manufacturing of Falcon 9 rockets which would then make Falcon heavy non viable without the economies of scale on the first stage.

> The things they intend to do with Starship aren't possible with Falcon 9 or Heavy period

The things that depend on cost per kg could be accomplished with a NEW but smaller than Starship rocket that could already be in service if they had gone down a different path. The only thing they gain from its current size is the ability to send payloads of that size.

It’s not my money being wasted here, but I’d like SpaceX to be on better financial footing simply to reduce the risks to Starlink.

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#262

Post by brk »

jordanb wrote: post #33
brk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon, particularly for vehicles with composite body panels. Smaller items like door trim, manufacturer logos, are primarily held on with adhesives. Mid-size accessories like add-on spoilers on trunk lids, or other exterior styling pieces are frequently attached with adhesive. A larger component commonly attached with adhesives are the rear fender flares on dually pickups. Very commonly these are built wi…

Using glue in vehicle assembly is very uncommon. Most plastic body panels are held on with conformal clips. But they couldn't do that with the metal panels of the cyber truck nor did they want visible fasteners so glue is the only option. Glue isn't ideal because the part has to be clamped in place while the glue cures which is slow, and quality control is tough because you're doing a little chemistry experiment on y…

I should probably clarify my comment a bit.

Glue is uncommon in most cases, particularly for body-panel mounted things like the examples I gave. Adhesive-mounted components are common, to various degrees.

Glass-mounted items are commonly glued, the most prevalent one being the knob for the rear view mirror. And "prevalent" here means "99% of anything mounted to glass in a vehicle"

Tesla is using BETASEAL [0], which is designed for adhering to glass. I'm not sure what kind of weight rating BETASEAL is approved for, it is commonly used for other applications where a decent degree of strength is expected.

[0] https://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/amer/us/en/mobilit...

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#263

Post by l1tany11 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #255
bryanlarsen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like it's designed to inflict maximum harm, but it seems that it's actually less likely to kill you than an F-150 or Silverado or Ram. It has a lower hood height which is the aspect that has been hypothesized to be the reason that trucks kill pedestrians at a much greater rate than cars. I'm not trying to condone Cybertruck here. I hope the Cybertruck becomes a rallying cry to mandate pedestrian safety in th…

It's certainly a conversation worth having, but a fundamental difference between the CT and something like an F150 is utility -- the CT is unapologetically a lifestyle vehicle emphasizing form over function. A regular pickup is very utilitarian. I know it's fashionable to argue that half-ton pickups are very commonly used as lifestyle pickups too, but at least the design is clearly aimed at function over form. So the…

90s trucks sure. But they turned into tonka trucks over the last 30 years. The grills and everything just keep getting bigger.

It’s actually worse than that though. Ford got rid of the heavy duty package on the f150 and said to customers “just buy the f250 instead”. Which is even more tonka.

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#264

Post by philistine »

rootusrootus wrote: post #255
bryanlarsen wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like it's designed to inflict maximum harm, but it seems that it's actually less likely to kill you than an F-150 or Silverado or Ram. It has a lower hood height which is the aspect that has been hypothesized to be the reason that trucks kill pedestrians at a much greater rate than cars. I'm not trying to condone Cybertruck here. I hope the Cybertruck becomes a rallying cry to mandate pedestrian safety in th…

It's certainly a conversation worth having, but a fundamental difference between the CT and something like an F150 is utility -- the CT is unapologetically a lifestyle vehicle emphasizing form over function. A regular pickup is very utilitarian. I know it's fashionable to argue that half-ton pickups are very commonly used as lifestyle pickups too, but at least the design is clearly aimed at function over form. So the…

The design 100% has to change. There is a marketing battle for the highest hood, since it looks dope as fuck. We should mandate a maximum hood height for all vehicles that's dependent on driver visibility. When the next F-150 needs three steps to enter because the hood is too high and we woke up and mandated that pedestrian visibility needs to be maintained, then that's when change will happen.

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#265

Post by emptybits »

mikestew wrote: post #141
emptybits wrote: post #74

I dodged a bullet. I bought into the original heavy stainless steel exoskeleton concept, which they never delivered on. So they had my deposit. Then it took me a year and a half (!!) to get my deposit back from time of request, a dozen documented follow-ups on phone, email, and in-person at the stealership. Tesla’s excuse: While they were happy to take a Canadian’s money with fully refundable deposit terms, they had…

Then it took me a year and a half (!!) to get my deposit back from time of request After we decided against an F-150 Lightning because it wouldn’t fit in the garage, one click of the “cancel reservation” button, and the money was back in our account within two weeks. When we were disappointed with the VW Buzz that the U. S. was getting, same deal: VW gave our money back in a few weeks. Granted, your situation is argu…

Ha, I didn’t even mention that around the same time, to hedge my bets, I also had a deposit on an F-150 Lightning and had the same easy experience with a Ford refund as you did. Click.

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#266

Post by fragmede »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #132
fragmede wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. -Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

... famous for having built fuck all. I mean yes, it is often good to inspire people. But that is not strategy any more than you can win a game of Risk by beliving you can roll only 7s.

I only know one person currently at spaceX, but I'm willing to bet there's a large contingent of people working there who would sell their souls to die on Mars.

I'll be honest, I've never been the CEO of a successful 10,000+ employee company (or even an unsuccessful one, lol), but at that level, the amount of doing that a person can do themselves is limited.

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#268

Post by brewdad »

emptybits wrote: post #74

I dodged a bullet. I bought into the original heavy stainless steel exoskeleton concept, which they never delivered on. So they had my deposit. Then it took me a year and a half (!!) to get my deposit back from time of request, a dozen documented follow-ups on phone, email, and in-person at the stealership. Tesla’s excuse: While they were happy to take a Canadian’s money with fully refundable deposit terms, they had…

Does Canada not have chargebacks? This seems like a clear case for one.

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#269

Post by brewdad »

dhosek wrote: post #124
SoftTalker wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the concept as hideously ugly as the actual design? I still don't understand how people can drive those things in public.

Whenever I see one in the wild, I point and laugh like Nelson from the Simpsons. Ha-ha!

I let them know I think they are number one. Choice of digit varies on my mood.

Re: Tesla Is Recalling Cybertrucks Again

#270

Post by fluoridation »

the_sleaze_ wrote: post #36
jordanb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was happy enough to be able to spell s3xy with those cars. Maybe they could have come up with something extremely juvenile for him to do while they designed a rivian

Like make the integrated voice-activated AI have a setting to swear at and insult you while driving

Idea: A car that detects when there's only one occupant, and shouts expletives through the audio system when the driver narrowly avoids hitting something at high speed.
Post reply on HN