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

Cybertruck Launch

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 592 posts

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#421

Post by rpmisms »

xtiansimon wrote: post #401
rpmisms wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll sit in a blind spot on a motorcycle happily, if there's no other traffic. If there is, I pull forward next to the window instead.

> “I'll sit in a blind spot on a motorcycle happily, if there’s no other traffic…” Because you believe the driver has no incentive to change lanes, and so there is low probability they will change lanes unexpectedly?

Because I can brake fast enough if they do change lanes. I tend to pass, but if we're going around the same speed it doesn't bother me.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#422

Post by btreecat »

xp84 wrote: post #3

I'm rooting for it despite it being silly and not a practical pickup, strictly because every car people are buying looks identical (picture a crossover SUV from Toyota, Chevy, BMW etc. Basically shoe-shaped things). This looks like a concept car that would never come to market. I hope it sells really well and convinces others to bring actually-creative designs to market.

Cars should look the same, in fact id be ok if there were only a handful to choose from, like a small passenger car, a larger van, and then a truck and that's it.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#423

Post by freemanofthewan »

JohnFen wrote: post #413
kjellsbells wrote: post #264

I happen to think that Musk is a loon, but I am rooting for the success of the truck, because, in the US, truck buyers are a super conservative bunch, and if you win them over, then the EV transition really kicks in. Truck buyers cannot afford machines that get between them and earning their livelihood. The question for me is whether this, and the Ford F150 Lightning, are poser trucks, or genuine work trucks. Its win…

> Truck buyers cannot afford machines that get between them and earning their livelihood. In the city, anyway, most truck owners only use their trucks for commuting and rarely, if ever, actually use it as a truck. They are not relying on their trucks to earn a livelihood any more than car owners are.

How much of the US is classified as city? How much of the US is classified as rural? What is your point exactly?

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#424

Post by mensetmanusman »

barryrandall wrote: post #414
mensetmanusman wrote: post #241

We welcome any and all creative attempts to convince the public to use evs, which are massively piling up on dealer lots.

I checked the market a month ago, and didn't find anything acceptable. The dealbreakers were: insufficient headroom, insufficient range for winter road trips in the US midwest (heat on, 2-3 hour trip duration, de minimis charging infrastructure), built-in internet connections, mandatory subscriptions, and no CarPlay.

Exactly, when you are starting with a fuel about 100x less energy dense than gasoline and 10x more expensive due to current economies of scale, you have to be creative in flipping the system.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#426

Post by jessriedel »

rob74 wrote: post #33
xp84 wrote: post #3

I'm rooting for it despite it being silly and not a practical pickup, strictly because every car people are buying looks identical (picture a crossover SUV from Toyota, Chevy, BMW etc. Basically shoe-shaped things). This looks like a concept car that would never come to market. I hope it sells really well and convinces others to bring actually-creative designs to market.

The shoe-shaped things are that way because of crumple areas and pedestrian safety requirements (if the car hits a pedestrian, the bonnet is supposed to deform in order to minimize injuries). Contrast that to the Cybertruck, which... > ...has received criticism from automotive safety groups, including the Australasian New Car Assessment Program and the Euro NCAP, for not conforming to standards for pedestrian and cyc…

The ever-stricter fuel efficiency requirements also impose strong constraints.

If the rules were sensible, we would have a taxes on carbon and dangerous features at amounts that reflected their actual negative impact, and the consumer could choose how much they were willing to pay for style. Instead we have a march toward uniform blandness and 99% of consumers don't know why because they never interact with the regulations.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#427

Post by spicyusername »

btreecat wrote: post #422
xp84 wrote: post #3

I'm rooting for it despite it being silly and not a practical pickup, strictly because every car people are buying looks identical (picture a crossover SUV from Toyota, Chevy, BMW etc. Basically shoe-shaped things). This looks like a concept car that would never come to market. I hope it sells really well and convinces others to bring actually-creative designs to market.

Cars should look the same, in fact id be ok if there were only a handful to choose from, like a small passenger car, a larger van, and then a truck and that's it.

What a boring world to live in, though, if every product or idea had to conform to some technocratic "ideal".

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#428

Post by jejeyyy77 »

roflyear wrote: post #282
jejeyyy77 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or, spun the other way - you're much more safe inside a cybertruck than any other car on the road.

That doesn't support your argument whatsoever. Generally the safest cars are the cars that break quickly. They absorb energy through breaking.

lol, are you safer in a tank or a smart car?

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#429

Post by JohnFen »

freemanofthewan wrote: post #423
JohnFen wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Truck buyers cannot afford machines that get between them and earning their livelihood. In the city, anyway, most truck owners only use their trucks for commuting and rarely, if ever, actually use it as a truck. They are not relying on their trucks to earn a livelihood any more than car owners are.

How much of the US is classified as city? How much of the US is classified as rural? What is your point exactly?

My point is that "Truck buyers cannot afford machines that get between them and earning their livelihood" is incorrect as stated because it implies that owning a truck is essential for earning their livelihood. Some truck buyers, sure, but not nearly all truck buyers. I'm guessing not even most truck buyers.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#430

Post by iancmceachern »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #241

We welcome any and all creative attempts to convince the public to use evs, which are massively piling up on dealer lots.

Then they should make the equivalent of a corolla or a camry. The Volt, prius, etc. are what's needed, not model X and cybertrucks. Model X is worse for the environment than a small gas economic bevausr it uses so much damn electricity
Post reply on HN