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

531–540 of 592 posts

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#531

Post by appplication »

avidiax wrote: post #64
sushid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate the unique design of the Cybertruck, I have a huge concern with its huge size and the potential safety risks for pedestrians. The trend of increasingly larger vehicles, like SUVs and trucks, has already raised issues regarding pedestrian safety. The Cybertruck, being notably larger than most contemporary cars in the same category, could exacerbate this problem, especially if it opens the door to si…

The Cybertruck is actually rather low for a truck. The edge of the hood would hit a typical person in the gut, not the neck or face as with many other trucks (especially lifted trucks). https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/model-s-v...

I give this 48 hours before we see lifted mods emerge

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#532

Post by coldbrewed »

stcredzero wrote: post #510
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #439

I saw one at the mall last week. Much bigger than I expected. Like bigger than a Tundra. I don’t get it. You can’t fit much in the back. A lot of people like how traditional trucks look and this is a big departure. I hope insurance companies jack up their rates for these things, it’s going to destroy everything it contacts.

You can’t fit much in the back. Has a longer bed than the F-150.

Pictures of the RC models show that the bed walls are sloped; that'll eat up a bunch of space if you're moving crates or boxes.

The thing that I can't get over is the raised walls on the sides of the bed. The appeal of a pickup is that you can easily get things in/out of the bed without having to go through the rear of the vehicle; the raised walls are going to make it so much harder to quickly huck a heavy toolbox into the bed.

Elements like the sloped bed walls and elevated external sides of the bed make it clear that this vehicle wasn't designed to be used as a truck.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#533

Post by ungamedplayer »

alephxyz wrote: post #526
JumpinJack_Cash wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it’s very possible. Bikes get out of harms way faster and in a much mire agile fashion compared to cars and the money you save by buying a bike instead of a car can be used to safely practice at a track that is optimized for safety and to make you learn the feedback system of your bike

> Bikes get out of harms way faster and in a much mire agile fashion compared to cars That may be true but there are situations where you physically can't get out of harm's way even with good reflexes.

There always will be, since reality trends toward degradation.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#534

Post by AwaAwa »

coldbrewed wrote: post #532
stcredzero wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t fit much in the back. Has a longer bed than the F-150.

Pictures of the RC models show that the bed walls are sloped; that'll eat up a bunch of space if you're moving crates or boxes. The thing that I can't get over is the raised walls on the sides of the bed. The appeal of a pickup is that you can easily get things in/out of the bed without having to go through the rear of the vehicle; the raised walls are going to make it so much harder to quickly huck a heavy toolbox i…

Almost seems like the goal was to build a planetary rover, in line with Musk's stated aims. Welcome to Mars, here's your space truck. Maybe that's why it needs to be meteorshower-proof?

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#535

Post by jessriedel »

mkehrt wrote: post #489
jessriedel wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regul…

How is that sensible? That allows the manufacturers to get around safety regulations by making the car cost more? That's bananas.

Safety is not infinitely valuable

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#536

Post by jessriedel »

brokensegue wrote: post #446
jessriedel wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regul…

Actually the CAFE standards allow car makers to pay to compensate for less efficient designs. So we already have what you suggest.

No, because the size of the penalties do a terrible job of tracking the carbon emissions, e.g.:

> CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#537

Post by jessriedel »

devmor wrote: post #471
jessriedel wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regul…

The regulations already function as you describe. Changes in car design reflect what consumers are willing to pay for - or at least what manufacturers believe consumers are willing to pay for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38483046

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#538

Post by talldatethrow »

SantalBlush wrote: post #451
talldatethrow wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy I responded to did basically that, trying to assign blame to drivers. Why would I care what some drivers do when I'm crossing the street? I assume all drivers are bad and act accordingly. The people that don't do that, are more likely to get hit. That's what I meant.

It's not a dichotomy. Both parties are responsible for traveling safely. The argument you're trying to put forth is disingenuous, because controlling drivers as a pedestrian is obviously a ridiculous idea; that's why we have laws. It's arguing in bad faith to pretend there is nothing to be done about unsafe drivers or vehicles, or to pretend that only pedestrians are responsible for their own safety.

I would say that yes, at any given moment in time, the pedestrian is responsible for themselves if they want to stay safe. It's too late for any laws at that moment. You either notice the car isn't slowing down and avoid stepping out, or you do step out and hope for the best. Not a good way to stay alive.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#539

Post by nerdbert »

harambae wrote: post #453
sushid wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate the unique design of the Cybertruck, I have a huge concern with its huge size and the potential safety risks for pedestrians. The trend of increasingly larger vehicles, like SUVs and trucks, has already raised issues regarding pedestrian safety. The Cybertruck, being notably larger than most contemporary cars in the same category, could exacerbate this problem, especially if it opens the door to si…

People bring this up a lot on Hacker News, but AEB (Automated Emergency Braking) is essentially standard at this point [0] on new vehicles (technically NHTSA just makes recommendations on this right now, but as a practical matter OEM's comply because someday soon it'll be mandatory without an explicit waiver). Between the forward-facing camera (usually running some version of Mobileye EyeQ) and forward-facing radar,…

I'm not sure exactly what the scope of that is, but I was hit (lightly) by a Tesla in a crosswalk earlier this year.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#540

Post by nerdbert »

slowhadoken wrote: post #56
mike_d wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the single biggest step backwards in automotive safety in the last ten years. https://www.travelers.com/resources/auto/safe-driving/how-cr...

yeah but automotive safety has been great the last twenty years especially for children

Only for the children in the car. It's gotten dramatically worse for the 99.9999999% of children who are outside the car.
Post reply on HN