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

581–590 of 592 posts

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#581

Post by hughesjj »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #236
yaomtc wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone involved. Not for people outside the car. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184034017/us-pedestrian-deat...

Gee, I wonder what has happened since, say, 2008, that has caused pedestrians to lose any trace of situational awareness and wander in front of moving cars. It's almost as if they're distracted by something that became a factor relatively recently, around the same time that drivers also became much more distracted than usual. Someone should look into that.

[flagged]

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#582

Post by habitue »

nerdbert wrote: post #542
habitue wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think the "electric SUVs are bad for pedestrians" is just there to replace "SUVs are bad for the environment". Basically, this isn't a real argument, just a vibes thing, where big trucks are conservative coded and smaller cars are liberal-coded. In the grand scheme of things the difference in MPG of an SUV vs. a sedan is minimal when it comes to climate change, and the difference in pedestrian danger fr…

You may personally think that, but traffic safety data is unambiguous. The higher the front end and the heavier the vehicle, the more likely pedestrians are to die.

Sure, there is a difference, but I'm talking vs. "no car". Driving any car increases chance of killing pedestrians above bike or walking. If you kill 5 pedestrians per million miles in a sedan and an SUV kills 6 pedestrians per million miles, we are splitting hairs.

My point is the people yelling about dangerous SUVs are discounting their own car use as zero harm, rather than considering themselves to be doing something harmful and SUV drivers doing something slightly more harmful.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#583

Post by devmor »

jessriedel wrote: post #537
devmor wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you think consumers desire lower fuel economy?

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#584

Post by btreecat »

spicyusername wrote: post #427
btreecat wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Do you pick your hammer and wrench based off what color it is or how well it performs for the cost?

When things become price optimized, there really is little left to differ on because of the physics of cars, much like the physics of hammers and wrenches.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#585

Post by iancmceachern »

Kirby64 wrote: post #553
iancmceachern wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I'm saying that the folks buying the former should not be doing so under the pretense that it's better for the environment, or society.

But, no, that's not right. If someone is typically a buyer of a ... Range Rover, or a BMW X5, or something like that, then replacing that car with an EV of equivalent size makes a proportionally larger impact on the environment than someone who replaces their Corolla with a small EV.

Your missing the point. An EV is not necessary better than a gas car.

An EV like the Plaid X or the Hummer EV actually use the equivalent of more fuel than the competition. A gas X5 is more energy efficient than a X.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#586

Post by jessriedel »

devmor wrote: post #583
jessriedel wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you think consumers desire lower fuel economy?

I think they do not value fuel economy nearly as much as they should because they do not bare most of the costs of externalities from carbon emissions.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#587

Post by xp84 »

jessriedel wrote: post #586
devmor wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think consumers desire lower fuel economy?

I think they do not value fuel economy nearly as much as they should because they do not bare most of the costs of externalities from carbon emissions.

Yeah. It's simply too juicy to pursue policies that artificially make cost of using petroleum lower. Many elections have been won and lost based on when fuel prices increased or decreased. This means incentives will never be what they should be to be efficient with use of gasoline.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#588

Post by xp84 »

inhumantsar wrote: post #528
ang_cire wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would buy the crap out of that, but it will never see actual production looking like that. By the time it's done it'll be round just like every other car.

it's never meant to go to production sadly. it's a test bed for their experimental hydrogen powerplant and new cyberpunkish design language in use on vehicles like the Ioniq. i too would buy the crap out of it. it's glorious.

Ioniq5 is the other car that genuinely makes me smile to look at.

Although seeing how pathetic that company (Hyundai/Kia) handled security with the Kiaboyz incident (which they to this day have never remedied, let alone made anyone whole for) I harbor a lot of scorn for their ethics. They directly enabled a massive wave of car thefts, just to maybe $80 a car on immobilizer chips that literally every other carmaker has had as standard for 2 decades.

Re: Cybertruck Launch

#589

Post by anonymousiam »

greedo wrote: post #515
anonymousiam wrote: post #367

Placed an order on announce day. My main reason was the 500 mile range (for the tri-motor variant). As much as I'd like to buy the thing, if the range offered doesn't meet or exceed the promised value, I'll cancel my order and get my $100 back. If it does meet spec, I've got a check ready.

Looks like you are cancelling...

Yep. I'm going to let them cancel it though. My position is that I have a reservation for the product that was offered to me when I put down the deposit, and I will wait until they can produce one, or they can cancel the order themselves.
Post reply on HN