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

Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#891

Post by Velofellow »

bbarn wrote: post #633
SrslyJosh wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're also not particularly bad at them. Things trucks are particularly bad at: - Fuel efficiency - Safety (for pedestrians and everyone in smaller vehicles) - Noise

Also Parking.

I think this really depends on the mirrors tbh. I run a small fleet of three work trucks. 2010 Ford Ranger, 2020 F-250, 2022 F-150. Out of any of them the F-250 is the easiest to park, all due to the towing mirror/ low convex tear drop mirror. Ridiculously easy to park given its size.

Any of these vehicles is easier to park (parallel especially) than my 2007 Acura TL personal vehicle. Good mirror design goes a long way.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#892

Post by gambiting »

poulpy123 wrote: post #889
gambiting wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The impact to pedestrians is taken into account. The impact on other cars isn't, because I don't see how you'd do that objectively - do you just crash it against an identical model? A selection of several other cars from different categories/brands? How would you determine those? Do you just test head-on collisions, or the whole gauntlet of impacts? Wouldn't that make any test require dozens and dozens of vehicles, a…

it would be possible to test the effect of the car on a (or several) standardized objects, and compare the car resistance to these standardized objects

The issue with that is that manufacturers would obviously work to make sure their cars score super well against those specific objects. Would you be able to make sure it translates well to collisions against real life cars in real life situations? I'm not sure - usually when you start judging manufacturers on a certain metric they make sure to do well on that one metric at the cost of everything else.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#893

Post by cashsterling »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #820

It's a brutally agressive looking machine - I assume intentionally so. That flat front pretty much guarantees padestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist fatailities in a collision. And over on Ars Technica they say "Musk implied that in a crash with another vehicle, the Cybertruck [...] will destroy the other vehicle." [1] - and presumably therefore kills its occupants too. Opinion: this is the purest physical realisation of th…

Lets remember that most sedan [and smaller] cars do not fair well in collisions with pick-up trucks like the Ford F250... and neither do pedestrians and cyclists. Then consider all of the even larger, heavily industrial vehicles on the road...

Does look like the cybertruck might be even burlier than a F250... but the point is, we already share the road with "mini-tanks" [that are intrinsically more dangerous to other vehicles in collisions]. Adding one more niche model is not a significant risk increase.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#894

Post by giraffe_lady »

gambiting wrote: post #844
rainsford wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a fairly common point as well in car reviews. Super fast cars of any type are only fun in a very limited set of circumstances, most of them not on a normal road. In contrast, even your daily commute can be made more fun with a car that's lightweight or has good handling or an engaging manual shifter or whatever. It's basically the entire premise of the Mazda Miata. It's an unfortunate trend with EVs t…

I keep saying this to people and they literally don't believe me - my 86bhp volkswagen e-Up is more fun to drive than my 400bhp Mercedes-AMG ever was. Seriously, I haven't been hit in the head. The AMG was fun for a total of 4 seconds, which is exactly how long it took you to get to the legal speed limit, then you just sort of pootled along, unable to push hard and enjoy it. Yes it had grip, yes it had the noise, but…

Yeah kinda surprisingly I think the enjoyability of accessible cars peaked with the 90s/2000s enthusiast tuning scene ie "ricers." A 2500lb civic si or corolla xrs with a cold air intake was more fun than anything made since and they were like $22k.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#895

Post by rurp »

gambiting wrote: post #836
poulpy123 wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what I don't get is why the effect of a crash on other isn't taken into account in the evaluation of car safety

The impact to pedestrians is taken into account. The impact on other cars isn't, because I don't see how you'd do that objectively - do you just crash it against an identical model? A selection of several other cars from different categories/brands? How would you determine those? Do you just test head-on collisions, or the whole gauntlet of impacts? Wouldn't that make any test require dozens and dozens of vehicles, a…

No crash test is perfect, but some are useful. Cars don't change that much from year to year and manufacturers tend to copy each other quite a bit. Developing a suite of tests against a selection of typical vehicles seems very doable.

Existing crash tests don't perfectly cover every scenario, and people quibble about the details, but the tests still provide useful information.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#896

Post by hunter2_ »

zuhsetaqi wrote: post #801
hunter2_ wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're looking at the second tab, "probable savings." Switch to the first tab, "purchase price," and the footnote changes from the one you quoted to this: > All prices are shown without incentives or est. 3-year gas savings.

But why is the probable savings the default tab?

Probably the same reason that grocery store shelves and circulars show the price with a loyalty card more prominently than the price without a loyalty card: since most people will end up paying that, it's a better number to use when comparison shopping against stores that don't have a loyalty card. Granted, it only works well for comparison shopping if other loyalty card retailers follow suit (highlighting the discounted price that has minor strings attached) but they all do; therefore so long as other EV makers also do this same thing, it works.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#897

Post by rurp »

jedberg wrote: post #463
ethbr1 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be too on the nose, now. Ridiculous reality isn't funny. Although it definitely feels like there's a Silicon Valley II thread brewing with AI startups.

It was too on the nose the first time. When it was airing I was raising VC funds, and it was basically a documentary. I would laugh every time someone offered me a Fiji water at a VC office.

Did you take the Erlich approach of being as insulting as possible to VCs?

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#898

Post by AshleyGrant »

megaman821 wrote: post #232
rich_sasha wrote: post #133

Steer by wire sounds like a disastrous idea to me, especially in a car made with attention to detail of Tesla. I'm not even sure where to start. It's less reliable, surely it must be (at least without significant investment into QA and redundancy). A physical wheel physically connected to bits turning the wheels, well, the power steering can do, but you can still turn the thing. Then, it's all software driven. And it…

I lost pneumatic steering during a turn, and it nearly tore my arm off. Not sure most people would be able to drive over a few mph without powered steering. Hopefully the steer by wire systems are backed by another steer by wire system, so it would be terrible luck if you lost both at the same time.

What car are you driving that has pneumatic steering?

Also, in my experience driving cars with unassisted steering, it's steering at parking speeds that is difficult, steering at speeds above about 10 mph is fairly easy.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#899

Post by pornel »

caconym_ wrote: post #596
pornel wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instant torque makes lots of people grin. Most BEVs also have low center of gravity and even mass distribution, so they’re not as bad as a heavy ICE car. On public roads, 0-30mph acceleration is probably most fun you can have within realm of legal and sensible driving. Handling is not an issue at speed limits of public roads.

Limiting EV torque off the line is probably one of the lowest-hanging emissions reduction fruits out there, given that (by estimates I've seen) tire wear for current EVs is in aggregate 20-50% faster than ICE vehicles.

The tire thing you've heard has been started by one article that misleadingly bundled tire and breakpad particles with all other emissions summed up by weight.

This was extremely misleading breakdown, because it discounted all of the ICE gases that are toxic, but weigh almost nothing, and lighter combustion particles that stay in the air, versus tire particles that are typically heavier and stay on the ground.

Of course worn tires aren't environmentally neutral, but that framing was used as a regressive "gotcha" in EVs vs ICE, without daring to mention any real solutions like reversing heavy macho-pickup-truck and SUV fashion created by a workaround for emissions regulation, or moving freight from trucks to rail.

Re: Tesla Cybertruck Pricing and Specs

#900

Post by iJohnDoe »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #820

It's a brutally agressive looking machine - I assume intentionally so. That flat front pretty much guarantees padestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist fatailities in a collision. And over on Ars Technica they say "Musk implied that in a crash with another vehicle, the Cybertruck [...] will destroy the other vehicle." [1] - and presumably therefore kills its occupants too. Opinion: this is the purest physical realisation of th…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN