they should have focused on building light-duty utility vehicles based on the Model Y platform. A ModelY Truck could be like the Ford Maverick or a 90s Tacoma, the Van could be like Ford Transit Connect. It would be significantly faster to market, re-using the some of the production lines, and there's a huge market (landscaping, residential trades, short-haul delivery, etc). Elon was high off his own supply the year he launched CT, Semi, & Roadster
Our local Tesla dealer just got a Cybertruck on display last week and I went and took a look at it last weekend. My impression is the front end is actually pretty good looking, they rounded it off quite a bit from the original prototype and it has a similar shape as other Tesla models like the Y. The headlight bar is actually really cool and the frunk is probably pretty big. The back half of the Cybertruck is a travesty, in addition to just being really angular and ugly they lost some of the most useful aspects of being a truck, like being able to throw gear over the side of the bed, or being able to put a custom cap on the back. The Cybertruck is excessively long for all the more cargo capacity it gives you, all because of that ugly angular back end. A lot of people are probably going to shy away from buying one because it's not going to fit in their garage. The custom tires are probably going to cost a fortune to replace as well, for no real good reason other than looks. In short Tesla designed 50% of a pretty cool truck, it really could have changed the segment.
What's a "custom cap"? Is it like a tonneau cover (I'm from Aus, not sure if they're a thing in other countries)? Or something more like a tailgate pad for bikes?
Tonneau is the flat cover for the bed. A cap is the n-shaped cover that encloses it, giving it a roof. Typically matching the cab body work, so overall looks more like an SUV.
The funny thing is, it's not a single piece of metal anymore, they completely ditched the whole "exoskeleton". The Cybertruck is made just like the Model Y, with casted front and back ends attached to an upper frame with body panels. If you look at recent pictures you can see the lines between all the body panels. The panels are stainless steel and probably are a little thicker than a typical body panel so they might be a little more resistant to dents, but that's about it.
You're exactly right. The Cybertruck an enormous misstep for the company. And the amazing thing is Tesla figured out with the Model S that if you make a nice sedan that happens to be electric—people will buy it. There were a lot of people with disposable income that want to help the environment, but wanted to drive something nicer and less weird looking than a Prius.
They should have taken the same approach with their pickup. People expect trucks to be able to haul, tow and have a certain amount of bed space. If they were serious about building a pickup, they'd build something like the Lightning—a truck that could do all of that, but happens to be electric. Heck, if they did that Rivian might not be in business.
The Cybertruck is a novelty item and nobody who wants or needs the utility of a truck is going to consider it over a Rivian or F-150 Lightning.
“People expect trucks to be able to haul, tow and have a certain amount of bed space.”
Oh how I wish that were true. Most pickups are just vanity items now. Americans who drive pickups don’t care about the environment, they want something big and flashy with more power.
Most other attempts at redesigning the truck bed have failed. The Chevy Avalanche and Cadillac Escalade EXT never sold well and were eventually cancelled. The Honda Ridgeline sold poorly and eventually was redesigned with a regular truck bed with straight walls. The problem with trucks with high bed walls is you can't throw gear, tools or materials over the side of the bed. You can't climb over the side of the bed to tie things down, and you can't (easily) put a custom cap or camper on it either. It's hard to see the Cybertruck selling real well once the initial rush wears off.
5.5 and 4.5 foot bed sizes sell like hotcakes, which is what I think the previous poster was referring to. You see a lot more of those these days than 8 foot longbeds.
Frankly, I've always pegged the cybertruck as a very "video gamer skulls and crossbones rawr" aesthetic...
...that I'm sure will be unironically adopted by authoritarian police forces as society seems oddly keen to adopt straight from dystopian sci fi movies.
I mean, why would I even care about bulletproof or even baseball pitch proof glass if I wasn't keen to crawl my vehicle over civilians who might shoot or throw things at me?
Seems to be aiming towards a different market than the F150.
I wonder if its not going to find a niche market in places like Columbia, Brazil and South Africa (and might get actually get more popular here if we start to import their organized crime and kidnapping issues).
> There were a lot of people with disposable income that want to help the environment
Most Tesla owners I know (and I know a lot), do not care about the environment more than the average non-owner who drive similarly priced vehicles.
I think the Venn diagram converges more on: people who have a lot of disposable income, but also who want to drive something modern and still be smart with their money (fuel and maintenance costs).
The Rivian has a 4.5 foot bed[0] and the F-150 Lightning has a 5.5 foot bed[1]. I don't think it's fair to call Cybertruck a novelty item based on its capabilities, especially compared to its competition.
(Of course there are completely legitimate downsides of Cybertruck - for example, with the sloped bed sides, it won't be able to tow a fifth wheel trailer. But that is a capability the vast majority of truck owners don't use.)
I disagree. I think the Cybertruck is going to fundamentally change what a pickup truck is and immediately antiquate the F-150-style truck that we all know and (were kind-of forced to) love.
This is validated by the absolutely insanely long line queueing up to buy this thing.
I predict that we'll see many more Cybertruck looking trucks in five years, just like we're seeing many more Model Y looking EVs now.
Not sure I follow. The Model Y is just a small electric SUV. Functionally, it meets the same needs the RAV4 or Honda CRV have served for years.
The Cybertruck is a significant departure from traditional pickups. I don't see it replacing anyone who uses their truck—even if it's only once or twice a year. That why I said it's a novelty.
If it were smaller, maybe it could compete with the Maverick or Santa Cruz? I'm having difficult finding consistent specs, but I think it's closer in size to a full size truck though.
> This is validated by the absolutely insanely long line queueing up to buy this thing.
$100 deposit preorders without contact with the real thing isn't a sign of how popualr the real thing will be when people get it, its a sign of anticipation based on marketing and brand identity, probably with some FOMO built in.
> I predict that we'll see many more Cybertruck looking trucks in five years, just like we're seeing many more Model Y looking EVs now.
Model Y's just look like normal, pre-EV sedans of similar size for the last couple decades. That was Tesla conforming to the broader market expectations. The Cybertruck is...not that.
To be fair, Model Y's don't really look like pre-EV sedans. They depart significantly in shape and style: lack of grille for air intake, low drag coefficient, vastly increased cargo space, flush door handles, glass roof, incredible visibility of surroundings from the driver seat (compared to cramped sedans), etc.
I would imagine most folks at YCombinator would aspire to make similar mis-steps then, with >2m pre-orders and a 5 year waitlist. Yes, it was only $100 deposit and ultimate demand has yet to be tested, but it looks pretty promising.
The difference with Rivian and the F-150 is that Tesla have figured out how to actually make a good margin on their vehicles.
Tesla has committed to making 100,000 Cybertrucks a year at this point. It's like they know the vast majority of that 2m+ people that pre-ordered it are not going to be buying it once they find out the actual details. When that pre-order site was up Tesla was promising 300+ miles of range on a charge for $50,000, which would be an incredible deal for a vehicle the size of the Cybertruck. When the reality comes out later this week and it's going to be more like 270 miles of range for $65,000 (which is around what people are predicting) the vast majority of the pre-orders are going to vaporize (fully refundable by the way).
> Tesla have figured out how to actually make a good margin on their vehicles.
It's too early to make a sensible comparison. Tesla lost money in large quantities very consistently for 14 years, until ~3 years after the Model 3 launch. Neither Ford nor Rivian are as far along yet.
"Rivian is shipping. Infinitely better than something that's not."
Even if they're losing $33k per vehicle? (See 2Q23 shareholder letter). Note this does not include R&D, CAPEX or SG&A. Was it infinitely better for WeWork to ship something than not?
"will be an important failure to rein in Musk's fantastical thinking"
Why would it fail when there are >2m pre-orders and a a 5 year waitlist?
Those pre-orders are based on fictional pricing and fictional delivery date. I don't doubt that they'll sell all 180k cybertrucks they expect to make in the next 18 months (novelty factor goes a long way with people who have gobs of discretionary income), but I'd be willing to bet a lot of the "2 million" preorders are people who, like me, simply haven't canceled theirs yet but will when it's time to shell out whatever crazy price is announced for a truck that doesn't meet the promised specs.
> The Cybertruck is a novelty item and nobody who wants or needs the utility of a truck is going to consider it over a Rivian or F-150 Lightning.
I wouldn't say "nobody". I'm sure there are a few million far-right types or Musk-is-Tony-Stark holdouts that are interested in driving the Bat-light equivalent of virtual signaling. Not everyone is rational and in the United States today, every single thing you purchase is part of some sort of weird identity flare ensemble. The Cybertruck may be on its way to become the most extravagant "Not Woke" badge you can wear.
> The Cybertruck may be on its way to become the most extravagant "Not Woke" badge you can wear
This is rather unfortunate, in my opinion, since I'm pretty solidly left and I still kinda want one. I actually set aside cash for it back in 2021 because I find the over-the-top design amusing and I really do want an electric truck. Unfortunately, I got tired of waiting and I have no illusion that it will be anywhere near the $40k base price anymore. I fully expect it to be in the ballpark of what a F-150 Lightning or a Rivian costs, which is basically flirting with $100k when all is said and done.
We don't need more trucks that look like every other truck on the market, just like we don't need more sedans that look like the same boring bar of soap. I'm not a huge Tesla fan, but I'm glad someone out there is taking some design risk rather than just copying the look of every other vehicle out there.
The Cybertruck will be the ultimate "fuck you" status symbol after everyone got bored of the vanilla Teslas as every tech bro and their mom have one now and in the wealthy EU cities they're used as taxis, making them uncool for those who want to be seen as "avantgarde" while still retaining the vulgarity of the pick-up truck.
Everyone buys different luxury goods. If they want cybertrucks, and it offsets combustion miles, so be it. Telling the consumer they don’t want something doesn’t work; give them what they want.
Anything that destroys petroleum demand is welcome, even if impractical. Not my money.
(the US is responsible for ~35% of global gasoline consumption [1] [2] [3])
Many people don't buy luxury goods, even those with money. Luxuries are pointless by definition, so clearly having money is not a valuable metric for knowing what's good or not.
People who don’t have purchasing power don’t move the needle. Inconvenient truth. They get dragged along by other factors.
Tesla built out their >$1B global supercharger network and manufacturing base on luxury vehicle sales (S, X), for example (until they could spin up 3, Y, and utility scale storage manufacturing). And their profit margin is still higher than legacy auto.
TLDR Sell to people with money and who aren’t price sensitive, pour that cashflow into spinning up a flywheel. Fighting reality will lead to disappointment, ignore feelings and operate according to the data. Go where the money is. Buyers with only opinions are not worth chasing.
>People who don’t have purchasing power don’t move the needle. Inconvenient truth.
Yes they do. You'll never complete the EV transition by only selling 50k+ Euro EVs. Eventually you'll run out of people with disposable income to buy your pricy EVs and those are the minority of consumers, not the majority.
China leads the world in EV sales precisely because they didn't start at the top selling premium EVs first, but started instead from the bottom by selling cheap EVS to the mases.
I mean, the Cybertruck starts at $39K, so it's right in line with other trucks available on the market in the U.S. They haven't really chosen a luxury price point. They clearly intend to mass market this thing. Pick-up trucks aren't vulgar, they're simply practical and useful.
It has been a while since they've talked about that price, and I would not expect it to be anywhere near that price point today, given <gestures at everything>.
They might jack it up by $10K or so but that still puts it in line with other passenger trucks. An F150 dual cab Lariat starts at $57K. Dual cab Tacomas with four wheel drive run at least $38K, but if you want leather seats and a nicer trim like Teslas come with, that typically runs $48K or more.
There is no chance a cybertruck is going to start at a mere $10k over original base price. My prediction is that it’ll “start at” $70k for the one-motor version, but that won’t be available for over a year. The 2 and 3 motor builds will be prioritized and they will cost $90k+
>There is no chance a cybertruck is going to start at a mere $10k over original base price.
My opinion as well. There's no way Tesla can deliver everything, or at least most of what they promised about the Cybertruck at that price point, considering the manufacturing challenges of that thing.
In 2019, the target starting price was ~$40k. Given inflation and other factors that have wildly increased prices, as well as it more and more sounding like a "halo" vehicle, as well as the supply being a tiny fraction of demand, I'd be surprised if the starting price wasn't literally double that $40k. I guess we'll see soon.
Teslas are known for their very high crash safety ratings. I highly doubt the Cybertruck will be much different.
Some cars are designed to crumple when it makes sense for crash safety. Crumple zones primarily affect the passengers inside the vehicle, it doesn't change the amount of energy delivered to the point of impact, they simply extend the amount of time it takes to dissipate the energy.
But higher strength steel is often better for this purpose, and reduces the length that a crumple zone needs to be, as is common for passenger vans.
SUVs, by the way, (which the Cybertruck more closely resembles than a traditional truck), are safer in accidents than passenger cars, by nearly a factor of 8 [1][2].
The net death rates of people killed by small cars is still higher overall than SUVs and light trucks.
That being said, even the article mentions the primary factor in pedestrian deaths is the shape of the hood and the height of the hood:
"Even when the hood isn’t that high, a boxy front-end — with a grille that’s nearly vertical and a hood that goes almost straight out from the windshield — is more likely to cause death or serious injury to a pedestrian. In general, vehicles with box-shaped front ends, even when they’re only medium height, are roughly 26% more likely to kill a pedestrian, according to the IIHS."
Seems like it's at least partly a visibility issue (I'm not convinced that height matters as much as the angle a driver sits at from within the truck to be able to see what's in front of it), also the odds of getting slammed under the vehicle rather than rolled over the top of it.
That being said, none of these apply to the Cybertruck, which has an almost entirely sloped frontend with a low hood height and massive windshields for visibility paired with probably the most advanced pedestrian detection systems on the market.
That also describe the reasonably well-known reason for the increased risk, once hit: for pedestrians, it’s better to end up on the bonnet than under the car, or, as you phrase it ”the odds of getting slammed under the vehicle rather than rolled over the top of it”
Of course, decreasing P(being hit) also helps, but doing both is the best option.
>> Seems like it's at least partly a visibility issue
> I don’t see how that can follow from that article, as it says
Very simply, if you don't see a pedestrian approaching from the side due to the limited visibility of the vehicle, then as a driver you have less time to react and slow down. The slower a vehicle is going at the point of collision, the more likely a pedestrian is to survive.
If a vehicle is going 45mph and hits a pedestrian, it doesn't much matter the aerodynamics of the vehicle or even the weight or size of the vehicle, that is an incredible force of impact.
So of course visibility is a factor in deaths and that's why newer SUVs and trucks with collision avoidance systems reduce deaths by 27%.
From [1], "SUVs, pickups, vans and minivans are substantially more likely than cars to hit pedestrians when making turns, suggesting that these larger vehicles may not afford drivers as clear a view of people crossing the road, a new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows". Notably, these types of collisions would not result in a roll over the top of the vehicle in any case as the pedestrians are being struck by the corner of the vehicle at an angle.
"Earlier studies have shown that A-pillars — the struts connecting the roof to the vehicle’s body on either side of the windshield — can create blind spots that can make it difficult for drivers to see pedestrians and that these blind spots grow larger as A-pillars become wider."
The front of the Cybertruck is actually fairly rounded and has a fairly normal bumper (and I would assume crumple zone) just like any other Tesla. I don't think the front of the Cybertruck is any worse than any other truck or SUV as far as a collisions go. The ride height is a non-issue, the Cybertruck has air suspension, so while it can have as much as 14" of clearance for off-road for day to day driving it is much lower than that, which is, I assume, how Tesla is going to eke out decent range numbers with it. That leaves the back of the Cybertruck, which is indeed full of sharp angles, but mostly up high. It does have a rear bumper that looks functional but it is hard not to think that the sharp angles on the back wouldn't do some serious damage if rear-ended or someone where to back into a pedestrian. It's a case where hopefully the NHTSA did their due diligence.
The sharp angles should make the Cybertruck significantly more safe to pedestrians than an F-150.
When a pedestrian gets hit by a car, it takes out their legs and they bounce on the hood. When a pedestrian gets hit by a large truck, they take the full impact instantaneously due to the large blunt front, and then fall on the ground and get run over. The car collision has much higher survival rates.
The Cybertruck with it's lack of broad flat front, should behave more like a car in a pedestrian collision.
It's common sense. Hardened stainless steel and pedestrians don't mix. The car has to be proven to be safe, not the other way around. There hasn't been any tests yet.
It's not common sense. Virtually all car and truck frames are made of steel. But honestly, the metal doesn't matter. Whether a pedestrian is hit by 3000 pounds of aluminum at 45 miles per hour or 3000 pounds of steel at 45 miles per hour, there is going to be a high chance of fatality.
"An IIHS study found that vehicles equipped with automatic braking that detects pedestrians had a 27 percent lower rate of pedestrian crashes than vehicles without such technology."
Teslas typically have the most advanced crash avoidance systems on the market. Virtually all Teslas have 5 star safety ratings in crashes, both in Europe and U.S. [1]
Not sure why this was down voted. If you're hauling, the lightning gets very little mileage. If you've got a camper trailer, you're not going far from home, even if the campsite has chargers (lol). Compare with a regular truck, where you can haul something as far as you can drive. Got to take something to the hazwaste dump that's hundreds of miles away? Lightning is a non starter.
This isn't to say Lightning is all bad, but it's a fundmentally limited product right now compared to a real pickup. It's almost like what's suited for an urban lifestyle isn't for everyone.
But you specifically say "they're not really trucks" - that's not saying they're not useful trucks for you, but that you think they're not even in the same category.
Because they're tiny and can't carry much. There's a world of difference between a pickup and a truck. It's difficult to buy them with 8' beds, most have 6-6.5' bed which makes carrying construction materials more difficult/dangerous. They have small load limits, which probably is for the best because you rarely can bring down the sidewalls to forklift decently sized stuff anyway!
They have their niche, but that's what they are, niche tools that got heavily pushed/marketed to everyone when a car/van or actual truck would be so much better of a fit for their needs.
You have a very unique definition of "truck". Sure, totally understand it may not fit your needs given where you need to drive it and what you do with it, but I'd posit that none of your constraints require redefinition of a commonly understood English word.
It's not pedantic. You were wrong. You said "it's not a truck" when you meant "It doesn't fit my needs". Those are not subtle distinctions. Language is often murky and meaning can shift over time and across different areas. This is not one of those times.
Sure I should have said "I don't consider it a truck". But that's very clear from my followup "nor do I consider the lightning a truck" that it's my personal opinion about the functionality that is missing, which I go into detail of what's missing in the same post.
Maybe next time, try saying "It doesn't do what I personally need a truck for" rather than "It's not really a truck" if you think it fits the definition of a truck but doesn't do what you personally need a truck for.
You know what? I think I kind of agree with you. At least the cybertruck is a stupid vehicle which I'd be comfortable saying pretends to be a truck without doing any of the things a person who needs a truck needs their truck to do.
I think gating the definition of "truck" behind "not electric" is stupid, which is what I thought you were doing (and to be honest, your comment is worded to make that a reasonable interpretation); but if you just meant "these trucks are stupid and don't do what I need a truck to do" then I can't disagree.
No, you use a truck to accomplish tasks for which vehicles don't get named "truck". That's perfectly fine; you can and should do whatever you want with the vehicles that you buy. When you go out in public and say "that's not a truck" about something that clearly is, it's you who is "using whatever definition you want", not everyone else.
No, EVs do not require those for the same reason they do not require gas tanks.
>Needs a few software updates to mimic the features of those components.
You have it backwards: ICE trucks will never be able to mimic the instant torque and torque vectoring that EV motors provide. Rivian is a good example of this:
This is similar to discussing the off-road capabilities of a Range Rover. The extent of off-roading for most Range Rovers is typically just driving onto a front lawn.
Most cybertruck owners will likely show little to no concern about its towing capacity.
The hope with new technology is always that its better than existing tech, possibly in extreme ways (10x better). It would be great if electric vehicles just blew away ICE vehicles traditional metrics, I think that's one of the ways Tesla got its foothold in the first place with the Roadster acceleration numbers.
If the selling point is only environmental, and not price or anything else then the transition will be a harder sell to consumers.
I’m thinking that payload capacity might actually be the total payload rather than the bed, so 2500 - passengers and interior cargo? Or is that how it’s always rated.
Your expectations about bed size might be off. You also can't load a bike lengthwise in a 4-door F-150 or a 4-door Ram 1500, both of which have 5.5 foot beds. I personally think it's kind of silly for a truck, but that's what the market is apparently asking for.
It's ridiculous. I tried to find a standard cab (or extended cab at most), standard 8' bed truck, and was referred to the fleet vehicle sales at our local ford dealer. They only sell that kind to large businesses who dump the standard bed and install custom box beds or tool beds.
People want quad cabs and 4' beds, apparently. I don't get it, even slightly.
The way the truck segment works, it's pretty inevitable. More and more people buying them with no intention to use as trucks, means cab encroaching into the bed space.
If we want Tesla to make a low-profit margin work truck to actually get things done, you’re talking about a 4 cylinder Nissan Frontier with an extended cab.
Indeed. The Ford Maverick base model is $23k (edited: was $21k which was the base price in 2022). Despite being "not really a truck" in many ways, it actually demonstrates a lot more utility per dollar than most pavement princesses. Every white Ford Ranger or Toyota Tacoma fleet vehicle you see out there hauling parts from store to store, doing groundskeeping/facilities/security work, and doing small household hauling can be replaced with a Maverick. In a world where $50k gets you a base model "full size" truck, the Maverick is going to clean up (in my opinion).
One interesting thing is that you can also easily spend $50k on a luxury-spec Maverick. I drove one a couple weeks ago that was $52k out the door, fully 100% over base price. I'm sure the profit margin on those packages is pretty impressive. I ended up buying a bare bones one that was under $25k, silly miniature bed be damned.
Not that I recall, but it did have a lot of what I'd consider "above-and-beyond" extras, like a $400 console safe and powered moon roof (oh and lol, it was red!). Plus the $52k included all the seattle local charges like insane registration and sales tax, so those shouldn't really be counted.
Just as a note, "insane" registrations and sales tax are not "insane." Driving a vehicle has negative costs on society that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the producer pay for, and fuel taxes do not fully cover these costs.
Seattle/Washington charges you money based on the weight of your vehicle, which is reasonable since weight is the primary driver of road wear. A lighter vehicle costs the city and state less money in maintenance.
Sales tax in Seattle is also relatively typical for a city, and applies to every product you buy. It has a very similar sales tax rate to cities like Nashville, Memphis, Phoenix, and New Orleans.
Would clean up if everyone could get one. I placed an order for a 2023 and had to place another order for a 2024. I am still waiting. In the meantime I had to buy out my existing lease since the used car market was nuts, and I am pretty sure I am now under water on that lease.
> You just get the rail that mounts at the front of the bed, take the front wheel off ...
... which makes the bike ~14 inches shorter, meaning you can do that in any truck with a 5.5 foot bed. The discussion is whether you can put the entire bike lengthwise in the bed, not whether it will fit when partially disassembled.
Yes, I have actually confirmed that they exist, but in my area (seattle) there are exactly 0 of them available at dealers and special orders take forever. The 5.5 foot bed is apparently what sells. I'm jealous. That thing must be a mile long. :)
I think that the popularity of the Ford Maverick and so on mean that the bed isn't for that kind of thing.
Also, for those upset with the inability to find a modern truck with a long bed and short cab, the answer someone suggested is a van. It's a pretty good substitute.
Pickup trucks are for the "work boots with heel lifts" market. The average hatchback can carry a bike or two while the average pickup cannot, but the pickup sure looks meaner. Everyone knows trucks are an expensive fashion accessory intended to signify contempt for fashion. Enough people pretend not to notice that they still do their job.
The Cybertruck's problem is that it doesn't keep up the pretense.
Musk has a bad habit of over-promising (among many other bad habits like being garbage human) but there’s nothing unreasonable about the product being delivered.
The article is a bit silly to compare this to a Ram 3500. Anytime you say something like “toughest truck out there” that’s just marketing puffery (“tough” isn’t a quantitative measure, it’s basically just an opinion), Ford says the exact same type of stuff about their “built Ford tough” F-150 that most buyers use as a glorified minivan.
Plenty of automakers have made big promises about concept vehicles.
I think there’s a cohort in the media that wants this thing to fail so badly. I certainly don’t want one, but I think it has everything that sells well in the American automotive market.
Oh, I'm sure there will be some technicality that they point at and say, see, it's 6.5" and then will sell a cybertruck bed extension next year for a cool $23k to make the space usable.
It's probably best to ignore most of the stuff Elon Musk promises. And just wait what Tesla actually delivers.
What Elon does is just producing free advertisement. Overpromising and not being able to deliver is pure gold for news outlets. Tesla gets hundrets of Cybertruck pictures in the news for free, every day. Without paying for advertisement.
