> At its best, a truck celebrates work-life balance. It is the vehicle of skilled labor. That’s what drives so many truck owners: building and strengthening communities, creating legacies, forging connections. That’s why we spend hours tinkering with that long-bed four-wheel-drive in the backyard.

Yes, of course. That's why so many city dwellers drive massive F-150s unlikely ever to haul anything heftier than a couple of bags of mulch.

But by failing to even pretend to be a real truck, the Cybertruck fails at even cosplay.

F150 owners at least pretends to be a real truckers by ya know.... Having a real truck.

How do you Define real truck?

The cybertruck has a vastly higher tow capacity and much higher payload than a ranger or Colorado or many other pickups. It has a bigger bed than all of those too.

What doesn’t it do that you need it to?

> Ranger or Colorado

Are you claiming that the Cybertruck is aiming at the low-end Ranger or Colorado market?

People aren't upgrading to a F150 or Silverado to "compete" with a Ranger or Colorado. They're doing it so that they can cosplay having a better truck than the people who "only" bought a Ranger, Colorado, or Maverick. (Or maybe they're actually people who can use the full-sized truck like a F150. But as a city dweller I 100% admit that most of what I see in my area are cosplayers).

This is important because the F150 Lightning is right there and available as a competitor, and somehow launched years before the Cybertruck despite being announced afterwards.

> Are you claiming that the Cybertruck is aiming at the low-end Ranger or Colorado market?

Not at all. I was asking how you define “real truck” (which you didn’t do), and asking if a ranger or Colorado is a real truck.

What does the F150 lightning do that the cybertruck doesn’t?

I’ve never driven either, but on paper they seem pretty equal.

> and asking if a ranger or Colorado is a real truck.

They are obviously not in the category of an F150. No where close.

And expecting me to continue a serious discussion if you can't tell the difference between a Ranger and an F150 is... asking for a bit much.

For the third time I’m asking what is your definition of real truck. I’m starting to think you don’t have one, you just wanted to diss the cybertruck.

I’m also asking what the f150 lightning does that the cyber truck doesn’t?

Are they both not real trucks? Why/ why not.

When stating your opinion it’s helpful to give reasons and expand your ideas, otherwise you’re just blurting stuff out randomly. Bring people with you, instead of just attacking them when they ask for more clarification.

> For the third time

Read the original post. F150. Not a Ranger. Not a Colorado. I'm not even sure why you're bringing the other ones up.

It's not that hard to tell the difference between a Ranger and F150. And if you need me to spell it out for you, then that's probably something YOU need to figure out on your own.

I brought them up because I’m trying to understand your definition of real truck. It would be illustrative to understand where you draw the line and why, but you clearly can’t.

Regardless, you also won’t answer why the f150 lightning is superior to the cybertruck. It’s pretty clear you have no idea, you are just saying “huur duur cybertruck bad”

If you do actually have useful thoughts, please do enlighten us.

Read the article. Or are you here to argue with me in particular?

Hitting the tow hitch can snap the Cybertruck gigacasted rear frame, totaling the vehicle. It is laughably frail compared to steel.

At that price point is it really competing with the F-150, Ranger, or Colorado? How does it compare with the F-350?

they wrote a big number in the field “tow capacity” which is not quite the same as having a big tow capacity

Tesla is a dead company walking.

The profits from it's core auto business died last quarter (down 70%) and there is no good reason for them to return any time soon.

The small profit it reported came from selling government sponsored emission credits to other manufacturers.

Wall Street investors cheered the good news. The stock rose about 25%. Clearly, they are smoking hopium. Go figure.

>The small profit it reported came from selling government sponsored emission credits to other manufacturers.

If you don't make the vehicles you can't get the credit.

Sales and production dropped 16%. Profit from sales dropped 70%.

Without emission credits/sales, they would have reported a net loss.

Not at all in line for a "growth stock" with a P/E of 150.

Tesla is having a Wile E. Coyote moment. That's when the company has walked off the cliff but the market hasn't responded to it yet.

At this rate, Musk will lose every first mover advantage he had within a couple of years. Maybe he should go on an apology tour saying that ketamine wasn't all it cracked up to be...?

I do think it’s a good technology pathfinder, even if a flop. Using massively simpler wiring (lighter, cheaper), steer by wire and 48v for the low voltage electronics are all major steps that should have happened a decade ago.

If they can learn lessons it should help them in the future with their unboxed construction of cyber cab and hopefully something else smaller and cheaper.

Elon also said a while back if it doesn’t sell they’ll make a more normal looking version. But of course he says a lot of things.

> Tesla’s baking sheet on wheels rides fast in the recall lane toward a dead end where dysfunctional men gather.

>Outside my hometown, Albuquerque, where the city ends and modular suburban homes climb the hill toward the Santa Fe National Forest, there’s a Tesla sales lot, filled with a fleet of the angular silver Nazi Wagons...

So the author fulfilled a version of Goodwin's Law, "as an article criticizing Tesla\Musk grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."