“Your truck is ugly!” an unhoused man yelled while standing on an LA street corner holding up a cardboard sign (a sad, far-too-common sight in a city that is failing many of its citizens). Gripping a strangely-shaped steering wheel not connected to my vehicle’s front tires, I looked over at the man, then over at my passenger, baffled that someone who clearly has bigger fish to fry would care that much about the looks of the truck I was driving. But that’s the Tesla Cybertruck in a nutshell. It’s an unignorable, brutalist bunker-on-wheels that the world cannot resist talking about, and it ended up this way because Tesla made massive compromises that make the truck worse in so many ways, and yet, as a package, so much better. Here, allow me to explain.
Death By A Thousand Cuts
“Death by a thousand cuts” was an expression that a Vehicle Integration long-timer often said as he did his best to protect the integrity of the Jeep Wrangler JL, whose engineering team I was a part of in my early professional days. What do I mean by “protect the integrity of?” Well, at the start of any vehicle program, there is a “vision” put forth of what the vehicle has to be, on a macro scale.
For the Wrangler, the vision was to take the winning formula of the Jeep Wrangler JK, which was selling in unbelievable, never-before-seen numbers (thanks to the addition of the four-door), and fix its pain points, of which there were many. That rear bench was too upright; we had to fix that. The fuel tank skidplate was flat sheet metal that lacked stiffness, and it would therefore bend up into the tank, reducing its fuel capacity. We had to fix that. That grille looked rectangular and terrible. Designers felt we had to fix that. The shifter vibrated too much; someone felt we had to fix that. The sole engine option didn’t offer good enough fuel economy; we had to fix that.
You get the idea. The vision for the JL was to tweak the JK, a dual solid-axle-off-roader that could out-offroad any vehicle on the planet. But as engineers began developing the JL, that vision was jeopardized as individuals and teams sought to reduce the compromises a customer would have to deal with. In doing so, these engineers set out on a course to build something that was decent at everything, but great at nothing, much like many of the crossover SUVs on the market today.
One example from the JL program stands out in my mind: I was sitting in the chassis “chunk team meeting” sometime around early 2014 when a dynamics engineer presented his simulation results. “Our simulations show that the JL, as currently designed, does not meet our corporate ride and handling goals, falling short in the following metrics,” the engineer presented, pointing out areas where the JL’s handling fell short of other vehicles in the company’s fleet. “As such,” he continued, “I recommend changing the solid front axle to an independent suspension design.” I remember my heart pounding when I heard this. The solid front axle was the Wrangler’s trump card; it was what made it far and away the best off-road vehicle for sale in America, especially on rocky courses like the Rubicon Trail and Moab’s “Hell’s Revenge.”
The aforementioned Vehicle Integration long-timer quietly but quickly spoke up. “That’s not the right direction for this vehicle.” That was the end of it. The Wrangler’s solid front axle would live on for at least another generation, solidifying the vehicle as the ultimate rock-crawler for another decade at least.
This long-timer, named Jim, worked together with the JL’s product planner, my friend Tony, to act as a united force against compromise-reducers who threatened to water down the vehicle’s overall “vision” in order to meet their individual or team goals. And these threats were frequent. When someone proposed that the front axle shafts would get hard-to-repair constant-velocity joints instead of bone-simple universal joints, my friends made sure that didn’t happen. When management suggested making skid plates optional for the first time in Jeep Wrangler history, my friends shut that down.
In the end, the JL Wrangler became one of the greatest Jeeps of all time. Pretty much all initial reviews were glowing. This was the old Wrangler, but tweaked in just the right ways to offer a better ride, better fuel economy, a nicer interior, better tech, and on and on, while out-off-roading even its unstoppable predecessor. The result was a triumph. And why? Because the diehards with the vision — my friends Jim and Tony — refused to let the Wrangler succumb to “death by a thousand cuts.”
That was the expression that Jim used pretty much daily. He would always say: “Death by a thousand cuts. You make all these engineering compromises in order to reduce the compromises a customer has to deal with, and at the end of the day, what you have is not a Jeep Wrangler anymore.” The cuts were the engineering compromises, and death was the dilution of the Jeep Wrangler’s soul.
The Cybertruck Kept Its Soul, And That’s Worth Celebrating. Even If It Means Loads Of Compromises
A similar, but arguably even greater triumph happened with the Cybertruck. In 2019, Elon Musk first showed the world the concept version of his company’s first pickup truck on stage in Los Angeles, shortly before designer Franz Von Holzhausen shattered the two driver’s side windows during a demonstration. The responses were brutal. Was this truck a joke? It looks like a sci-fi prop. Is it even legal to build?
Most people thought it was just a concept that would look nothing like the production model. Here was Wired‘s take on it (bold emphasis mine):
Here’s another reason the Cybertruck may seem strange: It doesn’t look like it has all of the necessary elements to make it road-ready. The model shown onstage on Thursday night didn’t have side mirrors, which are required in the US (though the federal government is considering changing the rule). Its headlights, a strip of illumination, wouldn’t be street legal. Automotive engineering experts say they’re also worried about the lack of a visible “crumple zone,” built to collapse and absorb the brunt of the force in a forward collision. Tesla did not respond to questions about whether the truck’s design would change before it goes into production in 2021.
For these reasons, the Cybertruck feels more like a concept car, says Walton, and “a really interesting one.” Other carmakers produce “concepts all the time, but then they don’t list them on their website with a ‘buy now’ button.” Yes, you can reserve your Cybertruck right now for $100.
Here’s what Jalopnik had to say:
Despite what Musk said, the truck we saw last night doesn’t really look like something that can be mass-produced as-is. There are barely any taillights or rear turn signals. The “headlights” are a sort of thin horizontal bar across the front. It doesn’t have side mirrors at all.
Plus, if you think its Knight Rider-style yoke steering wheel is easy to use, try driving KITT sometime. It actually sucks. And how about pedestrian safety standards?
If you don’t believe me, an idiot on the internet, ask our friend and contributor Bozi Tatarevic, a smart person on the internet:
I’m still trying to believe all of this but looking at the front end and some of the angles on the side I wonder if Tesla has considered pedestrian and cyclist safety at all? pic.twitter.com/vNggM4Z95o
— Bozi Tatarevic (@BoziTatarevic) November 22, 2019
And that’s probably just the tip of the iceberg here, as far as regulations go. So while Musk may be reluctant to admit it, the Cybertruck is going to need plenty of changes before it goes to market—just like any concept car.
Here’s what Matt Farah said:
“I’m not entirely sure it’s real…My initial reaction to that was ‘that’s not a real thing.’ And my second reaction is ‘I’m pretty sure they couldn’t build and sell that in America’…because I just don’t think that that will pass the tests that it needs to pass… crash tests, pedestrian safety — stuff like that.”
Farah says he spoke with some designers who convinced him that “it could be possible to build and sell a vehicle shaped sort-of like that, although not exactly like that.”
Scores of journalists and analysts said the Tesla Cybertruck, as shown on that fateful day in November, would never actually make it to production. It wasn’t possible. By the time a production version came out, they said emphatically, it would be a significantly different truck than what was shown back in 2019 (which you can see above). The concept truck, many believed, posed too many compromises — it wouldn’t be safe enough for pedestrians, it wouldn’t be useful enough, you wouldn’t be able to see out the back of it; it would have to change significantly. Like what my friend Jim feared about the JL Wrangler, its soul would succumb to “a thousand cuts.”
But that didn’t happen. Tesla accomplished a miracle.
Sure, the Cybertruck came out years later than promised, plus it was more expensive than expected, its payload and towing figures were lower, it had to have mirrors unlike the concept truck, plus its overall size changed a bit. But none of that detracts from the irrefutable fact that Tesla actually pulled it off.
The production Cybertruck delivered the soul promised by the concept truck; a shape that seemed like a joke to so many — and impossible to build — is now driving our roads. The production truck looks almost exactly like the concept, and that’s just a miracle worth celebrating.
And it happened because Tesla refused to water down its vision to get rid of all the compromises that the bold design would impart upon owners. And my God are there compromises.
Compromise 1: Build Quality
I don’t want to spend too much time talking about build quality, because that’s been beaten to death. But just look at the photo above. That’s where the roofline just above the rear passenger’s side door meets the bed’s “sail pillar” (rear quarter panel). The fit is way, way off. And the hood gap where it meets the fender is also huge and uneven:
“This would not be acceptable on any production car that we sell,” my copresenter (and Autopian cofounder) Beau Boeckmann points out in the video at the top of this article. I could go on and on, but again, it’s been beaten to death: The Cybertruck’s fit and finish isn’t great.
Compromise 2: It’s Big And Hard To Maneuver
One thing that’s impossible to ignore is the fact that the Cybertruck is big. And while its four-wheel steer-by-wire allows for a surprisingly tight turning radius with minimal steering effort from the driver, the Cybertruck can still be a bit tricky to maneuver.
I actually hit a car with the Cybertruck. I turned the wheel to back into a parking space, only to see my rear tire turn and smash right into a Kia EV6. D’oh!
But beyond just the size and the trickiness of getting used to four-wheel steering, the truck’s corners, especially the rear ones, are just so far out there that it’s hard to have a great understanding of just where in space they are.
It helps that the Cybertruck has absolutely fantastic, crisp cameras, but they’re not quite enough to make maneuvering the F-150-sized truck easy in Los Angeles.
Compromise 3: It Has The Worst User Interface Of Any Vehicle I’ve Ever Driven
When it comes to the main user interface associated with actually using the vehicle for its primary function — driving — the Tesla Cybertruck gets a D minus. Even getting into the vehicle is a compromise that — instead of just requiring pulling a handle that’s presented to you, as is the case with other cars — requires multiple steps. First, if you don’t have the app on your phone, you have to put a key card up against the B-pillar:
Then you press the button at the base of the B-pillar (the strip with the white horizontal rectangle at the center — see image below):
Once you’ve pressed that, the door pops out, and you can slide your hand into the door jamb and grip the stainless steel door. Yes, you’re grabbing raw stainless steel; there’s no rubber pad on the backside for your hand to grip — it’s just steel, some of which is rather sharp:
It’s worth noting that, right after driving this Cybertruck, Beau and I hopped into the new Lotus Eletre, and it simply presented its door handles upon noticing that someone with a key fob was approaching. I grabbed the handle and opened the door; it was faster than the Cybertruck, and way, way more elegant.
Once you’re inside, you sit down and place your key card on the wireless charging pad.
That then activates the shifter on the screen. Yes, you read that right: the shifter on the screen.
We could list off the worst shifters of all time — maybe you hate the rotary dial shifter in the Chrysler Pacifica or Chrysler 200. Maybe you don’t like the monostable shifter in the early WK2-generation Jeep Grand Cherokee. Maybe you don’t like the tiny Toyota Prius shifter. Or the weird Nissan leaf ball-shaped shifter.
None of these are as bad as the Cybertruck’s “shifter,” because at least these are three-dimensional shifters. They can be used without requiring you to take your eyes off the road, and they offer a positive engagement that makes it easy to know which gear they’re in. The Cybertruck requires you to look at the screen, press your finger on the little cybertruck icon in that small vertical shifter “column,” and then slide it up to go into drive or downward to go into reverse.
The shifter works, and it isn’t confusing like some shifters can be, but I still struggle to find a worse transmission shifter in the automotive industry. There’s a reason why the Ford F-150 has stayed with its T-handle PRNDL shifter despite the fact that it takes up a bunch of space and doesn’t actually mechanically connect to the transmission: That’s what Ford’s customers want. They want a physical, substantial shifter. Ram went to a rotary dial, and that received a bunch of criticism, though I think most folks are used to that now. But this “shifter” in the Cybertruck? One with minimal feedback to tell you what’s going on and one that you cannot use without looking — it may work, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the worst of the bunch.
While we’re on the topic of things Tesla should have kept on a steering column stalk, let’s talk about the turn signals. They’re on the steering wheel.
The Cybertruck isn’t the first car with steering wheel-mounted turn signal buttons; I drove a Ford GT earlier this year, and it had wheel-mounted turn signal buttons. They sucked on the GT, and they suck just as bad on the Cybertruck. Turn signal switches should not move; you should know where they are at all times; the stalk that the rest of the industry uses is so common for a reason: It is the best version of that switch. It does its job perfectly; this is an example of Tesla fixing what isn’t broken.
You know what else isn’t broken? Gauge clusters situated just ahead of the driver. As you can see in the image above, there are no gauges in front of the driver; even the speed is off to the right in the center stack. This probably saves Tesla money over having a secondary screen ahead of the driver, but that doesn’t make this setup any better for the driver.
You know what also probably saves Tesla money? Foregoing buttons. Obviously, there are some buttons in the Cybertruck (I just mentioned the turn signal buttons), but the main vehicle functions are all controlled via a touchscreen. Heated seat switch? It’s on the touchscreen. Shifter (as I mentioned before)? Touchscreen. Radio? Touchscreen. Climate control? That’s on the touch screen. Even if you want to adjust your HVAC air vents, you have to use the touchscreen; it’s maddening. But nothing is more maddening than the fact that, in order to open the glovebox you have to use a button on the touchscreen.
Again, Tesla isn’t the first company to require opening the glovebox via a button on a touchscreen, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worse than a simple latch that the world has been using for many decades.
The truth is that the world wants buttons. In fact, when we wrote the article “Europe Is Requiring Physical Buttons For Cars To Get Top Safety Marks, And We Should, Too,” the comments were filled with supporters of the idea that America follow suit. We’re tired of having to use a touchscreen for everything; give us back our physical buttons!
In a world where people just want their physical buttons back, the Tesla Cybertruck is the worst culprit. It pushes everything onto that big center screen, and it doesn’t make the vehicle better at all.
Compromise 4: Visibility Isn’t Good
Because the Tesla Cybertruck’s tonneau cover slides down its sail pillars, when the cover is down, rear visibility out the rearview mirror is zero.
You see only the glare off the rear glass:
Even when the tonneau cover has been retracted, the rear visibility from that rearview mirror isn’t amazing:
For some reason, Tesla decided to put a rear camera on the center screen instead of integrating one into the rearview mirror. So if you want to see which cars are behind you when you have the tonneau cover down, you have to look over to the right at the little image below the speedometer reading:
Forward visibility is OK, though the split A-pillars can cause some issues. I once totally missed some pedestrians crossing the street until my partner yelled at me.
Again, the Cybertruck’s surround-view cameras are great, but they’re no replacement for actually being able to see out of the vehicle.
Compromise 5: Smears Will Show Up Everywhere
Because the Cybertruck is made of unpainted stainless steel, handprints and dirt show up and stick out prominently.
Compromise 6: That Windshield Is Hard To Clean
If you look at where the windshield meets the front of the truck, you see that the Cybertruck is actually almost a cab-forward design. On an old vehicle, that would mean the driver is sitting at the very front of the machine. But because legs acting as crumple zones is no longer considered acceptable to the government, to insurance companies, or to the general population, the Cybertruck (and the new VW bus, for that matter) have the driver’s seat pushed way, way back relative to the base of the windshield.
The result is a humongous dashboard and a windscreen that feels like it’s a quarter mile from the driver. As a result, wiping off grime or fog is borderline impossible while seated.
Compromise 7: Reaching Over The Bedsides Can Be Tricky
The photo above shows me trying to reach over the Cybertruck’s bedsides as I load a dresser into the bed; a red arrow points out the charge port door, which opened as a result of me simply loading the vehicle.
This is obviously not ideal, even if overall I found the Cybertruck’s bed to be totally usable, and certainly more practical than many four-door pickup truck beds today.
Compromise 8: You Can Cut Yourself
As useful as the Cybertruck’s bed is, I was not thrilled when, while reaching over the driver’s side bedside and adjusting a fig tree that I had loaded into the bed, I actually cut myself:
Cut myself on the Tesla Cybertruck loading a fig tree. This edge on the bedside, which you reach over to grab things, is really suboptimal. pic.twitter.com/SqDUpo18EE
— David Tracy (@davidntracy) May 11, 2024
It’s a tiny scratch, really, but it wasn’t pleasant, and it was all because of this poorly-placed sharp edge:
Compromise 9: It’s Expensive And Heavy And Its Range Is Only So-So
The Tesla Cybertruck ain’t cheap. A base, 350-ish horsepower rear-wheel drive model costs about $60 grand, and if you want four-wheel drive and 600 ponies, that’ll cost you closer to 80 grand. What’s more, range for the base truck (which probably weighs about 6,000 pounds; the dual-motor weighs 6,600) is an estimated 250 miles, while the dual-motor four-wheel drive brings that up to 340. Sure, 340 isn’t a bad figure, but I’ve read reports about worse real-world range.
The fact is: It’s a big truck, its shape isn’t exactly the most aerodynamic, and that means it’s going to require heavy, expensive batteries to offer competitive range.
It’s All Of These Compromises That Make The Cybertruck Cool
The Cybertruck wouldn’t be a Cybertruck if not for these compromises. They are what make up the vehicle’s soul.
I realize that sounds absurd; am I really saying a vehicle’s flaws are what make it good? Am I really going to excuse these very obvious compromises — the terrible rear visibility that requires you to look at a camera image on the center stack to see what’s directly behind you, the poor speedometer position, the worst-in-the-industry shifter, the sharp edges that can cut you, the hard-to-clean windshield, the fingerprint-magnet body panels, the dumb steering wheel-mounted turn signals, the poor fit-and-finish, and the only so-so range coupled with a high price? Am I really going to say that these issues make the Cybertruck better?
Yes, I am. Sort of.
You see, there are some cars that make users deal with compromises that have no clear benefit. Take the VW ID.4’s cheap window switch design, which basically uses the same window up-down buttons for the front and rear, ostensibly to save money. This is just a bad compromise in a vehicle with a confused identity.
Then there are vehicles that make customers deal with compromises that actually bear fruit — ones that help give the vehicle soul. The Jeep Wrangler JL I mentioned earlier in this article comes to mind. Its overall shape doesn’t help with wind noise or fuel economy, but it still looks like a Jeep. That solid front axle doesn’t help the vehicle ride or handle very well, but it sure helps the vehicle off-road over seemingly-impossible terrain, and it makes lifting the Jeep significantly easier than an independent front suspension would. The Jeep look and that solid front axle help give the vehicle soul.
The Cybertruck falls into the Jeep’s camp. It set out to be something five years ago, and in order to be that thing — a low-polygon, brutalist machine that changes the way people perceive truck design, whether you (or the unhoused man) like it or not — it knew it would have to make compromises.
The shape couldn’t be the most aerodynamic, so range/weight/cost would suffer. The stainless steel panels would gather fingerprints and be tricky to manufacture; as a result, fit and finish would suffer. The sharp corners that gave the vehicle such a bold look could cut customers, the wacky tonneau cover would harm visibility, that windshield would be hard to reach, and on and on.
As for the interior functions, which weren’t really prominently shown in the concept car in 2019, they had to be bold and, in some ways, they had to continue Tesla’s trend of “doing things for the sake of doing them, even if they make the car, arguably, worse” (see Tesla Model X Falcon Doors). The lack of door handles, the hard-to-use turn signal switches, the glove box switch, and especially that wacky shifter — they’re less about ensuring the truck maintains the soul of the concept that debuted in 2019, and more about making sure it maintains the soul of a Tesla. They’re about ensuring brand continuity. Wacky stuff with door handles and a “control everything through the screen” attitude is The Tesla Way.
The truth is, if Tesla rounded those sharp edges so they wouldn’t cut me when I reached into the bed; adjusted the shape to offer better range at a lower cost; installed a regular shifter; built the truck out of something less likely to see fingerprints and that could be assembled more easily with good fit and finish; removed the tonneau cover that blocks rear visibility — if Tesla did all of these, then the Cybertruck would not be the Cybertruck.
It is what it is because it refused to die by a thousand cuts.
The Tesla Cybertruck Doesn’t Deserve Hate From Enthusiasts, Even If It Does Deserve Some Criticism
Everyone wants to hate the Tesla Cybertruck to the point where I’ve seen experienced, veteran car journalists unable to remain objective about it. And I get it; the vehicle cannot be detached from highly controversial Tesla boss Elon Musk and his sometimes-rabid fans. It’s extremely difficult to talk about the Cybertruck without thinking about Musk and a bunch of wackjobs who would defend Tesla to the death, probably by insulting you on Twitter.
But the Cybertruck is a miracle. It is a vehicle with a clearly-defined soul, and that, especially to car enthusiasts, is worth admiring. It did not succumb to the dreaded “death by a thousand cuts,” even if it will leave your forearm with a couple. It stands proudly with all of its flaws so that it can be what it set out to be: a Cybertruck.
And overall, it really is a compelling machine. I know I just spent this entire article talking about compromises (and I didn’t mention them all; the visor mirrors are hilariously tiny/useless, the automatic emergency braking is too aggressive, etc), but there are so many positive attributes worth mentioning, too. Obviously, there’s the ~600 horsepower that rockets the 6,600-pound vehicle from zero to 60 mph in about four seconds; the thing is quick.
But more surprising than that is the ride quality, which is simply phenomenal for a truck on 35-inch tires. The truck is quiet and rides like a magic carpet even over speed bumps; honestly, I can’t think of a vehicle that dispatches speed bumps as well as the Tesla Cybertruck — it’s remarkable.
The interior is nice enough; it’s a little spartan design-wise, but the material quality is good enough, and with the quiet cabin, excellent ride, and top-notch sound system that lets you really bang tunes, it’s just a great place to be. And that applies to passengers up front or in the rear, as the space throughout the cabin is plentiful:
Plus, storage space is good, too, with smart use of the flat floor space between the driver’s and passenger’s floorboards (this space is often poorly utilized; Tesla’s done a great job with it), along with big door cubbies, a deep center console, a short but still usable frunk, and of course that highly-useful six-foot bed.
The biggest criticism that the Cybertruck deserves isn’t that it contains flaws, it’s that some of those flaws could have been fairly easily remedied without harming the vehicle’s soul. The shape and stainless steel construction — and the compromises that come with those — couldn’t really have easily been changed, but there are little things that could have been improved while still keeping the truck what it is. For example, a little plastic or rubber pad in the door jamb to receive your hand when you open your door (like that in the Ford Mustang Mach-E) wouldn’t be hard to include.
A camera in the rearview mirror instead of the center screen would have been easy enough. And while I think a lot of the UI complaints I have (the door opening-procedure, the center-mounted speedometer, etc) are just part of the “Tesla formula,” I do think the company could have gotten away with a column shifter and a column-mounted turn signal like that in some of its other cars. I think these two would have vastly improved the driving experience without detracting much from the Cybertruckishness.
It’s a slippery slope, though. “Death by a thousand cuts” is a dangerous thing. If you try to reduce too many of the customer’s compromises, you get to the point where you no longer have a Cybertruck. I’m glad Tesla didn’t go down that road, that it somehow managed to build a truck that so many considered impossible, and that it delivered something that — while not exactly what was promised — certainly has the same soul.
The Cybertruck is flawed, but at least it has an identity. It’s weird. Wacky. “Out there.” But as a diehard car enthusiast who appreciates “strange” stuff like Pontiac Azteks and AMC Gremlins and the pug-nosed, suicide door-having, carbon-fiber BMW i3 — I (and my co-presenter, Beau) have to appreciate that. Even if Elon and his fans sometimes annoy the heck out of me.
Update: “The Tesla Cybertruck Is A Miracle And Its Flaws Are What Make It Cool” was the headline I started out with, and while I stand by that (I do think it’s a miracle that Tesla pulled it off, and I do think the flaws are what enabled it to be so cool), let’s try the original headline I came up with for size, shall we?
This seems like a Glickenhaus vehicle, not one for a publicly traded company.
Also, this review perfectly sums up what makes you such an amazing person.
Glickenhaus has better taste.
Oh so true. Bricklin?
Clarkson?
Yugo? Lol
After reading this long, windy, overwritten article… I’m still not happy with this monstrosity. Especially to learn that that large, fast vehicle with lousy visibility can neutralize speed bumps while you’re bangin’ tunes and testing that zero-60 time on neighborhood streets.
Just because an article is long doesn’t mean it is overwritten. As a TJ owner and dare I say it, a bit of a Jeep enthusiast, I appreciated David bringing the reader into the JL design meetings he attended, and the death by a thousand cuts metaphor. If including the JL meeting intel are the source of your ire, well, I disagree,
I’ve not driven or ridden in a Cybertruck and I really should reserve judgment whether it’s “good.” In comments on this web site, I wrote I didn’t think the Cybertruck would ever make it into production. I was wrong. I don’t like its styling and I don’t have a use case for even a $15K pickup, let alone one in the $60K price range.
The shifter user interface is dumb. I doubt anyone will be rocking a stuck Cybertruck to freedom successfully. The visibility complaints concern me.
Oh, John, you ain’t seen nothin’! This isn’t even one of my patented engineering deep-dives; I could have written another 5,000 words! This review is just me drawing from time developing the JL, wrapping that into a discussion about how cars get watered down in order to reduce compromises, and how that very much did not happen to Cybertruck, for better or worse (I personally appreciate the boldness, as an enthusiast). Then I describe the truck’s many compromises, which I noticed during my few days of driving.
I’m happy to fly to Detroit and visit my friends at Munro, then write another 5,000 words, though!
Nope
*insert Ron Burgundy “I don’t believe you” GIF*
Wrangler compromises: Shifter vibrates; Wind noise; Solid axle rougher ride; soft top may leak
CyberTruck compromises: Body may cut you or dismember you; Wiper has no winter position, and may stop working for 30 second intervals during rain; Brake pedal may or may not disengage accelerator pedal; Rusts faster than a YJ in Detroit winters; blind spots big enough to hide children and adults. Bricks itself in a carwash.
Those are the issues from these compromises that have come up so far, with only a few thousand out there. What will come up when winter hits?
The Jeep made compromises and stay a jeep while being safe. The Mustang made them and is still a Mustang. Even the F-150 is still an F150. But the CT made safety compromises in the name of staying closer to the concept. Would we accept these issues on a new explorer? We saw how unintended acceleration went for Toyota. Why are we cutting this slack?
“Compromise” does not equal “defects and design flaws that they just left there”.
Cutting you on a sharp edge does not give it “character”. It’s half-baked at best.
It’s a Nazi-supporting electric dumpster on wheels.
This is a case where you can’t separate the art from the artist. There’s too much money involved, and the artist isn’t just a creep; he’s actively trying to destroy western civilization and hand it over to the religious lunatics.
Pretty much where I am. I cannot, in good conscience, support Tesla in any way, shape or form. Full stop.
Even if you could separate them, you’re still left with a hideous piece of shit that is rolling hazard to everyone including the occupants.
Many, many years ago, a coworker and I were looking at a custom car. It was extremely gaudy and objectively ugly.
But the craftsmanship was TOP NOTCH. All the panels were razor sharp and perfectly shaped. The paintwork was flawless. The chrome looked like a pool of mercury you could slip your hand into.
I commented on how beautiful and amazing all the work that went into it looked.
He replied “It’s like somebody got a photo realistic tattoo of a person’s hairy asshole completely covering their face. It might be the greatest rendering of a hairy asshole ever, but it’s still a hairy asshole covering their face.”
I love controversial things for the sake of controversy, and I do love the Cybertruck. I’m not going to buy one because it’s not what I need, but it is obvious to me why it is appealing to a lot of people. The fact that a lot of people also hate it is just a little lagniappe. My unofficial polling says that about 50% love/hate this thing so that’s just about perfect.
I’m not going to read the comments on this article though, because I have a lot to get done today. However, I can assume that the comments are not going to break anywhere near 50-50. More like 95% negative. The fascinating question is why? Why does the comment section have such a strong bias towards a very prescribed group of things? Even things that are not Elon-adjacent. I’d assume bots but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Thanks for the article, David.
I don’t really care for the Cybertruck personally, but I grudgingly respect Tesla for pulling off the vision.
Also, as someone who’s frequently on the other side of the commenter-approved consensus opinions, I share your disappointment that they exist.
“I don’t really care for the Cybertruck personally, but I grudgingly respect Tesla for pulling off the vision.”
It’s funny, I feel the same way. I come from a family of Saab lovers – we’ve had probably 4 or 5 different Saabs amongst us, from the early 80s 900 sedan to an ’89 convertible, to a 93 from the mid 2000s.
I personally hate the Cyber truck, but considering my irrational love of Saabs, I absolutely respect that Tesla pulled this weird experiment off and would be a complete hypocrite if I didn’t.
Dude…
I still maintain the the Cybertruck doesn’t make any sense. Why make a truck when Toyota – maker of amazing trucks – can’t get within sniffing distance of the kind of sales the F-150 makes? Especially when 3-row SUV’s seem to print money and Tesla was lacking a true 3-row SUV. But then… that’s a bit of why it fits as a Tesla I suppose. It’s weird, and they don’t seem to do what the market would tell them to do. It just has never made sense to me.
BUT… as a technological show piece? Wow. After watching some of the deeper dives into what makes the Cybertruck the Cybertruck, and gaining an understanding into some of the non-compromises they made to get it done that likely led to many of the delays (many of which aren’t even touched on in here), I kinda get it as the beginning of the next generation of EVs from Tesla. That part is kinda neat.
It’s a marvelously stupid neat thing. Kinda happy it exists. Never want to own one.
Every single thing I read about this tells me it is somehow more awful than I already thought it to be. Compromises add character when they’re for a purpose, like the live axle Wrangler being good offroad at the expense of comfort and handling or a sports car being loud inside because sound deadening adds weight or a budget car interior being made by Little Tikes because it’s durable and cost so little. None of the features of the CT seem to be compromise of convenience or luxury or safety or quality in order to be better at a specific purpose, they’re just the result of bad design, bad engineering choices, and cost cutting that would be unacceptable on a budget car from a real automaker (while still being expensive). It would be something to celebrate were it something with a purpose, but the only compromises it makes are for functionality and fealty to a completely stupid design built to a finish standard a kit car maker would be embarrassed about. That the poor engineers working on this trash heap monument to hubris got some things to work right is the only impressive thing, but should be nothing to celebrate as that should be expected as the bare minimum requirement for the market. The much derided K cars were more impressive than this thing. Sure, the most memorable cars have often been the result of a singular person’s vision, but one can be memorable for very different reasons.
This is the comment I was looking for. Compromises for the greater good = good. Compromises for the sake of adhering to an idea that was bad in the first place = bad.
From my perspective, this was a huge swing and a miss by DT for conflating the two.
Thanks. I very much appreciate DT and his greater point, just not in reference to this particular vehicle. I have to wonder if he means it about the CT or if it’s a take with a surefire way to get a lot of comments (definitely works).
Still have no idea why it had to be stainless steel. Make it from regular steel and it would have been in production years earlier with many fewer compromises (and it wouldn’t chop my fingers off in the frunk).
Jim, the creator of the Wrangler Rubicon. Smart guy.
I have one and it’s perfect for what I need, and much better in many ways than the F-150 it replaced. This makes me unique in these comments — I am actually using one day to day. Now back to the haters…
Tell us more!
So my experience so far: Only one thumbs down out of a sea of thumbs up, and I don’t live in an urban area. Folks take their trucks seriously around here, and they like this. I always schedule more time for errands because I’m going to be answering questions. Kid’s *LOVE* this thing and I do let them climb in and have a look while I chat with the parents. You will meet people.
The shifting is a non issue for me because forward and reverse are a flick on the screen and I don’t even need to look. You only need to look if you’re putting it in park, at which point the vehicle is stopped and you *should* look. I’m growing to like this so much that the column shifter on my 3 is annoying me. I didn’t expect that. The turn signals are.. hmm. You get used to it, just like you get used to a stalk in the first place. There are stalk options coming from aftermarket.
No door handles: love it. I live in a spot that has winter and all door handles have issues with ice from time to time. This won’t. I park this thing outside. So for me it’s a bonus but I don’t live in LA. I agree that some sort of pad inside the door would be nice and I’ll likely build my own, as well as a small catch to close the door. There’s already shapes out there for this and I have a 3D printer.
Efficiency: It’s pretty damn good, actually. I tend to average about 330wh/m, so I’m happy with it. I do have trailers so I’m starting to baseline the towing, and I’m on the list for a trailer with a built in drive unit (Lightship L1.) I’m also going to stick a range extension battery in the truck as well, so I’ll have plenty of power. This is really a non issue for me because if I take out the truck to tow I’m not in a hurry. If I need hurry, I fly.
The steering. Holy crap, the steering. It’s freaking amazing. It was my #1 issue with the F-150 and the Cybertruck blows it right out of the water here. This thing handles like a well sorted mid-size sedan, not a truck. I live up the side of a mountain and the amount of 3 point turns I’ve needed to make has dropped significantly. It’s also way better for placing trailers. And they haven’t even dialed in the full deflection in the rear yet, so it’s going to get better. This is a full size truck but doesn’t feel like one.
Fit and finish: mine’s fine. No issues. I like the amount of stainless on this thing because we do salt the roads in the winter here. There isn’t much on this thing that can rust.
The suspension: Perfect for me. However, I’m helping care for my MIL who has severe arthritis in her neck but likes to go for drives with us. Two things I’ve noticed: we don’t have to give her pain pills after a drive and she has far less trouble getting in and out of the truck. We have it set to “entry” mode and it’s easy. The fun thing is that you can set things to “sport” and have a good time attacking a twisty road. It’s not as good as my Miata, but it’s much better than the F-150 with CCD suspension. They did a great job on this.
Visibility: Definitely could be better but is okay for me. I adjusted to the onscreen rear view mirror quickly but I also make use of my side mirrors a lot, and those are fine. The thing you have to pay attention to is that A pillar blindspot. The cameras go a long way to making things a no issue if you use them.
Overall I’m very happy with it. I love that it can power my trailer or my house, there’s very little maintenance, and it’s fun to drive. I like that it’s bold and maybe now we’ll start to see other manufacturers be a bit more forward in design as well.
Sound wonderful for you, a person who lives on a salty mountain far from pedestrians and cyclists.
If only all Cyber truck owners were more like you.
This again? Seriously, any full size truck is a danger. We have plenty of cyclists and pedestrians where I am because a lot of tourists come up here to get away from the heat. Sheesh.
“Seriously, any full size truck is a danger”
Yes they are. Your point?
“We have plenty of cyclists and pedestrians where I am because a lot of tourists come up here to get away from the heat”
Presumably to walk and cycle on trails, not on the roads.
Probably that you singled out Cybertruck owners which is unnecessary/unrelated if you are against all full size trucks.
This is true. The trucks GM sells are a far greater danger than a Cybertruck — have you seen the forward blindspot on those? The *big* issue is that pedestrians and cyclist of some stripe seem to think their safety on road is up to the driver. Look. Both. Ways. And then do it again. I used to bike commute, so I know every car is out to get you. To suggest otherwise is sheer folly.
“The *big* issue is that pedestrians and cyclist of some stripe seem to think their safety on road is up to the driver.”
It is in part. Drivers ARE required to yield and not allowed to drive as they please blowing off the safety of others as “they need to stay or get out of my way!”. This is true even on freeways which are forbidden to cyclists and pedestrians.
For their part cyclists and pedestrians do need to be aware of their surroundings and to take responsibility for their own safety as well.
> The *big* issue is that pedestrians and cyclist of some stripe seem to think their safety on road is up to the driver.
It absolutely 110% is. You’re the one opting to operate 4 tons of metal at speeds faster than Lance Armstrong with a tailwind. I’m responsible for mitigating the damage I can do on foot or on my bike, you’re responsible for not killing people with the giant metal block powered by explosions you’ve decided to use to get around. That’s the deal. If someone walks out in front of me without seeing when I’m biking, I don’t get a pass for hitting them, and you don’t when you’re driving either. Pay the fuck attention, you’re the one making this situation dangerous, you’re the one responsible for keeping it safe.
I don’t mind that you’ve decided to drive, I don’t mind that you got a big truck to do it, I’m not judging your choices or needs or whatever, but absolutely yes, you’re responsible for the safe operation of your chosen vehicle and for making sure you’re not creating an unsafe environment.
It takes two to tango. You step out of me from a blindspot and the laws of physics will call the shots. That’s just how it is, and how it will be, until we wise up and separate the pedestrians from the cars in dense areas, and pedestrians learn not to cross anywhere but in designated areas. Ain’t happening anytime soon.
But you’re not tangoing. You’re driving a big metal brick through a place where there’s pedestrians. That’s your god-given right in the good ol’ US of A, but if you hit me, you fucked something up. You were driving too fast, you didn’t see the blind spot, you couldn’t react fast enough, or you couldn’t control your high-speed metal brick. That’s your fault. It’s my problem, but it’s your fault. You don’t get to fob that off on anyone else – I could launch myself off a fucking overpass onto your vehicle, and if you didn’t react fast enough to keep your giant metal brick from hitting me, you were driving too fast and not paying enough attention while operating your several-ton metal box in a place where other people might be.
You’re given the ability to control and operate a heavy object at high speeds with the understanding that you’re competent enough to do so in a way where we don’t have to worry about you killing other people. That’s the trade. Slow down and keep your eyes open, even when you don’t think you should have to.
I am a biker, and I don’t ever forget that I am a vehicle that must obey the laws. I have seen a million bikers blow through stop signs causing drivers to jam on their brakes. Bikers and pedestrians absolutely have a responsibility to contribute to a safer way to travel for everyone.
We do this together, and we all own the process.
Nope. And I think you’ll find the law doesn’t agree with your view, either. If you suddenly jump in front of my vehicle, horse, train, rocket… welcome to Newtons laws, you lose. They’ll just rule “suicide by <insert vehicle here>”, because that’s what it is. I don’t control all the variables here, WE do. I do drive careful. You best pay attention too, because I’m not responsible for your safety. You are.
Legally speaking *in most jurisdictions* the driver is actually 100% responsible for safety and/or not hitting the cyclist/ped. Outside of a situation where a cyclist is acting entirely erratic and the driver is placed in a situation where they acted responsibly and cyclist did something wild like cross into the oncoming lane. Hitting a ped there is very little situations where a driver won’t be at fault. It would have to be run and jump into your car while high on bath salts.
As of this Sunday, I’ve collected my fourth episode of getting hit by a car while cycling, so becoming a bit of an expert in the field. All four were 100% driver faults. I was seen by the driver in all four. Three of them were drivers misjudging my speed and pulling into my lane of traffic trying to take left.
I’m not a fan of mowing over cyclists, really. I do question why anyone would want to go out and get hit four times though. At some point somebody may get a citation but that’s not going to help you much if you’re dead.
Racing road bikes use to be my job, so it was an occupational hazard. Now, I’m not getting paid to race, still a passion of mine. Only one person got a citation. However, 3 of them did result in pretty significant civil penalties. Which is the real danger when people hit cyclist. Like you get to keep your license, but you do owe me 120k.
That’s really cool. Still: how the heck do you get hit 4 times? Where are you riding? Are Teslas out to get you (Which appears to be salient to this exchange.) Is there any way you can indicate to drivers that you’re faster than you look?
I will say I wasn’t going at Teslas specifically. More that people often assume that cyclist/peds have more responsibility then they actually do, and legally the burden and responsibility are on the driver. And all four were because people have their personal conception of riding a bike, which is usually 12 mph ish, when I can average well over 25 mph. It’s really a driver ed issue, and teaching that bike speed can be erratic and you should wait and process the situation before acting.
I was wondering about this. Yeah, I’ve ridden (and bike commuted) a fair amount, but I’m nowhere near your pace level. I do wonder if it’s a width thing — there’s a book called Fuzz: When nature breaks the law (which I highly recommend, great read) that covers NASA sponsored research on animal strikes with vehicles/aircraft. Their finding was that animals will miss their timing for escape estimate for narrower points of contact — think headlights, or the narrow profile of a race bike — and wider things have less issue. They found that lighting the front of the vehicle correlated with reduced interaction. I just wonder of sticking some bright forward facing lights on the outside edge of you handlebars might help folks better estimate your velocity.
And I hear you on the legal assumption, but it doesn’t give anyone a rational excuse to not watch out for themselves. The bulk of drivers are responsible and good, as are most cyclists (although I’m concerned by how many blown stop signs I’ve seen cyclists execute. Not good.) Pedestrians are a mixed bag and I drive near them assuming they are completely and utterly unheeding of physics. Situational awareness matters.
“although I’m concerned by how many blown stop signs I’ve seen cyclists execute. Not good.”
A cyclist blowing through a stop sign or red light puts only their own life at risk. A vehicle doing the same puts others’ lives at risk. When that vehicle is a full sized pickup whether it be a CT, RAM, F-x50 or a Silverado the risk to others is much greater than if the vehicle in question were a lighter, smaller car.
For example, this asshole who blew through a red light killing a cyclist right in front of a busy high school a few weeks ago in my own backyard (so to speak).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/bicyclist-dies-after-driver-runs-red-light-hits-truck-near-a-san-jose-high-school-police-say/ar-BB1lZFqI
Would that cyclist have lived if the vehicle in question been a smaller, lighter car? Possibly.
Or maybe not, because you don’t have any data presented to work off of. It’s obvious you and I have very different worldviews, though. You think you can ban things and be safe. I don’t believe you. No banning or law is going to get rid of the delivery system that our civilization requires. Then you’ll try to control that, and something very unpleasant will happen to your totalitarian government and anyone nearby. Maybe move to Holland instead? Or stay in CA? We do things saner out where I am now.
Side note: I was a valley resident for many years. I grew up there. You have to be crazy to bike in the valley, unless you hit the Los Gatos trail or something like it. There are far too many distracted drivers.
So instead, we have to coexist, which blows your thesis completely out of the water because it turns out that here, in the United States, you have not much at all to say about what I get to drive. Nor I about what *you* drive. Hell, chances are I’d say nice and polite things about what you drive, because enthusiast. Good night.
“Or maybe not, because you don’t have any data presented to work off of.”
If you scroll down a bit you’ll see I presented just that to Stig’s cousin earlier but sure, I’ll repost it here for you too:
“Big trucks and SUVs, especially those with flat front ends, aren’t just more intimidating to look at, they are genuinely deadlier for pedestrians, according to new research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.”
…
“Researchers at the institute looked at records of almost 18,000 incidents in which vehicles struck pedestrians. They found that vehicles with grille areas that were 40 inches tall or higher are 45% more likely to kill a pedestrian they might hit.
…
While factors such as speeding and poor road design contribute to the problem, IIHS said, safety experts have also pointed to the increased popularity of big trucks and SUVs.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/14/business/boxy-trucks-suvs-pedestrian-deaths/index.html
“An SUV is two to three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision compared to a regular car, according to a 2015 report from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/about-here-suvs-1.6411168
Linked report here:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/html/2015-31323.htm
And here’s a bonus one:
“I find that a cyclist hit by a light truck is 99% more likely to die than when hit by a car. I find pickup trucks have the largest effect, with cyclists 291% more likely to die when struck by a pickup rather than a car. I find a 100 kg increase in vehicle weight increases the cyclist death rate by 7.4%.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212012224000017?via%3Dihub
“No banning or law is going to get rid of the delivery system that our civilization requires”
Oh are you making deliveries with your Cybertruck? Well you’d be in the minority of full sized pickup and SUV owners:
https://www.axios.com/ford-pickup-trucks-history
Pretty sure Cyber trucks are going to score far worse on such polls than F-150s, especially for towing.
you lack any interesting data on the specific crash, not your fetish with people driving a vehicle you don’t like. The crash you used as an example was from a person that was speeding, ran a light, and tried to run away. I know that scenario, so I can make some very educated guesses about the circumstances. Even if that idiot had been driving a Honda the cyclist would likely have died. *That* is the data you didn’t present, but I found it anyway.
Once again: you don’t get to decide what I drive. I don’t have to justify my use case to you. Likewise, I really don’t care what you do either. Do you understand this concept?
“speeding, ran a light, and tried to run away”
That was all in the link I provided.
“I know that scenario, so I can make some very educated guesses about the circumstances. Even if that idiot had been driving a Honda the cyclist would likely have died
…
“*That* is the data you didn’t present, but I found it anyway.”
Because my friend that is NOT data, that is your conjecture.
Neither you or I have enough data to say whether that cyclist would have lived or died (or been hit in the first place as full sized pickups and SUVs are less capable than cars in emergency situations) but the statistics I’ve repeatedly referenced show he’d have had better chance had be been hit by a (Honda) Civic than a full sized pickup truck.
“Do you understand this concept?”
I’m curious, did you actually read my original reply?
If not here it is :
“Sound wonderful for you, a person who lives on a salty mountain far from pedestrians and cyclists.
If only all Cyber truck owners were more like you.”
Note the lack of /s. That wasn’t sarcasm or criticism, that was praise.
Big trucks and SUVs are more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians than smaller vehicles, that is established. To date there is no evidence I’m aware of that the cyber truck is any exception. Mr Musk has made claims but when Tesla was asked to verify they stayed silent which is not a good sign. You said you live on a salty mountain which I took as (perhaps wrongfully) to have not so many pedestrians and cyclists as where I live, the overcrowded SFBA especially in winter. As a frequent cyclist and pedestrian I’d prefer you, on your remote salty mountain own a cyber truck than somebody in the overcrowded SFBA.
I also assumed (again, perhaps wrongfully) you would be far from shopping so a truck would be useful for taking advantage of less frequent shopping trips, especially in winter and your hardware runs would be for much more than a single box of nails. I took someone living on a salty mountain as someone who uses a truck to do actual truck things like bring home a bi-monthy worth of groceries or a DIY shed far more often than someone in the SFBA where shopping and hardware stores are close by.
Normally I’d think someone in sub/urbia would be better off owning a car and renting a truck for those very rare occasions but not you or folks like you in remote areas as (again I’m assuming) those occasions are less rare and any rental is wildly impractical. I get that. So for those reasons better you a cyber truck than someone in the overcrowded SFBA who will never use it for truck things other than crushing pedestrians and cyclists.
Another perhaps bad assumption of mine was that you have sketchy electricity and that the cyber truck might be a literal lifesaver should you need portable extra power. Sure you have a generator but will it run when you need it? An electric truck with a huge battery is good insurance. Ideally it might even be a buffer for off grid wind or solar but that’s a whole other thing.
Then there’s parking. I assumed that’s not a problem where you live. It is where I live though.
Maybe there’s more. I don’t know your other rural life hobbies. You mentioned deer; maybe you bring home roadkill for dinner, trucks are better for that. Folks in sub/urbia? Not so much.
TL:DR Someone living on a remote, salty mountain is I think much more likely to need a truck to do truck things than sub/urbia truck owners. I took your salty mountain to mean you’re not a cosplay pouser, you’re the actual sales pitch promised in truck commercials. If you can make do with an electric truck so much the better. I really do wish more cyber truck owners, heck, more truck owners were like you.
Friends?
I am against full sized trucks in urban and some suburban environments where space, especially public parking space is tight and roads are crowded.
Full sized pickups on a wide open, sparsely populated salty mountain where a truck is actually useful to do truck things is fine.
Yet I’ll drive where I like, just like you can take some sort of obscure Japanese import deathbox traffic obstruction on the roads I use. Yes, we have them up here. Which is as fine as me driving what I want. You know, enthusiasts.
The difference being an obscure Japanese import deathbox only puts it’s occupants at higher risk and folks outside at lower risk.
As to being a “traffic obstruction” that’s only true if it is incapable of reaching the speed limit which is easily achieved by almost any shitbox made in the past 70 years.
I can tell you’ve never driven one. We have a lot of grades here; they aren’t getting up them in better than “grandma” speed. They don’t have awesome brakes or suspension, so they don’t do so well on avoidance maneuvers. We had one as a shop truck back when I used to blow up reality for.a living, so I’ve got drive time in some. That’s okay by me. You do you and I’ll do me.
It sounds like you are talking about off road only vehicles which by law are not allowed for use on public roads.
Nope, I’m talking Kei trucks. You can license them around here. I personally like seeing them (because enthusiast) but they do tend to be less capable than the average American pickup truck.
If they are legally allowed to drive on road and if they are following all the legal obligations of the road then you are obligated to put up with them just as everyone else if obligated to put up with your truck.
Oh look! Exactly what I was saying! Thank you.
Not really:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/oblige
Really? I put up with them. And if we work together, it all works great. I’m obliged to look for you. But! You too are obliged to look for me as well. That’s how we do it. Silly Japanese death trap? Chevy bro-dozer? Cybertruck? A bicycle? A pedestrian? Look up and acknowledge each other. At no point did I intimate anything different. I take issue with your assertion that it’s all up to the driver. 999 times that may work, number 1,000 might be Darwin time. If you don’t look, you’ll have no agency in that situation.
Again this is not an equitable (forced) agreement. If anything does happen between you and a pedestrian/cyclist/small car it’s much more likely to be the other party paying the lion’s share of the price in their own blood. It’s also those other folks who have to put up with large vehicles taking up more than their fair share of parking space, truckbutt (reduced visibility) and roadway intimidation whether intended or not.
So it’s quite clear what the other guy is putting up with. Exactly what are YOU putting up with?
Oh, equitable. Lovely. You do your best and I’ll do my best. When I’m out in my Miata or riding my bike I take the same risks you do. I’ll try my best not to run you over with my super evil Cybertruck, or even with the rental car I’ll be driving around you later this week. You don’t get an equitable forced agreement and neither do I, because there’s always some idiot. Soetimes it’s you. Sometimes it’s me. But it’s aways something you never seem to be able to legally wish away.
Wrong.
Please elaborate.
I see cyclist on our narrowest roads (and we got some footpaths out there masquerading as “roads”) and tons of pedestrians looking at their phones instead of where they are going. There’s a college town nearby, and I’d swear the students have all the self preservation instincts of lemmings. So yeah, I pay attention — no matter what car I’m driving. It’s not too much to ask the cyclists and pedestrians to do the same.
Are you driving on those narrowest of roads footpaths in your full sized pickups?
Dude, the local DOT redirected big rigs onto one of those roads when we had a highway outage. Then they had to unstick a few that couldn’t make the tight corners and put enforcement out a few days later. We get semi’s stuck around here on a regular basis. I’m a local, so of course I drive on those roads. I’m very careful because I know where the bad spots are and how distracted people get. We also have a lot of deer up here, and I hate paying for deer-strike damage.
So yes. And if a semi can drive the road its more than a “narrowest of roads footpath”
They didn’t. Apparently you haven’t driven narrow country roads.
I have. And I didn’t see any semis on them.
They got stuck.
Which is probably why semis don’t usually drive on narrowest of roads footpaths.
I probably know the area you live in far better than you do. Twisty roads? Sure. Narrow country roads? You need to get around more.
You think you know the area I live in better than I do? The area I’ve lived in and walked/hiked/driven/cycled for the better part of 40 years?
That is a very bold statement coming from someone who lives far away up a salty mountain.
I spent the greater part of more than 40 years in the valley. I grew up there. I raised my family there. Then I left because it went to s**t. Oh yes, I know your area very well.
In fact, I know your area so well I can give you a scenario that might help you understand my country roads better. Take Hwy-17 and block it near Lexington with a massive rock slide. Then redirect all traffic up Black road. Now put a bridge over the end of Black road that goes to one lane and can’t handle even a normal sized box truck. Then force all traffic over that road because the alternate routes require a 20 mile detour. THAT is what happened.
Black road is mostly a maintained divided, paved road with a few narrower sections but still it’s designed for vehicular traffic. Hardly a narrowest of roads footpath. I’ve hiked/biked narrowest of roads footpaths here, they’re a few INCHES wide and lined with thick brush, poison oak, maybe a cliff face or maybe a steep drop. Fine for bikes and pedestrians, not so much for semis.
Run a semi up it. Or a big box truck. I know that road. And I used that as an example; there are far tighter roads up there, and they still drive on them. We do pretty well here (hey, we fix our roads. We got that over CA) but our mountains are a bit more rugged than the Santa Cruz range. Hence, lot’s of tight one lane sometimes.
Sounds like fun. I’ll just go out, get a CDL and ask Caltrans to block off the route.
Still I’m not sure what this has to do with large pickups and SUVs being more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Nobody drives a semi or box truck as a “lifestyle” vehicle, nor are they intentionally designed to be more dangerous than they have to be. The only people who own and drive those vehicles always use them to do semi and box truck things. So there are exactly as many on the road at any given time as are actually needed. The same is not true of giant pickup trucks and SUVs.
If giant pickup trucks and SUVs were ONLY owned and operated by people who used them as purposefully as the owners and drivers of semis and box trucks I would have no problem with them. There would be a lot fewer of them on the road and they wouldn’t be designed to hurt others solely for the perceived benefit of those within.
Pickup trucks have existed since the model T. I get that you have an issue with them. I find them useful for many things, and I drove equivalent vehicles when I lived in your neck of the woods — and I needed the capability. You seem to think that trucks are “deliberately” designed to be dangerous — they are designed to function and appeal to buyers. It’s clear that this is your personal agenda… and you’d love to control what others drive so you can push your agenda. Got it. Conversation over.
You seem to think that trucks are “deliberately” designed to be dangerous — they are designed to function and appeal to buyers.
Oh it’s not JUST me:
The goal of modern truck grilles,” wrote Jalopnik’s Jason Torchinsky in 2018, “seems to be… about creating a massive, brutal face of rage and intimidation.”
Giant, furious trucks are more than just a polarizing consumer choice: Large pickups and SUVs are notably more lethal to other road users, and their conquest of U.S. roads has been accompanied by a spike in fatalities among pedestrians and bicyclists. As I wrote in my 2020 book Right of Way: Race, Class, and the Silent Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Detroit Free Press have pointed to the rise in SUVs and large pickups as the main culprit in the pedestrian mortality surge.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-11/the-dangerous-rise-of-the-supersized-pickup-truck
Anyone with eyes can see it. And the data proves it.
Go implement your agenda. Seriously, this is your jehad. So go do it. I know where you are, so I can monitor your glorious success. I’ll enjoy watching. Off you go!
Oh look, I have a fan!
The “big trucks are dangerous!!!” people are very annoying. For safety, how you drive matters far more than what you drive. As part of my job I have been involved in investigations of numerous transportation-related fatalities (pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, car vs car, semi truck vs car, etc.). Vehicle size has not been a factor in the vast majority of fatal accidents I have seen. However, I do see a very strong correlation between reckless driving and fatalities (also, a truly appalling number of fatal accidents involve drunk drivers). Obviously, physics favors large vehicles when incidents occur, but an Altima piloted by a methed out yahoo doing 65 in a school zone is far more dangerous than a Cybertruck or F450 driven by an attentive and safe driver.
Drive what you want. Just drive it safely.
If you are in the industry then providing proof or at least evidence of your claim “Vehicle size has not been a factor in the vast majority of fatal accidents I have seen”.
So lets see it.
What kind of proof do you want? While I don’t want to post details about what I have seen in my line of work, I might be able to answer some questions or point you to data that is published.
I should clarify that I have seen a few incidents where large vehicles struck pedestrians they couldn’t see, but those all involved large commercial vehicles (semi trucks, construction equipment, etc.) and not pickup trucks or full-size SUVs.
I am curious if you are aware of data that shows otherwise, though. Do you have data or other reasons to believe large pickup trucks are dangerous?
Yes:
“Big trucks and SUVs, especially those with flat front ends, aren’t just more intimidating to look at, they are genuinely deadlier for pedestrians, according to new research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.”
…
“Researchers at the institute looked at records of almost 18,000 incidents in which vehicles struck pedestrians. They found that vehicles with grille areas that were 40 inches tall or higher are 45% more likely to kill a pedestrian they might hit.
…
While factors such as speeding and poor road design contribute to the problem, IIHS said, safety experts have also pointed to the increased popularity of big trucks and SUVs.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/14/business/boxy-trucks-suvs-pedestrian-deaths/index.html
“An SUV is two to three times more likely to kill a pedestrian in a collision compared to a regular car, according to a 2015 report from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/about-here-suvs-1.6411168
Linked report here:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-12-16/html/2015-31323.htm
This and more came up in a basic Google search. For someone who claims to be an expert I’m surprised you are apparently unaware of multiple IIHS and USgov reports on the matter.
I’m aware of the NHTSA data. My comment was poorly worded so I can see where you would be a bit exasperated in your response. Hopefully I can get my point across better in this comment.
Trucks are more dangerous than cars. I acknowledged that in my original comment (“physics favors large vehicles when incidents occur”). My point was that driver habits are a much bigger factor than vehicle choice (“how you drive matters far more than what you drive”). NHTSA data supports that statement.
Per NHTSA:
“Alcohol involvement (blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of .01 grams per deciliter [g/dL] or higher) – for the driver and/or the pedestrian – was reported in 49 percent of all fatal pedestrian crashes in 2021.”
“Eight percent of fatal crashes, 14 percent of injury crashes, and 13 percent of all police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2021 were reported as distraction affected crashes.”
“56% of drivers involved in serious injury and fatal crashes tested positive for at least one drug.”
NHTSA data also shows 2% of vehicle crashes are due to environmental factors and 2% of crashes are attributed primarily due to problems with the vehicle (that includes poor maintenance and failures in addition to design flaws or characteristics of the vehicle that contributed to the crash).
The NHTSA data leaves out a lot of context. A pickup truck driven by a drunk or distracted driver is more dangerous than a Miata driven by a drunk or distracted driver. However, the data doesn’t show that the design of pickup trucks is causing many additional fatalities in the absence of other factors (impaired driving, excessive speed, distraction, etc.). I’m sure some fatal accidents are caused purely by vehicle design (eg a pedestrian wasn’t visible due to hood height or A-pillar design), but those accidents are rare.
I also didn’t claim to be an “expert.” I was pointing out my observations as a person who has worked in death investigation for years. I have seen a few hundred transportation related fatalities at this point. For individual accidents, I usually know what vehicle was involved and whether factors such as alcohol or drug use contributed to the crash. From my experience, the overwhelming majority of traffic fatalities are caused by reckless driving or driver (or pedestrian or cyclist) impairment. The vehicle itself is rarely the problem. My experiences appear to align with reported NHTSA data.
I understand you don’t like pickup trucks, but the real villain is distracted and impaired driving.
The vehicle IS the problem when it makes the crash more likely to happen and the severity of the consequences of that crash worse.
Then I assume you dislike minivans and CUVs as well? Both of those are more likely to have a crash and cause injuries than passenger cars. Where is the outrage about all the parents driving Honda Pilots when they could just as easily drive their kids to soccer practice in a Civic?
I’m a little surprised you are trying to argue that vehicle choice is a bigger safety hazard than unsafe driving. Do you really think a safe, sober driver with a Cybertruck is a bigger hazard than a distracted, drunk, or unsafe driver in a Mirage????
It is reasonable to debate whether average drivers should be driving 10,000 lb. trucks. I don’t see these as being a major hazard when driven by safe drivers. If you think otherwise, that is a reasonable opinion.
I don’t appreciate the inherent judgement of people’s character here, though. The guy above just wanted to comment on his experience with his vehicle. Your response was to basically accuse him (and others who choose to drive pickup trucks) of being unconcerned with the well being of others. That is kind of shitty.
A Pilot is a SUV not a CUV so its on the list too.
“I’m a little surprised you are trying to argue that vehicle choice is a bigger safety hazard than unsafe driving.”
Because I’m not. Nowhere have I said or implied that. All I have said is:
“The vehicle IS the problem when it makes the crash more likely to happen and the severity of the consequences of that crash worse.”
To your dismissive comment “The vehicle itself is rarely the problem.”
Unsafe driving IS a problem. Some of that poor driving is the false confidence of driving a big ass vehicle.
Know what else is a problem? The blind spots:
A study by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety found that SUV and pick-up truck drivers are three to four times more likely to hit pedestrians while turning than drivers of smaller cars. Since 2018, there’s been an 81% increase in pedestrians killed by SUVs. These studies accounted for a wide range of systemic factors such as age, gender, urban or rural environment, and the design of streets and roadways where accidents occurred.
In other words, the problem in these studies wasn’t the drivers – it was the cars. Specifically, their blind spots.
https://blog.carvana.com/2022/11/suv-truck-blind-spots-are-getting-bigger-more-dangerous/
You can put a band aid on the problem with a camera but wouldn’t it be getter to just fix the blind spot?
“Your response was to basically accuse him (and others who choose to drive pickup trucks) of being unconcerned with the well being of others. That is kind of shitty.”
This is what I wrote:
“Sound wonderful for you, a person who lives on a salty mountain far from pedestrians and cyclists.
If only all Cyber truck owners were more like you.”
That’s not an accusation. That’s praise. A remote salty mountain is an ideal place for a heavy, stainless steel bodied electric truck.
If you followed that thread you’d have seen I said safety is a SHARED responsibility. Others pointed out the legal burden is on the driver.
I do believe some – NOT all – full sized pickup truck and SUV owners whether they admit it or not prioritize the safety of others far below their own because that’s why they buy those vehicles; they’re safer “for me and mine”.
(Never mind they just added to the arms race, that’s now SEP.)
Multiply that for owners who modify their vehicles to make them even less safe for others by jacking them up, squatting them, rolling coal etc.
Then there are the buyers of full sized pickups and SUVs who buy them because of the intimidating, badass styling. That styling is one reason those vehicles are so unsafe for others.
Je n’accuse pas full sized pickup and SUV owners who would prefer to drive something else but drive a full sized pickup or SUV because it is the only tool for the job. Contractors, farmers, ranchers, rural folks etc.
J’accuse only selfish people who buy a full sized pickup and SUV in large part for their own safety with the false belief the burden for the safety of others is on those others.
“NHTSA data leaves out a lot of context
…
However, the data doesn’t show that the design of pickup trucks is causing many additional fatalities in the absence of other factors (impaired driving, excessive speed, distraction, etc.).”
Because the NHTSA’s methodology blames practically EVERYTHING on the “road user”:
“How many of those deaths do we blame on big cars or bad streets? The answer is, very few.
As I show in my new book, “Killed by a Traffic Engineer: Shattering the Delusion that Science Underlies our Transportation System,” the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calls road user error the “critical reason” behind 94% of crashes, injuries and deaths.
Crash data backs that up.
Police investigate crashes and inevitably look to see which road users, including drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, are most at fault. It’s easy to do because in almost any crash, road user error appears to be the obvious problem.
This approach helps insurance companies figure out who needs to pay. It also helps automakers and traffic engineers rationalize away all these deaths. Everyone – except the families and friends of these 4 million victims – goes to sleep at night feeling good that bad-behaving road users just need more education or better enforcement.
But road user error only scratches the surface of the problem”
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/06/25/the-people-who-design-our-roads-and-cars-are-both-telling-the-same-deadly-lie
No.
This is simply I think a good, concise summary of why the NHTSA’s data is lacking as per your observation by someone who as a “full tenured professor of civil engineering and a career of 25 years as a licenced professional engineer” very likely knows more about the topic than either of us.
If you like here’s my disclaimer:
I have no stake in this book. Till a few hours ago I had no idea either the book or the author even existed.
Happy?
The answer was in the teaser so why would I, cheap bastard that I am, pay $30+ to read the entire book? If I want to read it I’ll ask my local public library to add it to their collection. I might but my to read list is already rather long.
OTOH if you want to buy it, read it and get back to us why the author is full of excrement please do. Given you are person who has worked in death investigation for years and uses NHTSA data it’s more your interest than mine.
Although I still find the thing to be awful, I appreciate the view from someone who likes theirs. Thanks for this.
“There isn’t much on this thing that can rust.”
Body panels on modern cars don’t rust. In fact, as demonstrated by the surface rust on Cybertrucks, modern cars have better body panel rust protection.
I used to live in a heavy snow area and never had any body panel issues. It is the suspension, drivetrain, and brakes that oxidize, and those are not stainless in the Cybertruck.
Yet I see plenty of 15 to 10 year old Chevy’s up here with lace bumpers and side panels. It’s still a thing.
“Body panels on modern cars don’t rust.”
What do you mean by this?
I have a few Volkswagens, a Scion, a Ford, and a GMC in the family fleet, all 2010 and newer, and all with some sort of rust on their bodies.
I only have notes on the visibility through the rear view mirror: I drive big European vans quite often, they have a steel wall behind the seats, and no rear view mirror at all (except some that have glass in the back door, which by European law have to be fitted with a rear view mirror despite having a solid bulkhead, which is stupid) and no camera system either. It’s never been a problem. Not for normal driving and not even when reversing a long wheelbase van towing a car on a trailer.
Every car review ever that criticises the view through the rear view mirror just makes me think the reviewer has never driven a van.
Nice take. I like / trust this more than the article.
As a non fan of these things, I really appreciate this honest assessment. I’ve lived in the mountains for decades, the handle thing is real. I’m not convinced, but glad it fits the niche.
“Now back to the haters…”
For some people it’s not so much a case of hating the design, technological, and engineering decisions but more a case of seeing the CT as the personification of a petulant man-child who has been actively embracing Nazi ideology as evidenced by his own tweets and who has never renounced how he and his family benefited from apartheid in his home country and who is so homophobic and transphobic that at least one of his children disavowed him upon reaching adulthood and who has a well-documented history of taking credit for the work of others. Simply put, he’s an extremely problematic individual. However impressive some of the technology might be (never mind the aesthetics, as that’s so utterly subjective) the fact remains that the CT is so inextricably linked to a person many people find to be absolutely abhorrent that the CT inevitably becomes the subject of great scorn and derision. All of the CT’s technological sophistication simply becomes irrelevant and moot when it’s so overshadowed by the toxic persona of its ostensible creator. So, yeah, for some people it’s not about being a hater but about seeing what the CT actually personifies. Some people separate the artist from the art and some people don’t.
When you can take a car that you had built and use it as test mass on a rocket you you built/funded and throw it past Mars, I’ll be impressed with you too. Now go back to hating.
Lol he didn’t do jack shit. The engineers and scientists he hired did.
Those engineers didn’t organize themselves.
Such a terrible argument. That’s like saying the the team owner won the Super Bowl, not the coaches or players.
It’s logic and experience. I’ve been in successful startups. The difference between successful and failure is always leadership and financing. Great engineers create nothing without vision. They can’t build great things without money. The team owners enable the leaders to get the right people. Without their backing it’s not possible.
successful business leaders might occasionally make questionable decisions in the service of a longer-term goal, but they don’t repeatedly violate their fiduciary duties to their shareholders.
Yet there they are, still doing their thing and getting an overwhelming approval for the pay package *from the very shareholders you claim he wronged*. How much stock do you hold?
oh lol you actually have one of these
You hold none and have no truck. Your *opinion* is noted.
you bought one and are spending your sunday defending it on the internet against largely anonymous people.
Nah, I’m commenting while watching the Pikes Peak race. This is a very Autopian thing to be doing. And going after David because he hurt your feels is contemptible. Why are you here?
So, you’ve accomplished those things (that Musk hasn’t done, merely paid people to do after getting his start from inherited blood money)? Seems you’re stating that one needs to in order to have an opinion that isn’t worthy of dismissal. Fittingly, I won’t read a response.
You have no idea what I’ve accomplished, random internet person. If you want to prove that your position on some sort of cultural distraction is superior, stop whining about things and build a better truck. Launch more mass. Build a better neural interface. Do something useful instead of whine about your pronouns. You imply that Musk’s leadership and vision are unimportant? I don’t agree with you. So prove your point by building something better.
This post is the only one I see complaining about pronouns.
Complaining about someone listing preferred pronouns is just a slightly longer way of telling people you’re a bigot.
I’m not complaining about it, I’ve observed it many times. Followed by a lack of better cars, rockets, and other things.
I’m not sure I understand this sentence.
I also must have misread the tone\intent in the phrase “Do something useful instead of whine about your pronouns” so I’m taking some time to work on my reading comprehension in general.
Okay, let me make this simple and clear. I understand that you and many with you (and I am making an assumption here. Perhaps you don’t feel this way? I can only guess on this media), don’t like the “Artist” in this case. While I know this, I attach very little weight to this because for all you don’t like about this individual, you have shown no concrete example on why your view is better. It appears to me that it comes back to feelings, which we all have *and* are individually responsible for. If I don’t assume that your feelings are your responsibility, I have to assume that you don’t control them and that is not rational, which makes your input useless. Got it?
The “Artist” in this case has, by my viewpoint made EV’s possible by making them desirable. This is a commonly held view. The efforts of this person essentially put the Russian space program out of business, and dramatically lowered the cost of mass into orbit. I personally believe that making life interplanetary is a damn good goal. There is more, but these are all aspirational goals that will have a positive impact on humanity as a whole. So for the folks who have their feelings bent out of shape and are offended, how is your point of view materially moving mankind forward? What specific thing have you added to our survival?
Eh, it’s not about impressing you with accomplishments whether they be real or simply attributed (the car strapped to the rocket was a vanity project, done for publicity, demanded by the CEO of the rocket company where the scientists and engineers, i.e., the company’s employees, were ordered to do the work; the car came from a company that he didn’t even found but merely invested in contigent on the condition that he be made the face of the company, putting him in the same category as Thomas Edison and George Barris, you know, people famous for taking the credit for the work done by others.) The point remains the same and unchanged: the fact is that the CT is seen by many people to be inextricably linked to a person widely considered to be extremely unpleasant with abhorrent personal views in real life. If you’re happy with your vehicle despite the flaws described by David Tracy in the article then good for you, just be aware that people have legitimate reasons for not liking the CT, it’s not a case of being haters for hate’s sake.
For the record, regarding accomplishments, I try to be a compassionate and decent human being and I am on speaking *and* good terms with all of my children. The same cannot be said for the petulant man-child de facto Nazi who happened to be born into an extremely wealthy family and happened to make a number of investments in the right places at the right times with inherited apartheid-borne money. You couldn’t pay me to trade places, lol. Given a choice between a happy and loving family or immense wealth it’s a no-brainer for me 🙂
Anyway, to reiterate, the CT may very well be a technological tour de force but it comes with too much baggage, so to speak, for some people to accept so it’s not about arbitrarily being a hater…
I understand the irrationality, but I don’t care. If someone links a thing to a person they don’t like and makes it a cause, that’s on them. I understand that people get threatened by people who are more successful than they are, and the stories of humanity are riddled with the “crabs in a bucket” types that try to pull back anyone who they think is too successful. It’s pathetic.
If they don’t like it, don’t buy it. If they can’t stand that it exists, get a life and/or professional help. It’s not all you or me or them. It’s just a really cool truck.
Eh, it’s not irrational not to want to separate the artist and the art. Elon Musk made himself indelibly the face of Tesla. For some people that’s a dealbreaker since he’s such a genuinely awful person in real life. Nothing to do with crabs in a bucket. So those people simply won’t buy a CT which is perfectly fine; if people want to buy a CT that’s perfectly fine, just that they’ll have to live with the fact that some people have perfectly legitimate reasons for not liking the CT.
I don’t have to accept somebodies trigger, and if that leads to someone not approving of what I want to drive that is not my problem. If you want to hate me for it, it has no impact on my life. If you can’t separate the artist from the art, that’s your problem. Someone getting offended by me not caring about their cause is juvenile.
Meanwhile, I have this truck. I’ve had other trucks. I’m objectively more qualified to comment on this thing because I actually have one and use it. How many others in this thread have one? Or regularly use a truck? Or are qualified on M925 or duece and a halfs?
“Someone getting offended by me not caring about their cause is juvenile.”
That seems to be an increasingly favorite pastime in these comments.
Present data. Talk about what you don’t like about how something handles. Praise responsiveness. Note oddities. This is an enthusiast forum, not a protest march.
I may be a hater, but bless you for driving an astounding piece of EV automotive art.
Seriously: drive what you want. I’m sure you have a cool car too! If you want to hate on the creator of a car, go over to that old lighting bolt site and have a ball. I don’t do causes, but I like people. And we all love cars here.
Spends $100,000+ on something less functional than a <$40,000 new ICE crewcab pickup to support our savior Elon.
“I don’t do causes. . .”
Ha
It’s only a cause to you. To me, it’s a truck that does what I need it to do. It’s my money. I had an F-150 I daily drove before this (A Powerboost. Excellent truck but too many recalls.) Now I drive a Cybertruck. I’m in a *far* better position to determine what’s more useful here than you ever will be.
Compromise 3 sums up my experience driving a refreshed model 3 a few weeks ago. The drivetrain and suspension were great. Everything in Compromise 3 would keep me from even considering this car.
I agree with your hypothesis. Different reasons, but this is why I preferred owning my 2001 Jeep Wrangler Soft Top with Half Doors and zip plastic windows vs. my 2011 Jeep Wrangler with dual tops and doors with power windows. Things like that made the difference. By 2011, Jeep had a lot of problems “fixed” to be like every other car and it lost a lot of character.
Stockholm Syndrome is a thing.
That doesn’t make kidnapping and abuse cool.
Neither is the Cybertruck cool just because it abuses it’s owners (and innocent EV6s & unsuspecting pedestrians) every step of the way.
It really is an engineering marvel. You don’t have to like the truck or Musk to respect the engineering behind this deeply flawed conveyance. They’ll eventually dial in the panel gaps. I dig it solely as an engineering exercise. As a method of transportation, it’s hot garbage.
I do disagree on the shifter. It’s an electric car. It’s either going forward, backward, or it’s stationary. You’re not changing any of that while you’re moving. It’s not like you have to worry about putting it in low range, or 2nd gear to start on slippery surfaces, or you wanna turn overdrive off for towing. Having the shifter on the screen, in this case, makes zero difference. I can’t think of a scenario where you’re “taking your eyes off the road” to operate the shifter, because if you’re operating the shifter while moving, you’ve got bigger problems. A chubby stick, knob or stalk here, on this car, is frivolous. It would exist solely to keep old men from yelling at the clouds, and that is not what this truck is about in any way.
Most automatic cars are used in just drive and reverse, really. Being able to focus on your surroundings while you switch between reverse and drive is a good thing, IMO.
Give me a column shift or something mechanical on the dashboard like the Taycan’s shifter!
One could argue given the visibility that in order to see most of your surroundings, you’re gonna have to look at the screen anyway. Even in my S5, parked between two pickup trucks, I can see more of what’s going on around me with wide angle cameras than I can using my mirrors or back window. If I pull into a spot like that, nearly all of my windows and mirrors are useless. All I can see is two 10′ tall pickup beds and a sliver of what is directly behind me. It’s mandatory to use the “corner view” setting to peek around the other cars and see if anyone is coming while I’m backing out. I have to use the screen or throw caution to the wind like “I’m backing out now good luck everybody else”. This is the main reason I back in nearly every time.
Frivolous I say! I will die on this hill, my status as a mostly valued commenter be damned 🙂 If Lewin can have his light up grille hot take, this is mine.
“I can’t think of a scenario where you’re “taking your eyes off the road” to operate the shifter”
Never parallel parked, performed a 3+ point turn, or backed into a parking space? As I’m bringing my car/truck to a stop with a typical shifter (even a manual), I can start to review my surroundings behind me while my right hand shifts the car into a reverse. Same when I am backing up and then have to pull forward. With the screen shifter, the intermediate step of finding the area to swipe is slow at best, disorienting at worst.
I mean we’re really splitting hairs here. If someone is the type of person that can’t cope with dragging their finger across a screen instead of nudging a dingus in a certain direction, then I feel like that person will be woefully left out of the future and is probably the type of person that still types www before every web address (with their index finger), then proceeds to double click hyperlinks.
“They’ll eventually dial in the panel gaps”
I’ll take that bet!
It may take them a few years, millions of dollars, and thousands of underpaid/overworked humans while Elon collects the largest paychecks in human history, but I think they’ll figure it out. Their engineering is outstanding. Barring all of that, the engineering lessons learned on a project like this are more valuable than the CT itself.
We can project all we want but if we look at what they’ve ACTUALLY done, they haven’t been able to figure it out on cars they’ve already been making for years out of more forgiving materials. I wouldn’t count on them figuring it out with their proprietary “ultra-hard stainless steel” or whatever they’re calling it.
“ I can’t think of a scenario where you’re “taking your eyes off the road” to operate the shifter”
This is ridiculous. With a physical shifter, you don’t have to take your eyes off the road/mirror/rear-view camera because you’ve got your whole hand on the shifter. As opposed to hovering your finger in front of a small spot on the screen, during which time your finger might poke the screen in the wrong place.
It would probably help if the adjacent screen bezel was shaped to provide tactile feedback helping you identify where the adjacent gears are and giving you something to anchor a finger on while you wait to shift with another finger on that hand.
The shifter and the surround cams are in the same place, separated by a few pixels. You’re already looking at it because visibility out of the car is nil. What are you gonna do? Turn your head around to stare at the inside of the tonneau cover? Totally agree on the tactile area though.
On first read I thought this was a weird take, but then I thought about it a little and realized it wasn’t. It’s not a weird take. What it is is a car designer’s take.
“Here is a car. It is, objectively speaking, bad. It is full of design decisions that limit its utility and inconvenience (or even injure!) the human beings who own and use it. But those things are to be celebrated, because they mean that somewhere out there is a car designer who didn’t have to compromise. Nobody stopped that person from doing whatever crazy-ass thing they wanted. What a lucky person they are!”
And yeah, that’s right. That car designer is a lucky person. For once, maybe for the only time in their life, they got to do whatever they wanted. The car owner isn’t lucky, of course, because now they have to live with all the designer’s weird decisions. Or the passengers, or the people the vehicle is sharing the road with. Basically nobody is lucky in this situation except the designer. But the designer was absolutely very lucky.
The Cybertruck is definitely a pure expression of something. But of what? To me, it feels like an expression of contempt. The only important thing in the soul of the Cybertruck is the Cybertruck itself. Human beings — the ostensible reason it exists — are treated as inconvenient annoyances, whether they are inside it or out. The Cybertruck has as much contempt for its driver as much as it does for a pedestrian. They’re all just annoyances the Cybertruck resents having to cope with. Even if you bought a Cybertruck, it will not meet you halfway. It will not make itself easy to park, or to load, or to maintain. It will not budge an inch to make your life easier, because it is not about your life. It is about the statement of the designer, the only important human being in the equation.
Purity of vision by itself doesn’t tell you much. Lots of people out there have very pure visions for a very bad world, a world that doesn’t work for anyone but themselves. I can’t admire them for that.
Certainly a point to be made there, But that ex-girlfriend who lied to you, cheated on you, made you the fool in front of everyone you know, wrecked your car, and pretty much dragged you through the mud for a couple of years? That was all part of her soul, too. It just wasn’t a very good soul.
I’d find it easier to agree with this argument if it was clear what purpose had been served by avoiding compromise. You persuasively showed how the Jeep team shut down certain compromises—in the name of preserving its off-road prowess. What virtue was the Cybertruck team preserving, besides some coddled rich man-child’s idea of “cool”? Because that’s not enough.
This is the point I wanted to make and I think you said it quite well. The point of the compromises on the Jeep were to maintain actual performance capabilities that are the heart and soul of a Jeep. For instance, improving handling using independent suspension could not happen at the cost of sacrificing the off-road prowess of the solid axle setup. Meanwhile, the Cybertruck compromises were to maintain “performative capabilities”, if you want to call them that.
It’s all about image. For 99% of Wrangler customers, that solid front axle is only a compromise. But the 1% of customers who actually do hard-core stuff with the Jeep are who create the image that the 99% buy into. Image sells cars.
Sure. But you’re saying it yourself—the Jeep’s image, however little most buyers exploit them, is based on real capabilities. What capability does the CT have that no other vehicle has, besides, uh, “stylin’ and profilin'”? It’s image for its own sake, which I guess you could argue is more honest, but it’s also not a very compelling argument for itself.
Simply put, it’s a compromise to maintain an image. Whether that means you need to have a seven-slotted grille between two hydroform rails — a setup that limits airflow and contributes to reduced towing capability — or an upright, squared off profile that reduces overall efficiency or external military-ish door hinges that are prone to corrosion, automakers have been compromising usability to create an “image” since the beginning of cars.
Yeah, but if you had a two story house, ripped out the stairs, and made it so the only way to the 2nd floor is by pole-vaulting, you have objectively made your house worse for everyone except the world pole-vaulting community.
Now THOSE people are probably going to be singing your praises and declaring you are a man of VISION.
The rest of the world, however…
“worse for everyone except the world pole-vaulting community.
Now THOSE people are probably going to be singing your praises and declaring you are a man of VISION.”
Until they need to bring a decorated cake home.
Now that should be an Olympic sport! You must clear the bar and maintain the cakes decorations. If you fail, you must eat the cake. In the end, we have fat people with cake on their faces snapping pole-vaulting poles. 100% would watch while eating cake!
I feel like this article is a Mad Libs of a defense of the Homer, by Marge Simpson
“What’s a bad miracle? They got a word for that?”
– OJ Haywood, NOPE
This is a very apt use of this quote
Not all soul is good, ya know.
“Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should.” Not sure where I heard that first, but it applies here.
For when you need a polarising accessory to compliment your polarising personality.
Nailed it!
It may have its soul, but that doesn’t mean that it’s cool. Especially as an extension of Elon’s ego.
counterpoint; nah