“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?
So it’s not well put together, not easy to drive, not easy to interact with, not easy to convince everyone of its value and comes with a weird social stigma.. sounds like a winner.
I personally also have to argue that it doesn’t have much soul, it has a style, it has a character it plays but it’s a soulless appliance to me and always will be.
“there are no gauges in front of the driver; even the speed is off to the right in the center stack.”
Not to sound like a rabid Tesla fan, but I genuinely like having the speedometer on the screen and not directly in front of me. I find lights or gauges directly in front of the driver a distraction; particularly at night. For my Model 3, there is nothing directly in front of the driver but the wheel and dashboard. Also, with the speedometer on the screen, I can adjust the wheel to any position and still see easily see it. I have driven several vehicles where the wheel blocks the speedometer; it is annoying and distracting to have to move my head just to see how fast I am going.
I would prefer more cars to have gauges on the center of the dashboard. Although, it is easier with an EV since the only gauges are the speedometer and battery percentage. It would be harder to design an easy to read central gauge cluster in a car that needs a lot of gauges.
When you first mentioned “death by a thousand cuts” I was sure it was going to be about loading the bed or otherwise touching the Cybertruck. I’m disappointed.
That said, it doesn’t make this “cool.” Seeing a preliminary bad vision through to execution unchanged isn’t cool. It’s needlessly contrarian and a stubborn refusal to accept fair criticism in the face of a terrible product. And I will never, EVER accept that “okay so it’s a little more pedestrian-killy than it had to be but that’s what makes it *cool* because that’s how the concept looked!” as a valid argument.
Plus, many of the bad things you describe as compromises aren’t compromises. They’re just bad ideas, implemented poorly, because that’s how they were originally drafted. Not cool, not even quirky. Just bad.
A fork with razor sharp tines isn’t cool because even though it stabs you in the mouth, that’s how they drafted it. A circular saw with no upper guard because it looked neat in the design phase isn’t cool. There is such a thing as bad ideas and bad implementation without the need to ascribe some aspect of bravery, valor, or coolness to the final product or the entity that birthed it.
This time a thousand million… It goes against all current thought process in agile product design and delivery to execute perfectly on the original product design from whatever it was, five years ago. No one *ever* gets everything right in their initial concept in complex product design. It’s just asinine prescriptive thinking that it had to maintain everything from the concept, and I’m guessing this refusal to deviate comes down to exactly one person.
Should have had Torch write the review. As it is, this is like the fable of the Emperor’s new clothes only without the child calling out why the compromises were all stupid and vain to begin with.
You know what other car kept its soul through the design process? This one.
You know what other car didn’t sell nearly enough to stay in the product lineup? That same one.
Unfortunately soul doesn’t sell nearly as much as pandering to the basest instincts of its audience. Doubly so when the design is pandering to the basest instincts of an audience of one.
Don’t hate on the Multipla.
I personally love it myself, but the market is a harsh mistress ????
I won’t be convinced that it’s a Damn Good Design myself. Even Adrian’s defense focused on how it made the interior usable, not how it was a good looking exterior design.
It may have been brilliant inside, and I would never attack people that like it, like DT is apparently getting for this CyberTruck “bad is cool!” thing going on (not cool, people, chill the fuck out), but I still think it’s ugly as hell.
Still the ugliest piece of junk and worst vehicle ever made!
CYbErJuNkTrUcK can go to hell
EV’s are trash and belong in the junkyard…No Dice/Crackpipe
Also, I have huge respect for that homeless man! Unhoused and homeless mean the same fucking thing no matter how you say it
Very eloquently said, although unfortunately I disagree. With the Jeep story, the proposed changes were about taking away useful features for core users in order to make the vehicle more mainstream.
None of the flaws in the design of the Cybertruck can be seen as useful features, even by the most hardcore Tesla fans. It is plain and simple stubbornness.
For instance, the doors. Model S owners know well that the metal door handles will burn your hand if the car is parked in the sun for an extended period of time. You can even buy custom wrapping to prevent that.
Does Tesla know about it? Of course. Did they fix it? Of course not. And now they are doing the same thing, even worse, with the Cybertruck.
Because stubbornness.
Your first two paragraphs are key to the thesis lost in this article. Bringing a bad concept to life is nowhere near the same sort of engineering tension or problem solving as “don’t ruin the character and functionality of this vehicle with 70 years of precedent.”
It’s a shame how good the Jeep story is before going on to totally miss that point when talking about the Cybertruck.
It’s baffling to me that this point was completely overlooked in this article. But they got a record number of clicks, so … success.
I’d argue that I don’t miss the point, I’m the one who gets it. I get the Cybertruck’s appeal, and I appreciate that, like the Wrangler, its initial vision wasn’t watered down to make the car as practical as possible.
The aftermarket will come up with fixes for the UI pain points. Someone probably has a STL for a TPU door grip on Thingiverse. Screens for the 3/Y are a thing. So are stalks for the M3 refresh.
The CT just isn’t that good a vehicle IMO. It’s made full of neat tech like the steer by wire system and the rear wheel steering but somehow the vehicle is less than the sum of its parts.
So, I saw a Cybertruck two hours ago. It still had paper plates, and each body panel was a different color (for lack of a better word) of stainless steel. The driver’s door specifically had a tinge of copper color, which is odd because I don’t live in a place where rust is prevalent. My son asked “Why does that truck look so goofy, and why is the door orange-colored?” When I explained what the truck was, and how certain grades of stainless steel does oxidize, my son couldn’t care less – I was expecting more excitement over the Cybertruck and its unusual design, but he just double-down on it looking goofy. I think the real icing on the cake was that the Cybertruck had some of those steel trucknutz on it, though when my son asked about them I just claimed ignorance as to what they were.
It my have character and quirks, but that’s a claim the Cybertruck has in common with a lot of unloved/hated automobiles over the years.
Trucknuts are always a welcome addition to any penis truck. They demonstrate what the vehicle is!
Thinking of adding a set to my electric trike once the < 120 lb conveyance has 25+ kW in it!
To be fair, thanks to road construction I was driving through a part of town I generally avoid because it is populated by the frenetically trend-conscious type of folks who would install trucknutz unironically whilst high-fiving one another about their latest purchase and the soul-crushing debt that came with it. It’s also the home of the folks who convert their vehicles to hold 2,000lbs of overlanding gear yet never take the vehicles off-road lest they get dirty or scratched up.
Sounds about right for Anytown, USA.
Be patient. Opportunity may come to amass real assets for cheap because of these peoples’ fiscal irresponsibility. Just do everything you can to make sure they never get a bailout at your expense.
My vision of your trucknuts is spheres somehow formed from circuit boards with the backsides showing, and suspended by colorful wire ribbons plugged into them 🙂
That’s a beautiful vision.
I get that this is a controversial vehicle to write about in any capacity, but I can’t say I expected people to be so upset that they’d resort to cyber-bullying (look at these yobbos).
Alas, it’s Twitter I suppose. And maybe I do look a bit like shit. Still, only I get to say that! 🙂
Shouldn’t matter what you look like. You wrote a pretty good piece imo. I am not a fan of trucks or jeeps in general, but that’s on me. The internet is full of monsters and too many of them frequent xtwatter.
I like that a controversial vehicle has been offered onto the buying public. It opens up possibilities for design freedom in the future that otherwise wouldn’t have existed.
Design freedom for ketamine-addled CEOs. Probably not for anyone else.
ONLY ketamine?
Whatever Musk is on, I want a lot of it delivered to my door, STAT. It has to be good.
I think the primary drug is Obscence Wealth. And yes, I would very much like to be on it.
I don’t want obscene wealth, just enough to pursue my interests without needing income from a job.
As for actual drugs, OTOH, yes please…
I’ve taken a healthy amount of ketamine (for depression, spoiler: it didn’t do shit) but I still never got so fucked up I’d have thought the CT was a good idea. It did make Fear Inoculum a better album though!
That is an shockingly generous take from someone with your admirably intense dedication to vehicular efficiency,
If there is one thing that has made me weep for humanity, or at least feel despair about the future of the human race, it is social media. What has the potential to allow people to see the best in others mostly just brings out the worst in them instead. It’s tragic, just know that we like and appreciate your takes in these parts, David.
Thank you! Yeah, I think people are getting a bit emotional about the Cybertruck/Elon/Twitter/the general state of society and taking it out on me. It’s ok; they could be going through something, so I’ll just let it be.
It’s very silly. They appear to think that their issues stem from some Billionaire somewhere. ???
I applaud your willingness to be so generous, especially when the hostility pointed at you is so unwarranted. Bravo!
David, you have not acknowledged the reasons people have given that the truck is wrapped up in the other controversy surrounding musk.
this isn’t “hate for hate’s sake.” it’s a very real issue that gets worse every time someone like you obfuscates it.
Yes I have.
what’s controversial about him David? maybe it’s worth mentioning.
It could be, but I wanted to focus this review on the truck without getting sidetracked by all the stuff the company’s CEO has done and said. It’s a car review, after all. With that said, we’ve written plenty about his transgressions, and you’re welcome to read up on them separately.
Good, and thank you.
Frankly though, I think you are being a little too accommodating- not with Musk but with the large number of commenters who feel free to just spray every insult they can think of with no rational basis, most of which are openly justified by perceived ideological differences.
Rational criticism, rationally discussed is welcome and necessary on a site like this (and God knows there is enough of that to go on for years RE: Tesla and Musk), but many of these comments are just outright bigotry (“I disagree with him, and that makes him nasty and evil and worthy of hate!”) that your moderation policy would normally cut off if were directed at other targets.
I get that he’s a billionaire CEO, but if you are going to have standards they must be that- standards. Everyone is due equal respect, and if someone can’t clear the extremely low bar of at least finding sufficient basis to criticize Musk/Tesla with the barest hit of common decency, then maybe their contributions shouldn’t be welcome here.
My two cents as someone who falls into neither camp- it’s pretty obvious that fanboys aren’t your problem here.
I get that you’re willing to draw a boundary there. It’s a choice you’re entitled to make.
But, again, you should understand that for the people who are affected by Musk’s behavior and rhetoric, it’s not really possible.
I hope that you might come back and re-read some of the comments you got here after it all cools down because I think you’ll find that, even if you disagree, plenty of what people is saying is warranted or at least reasonable, and that your responses to those concerns reflect a callousness I know you don’t mean to give off.
I do agree that their concerns probably are coming from a good place. I don’t think I’ve been even slightly callous, but we can agree to disagree on some things. Have a great day!
That’s really too bad (that some people are only interested in insults)–there really are some things only you get to say–but happily we all get to talk about design! This was a solid (and very defendable) take. I think it’s amazing that a vehicle that is so obviously antagonistic to people *works*. I mean, This is the truck that would open its door, eject its driver (in pieces?) and drive on…
Saw the yobbos. Most people think an FC Jeep are cool as shit even if they have no idea what it is. You *genuinely* doing you, is going to be cool–no matter what you wear or how your hair is styled.
They don’t realize I had twrenchfoot in that photo!
To be fair, that photo doesn’t show your feet. And I’ll go out on a limb (but not a leg) and say that, no matter what your feet may look like, not showing them in photos is for the best. We don’t want The Autopian to be that kind of website, even if doing so would make the paid membership count shoot up faster than a SpaceX rocket with an Aztek as its payload.
Trust me, they were a disaster. Ground beef, at best.
Love your CT take so hard. Every CT I see 100% sparks f-ing joy. I would never own one, but couldn’t be happier that they are out in the world, changing views on what cars and trucks can plausibly look like. My 8 year old thinks they’re rad. My 5 year old therefore also thinks they’re rad. My inner 8 and 5 year old feels the same, and is genuinely pumped that the Futuristic Cars portrayed in 80s and 90s sci-fi is finally here.
Elon Musk is easy to dislike, and I get how people twist this all up in their reactions. But as a pure emotional response engine, the CT is (for me and my brood) like nothing else on the road.
Yep, it’s weird and doesn’t need to exist. But I dig that.
You know, it completely doesn’t matter, but fwiw I like that picture of you. It captures so many aspects of your public persona. You look like a boss in it, confident, in your element. If you were an actor I’d say it should be in your portfolio.
Screw those Neanderthals.
Honestly David, you should be getting all your fashion advice from “spookycartoonspiderman”. I hear his next collection is going to hit BIG at Fashion Week next year.
You don’t look nothing like shit, and I’ve seen some… The only thing you two have in common is that both touch grass – which is something those asshats sorely need.
I would report them, but what’s the point now that the biggest turd of them all is in charge?
David, I am a tesla model s owner (2017, bought used, put on over 350,000 mostly pain free KMs since 2018, have saved enough $ in gas alone that it has fully paid for itself over the last 6 years). I am a keen lurker on this site… And I couldn’t agree more with this article! I want a cybertruck for reasons I can’t articulate, AND I hate all of the compromises and the musk-baggage! I am reminded of the old old Top Gear Cool Wall. Sometimes it made no sense, AND it was cool! We humans are funny that way.
Just wanted to pile on to say this article like all of your work is great, your writing and topic choice and confidence and accuracy and professionalism are what got me here from the old lighting site and what keeps me here each day. That and whatever lunacy Jason spits out each day – that is gold too!
So keep on keepin’ on friend. We loves ya!
Thank you!
Oh man now I feel special! You replied to my comment! Best Monday of possibly my whole life! Well, it will be if the Oilers win… what a comeback that would be.
Go Red Wings! (Sorry)
“I am a tesla model s owner (2017, bought used, put on over 350,000 mostly pain free KMs since 2018, have saved enough $ in gas alone that it has fully paid for itself over the last 6 years”
I’m curious to know the maths on that. I looked into EVs for myself but here in PG&E county (ironically also where your S was made) electricity energy costs more than gasoline energy.
To each their hair shirt I guess.
Yes, it kept its vision, the vision of being a subpar vehicle with tons of massive flaws that make it dangerous and a huge pain in the ass to own and drive.
I mean, I get what you’re going for here, but the list is just comical. ‘Worst user interface of any vehicle I’ve ever driven’ really means something coming from the guy who will drive a truck that’s 90% rust.
And just to be clear, I love David, this is meant in jest, not malice.
Don’t worry about it! I’m not saying it’s a great car objectively, just that I quite appreciate it as an enthusiast after having driven it. The fact that it exists is cool to me, and you can’t say it lacks soul!
The dystopian-chic aesthetic is clearly “in” these days.
You put a lot of effort into your write up, and I’m grateful for that, but I just feel that 20 years from now, no one will be using the phrase, “The misunderstood and achingly soulful Tesla Cybertruck.”
This truck is going to prove itself a money pit.
That being said, it will also likely prove less expensive than all of the other electric trucks currently on the market to operate, with the Rivian models(which are horrendously expensive to repair) being right behind it. Avoid the F150 Lightning and the Silverado EV and anything Stellantis post warrantee if you value your hard earned money.
If you need a work truck, you won’t go wrong with a Ford Ranger from the 1990s/early 2000s or perhaps an old Toyota T100 or Chevy S10 from the same era. All of which may outlast a modern Cybertruck on a timeline, and prove less expensive to operate per mile in most cases(although if you drive 1,000+ miles a week, the Cybertruck may still give you 500,000+ miles of economical service life, but with the battery pack’s shelf life, it’s a use it or lose it proposition). All of which are also viable EV conversion candidates that you could also keep mostly analogue and repair with basic hand tools.
This is an interesting argument David gives using two polar opposite vehicles. The Jeep Wrangler is substance over style while the CyberTruck is style over substance.
If we are going to consider it “art” for meme stock companies to take the money from their moronic investors to make things that are both functionally and aesthetically horrible, the AMC Dune 2 popcorn bucket comes out ahead of the Cybertruck.
That the Miata still remains on the market at the price it has is a miracle, this is an also ran electric pickup, even compared to slapping a battery pack under an ICE F150, other than standing out for its kit car exterior and interior.
However, I will admit that the first time a Cybertruck owner bleeds to death cutting themselves on the exterior panels, that will be Cindy Crawford’s mole.
I appreciate this article as a comment on the execution of a clear vision despite massive obstacles. I thought of this earlier today at Cars and Coffee where a few dudes were talking about a beautiful Prowler only in terms of disappointment. Tesla is not the first automaker to turn an outlandish concept into a real car, but their design and engineering teams still deserve credit for making it happen.
Still hideous, though.
The Prowler is a great example!
It’s got a four-speed auto and is, very, very clearly a huge compromise. But you can’t not appreciate its wackiness.
Ah, but the Prowler didn’t take 4 steps to simply open the door, and do it’s darnedest to draw blood while doing so.
Visibility was good too.
Ehh, having driven a Prowler, the visibility out the back was pretty awful, too. Not “no window with the tonneau cover” awful, but not good, especially if you’re short.
That’s the kind of harmless silliness I can appreciate, though. The CT, not so much.
The Prowler was the Chrysler parts bin with a wacky body attached to it to make a low volume, impractical car. It had a freakin trailer if you wanted a “trunk”. When they use the V-6 drivetrain from the LH cars instead of designing a “proper” V-8 to fit in there, you knew why.
https://www.theautopian.com/lets-just-take-a-moment-here-to-appreciate-that-the-plymouth-prowler-existed-and-could-be-purchased-with-a-trailer/
Can we please ditch the “allow me to explain” trope? It’s getting tiresome. Google finds sixteen (16) articles that use “allow me to explain” and at least fifty more (50!!) that use “I’ll explain”. I stopped counting after that.
Everyone here is a strong writer. You don’t need the crutch.
I can’t speak for the others, but I’ve used it for a dash of comedy. Basically like a “wait, don’t go, I’m going somewhere with this.”
But, huh, it does look like we’ve done it a lot!
How about giving its subject headline then? “The Soapbox Stand” or “The View From My Kaleidescope”
Sure! I’m open to trying new things!
🙂
Would you have to pay royalties if you used, “I Got Some Splainin To Do”?
Too bad that this isn’t funny, it’s just tired. Hee hee haww haww chubby white supremacist man made art. Next, let’s look at the art that rich German folks were making back in the 30s. I hear it pairs well with a manicured mustache.
The Austrian painter was quite something.
Please read my comment again. I was saying why I’ve used the phrase in the past on my car history pieces. I am not defending Musk whatsoever, nor am I the writer of this review. 🙂
At any rate, I do agree with you on Musk. The guy keeps pushing great replacement theory nonsense and when he isn’t hating Jewish people, he’s trying his hardest to paint trans people like me as people deserving of erasure. He is pretty much the modern day Henry Ford, and that’s not a compliment!
Other than his antisemitism and union hating, Henry Ford was a great leader. Musk… Happened to be at the right place at the right time with a heaping helping of privilege and bullied his way to “success”!
You make a great point! Calling Musk a modern Henry Ford might be an insult to Ford.
Not compromising your “vision” to make something shitty doesn’t make the end result any less of a joke. The Cybertruck isn’t Piech foisting the Veyron’s design on VW engineers and forcing them to make that work to specs.
Or the last 10 years of Apple under Ive:
* macbook with exactly one port
* macbooks for creatives and photographers with no card readers
* macbooks with no “legacy” USB ports
* phones with no jacks
* mice that only charge upside down
* pencils that charge by sticking out of an iPad’s charge port like a very long poop kielbasa
* the worst keyboards known to man
All in the name of thinness and design purity or whatever.
I would point and laugh and talk about how Android doesn’t do that nonsense, but my Galaxy S22 is also devoid of jacks and card slots…
Why are we paying more for tech with fewer features?
Android and Windows PC makers have done similar bs, and Apple wasn’t the first to remove the jack from the phone, but that was consistent with Ive’s stubborn design stupidity that I see in the Cybertruck. And the fans ate it up, too.
Because being devoid of jacks and card slots means you will have to pony up more $$$ to buy the specific dongle from the manufacturer or the licensed accessories maker that lets you access that functionality.
That does seem to be the case! I was shocked (ok, not really, but still) when I opened the box for this phone and I didn’t even get a charging brick.
The excuse I was told was that I probably already owned one, so there was no need for Samsung to give me one. Then the phone store guy pointed me toward charging bricks for sale. Ah, charging your phone is an upcharge. lol
You will dongle and you will like it, heathen.
What a dumb, dumb era of Apple hardware.
I’ll grant them some points for sticking to the concept, but this is Tesla, they left the falcon doors on the Model X even though nobody asked for them, heck their first car was the Roadster.
Regular car makes disappoint with concepts, to the point that when the production looks close to the concept people don’t believe it. A few examples, I was one of the folks greatly disappointed by the Chevy Volt concept compared to production, concept looked like a 4-door Camaro, production it’s a Cruze with different grille and tail lights. Also the Jeep Compass concept looked like a cool beachster with rear mounted spare tire and then ends up being just a taller Dodge Caliber. And the Dodge Charger (1999) concept vs the reality that looked like a modern Coronet. That’s mainly off the top of my head, and I actually owned examples of those 3 production ones so maybe there’s something to snazzy concepts getting us excited.
The point is I’m used to regular car makes disappointing us from concept to reality, but Tesla isn’t normal, if they came out with an actual semi-normal looking truck like a Rivian or a ute version of the X, THAT would’ve been the surprise.
Counter argument: The Cybertruck is Deconstructivism for the sake of deconstruction, and all these flaws are pointless detriments at the expense of the builders desired form. Which ultimately leads to a dystopian object. First let’s look at a Jeep, when the dude was like “give me solid axle or give me death!”, he was speaking to the purpose of the Jeep. Where do we get purpose? Well often from Structalism. If I were to say to my friend, I need a track car, I’m going to get a Wrangler. My friend, who may have limited understanding of cars would say “Wait, what?”. We as a collective group, have a idea of what is and is not a Wrangler and thus certain expectations of what it can and cannot do.
When starting with the Cybertruck, we really only have one shared conceptual image to start with, that being a truck. Elon has been pretty open about goal of making the truck not look like a truck. And that begs the question as to why do this? When departing from a narrative arch rooted into tradition or against contemporary can be done. Like, the Lotus Elise, most would say is pretty cool. Wouldn’t be the first image of a car to comes to mind. However, I would argue that we allow transgressions against expectations because the car has a purpose we’re not familiar with- i.e speed. In with that purpose we can expand our understanding to include something like a Lotus Elise when we think fast car. Which is a caveat, as most of us would expect an Elise to be a purpose built vehicle full of compromises, but we’re cool with that because it does its purpose well.
The Cybertruck primarily being a object of form works against this. We are not suppose to see our expectation. It doesn’t give justification of compromise for purpose outside of visual. It is a work of Deconstruction- it exist to function against structured understanding. The problem is that our structured understanding is how we view things as being “human”. We understand or at least accept things are suppose to look like, and that gives us comfort. Like look how religious structures have remained fairly similar in design since literally forever. Its a place we feel comfortable. When Cybertruck works against all those expectations, you can’t rationalize it for purpose, it becomes uncanny and devoid of shared human identity. Which is why the truck feels so Dystopian.
Well said. The Cybertruck’s greatness (to the extent it is great) isn’t from being a truck, or even a vehicle, because it sucks at those things compared to 1) the competition 2) its own potential, had it been championed by a non-asshat. Its greatness is from being a Cybertruck. It’s a self-referential, post-modern object whose only value is existing. Many of its fans like it not because it’s a particularly good truck (by our usual standards of fitness to purpose, safety, convenience, or whatever) but because it’s a Cybertruck.
I have some admiration for its commitment to a concept, much like David in the article, but I still think the world would be a better place without it on the roads (or Musk breathing). Stick one in MoMA, then crush the rest and delete the CAD files.
Mmm, delicious reasoned argument. Such a delicacy, and so well prepared, too.
Did we learn nothing from “Barbie”?
I think the single biggest feature that I find impressive is …. it’s stainless steel. As someone who’s used to working on rusty garbage, I thought you would have mentioned that a bit more. The design IS the result of the material selection; you cannot stamp stainless into complex surfaces without replacing the tooling VERY frequently, so the decision was made to just fold it using giant brakes.
As someone who lives in the salt belt, if I had to buy a new truck it’d either be a Ford F150 or a Cybertruck, purely for the decision to not use easily corroding steel. I cannot count the number of 10-15 year old trucks with gaping holes along hte sills, rotting lower half of the doors, etc.
Automakers love to make disposable crap so they can sell more shiny new garbage that quickly deteriorates, so kudos to Tesla for pulling it off. It has a lot of compromises but I bet in 2040 it will look exactly the same, unlike all the rotting 2025 Chevy trucks.
As someone who has been an auto tech through 7 dealers and 11 brands plus working on whatever came in the door, no vehicle has caused more bloodletting than the Delorian. The mail slot door windows have a 100% failure rate, and replacing an actuator requires protection normally reserved for those practicing Falconry. No fan of stamped stainless…
I’m not sure what the windows on your experience dealing with a rare car have to do with my discussion of stainless steel.
You’re not sure what experience working on a previous stainless steel car has to do with a discussion of vehicle maintenance and stainless steel construction? Either I’m misunderstanding you or you don’t know what the Delorian was.
Don’t know what a Delorian is or was, but I do know a Delorean.
You are discussing power windows being a problem…. the material choice is sort of irrelevant to a poor power window design?
Do you even wrench?
All the time, which is why your statement is so confusing.
“stainless bad, cuz this one other stainless car had a bad window mechanism”
You make no sense bro lol
Oh I get it. Stainless is a harder material and. Delorean was a low volume manufacturer so (I imagine) they saved cost by not blunting the edges of the cuts where they didn’t see any big risk for the customer, namely behind the door card. When that regulator needed replacing the tech got the fun of navigating a maze of sharp knife edges as well.
So the question of whether Tesla has been blunting otherwise sharp edges of metal beyond a customer’s normal range of touch is a valid one.
No I’ve never worked on a Delorean but I HAVE worked on Bosch dishwashers. They are also made from used razor blades.
Please elaborate – sharp internal edges?
Yes. The framework stamping is all raw edge once the door panel is removed. I have no doubt that every example with working power windows has some poor souls blood sample inside the doors.
That has nothing to do with the material and everything to do with poor part design.
And to be clear, every car door mechanism has sharp edges once you pull the panel off. Either way, this is a stupid way to diminish the benefits of stainless. You must live in NOT the rust belt.
The touch screens and battery shelf life will probably show themselves to be the truck’s Achilles’ heel, if it never gets in an accident(and if it doe$… well that will be a different $tory).
The drive system is rock solid, and the battery pack is better designed than the competition. But damn is everything on this vehicle EXPEN$IVE to fix.
Disagree, newer vehicles, for the most part, are more rust-resistant than ever and the mechanical parts hold up better. The tech is the real issue.
Thanks for this, David. I agree–I dislike a lot of the Cybertruck’s features, but I think it’s still admirable as “controversial design brought to mass production.”
Plus, I imagine that hood still manages to be lower than a lot of heavy-duty pickups (even if it probably makes up for that by being deadlier with its angles…ugh. Bad time to be a pedestrian).
Separately: thank you for using the phrase “unhoused person”.
Separately: thank you for using the phrase “unhoused person”
Why? What’s wrong with “homeless person”?
“Unhoused” attributes the failing to society/government for not providing housing for all people, rather than the ambiguity (or often hostility) that comes with “homeless”, which to some would indicate “they need to get a job” or other, similar harmful stereotypes and stigmas.
Yeah, I know it sounds politically correct, which annoys some people. But this is a political/social failing, and as such it’s not bad to frame it hat way. Still, it’s fine to use the term “homeless” if you like, but what I’d prefer you do is donate to a good cause.
I haven’t trusted a charity since our local Goodwill was caught in a 20 year multimillion dollar embezzlement scam:
“The suspects were charged in a scheme that may have skimmed as much as $15 million from the charity over a period of eight years — possibly the biggest embezzlement case in Santa Clara County history.”
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Investigation-Widens-in-Goodwill-Fraud-Case-3001328.php
Yes it was a long time ago. But I remember.
Yours seems OK though:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/search?q=The+people+concern
THAT word would be “bum”. If “homeless” now equals “bum” “unhoused” is soon to follow. See retarded/special, or negro/colored/(maybe) black. All those were “polite” terms at one point to avoid using a more derogatory word. Now they are considered derogatory too.
It doesn’t cost me anything to refer to minorities/oppressed populations by whatever term(s) they prefer at any given time.
In that vein, how many homeless or unhoused people care which word white collar folks use to refer to them? Much like Latinx. I’ve never personally met a person of Hispanic American descent who uses that term. But while collar Whites sure love it.
Sure. Just know those polite synonyms will also become hate speech eventually because they do absolutely nothing to help the underlying problems. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, an unhoused person by any other name…eh, not so much.
Now if you REALLY want to make a difference rent an unhoused person a spare room at a price they can easily afford. Or become a YIMBY for shelters and mental health clinics in your own neighborhood. You might find yourself the dumping ground of all the other communities looking to offload their own unhoused problems though. Bus tickets are cheaper than shelters or clinics.
I think it’s difficult to separate the truck from the creator.
Edgy for the wrong reasons and useless?
I have 2 of the mentioned “bad” shifters. The Pacifica dial is easy to use and intuitive, even if it’s unusual, and importantly shows the drive mode on the shifter. The Leaf shifter is weird and unintuitive, but you get used to it reasonably quickly, except going in to neutral is always a PITA.