“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?
I had hoped this site was less cynically run than the last one. This isn’t directed at David because he is sincere, but the editorial people know what they’re doing by dropping a “mining the culture wars for fun and profit” piece like this.
From the bottom of my heart, fuck y’all for such a base attempt at manipulating your numbers, I hope your project sinks.
What are you talking about? I AM the editorial people, and this is literally just a review of a truck.
It’s a truck review. That’s all it is.
it’s pretty clear that this isn’t just any pickup and that a normal truck review would not ignore the very real faults you point out over and over all through the article.
it’s worth being honest that this is a different kind of blog that is designed to elicit a response that is different from what a normal pickup review would be.
every review is assessing a vehicle against a set of assumptions and parameters that allow them to be compared to one another. if this was that, the drawbacks that make up the bulk of the article would have you conclude differently. and so, no, I don’t think that a truck review is “all that this is.”
I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. This blog was not designed to elicit any sort of strong emotional response. It’s literally my review of the truck. That’s it.
Now, people’s feelings towards the truck are clearly quite strong, so there’s not much I can say to convince some folks. But it’s my review of the truck. I drove it, here’s what I think.
There was no “let’s poke the bee nest” intent, but again, this is a polarizing vehicle so it’s not surprising that people feel so passionate.
I mean I and clearly many others don’t buy this line of thinking.
There are clear differences between what this blog is and what any other review on this site is like. Part of that is the vehicle itself (there aren’t many other vehicles that so clearly represent an ideology on the market today).
The other part of it is the structure of your argument, which discounts all the things that typically matter in a vehicle review to arrive at a conclusion that is no more insulated from critique as any other review’s bottom line.
I really have thought that this site and the people who are involved in running it have predicated their love for cars on more than just the parts that make them up, but about what they mean in our society.
The response to this article shows that much of the readership understands car culture in that way and I think it’s worth considering how that way of thinking might lead people to challenge the form and content of this post.
I always keep it 100% with folks. And that’s what you can expect from my reviews; I drive a car, I tell you what I think about the car. I keep politics aside. It’s all about the machine and how it makes me feel when I drive it, and as you can see by many of the comments, that’s a key reason why so many folks love this review.
With that said, there are plenty who really, really hate Musk, and want me to hate him in this review. I pointed out that issue in the article, but anything beyond that, you’re all welcome to mention in these comments. This is an open community for everyone, and I appreciate you and everyone else being here.
Well I’m glad you’re content with what you put out. I suppose that’s what’s really important.
The fact that the truck signifies an attention-seeking bigot’s ideology might elude you, but it doesn’t elude those of us who have been hurt by that ideology. I’m glad you’re lucky enough to not have to consider that.
It’s all about the reader here at The Autopian. We’re reader-focused. And obviously, in this case, you can’t win — it’s too polarizing a truck. I can just be honest, and I’m glad so many folks enjoyed this piece, even that doesn’t include you.
I’ll ignore the dig (obviously I considered Musk being controversial, which is why I mentioned it in the piece), but I’ll just say: I’m glad you’re here, and have a great day!
(a sad, far-too-common sight in a city that is failing many of its citizens).
California has spent 20 Billion dollars through 2024 on this. I’d say look at how that’s managed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/us/california-homeless-spending/index.html
If the Cybertruck was just a low-production oddity like the Hummer EV, it would be cool (which is weird to say for someone who strongly remembers FUH2.com). But at this point, it’s impossible to separate any Tesla from the baggage of wish.com Tony Stark and his legion of fans who would devote their lives to getting him to bottle his sweat if they ever saw the Husk Musk bit from Kids In The Hall.
I’ll admit, I don’t hate the styling – it’s very blatantly aping the DeLorean. But even then, it’s watered down and compromised from the concept version, bulkier in the name of (presumably) packaging and normal sensible constraints. And it’s not like The Tesla Way is to do things differently for odd but logical reasons (like Saab), it’s just barreling stupidly tech-forward and insisting you’re a moron if you can’t appreciate the genius behind obvious cost-cutting.
I feel bad because this is a great thinkpiece from David, but all I can think about is how I would very much like to hear an unhoused person’s opinions on the correct term for their living situation.
The housing crisis that many people are experiencing will not be solved by performative empty gestures to mollify our perception of reality. I remain unconvinced that “unhoused” is more dignified than “homeless”.
There’s an intangible dignity to having place of your own where you receive mail, guests, comfort, & safety. People in mansions get to act superior to people in single homes, who get to look down on people in row homes, who thank god they don’t live in apartment, where people wish they could afford to live in a van down by the river-with the other vanlifers cosplaying as…the “unhoused”. That is a crude, hyperbolic summary, I know, but it’s the best way I can think to express my point. The more relatively humble and spartan your accommodations, the less dignity you’re inferred socially(no matter how much you spent on it).
In 10-20 years, when “unhoused” has replaced completely “homeless”, won’t it have the same emotional impact as being labeled “homeless”? Are we just gonna keep changing terms and NOT solving the problem? It makes me want to keep using the word “homeless” just to force a conversation where people can confront the apparent impotence of their virtue signaling. If you really wanna dignify the homeless, why not call them the “untaxed”?
I don’t think you should let that term bother you. It’s just what what many folks prefer to use these days, but what’s more important is work that IS being done. My parter is involved with The People Concern and Downtown Women’s Center; check those out and donate!
Hat’s off to your partner-nothing but respect for people who do more than talk.
Also, with 360+ comments, I was comfortable shouting into the void. I’m tickled pink you actually replied!
It’s funny a lot of people who always complain about freedom aren’t allowing some eccentric billionaire designing and building a car/truck/cartruck he wants.
If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Get over it. It feels like a prolonged 2 season episode of the Cardashians.
I can just about see your point that setting out to build something ugly and dumb and actually getting it built is an accomplishment.
I like having dumb and/or ugly cars on the road (your PT Cruisers, Azteks and such). I wouldn’t personally want one, but their existence keeps things interesting. The difference is that I’m not convinced this thing is safe to drive. Even in this course of this review David ran into a car and nearly some pedestrians. Ugly and dumb is okay, but purposefully making a car less safe to keep it ugly and dumb is less okay.
Not gonna lie, the Cybertruck is stupid as hell. But that’s also what makes it way cool. There’s no way a legacy automaker would have ever sold these so a big bravo to Tesla for actually doing it.
What brings this vehicle down for me is the shoddy build quality. Have some pride in your product!
Most of other UX issues definitely seem like the Tesla experience, so you’re either going to love it or hate it. I’d fall into the hate it camp and Musk aside, I’d be looking at other vehicles. Except none of them are Cybertrucks. And part of the reason to buy a vehicle that pricey is to make a statement.
Holly crap, that’s a lot of comments!
The article makes a very good point. I dislike the CT but I respect its uniqueness and the guts it took to manufacture it. Anything that isn’t another bobby CUV on the roads is a win.
No one should get insulted over this though, and thankfully I didn’t see much hate in the comments here, but boy, do people suck on twitter.
It took me all the way up to last night to see my first Cybertruck, so I can’t really make any firsthand comment on it. I do find it ridiculous, but I respect and possibly admire Tesla for making a vehicle that makes everyone say, “I didn’t think they’d actually build that.” If the design of everything else sits in a sort of cloud with axes of arbitrary design values, this one sits way out in space by itself. I understand the point that David wants to make about maintaining the, so to speak, purity of design intent, and as far as that goes I can tentatively accept it. But I think that his comparison with a Wrangler underscores a weakness in the argument that everything must be the way it is to maintain its Cybertruck-ness. The Wrangler’s Wranglerness is a product of many decades of Jeeps that evolved within a particular domain but in a clear direction towards a clear result. But the Cybertruck emerged largely ex nihilo – Cybertruckness did not exist before it. So many (if not nearly all) of the poor design decisions could have been avoided with little affect on the overall impact of the truck. I find it daring and it’s certainly radical, but it can’t avoid being bad design.
I am indifferent on the Cybertruck. Yes I think its hideous. Yes they are outrageous looking. But you can’t take your eyes off them and they start a conversation (for better or worse).
But you’re write up reminded me of a mantra I used to tell friends back in the day when we were all trying to find our significant others.
“You don’t love the person for what you love about them, you love them for what makes you mad and crazy.”
Its easy to be in love with something you love. But when that thing makes you crazy or mad or infuriated and you can live with that, then thats probably love.
Or in the case of the Cybertruck, you’re probably just mad and crazy.
I agree and I love Tesla’s commitment to the bit, and that’s a great call out. I do worry a bit more that the Autopian is leaning so hard into “weird is good” that it’s now universally praising purposeless Cybertrucks, crappy Sebring convertibles, cynical-retro Thunderbirds, ugly Azteks, etc.
Everyone has their own kink around cars, and that’s a wonderful thing to celebrate, but when are we only being contrarian for contrarians’ sake? Some cars and trucks are legit bad and that’s ok too!
Just because they meant to do it doesn’t make it cool.
If I design a drinking glass with a hole in the bottom, then make that glass, it’s still not a cool glass. Executing a flawed design is either art or a waste of time.
Interesting review. It’s a viewpoint/take/approach that makes it
convenient (wrong word?)possible for those that may not be a huge fan of this vehicle or Musk, and allow them to actually appreciate this vehicle.Some souls are rotten to the core. That unhoused man was right.
There is no way to separate the art from the artist on this one. The Cybertruck is the unhinged vision of an unrepentant bigot who is actively making the world a worse place for marginalized groups through the promotion of hateful and horrifying views. There’s no way to divorce this truck from the extremely divorced guy whose ownership of Twitter has turned it into a cesspit that amplifies outright hate speech. It’s his car-baby, and greenlighting this wasteful pile of bolts ahead of an inexpensive EV that could’ve gone far further to clean up emissions on the road is an act of pure hubris.
So long as Elon promotes hate of everyone from trans folks to people of color, hating on the Cybertruck is the only appropriate reaction to it.
Worse yet, the flaws on this one are downright egregious. It was delivered late, didn’t live up to its initial promises (range, for example, being a big one) and has flaws like those razor-sharp panel edges, poor build quality and awful user interface that are actually dangerous. Reaching into a trunk/bed should not cause injury. These are not cool things under any objective measure and should not be celebrated as such.
Are there some interesting technical aspects of it? Sure. Tesla has long been a brilliant company in need of an adult in charge. I usually appreciate it when automakers do something different and interesting, too. However, cars have context, and you can’t simply pluck this one out and look at it as just another object created by just another company. It’s not.
Buying one of these in 2024 — with Elon going full mask-off about his most objectionable views lately — is a choice, and it’s not a good one. It’s actively enriching (to an absurd degree, if the recent shareholder vote holds up) someone who’s a horrible influence on society at large.
Hate on, haters: you’re right.
Welcome Back, My Friends, to the show that never ends. The Lancia Stratos is undeniably cool, and soulful. This CT is as soulless as a commercial freezer, well a commercial freezer may have pointy corners, but would be recalled if released with flesh cutting edges. Suspect this program was predominantly Musk directed in keeping with his vision. Unfortunately, I perceive his vision as dystopian, and something has gone awry with his brain salad surgery.
Aces for the double ELP call out.
That song came to mind as considering a dystopian future of computers taking over.
On the theme… anyone name their CT Tarkus?
If I wanted to avoid the true wrath of Tesla/Musk fanboys, e.g.:
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2021/04/04/tesla-owner-reports-threats-praising-ford-mustang-mach-e-elon-musk-sergio-rodriguez/7076886002/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-its-like-when-elon-musks-twitter-mob-comes-after-you
While cynically maximizing the view and comments on an article.
This is also the audience-trolling article I would write about the Cybertruck.
Yeah, no. Some amazing engineering in a terrible package. I actually like that this is so out there but the execution is pure shite.
David, this is a long long article that I read in one sitting. Bravo!
I agree with you that the Cybertruck is a very unique and interesting car, but I don’t think this necessarily translates to it being a good car.
We car enthusiasts love to complain about the sameness of cars and the ubiquitousness of SUVs, and even though this is from another tired category (trucks), it is a breadth of new air on car design. This is one of those cars that is referred by name, always – no one will say I have a car or I have a truck – for better or for worse, they will have a Cybertruck. The car is, by itself, very cool.
But coolness is subjective, and goes beyond the thing itself. The CT is unfortunately made by a company that I’m starting to dislike more and more, and this put a damper on my appreciation for it. Brand matters, and Tesla right now is giving me almost Facebook levels of repulsion.
Besides, even discounting the toxicity of Elon and his Musketeers, I doubt I would own one. I’m sort of happy it exists, but the compromises + cost (of getting one, of keeping one etc) by far outweigh the coolness I perceive. But hey, if there’s someone to whom money and Musk aren’t an issue, sure, why not, go for it, and I’m grown up enough to let them enjoy their car!
tl,dr: (car coolness – brand toxicity)/(compromises + cost) < 1 , but I’m not here to judge!
Rafael, I agree; I don’t think it’s necessarily “good,” but I think it’s cool. That’s just my opinion!
A significant amount of $ goes in Musk’s pocket for every Chubbachuck sold. If enriching a far-right antisemite sociopath man-child is okay with you, great. For me, no scenario exists where I need a “low polygon count brutalist machine” that’s a rolling billboard for my own inadequacies, especially given who it profits.
My Jewish יַשׁבָן won’t ever be seen in one as long as there’s literally any other car or truck available.
I don’t know where people get this idea that Cybertrucks are remotely profitable this early in production, or that they will ever become especially profitable.
Tesla’s other vehicles aren’t, and I think the Cybertruck is going to be significantly worse in that regard. You know Elon didn’t make basically any of his fortune from selling cars, right? He made it on PayPal, rockets, and by owning an overhauled car company.
Do you realize Tesla is a publicly traded company? Even if the Chubbachuck fails to turn a profit, the world is full of credulous dunces looking at them and thinking, “I gotta buy TSLA,” aka Musk’s primary piggy bank. FFS, look at his unearned $56 Billion Tesla pay package. It’s barking obscene.
Pro-tip: being a Musk apologist isn’t a good look.
https://www.bankrate.com/investing/musk-pay-package-approved/
Excellent comment, especially with the mathematical equation 🙂
As for the design itself, it’s perhaps almost objectively (ha) possible to say that it is in fact cool but it could be said that the design is not cool because it’s actually not *sincere* as some of its intent was explicitly for trolling purposes.
Insincere =/= cool
Vehicles widely derided as ugly at launch such as the Pontiac Aztek and the first reiteration of the Fiat Multipla have since acquired some degree of coolness in part because their designs were legitimately sincere, even if some of it might have been by committee, and not created in order to troll people.
Fully agree. Great design comes from an honest desire to make a good product.
The Wrangler, for example, is designed for the best off-roading performance and usability.
The chunky fenders, separate bumpers and funky hood latches serve to enable easy repair and modification. The doors and windshield come off so you can enjoy the outdoors, the tailgate is flat so you can hang a variety of full-size spares on it, everything that makes it quirky serves the mission statement.
Meanwhile, the Cybertruck has three goals: To be angular, stainless and yoke-steered, and most of the six-figure price is comprised of engineering solutions that had to be implemented just to make those counterproductive features work.
Time and money were spent on steer by wire to make the yoke work, making geometric rubber-edged hubcaps that later had to be scrapped, chasing stamping tolerances on the stainless panels, and almost all of it makes it worse to live with.
The price was so inflated by the cost of aesthetics that they had to slash everything else just to mitigate that, and the interior, where a buyer would spend most of their time, suffers the most.
The main tangible advantage the CT has over its competition is road performance (in Cyberbeast trim). By now, quick acceleration and flat cornering are expected of skateboard electrics, and the existing drivetrain architecture delivers on those metrics despite the body’s construction, not because of it.
It compromises its function as a truck, as an EV, as a luxury vehicle and even its manufacturability just for the faux-utilitarian, deliberately-polarizing look. I could respect that, if it was at least pretty.
This. You hit the nail on the head with this. AND, with that said, all of the flaws could have been fixed, and this would have still been true, along with all of David’s other arguments.
I’m still working on a “one weird truck and [group] [verbs] [someone]”, but no, matter what I come up, it touches something poisoned on the Internet. Why couldn’t this car been a Chrysler pet project from Sergio Macchione’s era? Or even a cheating Ferdnand Piech’s pet. Hell, I would’ve taken Carlos Ghosn and his suitcase.
Good lord, imagine a version of this for each of those… The Bishop should work on that, complete with a smuggling compartment to carry CEOs.
“Hell, I would’ve taken Carlos Ghosn and his suitcase.”
Wasn’t it a musical instrument case or an audio equipment container or something like that? If so, then it’d be a good opportunity for a tie-in à la VW and their guitars https://www.theautopian.com/for-three-short-months-volkswagen-was-serious-about-selling-guitars/
This comment section feels like a war one, but I’ll still offer my take about what this made me think.
As a fellow engineer, I think most of us that took that path reached the point where in our studies having the right answer was not enough, it was about finding the right answer through the correct process. In a lot of ways I find this article making an argument for defending the process, and I thought that argument was compelling. It’s something I have to routinely deal with in production environments, do we have the correct process in place, is the process generating the results we want, and if not, is the process flawed or did we just get a statistically unlikely result when we started the ramp up to full production?
But at the end of the day, no matter how we choose to define our process, we’re still required to have the right answer when we’re done. I feel that objectively that vehicle is a “wrong” answer for the vast majority of the automotive public. One could argue how often the rest of the Tesla lineup is the “right” answer, but they’re all vehicles that have much broader appeal than this one. I can’t tell you what the thing is this vehicle does well compared to the larger auto market, and I still think that’s fundamentally a problem, even if it can find a niche set of buyers that don’t really care. And I say this as someone that has weird enough taste in automobiles to hang out here.
But then again I didn’t see any reason why anyone should ever buy the original Toyota Venza, and one could argue that combined set of features that car pulled together set the stage for what dominates the auto market now, so we all miss the mark sometimes.
Well put. I’m not convinced that it is the “right” answer either, nor that it will keep selling once the buzz has worn off and the initial reservation owners get their vehicles. But I DO think it’s cool.
Based on the vitriol hurled my way in the past day or so, there’s clearly lots of pressure on journalists to hate the Cybertruck. As such, this article should make it clear to everyone that, here at The Autopian, we call it like we see it! Even if that means we have to deal with some insults!
(Also, by the look at some of these comments, you’d think I’m the only one who thinks the car is cool, but I just saw Doug’s review. This means it’s possible that I haven’t gone mad!)
The Cybertruck is like a custom car or balut. It’s made for very specific tastes, and those who have those specific tastes are gonna LOVE it.
The downside to that is it is going to provoke an equally strong reaction from people who do NOT share those very specific tastes.
David, I’m sure some of the response is because there are people have taken a Powerstroke/Cummins, Ford/Holden type approach to this and have turned the discussion around the truck into a mud-slinging contest but much of the response has to do with what it means to call something “cool” and whether that involves zooming out to the bigger context. To me, you have to zoom out to decide whether something is cool because cool is relative.
And so because whether something is cool is relative, it’s worth considering — if the CT really is cool, what would be enough to overcome the purported allure of the “no compromises” approach to the development process?
Because people in here have laid out many reasons to look at what you’re impressed by in light of the cultural context surrounding the thing and they’ve decided that Musk and everything he personally represents simply outweighs whatever is remarkable about the CT and the way it went from concept to production car.
My impression is the people who have negative reactions to it tend to (not universally) have very pronounced, emotional reactions because they also conflate their view of Elon with the execution of the design. As if Elon himself were personally working on it and not thousands of engineers making compromises and microdecisions of their own.
I agree with the core philosophy of the article and of the Cybertruck, in so far as it’s as raw and first-shot-out-of-the-still as they could make it.
Now, as to whether a more conventional looking F-150 Lightning competitor could have sold better, looked better, been less divisive, and more functional…… well, we’re past that point already.
I’ll still buy one in 26 years out of someone’s back yard for $1650 Bezos-Bucks™ no matter what. And weld some door handles to it.
it may or may not be the future..if it is, I’m glad I won’t be here to see it.
Well, to be blunt it’s because most journalists are left-wing, and there is great pressure to stick to the left-wing hivemind, which has currently decided Elon Musk is a right-wing target of highest priority (funny how the timing coincided with his purchase of their favorite social media clubhouse). Accordingly, all his works must be cast as evil, because nothing good can ever come from a right winger, they are only pure evil.
But anyway, thanks for writing the article, as you say it’s becoming more and more uncommon to see actual discussion of Teslas that focus on their merits as vehicles, especially with such nuance as this article.
The Cybertruck is plain terrible. How could it not be? Lacking a Jatco CVT… no wonder it gets terrible range.
cars are more than vision and execution. they’re also about context.
it may be true that this thing manages to look like the thing they showed a few years back. it may be true that you can use it to transport people and some large objects. it may be true that challenging car design assumptions and norms is a worthwhile goal. but all of these are not the sum total of what a car is, or more importantly, what it means.
just like how the clothes you choose to wear and when you wear them and how, as well as the ways they are marketed to you, have meaning about who you are and the version of yourself you want others to see, this car says a LOT about who made it and who drives it.
Some of the things that outside observers might glean from seeing someone in one of these are that they are interested in challenging norms and orthodoxies regarding what cars should look like, what they should be capable of, and who drives electric cars. That’s all real. But it’s not the whole story.
The drawbacks and costs to driving one of these (risk related to poor visibility, maintenance costs, very real injuries caused by using the truck as it purportedly is meant to be used (see above)) show what people are willing to do to associate themselves with this truck and what it symbolizes. They are incurring very real costs to be seen driving these things.
If you’re working from the assumption that those costs are being incurred by drivers and are properly offset by the goal of challenging those norms and orthodoxies, I think you’ll struggle to find a way to justify them that doesn’t beg the question of what else the truck must represent in its drivers’ minds. You can challenge design norms with an EV6 or a Taycan or something. Or an old Citroen or Saab. That makes the statement about what cars should be and what boundaries can be pushed. So if your choice is one of these, it has to be about something else.
It’s not hard to see how the angular shape, bare metal exterior, and massive size convey more than just unorthodoxy. They clearly are images people want to associate with themselves when they decide to buy one of these andthey fit clearly into the ways we read the choices of people to drive lots of other kinds of cars. It’s not controversial to point out that there is something psychological going on for people who daily-drive 2.5-ton trucks to their office, to the gym, and home all by themselves. The costs of their behavior to the world around them are material and measurable. pedestrian safety, emissions, fuel economy, road wear… they’re all costs that someone who drives one of those trucks has decided are worth it versus the personal benefit he services from driving it.
All of those things are true about this thing, in addition to the costs associated with the stainless steel, the poor build quality, the visibility compromises, the ergonomic chaos in the cabin, and more. But even then, it’s not the end of what driving one of these implies about the driver.
It’s also not controversial to point out that when you buy a product, there is a clear connection between what you laid out for the product and the bottom line of the major stakeholders in its manufacturer. It might be a drop in the bucket, but the connection is there. I’m not going to go into everything that makes those stakeholders in this context reprehensible but theway that Elon is doing irreversible damage to free and fair communication, flouting regulations designed to protect workers and the environment is all in there.
At most charitable, Musk stands for disruption as an inherent virtue. and that is a *very* charitable read given the way he has forced his way into conversations that have very real implications for countless vulnerable groups. He has personally targeted trans people, black and brown people, jews, women, etc. and his purchase and “disruption” of twitter has compounded that impact by refusing to moderate conversation or implement any trust and safety features and by boosting and compensating some of the most virulent bigots on there. He wants you to see those changes as disruption, just like how the CT has “disrupted” EVs and pickups. He wants you and everyone to see that disruption as a unified concept to craft a cult of personality around himself. And so it is not unreasonable to say that he himself intends for this truck, “built against all odds,” to be a signifier of the ethos that ties all of these projects together. And so who the CT driver supports and what the CT represents as a symbol of Tesla and Musk and what they stand for is even more true for this than any other controversial vehicle.
You can tell that he wants the CT to have this kind of impact on people who see them because of the way Tesla markets. Remember, this company does not advertise on normal channels. They are banking on the impression their cars make and the reputation that coalesces around them to be a primary driver of sales.
And so, given that we know that Musk’s cult of personality is tied into a xenophobic, cruel, and fundamentally malicious worldview and that the CT is intended to symbolize that worldview, it should be clear that it is not and should not be described as “cool.” If you do, you’re doing the work of laundering his actions for him and you should consider the impact that has.
Can anyone who still feels the need to blame pedestrians for getting hit by cars please take that shit back to Twitter?
This is arguably one of the most important pieces of automotive journalism this year and you absolutely nailed it, DT. For the record, fuck Elon and this is a dumb vehicle, but the world doesn’t need any more CT reviews that are so preoccupied with the former that they fail to present the latter in a way we haven’t heard before. You’re right — the fact that something so bizarre and ill-conceived unconventional made it to production is pretty incredible in this day and age. An unholy union of some of the coolest and most shameful engineering that can be found in a production vehicle. Thank you for always embracing the spirit of technical absurdity, and sorry for the hate you’re getting — most of us know that praising the ride quality of the CT isn’t an endorsement of the terrible things that the big guy has signal-boosted.
Much appreciated!
Don’t worry about the hate; I can handle it. I’ve been calling it like I see it for years, even when it’s not popular. And with that comes criticism.
But is a story that generates this much hate the one to leave *all* those license plates unconcealed?
License plates are in plain view all day every day everywhere.
Most to all of doxing is aggregation of available information, still sucks.
Who’s being doxed? I really don’t understand the concern.
That’s the thing that bugs me the most about the general theme of the responses. They jump too hard to nitpicking the “flaws” as they see them and missed the point DT was trying to make, then attack him for making those points.
Basically every vehicle these days is an edgy egg-shaped CUV because they’re all designed by committees and watered down to homeopathic levels. Whatever deviates from that is subject to reactionary criticism, justified or not. I’d rather see more stupid level deviation than every nameplate having to have a full line card of subcompact, compact, mid-size, and full size CUVs.
The issue is that if you want to see more radical departures from the norm in the future, then the present radical departures need to be seen as a success by decision-makers. I think it’s fair to argue whether the Cybertruck is a successful product precisely because it’s level of success/failure has a significant amount of power in shifting the Overton window of “acceptable products” in OEM product planning offices.
Yep entirely fair. In another comment I lamented that they could have made a More Edgy F-150 Lightning and it likely would have sold better, been more functional, been less divisive, etc. and still could have been 420eDgYkid69. A couple of real cybertrucks could have been hand-built as PR machines.
That’s the thing; it doesn’t have be an edgy lightning. I think the underlying assumptions that lead to this version of the cybertruck were flawed from the beginning. Why couldn’t Tesla have made an EV Kei truck adapted for the US market? In fact, it seems like that’s what the designers were pushing form if you look at the last slide on this Instagram post:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C0jJJzziWdo/?img_index=1
Here is the thing though – what about the opportunity costs – yes there is some good engineering put into this thing, but for no obvious user segment or application. If you had $5 to $10 Billion to spend to develop one truck, should it be this truck?? It crowds out what could have been something great. If only they had taken Rich & Simone’s Truckla and productized it, they would have gotten to market years earlier and for much less cash and then the profits could funded this vanity project once they had something in this market category. If I were a shareholder I would be righteously pissed off, but apparently the shareholders….
This is probably the most cogent write up of the Cybertruck I’ve ever read. It celebrates it for what it is, while recognizing its compromises (and sacrifices) for what they are.
Ten years from now, this will probably be “the book” on the first gen ( I’m assuming there will eventually be a second?) CT. Sometimes it just takes a while for the lovers and the haters to recognize the realities.
David, you’re ahead of your time.