Title is pretty literal. It's a picture of a truck and some people with basically no new info from what I can see. Still no price and no date, and I'm still unsure if this thing is even road legal...
Title is pretty literal. It's a picture of a truck and some people with basically no new info from what I can see. Still no price and no date, and I'm still unsure if this thing is even road legal in a lot of jurisdictions. It does still look the same, so there's that.
Also the jaded skeptic in me finds it convenient that all the employee's cover the majority of the truck. Really have to wonder if that's on purpose to hide some stuff. I doubt it because all it takes is one person leaking...but still. At this point I wouldn't put it past him.
I'm really not comfortable with how much they push against design regulations, which were written in blood. It's a constant revolving door of things that were solved problems, which they've...
I'm really not comfortable with how much they push against design regulations, which were written in blood. It's a constant revolving door of things that were solved problems, which they've decided to omit or replace with hilariously inferior substitutes.
"Magic" windshield wipers that can only be controlled through a mess of touch screen menus.
Hoods that pop open because they lack the latch system every car without a front trunk uses.
Potentially dangerous back seats that could trap children (complicated ways to open the door from inside without power and exterior handles that require power to pop out).
Stated goals to remove the indicator stalk and have the car "guess" (their words).
Renders of a vaporware car with no side mirrors.
Touch screen controls in general, which they pushed hard. They should be squarely illegal, just like having your phone in hand while driving.
Inflicting a questionable beta test of self-driving functionality on the public at large, putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk.
Their cavalier attitude toward safety is met with a collective shrug, in stark contrast to the congressional hearings and NHTSA/NASA joint investigation into Toyota over allegations (which the investigation failed to substantiate) of a handful of unintended acceleration issues.
Tesla does so much stupid design decisions. That's the main reason why I didn't consider buying one. They've made the only car I've ever seen where a frayed wire might make you unable to open the...
Tesla does so much stupid design decisions. That's the main reason why I didn't consider buying one. They've made the only car I've ever seen where a frayed wire might make you unable to open the frickin' doors.
Initially I thought it would remain a concept car, using something like these holographic lookingglass displays and the various cameras to provide a 3d scene of the vehicle and everything around...
Renders of a vaporware car with no side mirrors
Initially I thought it would remain a concept car, using something like these holographic lookingglass displays and the various cameras to provide a 3d scene of the vehicle and everything around it, on the dash.
We probably have all the technology required. But they don't seem to be doing anything that interesting.
Because- It's not really been tested to see if it's too distracting and how reliable it is. It's hard for a mirror to break when compared to some complicated electrical device. Losing your mirrors...
Because-
It's not really been tested to see if it's too distracting and how reliable it is. It's hard for a mirror to break when compared to some complicated electrical device. Losing your mirrors on the road would be dangerous, and almost certainly easier in a more complex system.
I'm 80% certain it would not work in all light. Holographs are really really cool until you realize that it just doesn't work in all lighting, much like any other projector. Not being able to see your HUD is going to be problem. Glare is bad enough at certain hours, imagine if it got rid of your mirrors too. To devil's advocate myself, I'm pretty sure fighter jets have screwed around with projected HUD's or something like that, but I'm super unclear on the details there.
It's absurdly expensive in comparison to current tech. Maybe in some super car that's going for $250k+ where it breaking and having to be fixed by the dealer for 100x the price of a normal mirror would make sense, but anything less than that and it'll feel like a serious increase in cost for questionable benefit. God knows there's tech chasers who'd buy it just because, so there's certainly a market for that, but combined with the other issues there's not really a reason to jump through all the regulatory hoops.
Logistics. We have massive factories that mass produce cars. You're probably complicating the process a LOT here. It's not just a new body style, which they've gotten pretty good at adjusting for (and is still hyper expensive). This is a whole new process, so again you're looking at super car's only first.
Edit-
And to be fair, looking glass does seem to be miles ahead of where the tech was even 5 years ago. I'll have to look into it more. Interesting stuff.
To give a little pushback as a long time owner, some of these are more true than others. There is a button on the stalk (in the 3 and Y, anyway) that activates the windshield wipers and brings up...
To give a little pushback as a long time owner, some of these are more true than others.
"Magic" windshield wipers that can only be controlled through a mess of touch screen menus.
There is a button on the stalk (in the 3 and Y, anyway) that activates the windshield wipers and brings up the menu to change their settings. Within the last few months they added the combo ability to press the stalk button and the scroll button on the steering wheel to change the wiper settings; no touchscreen needed.
Hoods that pop open because they lack the latch system every car without a front trunk uses.
I'm not really sure what this means. There's a button on the touchscreen when the car is in park that opens the frunk/trunk? Or you can via the app on a smartphone.
Potentially dangerous back seats that could trap children (complicated ways to open the door from inside without power and exterior handles that require power to pop out).
The 3 does indeed lack a way to mechanically open the doors without prying part of the door away. It's weird and I don't know why they did that. It's weird but I don't think it's been an issue that has actually lead to detrimental outcomes.
Stated goals to remove the indicator stalk and have the car "guess" (their words).
They kind of did this on the S and X with the whole "the car knows if you want to go fwd or reverse for gear shifts" and I think it sucks, but I don't know, never will own one of those.
Renders of a vaporware car with no side mirrors.
It's just a render and maybe the tech will be there one day? I don't really see a problem with this, there have also been renders of cars with no steering wheels as they would drive themselves.
Touch screen controls in general, which they pushed hard. They should be squarely illegal, just like having your phone in hand while driving.
Between the contextual scroll wheels (which are amazing) and voice commands, I rarely, if ever, interact with the touchscreen while actually driving. I really think this is a non-issue.
Inflicting a questionable beta test of self-driving functionality on the public at large, putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk.
This is terrible and I really wish the NHTSA or someone would step in and do something about it.
I would hardly call some of the safest cars ever made "cavalier" regarding safety, but they can certainly improve in some areas.
In the 4 years they've announced it, I'm pretty sure the Ford F150 Lightning was announced and released, and I'm pretty sure the Rivian also had a much quicker turnaround time. (citation needed)....
In the 4 years they've announced it, I'm pretty sure the Ford F150 Lightning was announced and released, and I'm pretty sure the Rivian also had a much quicker turnaround time. (citation needed). I was also initially interested in the idea of a Cybertruck, but like you, faith in Tesla took a nosedive and the existing options were already pretty cool as is. I ended up not getting an electric truck at all, opting for a Polestar 2, but eventually I'd probably want to get one in the future.
Agreed, i was actually really interested in the truck if they could have delivered it at the price point they said (~50k), though now I suspect I won't be lower than 85k. I was willing to hold my...
Agreed, i was actually really interested in the truck if they could have delivered it at the price point they said (~50k), though now I suspect I won't be lower than 85k. I was willing to hold my nose and pay Musk. Now the only way Tesla gets money from me is if Musk were totally divested of the company.
I was extremely interested when it was announced because DeLorean pickup pruck 80's feverdream is my style and threw an interest free $100 loan at Tesla to get my spot for a top end model. Since...
I was mildly interested in it when it was announced, but since then my opinion of and faith in Tesla has dive bombed since then so it's a big nope for me. Most others I knew who were interested in it back then have forgotten about it.
I was extremely interested when it was announced because DeLorean pickup pruck 80's feverdream is my style and threw an interest free $100 loan at Tesla to get my spot for a top end model. Since then, Tesla and Musk-y have nosedived in multiple ways and I await the call for my spot in line so I can get my $100 back with full details in the comment box about why I'm not giving them any money. So I'm looking at a Hyundai Ioniq 5N for that retrofuture EV purchase.
This article is pretty worthless but I find the discussion around the Cybertruck entertaining. The conspiracy theory that the truck doesn't exist is hilarious and insane. Heck the first main...
This article is pretty worthless but I find the discussion around the Cybertruck entertaining.
The conspiracy theory that the truck doesn't exist is hilarious and insane. Heck the first main comment on this article leans into that conspiracy theory.
I own a Tesla and enjoy following the company (Elon going full Nazi has made that enjoyment harder and harder). I hated the Cybertruck st first but the look has grown on me and it's probably what Tesla needed to do to disrupt a market with the most loyal shoppings in the auto industry.
Tesla is such a weird company. They make awesome cars that are some of the safest in the world, but then make terrible decisions like publicly testing self driving software. One moment I love my car, the next I am screaming at whatever idiot decided the current auto-wipers are acceptable or that vision only was a good idea.
But then they have the biggest and best charging network and the Tesla plug is better than CCS.
This is such a weird framing for the entire discussion. The way that car safety tests are measured is force after impact. Teslas reduce the impact to passenger the most in a lot of the test (not...
This is such a weird framing for the entire discussion.
The way that car safety tests are measured is force after impact. Teslas reduce the impact to passenger the most in a lot of the test (not all; though they are a top performer across the metrics). There really isn't any other definition of safety in crash tests. That's their purpose and what they measure. The car in which you'd feel the least force from a colliding vehicle is the safest.
The rest of it is a whole other category for which tons of car makers would (and probably should) get penalized for bad design and idiot owners. But still, that's not, so it's weird to pretend that Tesla would be the only one penalized in such a paradigm.
Lastly, on your link, the Feds are mad because they don't want to create a single metric and they don't "endorse" individual makers like that. But that doesn't change the fact that the data supports that Tesla reduces forces the most on average.
And this from someone that hates Musk, will likely never own a Tesla, and wishes people weren't so obsessed with all of this crap.
I think my main safety concern with Teslas are that they are not aggressive enough at taking over to stop if the driver is doing something dangerous. FSD should really kick-in and disengage manual...
I think my main safety concern with Teslas are that they are not aggressive enough at taking over to stop if the driver is doing something dangerous.
FSD should really kick-in and disengage manual driving when it senses the driver is going right into a guardrail or is flooring it in a busy street.
People who buy F150s are the most loyal car buyers in North America. I don't think they were ever going to buy a Tesla truck so I'm not sure that matters, especially while Ford cannot build the...
People who buy F150s are the most loyal car buyers in North America. I don't think they were ever going to buy a Tesla truck so I'm not sure that matters, especially while Ford cannot build the Lightning at a significant enough volume to matter.
What are the sources on those photos? Just a guess, but doubting that a guy that sells drawings of naked devil women and a comedian were invited to the photo-op of the first production truck.
What are the sources on those photos? Just a guess, but doubting that a guy that sells drawings of naked devil women and a comedian were invited to the photo-op of the first production truck.
https://youtu.be/LdDMiMiuq8M?t=59 There was an event at the Petersen Automotive Museum in LA. The pillars in the background of one of the photos appear to be a match for that. This is a prototype...
There was an event at the Petersen Automotive Museum in LA. The pillars in the background of one of the photos appear to be a match for that. This is a prototype vehicle.
Thanks for that. It's still not a good look for them to let people up close on a clearly imperfect example back then, but acting like those are production photos is some obvious BS. I don't like...
Thanks for that. It's still not a good look for them to let people up close on a clearly imperfect example back then, but acting like those are production photos is some obvious BS.
I don't like ol' Musk-y any more than the next person with more than two braincells to rub together, but at least I don't mislead about why.
Title is pretty literal. It's a picture of a truck and some people with basically no new info from what I can see. Still no price and no date, and I'm still unsure if this thing is even road legal in a lot of jurisdictions. It does still look the same, so there's that.
Also the jaded skeptic in me finds it convenient that all the employee's cover the majority of the truck. Really have to wonder if that's on purpose to hide some stuff. I doubt it because all it takes is one person leaking...but still. At this point I wouldn't put it past him.
I'm really not comfortable with how much they push against design regulations, which were written in blood. It's a constant revolving door of things that were solved problems, which they've decided to omit or replace with hilariously inferior substitutes.
"Magic" windshield wipers that can only be controlled through a mess of touch screen menus.
Hoods that pop open because they lack the latch system every car without a front trunk uses.
Potentially dangerous back seats that could trap children (complicated ways to open the door from inside without power and exterior handles that require power to pop out).
Stated goals to remove the indicator stalk and have the car "guess" (their words).
Renders of a vaporware car with no side mirrors.
Touch screen controls in general, which they pushed hard. They should be squarely illegal, just like having your phone in hand while driving.
Inflicting a questionable beta test of self-driving functionality on the public at large, putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk.
Their cavalier attitude toward safety is met with a collective shrug, in stark contrast to the congressional hearings and NHTSA/NASA joint investigation into Toyota over allegations (which the investigation failed to substantiate) of a handful of unintended acceleration issues.
Tesla does so much stupid design decisions. That's the main reason why I didn't consider buying one. They've made the only car I've ever seen where a frayed wire might make you unable to open the frickin' doors.
Initially I thought it would remain a concept car, using something like these holographic lookingglass displays and the various cameras to provide a 3d scene of the vehicle and everything around it, on the dash.
We probably have all the technology required. But they don't seem to be doing anything that interesting.
Because-
It's not really been tested to see if it's too distracting and how reliable it is. It's hard for a mirror to break when compared to some complicated electrical device. Losing your mirrors on the road would be dangerous, and almost certainly easier in a more complex system.
I'm 80% certain it would not work in all light. Holographs are really really cool until you realize that it just doesn't work in all lighting, much like any other projector. Not being able to see your HUD is going to be problem. Glare is bad enough at certain hours, imagine if it got rid of your mirrors too. To devil's advocate myself, I'm pretty sure fighter jets have screwed around with projected HUD's or something like that, but I'm super unclear on the details there.
It's absurdly expensive in comparison to current tech. Maybe in some super car that's going for $250k+ where it breaking and having to be fixed by the dealer for 100x the price of a normal mirror would make sense, but anything less than that and it'll feel like a serious increase in cost for questionable benefit. God knows there's tech chasers who'd buy it just because, so there's certainly a market for that, but combined with the other issues there's not really a reason to jump through all the regulatory hoops.
Logistics. We have massive factories that mass produce cars. You're probably complicating the process a LOT here. It's not just a new body style, which they've gotten pretty good at adjusting for (and is still hyper expensive). This is a whole new process, so again you're looking at super car's only first.
Edit-
And to be fair, looking glass does seem to be miles ahead of where the tech was even 5 years ago. I'll have to look into it more. Interesting stuff.
To my credit, I did say as a concept car.
To give a little pushback as a long time owner, some of these are more true than others.
There is a button on the stalk (in the 3 and Y, anyway) that activates the windshield wipers and brings up the menu to change their settings. Within the last few months they added the combo ability to press the stalk button and the scroll button on the steering wheel to change the wiper settings; no touchscreen needed.
I'm not really sure what this means. There's a button on the touchscreen when the car is in park that opens the frunk/trunk? Or you can via the app on a smartphone.
The 3 does indeed lack a way to mechanically open the doors without prying part of the door away. It's weird and I don't know why they did that. It's weird but I don't think it's been an issue that has actually lead to detrimental outcomes.
They kind of did this on the S and X with the whole "the car knows if you want to go fwd or reverse for gear shifts" and I think it sucks, but I don't know, never will own one of those.
It's just a render and maybe the tech will be there one day? I don't really see a problem with this, there have also been renders of cars with no steering wheels as they would drive themselves.
Between the contextual scroll wheels (which are amazing) and voice commands, I rarely, if ever, interact with the touchscreen while actually driving. I really think this is a non-issue.
This is terrible and I really wish the NHTSA or someone would step in and do something about it.
I would hardly call some of the safest cars ever made "cavalier" regarding safety, but they can certainly improve in some areas.
In the 4 years they've announced it, I'm pretty sure the Ford F150 Lightning was announced and released, and I'm pretty sure the Rivian also had a much quicker turnaround time. (citation needed). I was also initially interested in the idea of a Cybertruck, but like you, faith in Tesla took a nosedive and the existing options were already pretty cool as is. I ended up not getting an electric truck at all, opting for a Polestar 2, but eventually I'd probably want to get one in the future.
Agreed, i was actually really interested in the truck if they could have delivered it at the price point they said (~50k), though now I suspect I won't be lower than 85k. I was willing to hold my nose and pay Musk. Now the only way Tesla gets money from me is if Musk were totally divested of the company.
I was extremely interested when it was announced because DeLorean pickup pruck 80's feverdream is my style and threw an interest free $100 loan at Tesla to get my spot for a top end model. Since then, Tesla and Musk-y have nosedived in multiple ways and I await the call for my spot in line so I can get my $100 back with full details in the comment box about why I'm not giving them any money. So I'm looking at a Hyundai Ioniq 5N for that retrofuture EV purchase.
I think you're missing that they've been driving these around for a while. They just finally made one in a different factory.
This article is pretty worthless but I find the discussion around the Cybertruck entertaining.
The conspiracy theory that the truck doesn't exist is hilarious and insane. Heck the first main comment on this article leans into that conspiracy theory.
I own a Tesla and enjoy following the company (Elon going full Nazi has made that enjoyment harder and harder). I hated the Cybertruck st first but the look has grown on me and it's probably what Tesla needed to do to disrupt a market with the most loyal shoppings in the auto industry.
Tesla is such a weird company. They make awesome cars that are some of the safest in the world, but then make terrible decisions like publicly testing self driving software. One moment I love my car, the next I am screaming at whatever idiot decided the current auto-wipers are acceptable or that vision only was a good idea.
But then they have the biggest and best charging network and the Tesla plug is better than CCS.
This is such a weird framing for the entire discussion.
The way that car safety tests are measured is force after impact. Teslas reduce the impact to passenger the most in a lot of the test (not all; though they are a top performer across the metrics). There really isn't any other definition of safety in crash tests. That's their purpose and what they measure. The car in which you'd feel the least force from a colliding vehicle is the safest.
The rest of it is a whole other category for which tons of car makers would (and probably should) get penalized for bad design and idiot owners. But still, that's not, so it's weird to pretend that Tesla would be the only one penalized in such a paradigm.
Lastly, on your link, the Feds are mad because they don't want to create a single metric and they don't "endorse" individual makers like that. But that doesn't change the fact that the data supports that Tesla reduces forces the most on average.
And this from someone that hates Musk, will likely never own a Tesla, and wishes people weren't so obsessed with all of this crap.
I think my main safety concern with Teslas are that they are not aggressive enough at taking over to stop if the driver is doing something dangerous.
FSD should really kick-in and disengage manual driving when it senses the driver is going right into a guardrail or is flooring it in a busy street.
People who buy F150s are the most loyal car buyers in North America. I don't think they were ever going to buy a Tesla truck so I'm not sure that matters, especially while Ford cannot build the Lightning at a significant enough volume to matter.
Do the bulletproof windows still smash when one throws a rock at them?
Need rockproof windows for that
What are the sources on those photos? Just a guess, but doubting that a guy that sells drawings of naked devil women and a comedian were invited to the photo-op of the first production truck.
https://youtu.be/LdDMiMiuq8M?t=59
There was an event at the Petersen Automotive Museum in LA. The pillars in the background of one of the photos appear to be a match for that. This is a prototype vehicle.
Thanks for that. It's still not a good look for them to let people up close on a clearly imperfect example back then, but acting like those are production photos is some obvious BS.
I don't like ol' Musk-y any more than the next person with more than two braincells to rub together, but at least I don't mislead about why.
This seems to be a prototype.