It's not like heavy trucks are a new thing. I wonder why these tires are any different from the rear tires on 3/4 ton and heavier trucks that are rated for 30,000 lb and higher trailering loads....
It's not like heavy trucks are a new thing. I wonder why these tires are any different from the rear tires on 3/4 ton and heavier trucks that are rated for 30,000 lb and higher trailering loads. These same trucks also have GVRWs in the 10,000-15,000 lb range. I'm sure plenty of these trucks drive a significant portion of their miles with heavy loads, especially the ones for commercial use.
I guess my question is, why hasn't this been an issue for all the rest of the very heavy passenger trucks that have been on the road for decades, and yet it is an issue for the cyber truck?
My guess is lead footed drivers. EVs deliver a ton of instant torque, so spinning your wheels that hard on a 7k pound vehicle is gonna wear them out fast. The driver in the interview says he never...
My guess is lead footed drivers. EVs deliver a ton of instant torque, so spinning your wheels that hard on a 7k pound vehicle is gonna wear them out fast. The driver in the interview says he never hits top speed, but the speed isn’t what matters, it’s how hard he’s slamming the gas pedal when he’s going. If his city driving involves gunning it from stop sign to stop sign that’s gonna wear his treads out fast.
Though, TBH, it’s kind of silly for EVs to be tuned for that sort of acceleration in the first place. There’s no safe or street-legal contexts to ever use it, so you’re basically inviting lawbreaking by allowing them to hit the market. I’d be okay with people doing after market shit to unlock the performance but it shouldn’t come stock from the dealer.
Yeah, it’s shitty driving. But it’s shitty driving on top of the extremely heavy car on top of it. The thing is that the cybertruck is a very “dense” vehicle. It’s short and low to the ground but...
Yeah, it’s shitty driving. But it’s shitty driving on top of the extremely heavy car on top of it. The thing is that the cybertruck is a very “dense” vehicle. It’s short and low to the ground but it has the weight of a giant beast of a truck, so people drive them like sports cars.
I agree with you about how stupid tuning EVs for high-torque driving is. I regularly spin the wheels on my Bolt when I try to turn into traffic simply because the acceleration curves are so aggressive. Making things worse is that the “low gear” driving mode is not the default; you have to push the knob to drive mode twice to get into it. Even then I still have to really baby that acceleration pedal; I probably only need one centimeter of the throw for most street driving scenarios. I miss how easy my old Leaf was to drive in comparison.
I feel the same about virtually every car being able to reach speeds in excess of 100mph. There's no street-legal context in the US where that level of speed is necessary, yet my old Honda still...
Though, TBH, it’s kind of silly for EVs to be tuned for that sort of acceleration in the first place. There’s no safe or street-legal contexts to ever use it, so you’re basically inviting lawbreaking by allowing them to hit the market. I’d be okay with people doing after market shit to unlock the performance but it shouldn’t come stock from the dealer.
I feel the same about virtually every car being able to reach speeds in excess of 100mph. There's no street-legal context in the US where that level of speed is necessary, yet my old Honda still rolled off the factory line able to do 140mph.
Disclaimer that I know nothing about cars. I'd always assumed that was a "if you put maximum strain it can do >100mph so doing 50mph is less wear on the engine" type of situation. Is that not how...
Disclaimer that I know nothing about cars. I'd always assumed that was a "if you put maximum strain it can do >100mph so doing 50mph is less wear on the engine" type of situation. Is that not how it works?
Not really. The engine has a top speed. You can see it easily in any car. It’s the red line on the tachometer. If you go above that speed, the engine will tear itself apart. So there is a “rev...
Exemplary
Not really. The engine has a top speed. You can see it easily in any car. It’s the red line on the tachometer. If you go above that speed, the engine will tear itself apart. So there is a “rev limiter” in place. There are various ways to make it work, but they all somehow cut power to the engine if you go over the red line.
And there is also the gear box. The gear box has a set number of gears, and you can calculate exactly the ratio of engine speed to wheel speed at every gear ratio. Since you know the maximum engine speed, you can calculate exactly the maximum car speed for every gear. So you get the maximum car speed by calculating this at the highest gear.
However this may give you a false understanding of how simple it would be to limit vehicle speed. Most engines have a rev limiter at 7000 or higher RPM. Higher rpm is better for power output, so high RPM is used for acceleration. However it is much more efficient to drive at low RPM. If you have an automatic, check out the RPM while driving at highway speeds. It is likely below 3000 rpm to reduce gas consumption. In order to add a gear that allows low RPM at highway speeds, that gear can also be used to make the car go much higher than highway speeds. That’s just how it works.
For some examples, I used to drive a 1995 Honda Accord (it’s been a long time, so forgive me if some of my numbers are wrong, but you will get the idea). It had 5 gears. You start driving in gear 1 and move up to 5. Gear 1 had a top speed of maybe 25mph. Gear 2 was probably around 45 or 50. Gear 3 might have been around 70. Gear 4 was probably 90 or 100. Gear 5 could probably get you to 140, and I think that is where the speedometer maxed out. If you just got rid of gears 4 and 5 because gear 3 can get you to 65mph, you would loose so much efficiency. And I am not taking about being 4 or 5 miles per gallon worse. That car got around 28 mpg if I remember right. Driving at freeway speeds would probably put it below 5 mpg.
There are plenty of other ways to limit speed of course, so it would be possible to legislate speed limiters on cars. But cars come with speedometers up to 160+ mph because of physics and the practicalities of making an efficient car. It isn’t just because speed = fun (although that is definitely part of it).
Most/all cars are tested to be safe at their maximum speeds, even though it's expected they will never reach them on public roads. From a technical perspective it's just how gears work - you don't...
Most/all cars are tested to be safe at their maximum speeds, even though it's expected they will never reach them on public roads. From a technical perspective it's just how gears work - you don't want to be maxing the engine at 100kph because it's loud and uses lots of fuel. Instead you want a longer gear that runs the engine at a lower rpm (quieter, more economical). Having available grunt also allows you to overtake or get up to speed quickly, like on a short motorway slip-road.
Obviously for EVs the gearing is less of an issue, and there's no technical reason why they couldn't be speed limited to whatever you want without losing the above benefits - In Germany, all cars are electronically limited to 155mph (and have been for decades).
However I would argue that, from a responsibility standpoint, I don't think they should be limited. As an adult (however you want to define it), you should be trusted to make choices that don't put other people in unnecessary risk, and you should face legal consequences if you do. But that's a whole different discussion :)
Pretty much! If top speed in top gear is around the redline (max RPM for the engine), then going half that speed will be a much lower RPM, which is better for fuel consumption, noise, etc. Also,...
Pretty much! If top speed in top gear is around the redline (max RPM for the engine), then going half that speed will be a much lower RPM, which is better for fuel consumption, noise, etc.
Also, not a car, but I previously had a motorcycle which had a top speed of around 90mph—well above legal speeds anywhere on US public roads. And yet, add a headwind and an uphill on a 70mph highway, and suddenly it's not possible to keep up with traffic... Not to mention that holding it at 9000 rpm was not comfortable! Quite a lot of noise and vibration.
I have no idea because I don't know much about cars either! Just seems like something car manufacturers shouldn't draw attention to in the dashboard speedometer because it's not legal to drive...
I have no idea because I don't know much about cars either! Just seems like something car manufacturers shouldn't draw attention to in the dashboard speedometer because it's not legal to drive that fast.
In the early 80s they tried to change speedometers to have a max of 85 mph already. The data didn't show it having much effect so it was later repealed.
What I found to be the two key paragraphs about modern speedometers were back to back. So many of those numbers are purely decorative. 0–140 or 160 puts the needle near vertical when at typical...
What I found to be the two key paragraphs about modern speedometers were back to back.
Modern-day speedometers are now designed with a maximum speed of 160 mph, even if the car cannot achieve that as its maximum speed. For example, the Toyota Yaris has a top speed of 109 miles per hour, but the speedometer goes up to 140 mph. Also, the 2018 Nissan Sentra features a 160 mph speedometer, but the car only drives up to 118 miles per hour.
So many of those numbers are purely decorative.
The maximum speed on a speedometer is usually 160 mph, even if the car cannot go that high. It is because the auto manufacturers want their speedometers to be easier to read, and the standard operating speed for American cars is between 45 mph and 70 mph.
This range is placed at the top of the speedometer, making it easy to see whenever you’re driving.
0–140 or 160 puts the needle near vertical when at typical cruising speeds.
I catch a lot of Uber and Lyft in my city and the Tesla drivers are ALWAYS using the acceleration to the max. I assume it’s a mix of getting times down and of course the great feeling of speeding...
I catch a lot of Uber and Lyft in my city and the Tesla drivers are ALWAYS using the acceleration to the max. I assume it’s a mix of getting times down and of course the great feeling of speeding down the road but it feels like I’m side kick in a rally race every time.
I'm of mixed opinion here. Let's start off with cause of wear: I very much agree with your assessment that the torque profile of EVs in general is what results in this poor tire longevity. Decades...
Though, TBH, it’s kind of silly for EVs to be tuned for that sort of acceleration in the first place.
I'm of mixed opinion here. Let's start off with cause of wear: I very much agree with your assessment that the torque profile of EVs in general is what results in this poor tire longevity. Decades of R&D went into the use case of ICE-driven power and torque profiles to provide the range of tire materials and engineering we have today. EVs (in terms of mass adoption) are fairly recent and I'm not sure how much engineering has gone into the intersection between EV power and torque profile and the tires that connect them to the road.
I don't think the answer is 'you can't have acceleration' - I think there's a more nuanced approach for improvement here that just needs the development and periodic review of acceleration algorithms for how an EV applies power and torque to go from dead-stop to, say, the first 10 to 15 miles per hour. I could be wrong here but I'm guessing the greatest increase in wear lies closest to the greatest difference between ICE and EV torque: the torque at 0 RPM and at initial / low speeds while coming up to speed. There could probably be work done to apply some more gradual torque at initial speeds from a dead stop that would increase tire life significantly. People wouldn't get that roller-coaster shoot-out-like-a-rocket feeling, but if they want that, they can accept low tire life.
This could be achieved with user-selectable power and torque profiles that explain what the costs are, both in battery/range, as well as 'this profile feels like a race car but you will wear out your tires MUCH faster, tap 'I Acknowledge' to agree.
My “the acceleration is to damn high” position is motivated less by tire wear and more by the fact that I don’t think your typical driver is capable of handling such power responsibly. I think we...
My “the acceleration is to damn high” position is motivated less by tire wear and more by the fact that I don’t think your typical driver is capable of handling such power responsibly. I think we long passed the point of practical utility for insane 0-60 speeds like that and I’d be open to gating ownership of such vehicles behind a special, more restrictive, sort of license. And I think maybe we should be putting governors on cars that don’t get unlocked unless people pass a test, and any points on your license will get the governor put back on for some length of time.
Edit: I want to add, it brings me no joy to say this because I like fast cars. But I’d like more not having to worry about my family or myself being killed by people who can’t help but drive fast cars faster than their reflexes can handle while looking at their phones on residential streets.
I've been barking up the same tree for a decade or more at this point. Licenses should be tiered by vehicle size, weight, and power-to-weight ratio, requiring thorough testing at every tier in the...
I've been barking up the same tree for a decade or more at this point. Licenses should be tiered by vehicle size, weight, and power-to-weight ratio, requiring thorough testing at every tier in the appropriate vehicle.
There's zero reason little Timmy should be getting a Mustang for a graduation gift just to drive it into pedestrians on the sidewalk. Soccer moms shouldn't be able to just go to the dealership and buy an SUV that's longer than the 80's limousine I own and so tall they can't see their own children in front of it and run them over. Tech bros buying supercars they can't handle. People that can't handle a Honda Civic can just buy a 10,000lb missile they can't see out of that hits 60mph in 3.3 seconds.
I have a Tesla and I'll push back on that. There are tons of times where it's useful: Accelerating onto the highway with a short entrance ramp or where two asshole semi drivers have decided to...
There’s no safe or street-legal contexts to ever use it
I have a Tesla and I'll push back on that. There are tons of times where it's useful:
Accelerating onto the highway with a short entrance ramp or where two asshole semi drivers have decided to block you from entering, meaning you either floor it to fit in the gap or you literally have to stop because it will be impossible to enter the highway.
Turning onto a road where all the gaps used to be just not quite big enough becomes incredibly easy. You can safely and easily be on the road and almost instantly traveling at the same speed as the traffic around you with a safe following distance in front and behind where other cars would have required the car behind you to slam on their brakes.
When you're passing a semi and it starts swerving into your lane, if you're closer to the front of the truck, you can now pass it faster than you could stop, so you don't have to veer off the fucking road (very useful these days with so many inconsiderate, undertrained truckers on the roads).
There are plenty of other circumstances where I would like to turn, for example, and know that I could safely and easily make it through a gap, but I know the oncoming traffic will be surprised and probably brake just because they don't expect such rapid acceleration. I don't do that because I know being predictable is the most important consideration for the safety of everyone on the road.
I will agree that the car shouldn't necessarily be allowed to reach incredibly high speeds without perhaps enabling a track mode, just like with any gas car.
I'll sort of defend the parent comment, I read it more as the that is problematic, this is basically launching the vehicle. changing speeds when you're already moving at a decent pace is actually...
I'll sort of defend the parent comment, I read it more as the
gunning it from stop sign to stop sign
that is problematic, this is basically launching the vehicle. changing speeds when you're already moving at a decent pace is actually far less acceleration than launching from a stop. so I'd support a reasonable governor on acceleration from a stop, even if that's bypassed as simply as switching a vehicle into sport mode.
As one of the few, if any, people here that builds and races cars: All of your scenarios are examples of a lack of patience on your part. Another 15-30 seconds of waiting for the right gap or...
As one of the few, if any, people here that builds and races cars: All of your scenarios are examples of a lack of patience on your part. Another 15-30 seconds of waiting for the right gap or driving defensively prevents all of them. And no, accelerating is never faster than braking (not to mention that if a semi is swerving into your lane, it's doing it from the front, not the rear, so you're accelerating toward the problem). Even some of the quickest vehicles available can stop from 150mph faster than they can accelerate to 60mph.
If I'm already up by the front, even if I can stop faster than I can accelerate, I can accelerate past the semi faster than I can brake past the semi. I'm not arguing that I can actually...
If I'm already up by the front, even if I can stop faster than I can accelerate, I can accelerate past the semi faster than I can brake past the semi. I'm not arguing that I can actually accelerate forwards at a higher rate than I can accelerate backwards, but I am arguing that stomping on my brakes--likely with someone tailgating me when I could get myself past the truck within a half second--is no longer the safest option when you can accelerate so quickly.
When you're on a short entrance ramp or a truck is veering into your lane, you don't have another 15-30 seconds to wait. And when there is constantly traffic coming from one direction or the other and you've already been sitting for a minute or two waiting for a gap, 15-30 seconds won't make a difference in the size of the gaps. But if you can comfortably fit into a gap due to high acceleration--as I said, with a safe following distance in front and behind (i.e. two seconds), there is nothing unsafe about it. It's just something that older cars could not perform.
Think about it this way: imagine that instead of cars, everyone is in sailboats. If you had to squeeze your sailboat into a line of other sailboats, you would need a long distance to get up to speed to safely move into the line of boats. But if you had a Jetski, you could fit into any gap easily, quickly, and safely because you can get up to speed easily, quickly, and safely. You more or less just start moving and voila, you're in a decently-sized gap traveling along at the speed of traffic. It's the same exact thing.
Note that I'm also not arguing the widespread theoretical of "if someone is going to t-bone me, I can just accelerate through the intersection" that would require you to suddenly switch from having no awareness of the vehicles around you to knowing precisely where they are and precisely how fast you would stop or accelerate. That one has always just seemed dumb to me, if theoretically feasible.
Let's say the front of your car is even with the front of the semi at 60mph when it starts to swerve into your lane. The Model 3 accelerates from 50mph to 70mph in 2.1 seconds. If we cut that in...
If I'm already up by the front, even if I can stop faster than I can accelerate, I can accelerate past the semi faster than I can brake past the semi.
Let's say the front of your car is even with the front of the semi at 60mph when it starts to swerve into your lane. The Model 3 accelerates from 50mph to 70mph in 2.1 seconds. If we cut that in half to just a 10mph difference, it takes a little over 1 second to gain 10mph and travel the 15.5 foot length of the Tesla. The average semi is 72 feet long, minus the 3's length and you need to cover 57.5 feet. Emergency braking on the 3 reduces 40mph in 1 second, 40mph difference between you and the semi is 58.67 feet.
So it's a wash at best, at worst it's safer and faster to brake.
Driving defensively to pay attention to vehicles in the slow lane on an on ramp before you're there prevents the need for high acceleration excuses. If I can survive an area with 8M people and statistically some of the worst drivers in the country in a Honda Fit (0-60 8s), Honda Accord (0-60 8s), and Toyota Tercel Wagon (0-60 17s when it was brand new 40 years ago) without a single accident ever then an EV's acceleration isn't the thing that is making you safer.
You're still ignoring the part about tailgaters behind you while all this is happening. Losing 40 mph in 1 sec is most likely going to kill the person behind me. Remember that these overly...
You're still ignoring the part about tailgaters behind you while all this is happening. Losing 40 mph in 1 sec is most likely going to kill the person behind me. Remember that these overly specific scenarios aren't hypothetical. Not everyone will encounter them, but there legal scenarios where the acceleration would have potentially saved a life.
On the whole, I would agree that the high acceleration probably makes drivers less safe on average, but those are just examples of scenarios where acceleration legally and safely opened up more options (easily pulling into traffic) or, in retrospect, I believe I was correct that the safest option was to floor it and that I (or others around me) would not have been as safe if I had floored it while driving any of my past cars.
Don't forget also that I was already passing the truck, so accelerating cut the passing time down, rather than starting from a relative standstill. Which also means that I would have had to already shed 10 mph just to start moving the other direction relative to the truck.
So the kinematics equations would involve me starting at +10 mph, then accelerating to +20 mph within a second while needing to move 15.5 feet, as compared to starting at +10 mph and needing to decelerate to -30 mph within a second to move 72 feet (the front of the car has to clear the back of the trailer, too). This would mean that it would take over twice as long if you use the brakes (if I did the math correctly, it's ~.75 sec vs ~1.8 sec), especially once the car behind you slams into your rear bumper and then bounces off of you (because of your heavy-ass battery) either directly under the semi or into the ditch, killing everyone either way.
Your first and third examples are both cases of having to out-bully or outmaneuver bad/aggressive drivers, which kind of goes into my “it’s not safe” thing. It’s sort of abstract but I think we’ve...
Your first and third examples are both cases of having to out-bully or outmaneuver bad/aggressive drivers, which kind of goes into my “it’s not safe” thing. It’s sort of abstract but I think we’ve really allowed this sort of driving culture to take hold where everyone is trying to go as fast as possible all the time and it leads to the sorts of situations you’re talking about. Will putting hard limits on what levels of performance most people on the road can access fix the deeper cultural issue? Maybe not. But I’d like society to start thinking about ways to shift the culture around what people are thinking when they buy a car, and how they approach driving that car, to not produce a world where at least 30% of the people on the streets are fucking maniacs.
I like the high performance too, and I wouldn’t want to not have cars be capable of it. But I’d also be okay with a world where any time people fail to make a complete stop at a sign or get caught speeding or do anything else irresponsible it puts a hard limit on that for a few months just to teach them.
How is avoiding getting knocked into the median by a semi out-bullying them? It's just taking the safest possible action at that moment, one with the added benefit of getting you past them ASAP....
How is avoiding getting knocked into the median by a semi out-bullying them? It's just taking the safest possible action at that moment, one with the added benefit of getting you past them ASAP.
As to the other one, the alternative is stopping on the shoulder (if there is one) or, in many urban areas, being forced to slam on your brakes and hope that everyone behind the trucks--and behind you--is paying attention and that there is eventually a gap big enough for you to enter from a standstill.
I don't see how these could be examples of the acceleration being used dangerously/illegally.
As someone who drives a semi quite frequently as part of their work, I would like to point out that semis cannot stop on a dime anywhere near as well as smaller passenger cars are capable of...
As someone who drives a semi quite frequently as part of their work, I would like to point out that semis cannot stop on a dime anywhere near as well as smaller passenger cars are capable of doing. And, if a semi slows down significantly, it takes a LONG time to get back up to road speeds. So if I am unable to merge out of the way or if I'd have to hit the brakes to let someone merge in, I'm sorry but I have right of way.
I would LIKE to point all those things out, but I also had a semi driver make a turn yesterday that forced me to lock up my pickup's brakes and send my poor dog flying into the floorboards so...serves me right for having thoughts.
Yes, the problem is that it seems like many semi drivers today just know it's inconvenient to them to have to slow down and act like that entitles them to the whole road. The number of semis in...
Yes, the problem is that it seems like many semi drivers today just know it's inconvenient to them to have to slow down and act like that entitles them to the whole road. The number of semis in the past 2-3 years that have cut me off or swerved into my lane while I was passing them is frightening. I don't know if it's because of increased demand since COVID started or what, but there seem to be way more ignorant assholes driving these days than I remember before. It used to be rewarding to work together with drivers to get traffic flowing smoothly, whereas now I feel like I have to constantly defend against drivers pulling the ol' "I don't give a fuck that you're going 80 and I'm going 65; this truck in front of me is going 64.75 mph and I am going to spend the next 20 minutes blocking the highway in order to pass them."
Combine that with all the cars saying "fuck you for going 80; I'm going to charge up behind you at 90 and ride your bumper as you pass this giant Swift truck driven by someone with three minutes of training," and you get a recipe for braking being a great way to get someone killed.
...so i've daily-driven sportscars for the past couple of decades, nothing tesla-quick but they're all in the 4-6 second range, which gives me a fairly reasonable perspective on the utility of...
...so i've daily-driven sportscars for the past couple of decades, nothing tesla-quick but they're all in the 4-6 second range, which gives me a fairly reasonable perspective on the utility of acceleration in street traffic...
...for about three years in the middle, i switched over to commuting a hundred-horsepower hatchback which accelerated a full 9 seconds to sixty and i had no problem at all pulling through traffic deep into the 85th percentile range: in fact, i can probably count on one hand the number of times i was lacking for power to make my own gap in traffic over one hundred thousand miles...
...i'll contest that acceleration is a limiting factor in driving almost any modern car through street traffic; maneuverability is a far greater differentiator and that's where heavy cars suffer...
I'm in the same place. My cars have usually been in the 4-6 second range. I usually keep them in whatever eco-mode is available because the extra performance really isn't worth it for...
I'm in the same place. My cars have usually been in the 4-6 second range. I usually keep them in whatever eco-mode is available because the extra performance really isn't worth it for commuting/errands. I got rid of my fastest car because it was stressful to drive in traffic, and while the drama was fun, it's was less engaging than my older vehicles.
Really the only time I'm glad to have vehicles with a bit more horsepower is on fast interstates or toll roads. And then it is a comfort thing with the vehicle sitting at low RPMs rather than having it scream along at 5-6k.
Size does a lot for speed perception as well. I have two vehicles with similar horsepower/torque figures. One is a 1991 manual weighing around 2500lb with 208hp and ft-lb. The other is a 2021 automatic around 3500lb with 228hp and 260 ft-lb. Similar 0-60 speeds.
Speed doesn't feel fast in the modern car and all of its assists can create some complacency. While in the older car, I often find myself going slower than the speed limit because the feeling of speed is higher from the feedback, lighter weight, and lack of assists.
I'll say that I would typically agree with you and take the exact same attitude of 🙄 it's not that bad 🙄 if I didn't have the personal experiences dealing with shitty, insufficient infrastructure...
I'll say that I would typically agree with you and take the exact same attitude of 🙄 it's not that bad 🙄 if I didn't have the personal experiences dealing with shitty, insufficient infrastructure and the shitty drivers using it. I've seen my area on /r/IdiotsInCars...and I'll just say it's far from the most idiotic thing I've seen in this area. I now need every tool I can use these days!
Hopefully as I move back to Western Europe in the not too distant future, I will once again not need so many tools to survive the drivers and roads.
Some of these examples feel counter to the rules of defensive driving. It may be annoying to stop and wait for two asshole semi drivers hogging the right lane, but it's also the safer thing to do.
Some of these examples feel counter to the rules of defensive driving. It may be annoying to stop and wait for two asshole semi drivers hogging the right lane, but it's also the safer thing to do.
true, but I'm guessing those vehicles are running heavy truck tires. the cybertruck is usually fitted with light truck tires, although legally it's just barely in the heavy truck designation....
It's not like heavy trucks are a new thing
true, but I'm guessing those vehicles are running heavy truck tires. the cybertruck is usually fitted with light truck tires, although legally it's just barely in the heavy truck designation. plus, as mentioned elsewhere, dat acceleration.
One interesting thing about EV tires is that they are specifically designed to produce less noise. Without a loud engine, tire-to-road noise is a lot more noticeable so EV tires have different...
One interesting thing about EV tires is that they are specifically designed to produce less noise. Without a loud engine, tire-to-road noise is a lot more noticeable so EV tires have different designs and/or rubber compounds to make them quieter. That could be one of the reasons why the longevity is so much worse than a typical truck tire.
As others have said im sure the light truck tires on a heavy vehicle with instant torque from the electric engine is probably a majority of the issue, but I wonder if the Cybertrucks ability to...
As others have said im sure the light truck tires on a heavy vehicle with instant torque from the electric engine is probably a majority of the issue, but I wonder if the Cybertrucks ability to change toe angle contributes to the faster wear by grinding the tires at low speeds. I could see a lot city driving around parking lots and such increasing the wear at low milages.
Is this truck really that popular and why are every little news about it so overexposed? I feel like every time these thing pup up (and it’s been a lot lately) it’s a thinly veiled jab at Musk. By...
Is this truck really that popular and why are every little news about it so overexposed? I feel like every time these thing pup up (and it’s been a lot lately) it’s a thinly veiled jab at Musk. By all means fuck him up but this disingenuous way is rubbing me the wrong way. Also if this tire thing really is a huge problem in general - well then I was just wrong.
Given that they’re expensive and rely on charging infrastructure that’s far from ubiquitous, I imagine they’re almost non-existent outside of wealthy urban areas or EV havens like California. But...
Given that they’re expensive and rely on charging infrastructure that’s far from ubiquitous, I imagine they’re almost non-existent outside of wealthy urban areas or EV havens like California.
But as someone who does live in a fairly urban area of California, I see them all the time. Not at every stoplight, not even every day. But probably every 2-3 days, which is often enough to know that they aren’t nearly as uncommon amongst EV drivers as one would think. I probably see them more often than I do Volkswagen EVs, for reference.
They're definitely a presence out here in Colorado. Like you I don't necessarily see them every day, but several times a week for sure. It's clearly a status symbol some type of person (not really...
They're definitely a presence out here in Colorado. Like you I don't necessarily see them every day, but several times a week for sure. It's clearly a status symbol some type of person (not really sure who). But they're more common than the EV Hummer which I see occasionally.
Lol I might see them even more often than you in my mostly red, slightly purple, semi-rural area...but that might have more to do with pilots at the Air Force base lol
Lol I might see them even more often than you in my mostly red, slightly purple, semi-rural area...but that might have more to do with pilots at the Air Force base lol
A lot of people just hate the cybertruck. There's a fairly popular subreddit dedicated to hating on it - r/cyberstuck. I hate to say this, but I empathize with them. Not necessarily because of the...
A lot of people just hate the cybertruck. There's a fairly popular subreddit dedicated to hating on it - r/cyberstuck.
I hate to say this, but I empathize with them. Not necessarily because of the stupid details that they harp on or the Musk hate train, but because it's a luxury "lifestyle" truck; one of the greatest symbols of waste. They're basically giant yachts on wheels; they exist as status symbols to flaunt wealth instead of for their utility.
My feelings are not specific to the Cybertruck, though. I feel the same about every EV truck and most consumer ICE trucks I see as well.
What are the problems with electric trucks from regular car companies that make them non-viable pavement princesses? Is it more than just their lack of towing range?
What are the problems with electric trucks from regular car companies that make them non-viable pavement princesses? Is it more than just their lack of towing range?
It's less that they are not useful (though the drastically lower towing range is a big deal) insomuch as they are luxury vehicles. In theory they could do everything that a basic utility truck can...
It's less that they are not useful (though the drastically lower towing range is a big deal) insomuch as they are luxury vehicles. In theory they could do everything that a basic utility truck can do, but in practice they won't. I mean, if you paid 100,000 for a vehicle and you needed to get an imperial ton of gravel to your place for a landscaping project, would you risk ruining the finish on it or would you just pay the relative chump change for delivery?
I have heard of limited waterproofness on the cybertruck but I wonder if it's not overblown.
I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is, so I thought you misread. They're asking why they aren't good at being pavement princesses. You explained why they're only good at being pavement...
I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is, so I thought you misread.
They're asking why they aren't good at being pavement princesses. You explained why they're only good at being pavement princesses.
Oh you're right, I mean the car. The tires probably lasted ~60,000 which is pretty average. Still a wild difference. I wonder how many miles the whole cybertruck will last.
Oh you're right, I mean the car. The tires probably lasted ~60,000 which is pretty average. Still a wild difference. I wonder how many miles the whole cybertruck will last.
It's not like heavy trucks are a new thing. I wonder why these tires are any different from the rear tires on 3/4 ton and heavier trucks that are rated for 30,000 lb and higher trailering loads. These same trucks also have GVRWs in the 10,000-15,000 lb range. I'm sure plenty of these trucks drive a significant portion of their miles with heavy loads, especially the ones for commercial use.
I guess my question is, why hasn't this been an issue for all the rest of the very heavy passenger trucks that have been on the road for decades, and yet it is an issue for the cyber truck?
My guess is lead footed drivers. EVs deliver a ton of instant torque, so spinning your wheels that hard on a 7k pound vehicle is gonna wear them out fast. The driver in the interview says he never hits top speed, but the speed isn’t what matters, it’s how hard he’s slamming the gas pedal when he’s going. If his city driving involves gunning it from stop sign to stop sign that’s gonna wear his treads out fast.
Though, TBH, it’s kind of silly for EVs to be tuned for that sort of acceleration in the first place. There’s no safe or street-legal contexts to ever use it, so you’re basically inviting lawbreaking by allowing them to hit the market. I’d be okay with people doing after market shit to unlock the performance but it shouldn’t come stock from the dealer.
Yeah, it’s shitty driving. But it’s shitty driving on top of the extremely heavy car on top of it. The thing is that the cybertruck is a very “dense” vehicle. It’s short and low to the ground but it has the weight of a giant beast of a truck, so people drive them like sports cars.
I agree with you about how stupid tuning EVs for high-torque driving is. I regularly spin the wheels on my Bolt when I try to turn into traffic simply because the acceleration curves are so aggressive. Making things worse is that the “low gear” driving mode is not the default; you have to push the knob to drive mode twice to get into it. Even then I still have to really baby that acceleration pedal; I probably only need one centimeter of the throw for most street driving scenarios. I miss how easy my old Leaf was to drive in comparison.
I feel the same about virtually every car being able to reach speeds in excess of 100mph. There's no street-legal context in the US where that level of speed is necessary, yet my old Honda still rolled off the factory line able to do 140mph.
Disclaimer that I know nothing about cars. I'd always assumed that was a "if you put maximum strain it can do >100mph so doing 50mph is less wear on the engine" type of situation. Is that not how it works?
Not really. The engine has a top speed. You can see it easily in any car. It’s the red line on the tachometer. If you go above that speed, the engine will tear itself apart. So there is a “rev limiter” in place. There are various ways to make it work, but they all somehow cut power to the engine if you go over the red line.
And there is also the gear box. The gear box has a set number of gears, and you can calculate exactly the ratio of engine speed to wheel speed at every gear ratio. Since you know the maximum engine speed, you can calculate exactly the maximum car speed for every gear. So you get the maximum car speed by calculating this at the highest gear.
However this may give you a false understanding of how simple it would be to limit vehicle speed. Most engines have a rev limiter at 7000 or higher RPM. Higher rpm is better for power output, so high RPM is used for acceleration. However it is much more efficient to drive at low RPM. If you have an automatic, check out the RPM while driving at highway speeds. It is likely below 3000 rpm to reduce gas consumption. In order to add a gear that allows low RPM at highway speeds, that gear can also be used to make the car go much higher than highway speeds. That’s just how it works.
For some examples, I used to drive a 1995 Honda Accord (it’s been a long time, so forgive me if some of my numbers are wrong, but you will get the idea). It had 5 gears. You start driving in gear 1 and move up to 5. Gear 1 had a top speed of maybe 25mph. Gear 2 was probably around 45 or 50. Gear 3 might have been around 70. Gear 4 was probably 90 or 100. Gear 5 could probably get you to 140, and I think that is where the speedometer maxed out. If you just got rid of gears 4 and 5 because gear 3 can get you to 65mph, you would loose so much efficiency. And I am not taking about being 4 or 5 miles per gallon worse. That car got around 28 mpg if I remember right. Driving at freeway speeds would probably put it below 5 mpg.
There are plenty of other ways to limit speed of course, so it would be possible to legislate speed limiters on cars. But cars come with speedometers up to 160+ mph because of physics and the practicalities of making an efficient car. It isn’t just because speed = fun (although that is definitely part of it).
Most/all cars are tested to be safe at their maximum speeds, even though it's expected they will never reach them on public roads. From a technical perspective it's just how gears work - you don't want to be maxing the engine at 100kph because it's loud and uses lots of fuel. Instead you want a longer gear that runs the engine at a lower rpm (quieter, more economical). Having available grunt also allows you to overtake or get up to speed quickly, like on a short motorway slip-road.
Obviously for EVs the gearing is less of an issue, and there's no technical reason why they couldn't be speed limited to whatever you want without losing the above benefits - In Germany, all cars are electronically limited to 155mph (and have been for decades).
However I would argue that, from a responsibility standpoint, I don't think they should be limited. As an adult (however you want to define it), you should be trusted to make choices that don't put other people in unnecessary risk, and you should face legal consequences if you do. But that's a whole different discussion :)
Pretty much! If top speed in top gear is around the redline (max RPM for the engine), then going half that speed will be a much lower RPM, which is better for fuel consumption, noise, etc.
Also, not a car, but I previously had a motorcycle which had a top speed of around 90mph—well above legal speeds anywhere on US public roads. And yet, add a headwind and an uphill on a 70mph highway, and suddenly it's not possible to keep up with traffic... Not to mention that holding it at 9000 rpm was not comfortable! Quite a lot of noise and vibration.
I have no idea because I don't know much about cars either! Just seems like something car manufacturers shouldn't draw attention to in the dashboard speedometer because it's not legal to drive that fast.
In the early 80s they tried to change speedometers to have a max of 85 mph already. The data didn't show it having much effect so it was later repealed.
What I found to be the two key paragraphs about modern speedometers were back to back.
So many of those numbers are purely decorative.
0–140 or 160 puts the needle near vertical when at typical cruising speeds.
Anecdotally, a lot of boomers/gen x-ers say they saw the 85 and found it a challenge, not a limit.
...there are a few 85 mph freeways stateside where you'll need to comfortably reach one hundred to merge or pass safely, but they're rare...
I catch a lot of Uber and Lyft in my city and the Tesla drivers are ALWAYS using the acceleration to the max. I assume it’s a mix of getting times down and of course the great feeling of speeding down the road but it feels like I’m side kick in a rally race every time.
I'm of mixed opinion here. Let's start off with cause of wear: I very much agree with your assessment that the torque profile of EVs in general is what results in this poor tire longevity. Decades of R&D went into the use case of ICE-driven power and torque profiles to provide the range of tire materials and engineering we have today. EVs (in terms of mass adoption) are fairly recent and I'm not sure how much engineering has gone into the intersection between EV power and torque profile and the tires that connect them to the road.
I don't think the answer is 'you can't have acceleration' - I think there's a more nuanced approach for improvement here that just needs the development and periodic review of acceleration algorithms for how an EV applies power and torque to go from dead-stop to, say, the first 10 to 15 miles per hour. I could be wrong here but I'm guessing the greatest increase in wear lies closest to the greatest difference between ICE and EV torque: the torque at 0 RPM and at initial / low speeds while coming up to speed. There could probably be work done to apply some more gradual torque at initial speeds from a dead stop that would increase tire life significantly. People wouldn't get that roller-coaster shoot-out-like-a-rocket feeling, but if they want that, they can accept low tire life.
This could be achieved with user-selectable power and torque profiles that explain what the costs are, both in battery/range, as well as 'this profile feels like a race car but you will wear out your tires MUCH faster, tap 'I Acknowledge' to agree.
My “the acceleration is to damn high” position is motivated less by tire wear and more by the fact that I don’t think your typical driver is capable of handling such power responsibly. I think we long passed the point of practical utility for insane 0-60 speeds like that and I’d be open to gating ownership of such vehicles behind a special, more restrictive, sort of license. And I think maybe we should be putting governors on cars that don’t get unlocked unless people pass a test, and any points on your license will get the governor put back on for some length of time.
Edit: I want to add, it brings me no joy to say this because I like fast cars. But I’d like more not having to worry about my family or myself being killed by people who can’t help but drive fast cars faster than their reflexes can handle while looking at their phones on residential streets.
I've been barking up the same tree for a decade or more at this point. Licenses should be tiered by vehicle size, weight, and power-to-weight ratio, requiring thorough testing at every tier in the appropriate vehicle.
There's zero reason little Timmy should be getting a Mustang for a graduation gift just to drive it into pedestrians on the sidewalk. Soccer moms shouldn't be able to just go to the dealership and buy an SUV that's longer than the 80's limousine I own and so tall they can't see their own children in front of it and run them over. Tech bros buying supercars they can't handle. People that can't handle a Honda Civic can just buy a 10,000lb missile they can't see out of that hits 60mph in 3.3 seconds.
I have a Tesla and I'll push back on that. There are tons of times where it's useful:
Accelerating onto the highway with a short entrance ramp or where two asshole semi drivers have decided to block you from entering, meaning you either floor it to fit in the gap or you literally have to stop because it will be impossible to enter the highway.
Turning onto a road where all the gaps used to be just not quite big enough becomes incredibly easy. You can safely and easily be on the road and almost instantly traveling at the same speed as the traffic around you with a safe following distance in front and behind where other cars would have required the car behind you to slam on their brakes.
When you're passing a semi and it starts swerving into your lane, if you're closer to the front of the truck, you can now pass it faster than you could stop, so you don't have to veer off the fucking road (very useful these days with so many inconsiderate, undertrained truckers on the roads).
There are plenty of other circumstances where I would like to turn, for example, and know that I could safely and easily make it through a gap, but I know the oncoming traffic will be surprised and probably brake just because they don't expect such rapid acceleration. I don't do that because I know being predictable is the most important consideration for the safety of everyone on the road.
I will agree that the car shouldn't necessarily be allowed to reach incredibly high speeds without perhaps enabling a track mode, just like with any gas car.
I'll sort of defend the parent comment, I read it more as the
that is problematic, this is basically launching the vehicle. changing speeds when you're already moving at a decent pace is actually far less acceleration than launching from a stop. so I'd support a reasonable governor on acceleration from a stop, even if that's bypassed as simply as switching a vehicle into sport mode.
As one of the few, if any, people here that builds and races cars: All of your scenarios are examples of a lack of patience on your part. Another 15-30 seconds of waiting for the right gap or driving defensively prevents all of them. And no, accelerating is never faster than braking (not to mention that if a semi is swerving into your lane, it's doing it from the front, not the rear, so you're accelerating toward the problem). Even some of the quickest vehicles available can stop from 150mph faster than they can accelerate to 60mph.
If I'm already up by the front, even if I can stop faster than I can accelerate, I can accelerate past the semi faster than I can brake past the semi. I'm not arguing that I can actually accelerate forwards at a higher rate than I can accelerate backwards, but I am arguing that stomping on my brakes--likely with someone tailgating me when I could get myself past the truck within a half second--is no longer the safest option when you can accelerate so quickly.
When you're on a short entrance ramp or a truck is veering into your lane, you don't have another 15-30 seconds to wait. And when there is constantly traffic coming from one direction or the other and you've already been sitting for a minute or two waiting for a gap, 15-30 seconds won't make a difference in the size of the gaps. But if you can comfortably fit into a gap due to high acceleration--as I said, with a safe following distance in front and behind (i.e. two seconds), there is nothing unsafe about it. It's just something that older cars could not perform.
Think about it this way: imagine that instead of cars, everyone is in sailboats. If you had to squeeze your sailboat into a line of other sailboats, you would need a long distance to get up to speed to safely move into the line of boats. But if you had a Jetski, you could fit into any gap easily, quickly, and safely because you can get up to speed easily, quickly, and safely. You more or less just start moving and voila, you're in a decently-sized gap traveling along at the speed of traffic. It's the same exact thing.
Note that I'm also not arguing the widespread theoretical of "if someone is going to t-bone me, I can just accelerate through the intersection" that would require you to suddenly switch from having no awareness of the vehicles around you to knowing precisely where they are and precisely how fast you would stop or accelerate. That one has always just seemed dumb to me, if theoretically feasible.
Let's say the front of your car is even with the front of the semi at 60mph when it starts to swerve into your lane. The Model 3 accelerates from 50mph to 70mph in 2.1 seconds. If we cut that in half to just a 10mph difference, it takes a little over 1 second to gain 10mph and travel the 15.5 foot length of the Tesla. The average semi is 72 feet long, minus the 3's length and you need to cover 57.5 feet. Emergency braking on the 3 reduces 40mph in 1 second, 40mph difference between you and the semi is 58.67 feet.
So it's a wash at best, at worst it's safer and faster to brake.
Driving defensively to pay attention to vehicles in the slow lane on an on ramp before you're there prevents the need for high acceleration excuses. If I can survive an area with 8M people and statistically some of the worst drivers in the country in a Honda Fit (0-60 8s), Honda Accord (0-60 8s), and Toyota Tercel Wagon (0-60 17s when it was brand new 40 years ago) without a single accident ever then an EV's acceleration isn't the thing that is making you safer.
You're still ignoring the part about tailgaters behind you while all this is happening. Losing 40 mph in 1 sec is most likely going to kill the person behind me. Remember that these overly specific scenarios aren't hypothetical. Not everyone will encounter them, but there legal scenarios where the acceleration would have potentially saved a life.
On the whole, I would agree that the high acceleration probably makes drivers less safe on average, but those are just examples of scenarios where acceleration legally and safely opened up more options (easily pulling into traffic) or, in retrospect, I believe I was correct that the safest option was to floor it and that I (or others around me) would not have been as safe if I had floored it while driving any of my past cars.
Don't forget also that I was already passing the truck, so accelerating cut the passing time down, rather than starting from a relative standstill. Which also means that I would have had to already shed 10 mph just to start moving the other direction relative to the truck.
So the kinematics equations would involve me starting at +10 mph, then accelerating to +20 mph within a second while needing to move 15.5 feet, as compared to starting at +10 mph and needing to decelerate to -30 mph within a second to move 72 feet (the front of the car has to clear the back of the trailer, too). This would mean that it would take over twice as long if you use the brakes (if I did the math correctly, it's ~.75 sec vs ~1.8 sec), especially once the car behind you slams into your rear bumper and then bounces off of you (because of your heavy-ass battery) either directly under the semi or into the ditch, killing everyone either way.
Your first and third examples are both cases of having to out-bully or outmaneuver bad/aggressive drivers, which kind of goes into my “it’s not safe” thing. It’s sort of abstract but I think we’ve really allowed this sort of driving culture to take hold where everyone is trying to go as fast as possible all the time and it leads to the sorts of situations you’re talking about. Will putting hard limits on what levels of performance most people on the road can access fix the deeper cultural issue? Maybe not. But I’d like society to start thinking about ways to shift the culture around what people are thinking when they buy a car, and how they approach driving that car, to not produce a world where at least 30% of the people on the streets are fucking maniacs.
I like the high performance too, and I wouldn’t want to not have cars be capable of it. But I’d also be okay with a world where any time people fail to make a complete stop at a sign or get caught speeding or do anything else irresponsible it puts a hard limit on that for a few months just to teach them.
How is avoiding getting knocked into the median by a semi out-bullying them? It's just taking the safest possible action at that moment, one with the added benefit of getting you past them ASAP.
As to the other one, the alternative is stopping on the shoulder (if there is one) or, in many urban areas, being forced to slam on your brakes and hope that everyone behind the trucks--and behind you--is paying attention and that there is eventually a gap big enough for you to enter from a standstill.
I don't see how these could be examples of the acceleration being used dangerously/illegally.
As someone who drives a semi quite frequently as part of their work, I would like to point out that semis cannot stop on a dime anywhere near as well as smaller passenger cars are capable of doing. And, if a semi slows down significantly, it takes a LONG time to get back up to road speeds. So if I am unable to merge out of the way or if I'd have to hit the brakes to let someone merge in, I'm sorry but I have right of way.
I would LIKE to point all those things out, but I also had a semi driver make a turn yesterday that forced me to lock up my pickup's brakes and send my poor dog flying into the floorboards so...serves me right for having thoughts.
Yes, the problem is that it seems like many semi drivers today just know it's inconvenient to them to have to slow down and act like that entitles them to the whole road. The number of semis in the past 2-3 years that have cut me off or swerved into my lane while I was passing them is frightening. I don't know if it's because of increased demand since COVID started or what, but there seem to be way more ignorant assholes driving these days than I remember before. It used to be rewarding to work together with drivers to get traffic flowing smoothly, whereas now I feel like I have to constantly defend against drivers pulling the ol' "I don't give a fuck that you're going 80 and I'm going 65; this truck in front of me is going 64.75 mph and I am going to spend the next 20 minutes blocking the highway in order to pass them."
Combine that with all the cars saying "fuck you for going 80; I'm going to charge up behind you at 90 and ride your bumper as you pass this giant Swift truck driven by someone with three minutes of training," and you get a recipe for braking being a great way to get someone killed.
...so i've daily-driven sportscars for the past couple of decades, nothing tesla-quick but they're all in the 4-6 second range, which gives me a fairly reasonable perspective on the utility of acceleration in street traffic...
...for about three years in the middle, i switched over to commuting a hundred-horsepower hatchback which accelerated a full 9 seconds to sixty and i had no problem at all pulling through traffic deep into the 85th percentile range: in fact, i can probably count on one hand the number of times i was lacking for power to make my own gap in traffic over one hundred thousand miles...
...i'll contest that acceleration is a limiting factor in driving almost any modern car through street traffic; maneuverability is a far greater differentiator and that's where heavy cars suffer...
I'm in the same place. My cars have usually been in the 4-6 second range. I usually keep them in whatever eco-mode is available because the extra performance really isn't worth it for commuting/errands. I got rid of my fastest car because it was stressful to drive in traffic, and while the drama was fun, it's was less engaging than my older vehicles.
Really the only time I'm glad to have vehicles with a bit more horsepower is on fast interstates or toll roads. And then it is a comfort thing with the vehicle sitting at low RPMs rather than having it scream along at 5-6k.
Size does a lot for speed perception as well. I have two vehicles with similar horsepower/torque figures. One is a 1991 manual weighing around 2500lb with 208hp and ft-lb. The other is a 2021 automatic around 3500lb with 228hp and 260 ft-lb. Similar 0-60 speeds.
Speed doesn't feel fast in the modern car and all of its assists can create some complacency. While in the older car, I often find myself going slower than the speed limit because the feeling of speed is higher from the feedback, lighter weight, and lack of assists.
I'll say that I would typically agree with you and take the exact same attitude of 🙄 it's not that bad 🙄 if I didn't have the personal experiences dealing with shitty, insufficient infrastructure and the shitty drivers using it. I've seen my area on /r/IdiotsInCars...and I'll just say it's far from the most idiotic thing I've seen in this area. I now need every tool I can use these days!
Hopefully as I move back to Western Europe in the not too distant future, I will once again not need so many tools to survive the drivers and roads.
Some of these examples feel counter to the rules of defensive driving. It may be annoying to stop and wait for two asshole semi drivers hogging the right lane, but it's also the safer thing to do.
Safer to stop on the on-ramp? I've never heard that before. Seems like a great way to get someone rear-ended.
true, but I'm guessing those vehicles are running heavy truck tires. the cybertruck is usually fitted with light truck tires, although legally it's just barely in the heavy truck designation. plus, as mentioned elsewhere, dat acceleration.
One interesting thing about EV tires is that they are specifically designed to produce less noise. Without a loud engine, tire-to-road noise is a lot more noticeable so EV tires have different designs and/or rubber compounds to make them quieter. That could be one of the reasons why the longevity is so much worse than a typical truck tire.
As others have said im sure the light truck tires on a heavy vehicle with instant torque from the electric engine is probably a majority of the issue, but I wonder if the Cybertrucks ability to change toe angle contributes to the faster wear by grinding the tires at low speeds. I could see a lot city driving around parking lots and such increasing the wear at low milages.
Is this truck really that popular and why are every little news about it so overexposed? I feel like every time these thing pup up (and it’s been a lot lately) it’s a thinly veiled jab at Musk. By all means fuck him up but this disingenuous way is rubbing me the wrong way. Also if this tire thing really is a huge problem in general - well then I was just wrong.
Given that they’re expensive and rely on charging infrastructure that’s far from ubiquitous, I imagine they’re almost non-existent outside of wealthy urban areas or EV havens like California.
But as someone who does live in a fairly urban area of California, I see them all the time. Not at every stoplight, not even every day. But probably every 2-3 days, which is often enough to know that they aren’t nearly as uncommon amongst EV drivers as one would think. I probably see them more often than I do Volkswagen EVs, for reference.
They're definitely a presence out here in Colorado. Like you I don't necessarily see them every day, but several times a week for sure. It's clearly a status symbol some type of person (not really sure who). But they're more common than the EV Hummer which I see occasionally.
Lol I might see them even more often than you in my mostly red, slightly purple, semi-rural area...but that might have more to do with pilots at the Air Force base lol
A lot of people just hate the cybertruck. There's a fairly popular subreddit dedicated to hating on it - r/cyberstuck.
I hate to say this, but I empathize with them. Not necessarily because of the stupid details that they harp on or the Musk hate train, but because it's a luxury "lifestyle" truck; one of the greatest symbols of waste. They're basically giant yachts on wheels; they exist as status symbols to flaunt wealth instead of for their utility.
My feelings are not specific to the Cybertruck, though. I feel the same about every EV truck and most consumer ICE trucks I see as well.
What are the problems with electric trucks from regular car companies that make them non-viable pavement princesses? Is it more than just their lack of towing range?
It's less that they are not useful (though the drastically lower towing range is a big deal) insomuch as they are luxury vehicles. In theory they could do everything that a basic utility truck can do, but in practice they won't. I mean, if you paid 100,000 for a vehicle and you needed to get an imperial ton of gravel to your place for a landscaping project, would you risk ruining the finish on it or would you just pay the relative chump change for delivery?
I have heard of limited waterproofness on the cybertruck but I wonder if it's not overblown.
But they asked about pavement princesses, not work trucks.
I don’t understand the confusion. The problem I have with electric trucks is that they basically all are “pavement princesses”.
Yes, and the question was "what makes them non-viable pavement princesses?"
If I am not understanding the question then using the same wording again won’t help me get it any faster.
I'm not sure where the misunderstanding is, so I thought you misread.
They're asking why they aren't good at being pavement princesses. You explained why they're only good at being pavement princesses.
I was saying that my problem with them is that they are better suited to being a pavement princess and ill suited to being a utility vehicle.
For reference, my friend had a Toyota Avalon that got 300,000 Miles.
300,000 miles on the car or the tires? That's really long for tires
Oh you're right, I mean the car. The tires probably lasted ~60,000 which is pretty average. Still a wild difference. I wonder how many miles the whole cybertruck will last.
I'm shocked people are stupid enough to buy anything tesla.