Considering all the Mad Max looking motherfuckers out there and their driving style, maybe have a Star Trek looking option will be a slight improvement.
futuristic military vehicle
Considering all the Mad Max looking motherfuckers out there and their driving style, maybe have a Star Trek looking option will be a slight improvement.
I honestly kind of want to believe that it was just some 4d chess marketing maneuver to get them more press. Having ultra-strength glass isn't someone's main concern when buying a car.
Lol at Elon's reaction when they broke the glass panes by accident "Oh my fucking god...". That reveal was a bit of a train wreck.
I honestly kind of want to believe that it was just some 4d chess marketing maneuver to get them more press. Having ultra-strength glass isn't someone's main concern when buying a car.
Yeah, the old steel frame cars could roll away from an accident with almost no issues, but the person inside would be torn up. By comparison now the cars get totally wrecked, but which do you...
Yeah, the old steel frame cars could roll away from an accident with almost no issues, but the person inside would be torn up. By comparison now the cars get totally wrecked, but which do you really want in one piece, your car or your spine?
Besides, whoever is hit by the thing(on the other end of the lack of crumple zone) basically will get to enjoy the experience of being crushed to bits by a non-deformable multiton steel wedge.
Besides, whoever is hit by the thing(on the other end of the lack of crumple zone) basically will get to enjoy the experience of being crushed to bits by a non-deformable multiton steel wedge.
As far as l know they haven't said snything about it yet. Though, considering it looks like an anti crowd riot control vehicle, it wouldn't surprise me if they "forgot" that.
As far as l know they haven't said snything about it yet.
Though, considering it looks like an anti crowd riot control vehicle, it wouldn't surprise me if they "forgot" that.
These are quotes from the Motortrend article linked elsewhere in the thread. I still think this thing is ugly as all get out but this thinking is hard to argue with. We need to radically...
These are quotes from the Motortrend article linked elsewhere in the thread.
If the Cybertruck is a shock to the eyes, it's a jump-start to reimagining the foundational assumptions about vehicle appearance, engineering, and manufacturing
no paint shop and no expensive tooling. No Godzilla-scale stamping machines stomping it with multiple strikes. Without all that, the capital and environmental costs of using stainless steel body panels are small
I still think this thing is ugly as all get out but this thinking is hard to argue with. We need to radically re-approach the way that we manufacture, access, use, maintain, and decommission products in the face of climate change if we are going to maintain some semblance of our way of life.
As a student of architecture and brutalism, you're on to something there. Corb had a lot of great ideas but not a lot of truly beautiful buildings. I think if society hadn't spiraled into a late...
As a student of architecture and brutalism, you're on to something there. Corb had a lot of great ideas but not a lot of truly beautiful buildings. I think if society hadn't spiraled into a late capitalist, Neo-liberal austerity hell world brutalism could have been quite beautiful and impressive.
One of the things with brutalism is that it actually patinas really well once you let nature reclaim it a bit. The concrete may be bare but ivy, trees, or even just dirt add a lot of visual...
One of the things with brutalism is that it actually patinas really well once you let nature reclaim it a bit. The concrete may be bare but ivy, trees, or even just dirt add a lot of visual interest. I think most of what people don't like about brutalism is really tied in with movements that happened to coincide with:
a.) The rise of the automobile so we all got our brutalist buildings as islands amidst seas of asphalt with flat, manicured lawns all around. The world itself stopped being human-scaled.
b.) The rise of large-scale civil unrest, leading many architects to start integrating prison/riot control practices into public spaces. This involves things like narrow corridors and penned in spaces that can't contain more than a manageable number of people comfortably at any time.
It patinas well in certain climates. In places where with an intense freeze-that cycle these building disintegrate. The best example I can think of for this is Walter Netsch's brutalist UIC...
It patinas well in certain climates. In places where with an intense freeze-that cycle these building disintegrate. The best example I can think of for this is Walter Netsch's brutalist UIC campus. There, a reinf. concrete tower was recently renovated for the low, low price of $20mm. That's new building money! Not to mention the un-insulated walls make it a really efficient converter of the operations budget into smoke.
I would add to your point about why people dislike brutalism that, brutalism is one of those zeitgeist-y styles. It really shows how powerful people can fuck a place up based on a desire for a certain style of design (analogy for governance style). "If it works in Marseilles it should work here!" This was a common occurrence in everything from town planning and civil security (as you noted), to civil service and public administration. The 70s and 80s were eras of place-less, top-down optimization that neglected the qualitative in favor of the strictly quantitative.
Yup. I was kind of hinting at this. Most of the problems of brutalism are really problems of modernism. And I guess brutalism was a quintessentially modernist school, so that makes sense. I was...
. It really shows how powerful people can fuck a place up based on a desire for a certain style of design (analogy for governance style). "If it works in Marseilles it should work here!" This was a common occurrence in everything from town planning and civil security (as you noted), to civil service and public administration.
Yup. I was kind of hinting at this. Most of the problems of brutalism are really problems of modernism. And I guess brutalism was a quintessentially modernist school, so that makes sense.
In places where with an intense freeze-that cycle these building disintegrate.
I was under the impression this was a feature of the materials science of the time? Does this apply even to modern concrete and building techniques?
Modernism + (modernists' elitist hubris) ^^2 = brutalism. That seems about right? The spec mix could have changed since then and that could have played a role. IIRC the big fuck up was the...
guess brutalism was a quintessentially modernist school, so that makes sense.
Modernism + (modernists' elitist hubris) ^^2 = brutalism. That seems about right?
I was under the impression this was a feature of the materials science of the time?
The spec mix could have changed since then and that could have played a role. IIRC the big fuck up was the embedment distance of the rebar was too little. So what was happening was snow would build up, melt in the sun and then saturate the concrete. At night it would freeze and over time create pockets of space around the rebar which would eventually corrode. This lead to concrete falling off.
Conceivably this is still possible but maybe only in the case of someone fucking up real bad.
Unless you make a concerted effort to keep them grey concrete it rarely lasts. Eventually any built environment starts to develop various accretions as people modify, decorate, and adapt it to...
Unless you make a concerted effort to keep them grey concrete it rarely lasts. Eventually any built environment starts to develop various accretions as people modify, decorate, and adapt it to their actual uses. At the very least, brutalist buildings very quickly become canvasses for graffiti.
It certainly sounds like they've found a solution space for the weight, cost, aerodynamics, and manufacturing puzzles. I'm wondering about the ergonomics - how the hell they're getting adequate...
It certainly sounds like they've found a solution space for the weight, cost, aerodynamics, and manufacturing puzzles.
I'm wondering about the ergonomics - how the hell they're getting adequate visibility for the driver, given the massive blind spots, absent side mirrors, and nearly opaque rear view. The pictures in the Motortrend article seem to imply a camera display in place of a conventional rear view mirror, but I'll be really curious to see what a live driver review says.
I'm thinking this hasn't actually gone through all the necessary regulatory reviews yet. I guarantee once they do the headlights and taillights will change and they will need to add side mirrors...
I'm wondering about the ergonomics - how the hell they're getting adequate visibility for the driver, given the massive blind spots, absent side mirrors, and nearly opaque rear view. The pictures in the Motortrend article seem to imply a camera display in place of a conventional rear view mirror, but I'll be really curious to see what a live driver review says.
I'm thinking this hasn't actually gone through all the necessary regulatory reviews yet. I guarantee once they do the headlights and taillights will change and they will need to add side mirrors at minimum.
That said, nearly opaque rear-view and massive blind spots are apparently just not a problem in car design that anyone cares about. I use a lot of Car2Go GLCs and visibility out of them is absolute garbage.
I definitely said "what the fuck" when it rolled out onto the stage but after looking at it more, I kind of really like it. It's bold and different and does look straight out of a movie. The price...
I definitely said "what the fuck" when it rolled out onto the stage but after looking at it more, I kind of really like it. It's bold and different and does look straight out of a movie. The price on the base model is 10k less than I was expecting, which is a big surprise.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more than the design choice is bold. I can't say it really appeals to me personally, but I suppose in general I like the thought of different people trying different things,...
Yeah, I couldn't agree more than the design choice is bold. I can't say it really appeals to me personally, but I suppose in general I like the thought of different people trying different things, so good for them for taking a risk.
I kinda like the look... I definitely wouldn't call it a good looking car, but it is a crazy, fun type of ugly. I wouldn't buy one, but I wouldn't buy any truck.
I kinda like the look... I definitely wouldn't call it a good looking car, but it is a crazy, fun type of ugly. I wouldn't buy one, but I wouldn't buy any truck.
I think it might just be too avant garde. For example, in its day the Pontiac Aztec was widely regarded as the ugliest car ever. But looking at it now, it looks like an especially bland version of...
I think it might just be too avant garde.
For example, in its day the Pontiac Aztec was widely regarded as the ugliest car ever. But looking at it now, it looks like an especially bland version of the "cool" CUVs on the road.
I don't understand how the Aztec was so polarizing. It was a bit before my time, but it seems a little bit different than most cars but not particularly hideous.
I don't understand how the Aztec was so polarizing. It was a bit before my time, but it seems a little bit different than most cars but not particularly hideous.
Considering all the Mad Max looking motherfuckers out there and their driving style, maybe have a Star Trek looking option will be a slight improvement.
I can’t imagine behavior on the road will get any worse than your contemporary oversized pickup truck commuter.
I honestly kind of want to believe that it was just some 4d chess marketing maneuver to get them more press. Having ultra-strength glass isn't someone's main concern when buying a car.
Yeah, the old steel frame cars could roll away from an accident with almost no issues, but the person inside would be torn up. By comparison now the cars get totally wrecked, but which do you really want in one piece, your car or your spine?
This is America*, where your car has more comprehensive insurance than you
*This might not actually be America
Besides, whoever is hit by the thing(on the other end of the lack of crumple zone) basically will get to enjoy the experience of being crushed to bits by a non-deformable multiton steel wedge.
Does it really not have crumple zones or is it just designed to look like it's a literally a tank
As far as l know they haven't said snything about it yet.
Though, considering it looks like an anti crowd riot control vehicle, it wouldn't surprise me if they "forgot" that.
Personally I think it looks pretty cool. I can appreciate cars that don't look like the other 500,000,000 vehicles on the road.
Tesla makes some of the safest cars ever made. Of course this will end up being extremely safe as well.
Door glass needs to shatter so people can escape. Most people don't need an armored car.
People living in St. Louis might need an armored car.
These are quotes from the Motortrend article linked elsewhere in the thread.
I still think this thing is ugly as all get out but this thinking is hard to argue with. We need to radically re-approach the way that we manufacture, access, use, maintain, and decommission products in the face of climate change if we are going to maintain some semblance of our way of life.
It's a tribute to brutalism if nothing else. It's simultaneously hideous and oddly compelling.
As a student of architecture and brutalism, you're on to something there. Corb had a lot of great ideas but not a lot of truly beautiful buildings. I think if society hadn't spiraled into a late capitalist, Neo-liberal austerity hell world brutalism could have been quite beautiful and impressive.
One of the things with brutalism is that it actually patinas really well once you let nature reclaim it a bit. The concrete may be bare but ivy, trees, or even just dirt add a lot of visual interest. I think most of what people don't like about brutalism is really tied in with movements that happened to coincide with:
a.) The rise of the automobile so we all got our brutalist buildings as islands amidst seas of asphalt with flat, manicured lawns all around. The world itself stopped being human-scaled.
b.) The rise of large-scale civil unrest, leading many architects to start integrating prison/riot control practices into public spaces. This involves things like narrow corridors and penned in spaces that can't contain more than a manageable number of people comfortably at any time.
It patinas well in certain climates. In places where with an intense freeze-that cycle these building disintegrate. The best example I can think of for this is Walter Netsch's brutalist UIC campus. There, a reinf. concrete tower was recently renovated for the low, low price of $20mm. That's new building money! Not to mention the un-insulated walls make it a really efficient converter of the operations budget into smoke.
I would add to your point about why people dislike brutalism that, brutalism is one of those zeitgeist-y styles. It really shows how powerful people can fuck a place up based on a desire for a certain style of design (analogy for governance style). "If it works in Marseilles it should work here!" This was a common occurrence in everything from town planning and civil security (as you noted), to civil service and public administration. The 70s and 80s were eras of place-less, top-down optimization that neglected the qualitative in favor of the strictly quantitative.
Yup. I was kind of hinting at this. Most of the problems of brutalism are really problems of modernism. And I guess brutalism was a quintessentially modernist school, so that makes sense.
I was under the impression this was a feature of the materials science of the time? Does this apply even to modern concrete and building techniques?
Modernism + (modernists' elitist hubris) ^^2 = brutalism. That seems about right?
The spec mix could have changed since then and that could have played a role. IIRC the big fuck up was the embedment distance of the rebar was too little. So what was happening was snow would build up, melt in the sun and then saturate the concrete. At night it would freeze and over time create pockets of space around the rebar which would eventually corrode. This lead to concrete falling off.
Conceivably this is still possible but maybe only in the case of someone fucking up real bad.
I don't know, I can't imagine being happy in a world where every building is a grey concrete block.
Unless you make a concerted effort to keep them grey concrete it rarely lasts. Eventually any built environment starts to develop various accretions as people modify, decorate, and adapt it to their actual uses. At the very least, brutalist buildings very quickly become canvasses for graffiti.
Here's Motortrend's breakdown of the design
It certainly sounds like they've found a solution space for the weight, cost, aerodynamics, and manufacturing puzzles.
I'm wondering about the ergonomics - how the hell they're getting adequate visibility for the driver, given the massive blind spots, absent side mirrors, and nearly opaque rear view. The pictures in the Motortrend article seem to imply a camera display in place of a conventional rear view mirror, but I'll be really curious to see what a live driver review says.
I'm thinking this hasn't actually gone through all the necessary regulatory reviews yet. I guarantee once they do the headlights and taillights will change and they will need to add side mirrors at minimum.
That said, nearly opaque rear-view and massive blind spots are apparently just not a problem in car design that anyone cares about. I use a lot of Car2Go GLCs and visibility out of them is absolute garbage.
I definitely said "what the fuck" when it rolled out onto the stage but after looking at it more, I kind of really like it. It's bold and different and does look straight out of a movie. The price on the base model is 10k less than I was expecting, which is a big surprise.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more than the design choice is bold. I can't say it really appeals to me personally, but I suppose in general I like the thought of different people trying different things, so good for them for taking a risk.
I want to believe that this is all a ruse to get more spotlight on Tesla.
One thing Elon Musk is good at is getting the spotlight
I kinda like the look... I definitely wouldn't call it a good looking car, but it is a crazy, fun type of ugly. I wouldn't buy one, but I wouldn't buy any truck.
I think it might just be too avant garde.
For example, in its day the Pontiac Aztec was widely regarded as the ugliest car ever. But looking at it now, it looks like an especially bland version of the "cool" CUVs on the road.
I don't understand how the Aztec was so polarizing. It was a bit before my time, but it seems a little bit different than most cars but not particularly hideous.
Annoyingly "email-walled" like other Tesla livestreams.
Thankfully they accept my CNAME alias for mailinator.
Wait, you can set your own CNAME for mailinator?
Actually it's an MX:
Wow, thank you for that! I've just taken the service for granted all these years and never bothered to inquire further.
Looks like they didn't keep it up afterward.
Holy shit that's an ugly car.